Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at DET

Mammoth pull away from the Red Wings

FinalWed, Dec 17

UTAUtah Hockey Club4 DETDetroit Red Wings1

The verdict · coin flip

The Mammoth won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

UTA 4 · DET 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:42 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Utah's 4-1 victory obscured a game expected goals deemed nearly even: 2.53–2.52 in Detroit's favor. The margin came from variance, not dominance.

K. Vejmelka faced 28 shots and allowed one, saving 1.53 goals beyond expectation. C. Talbot faced the same volume and surrendered four, failing to stop 1.48 goals he should have. The 3-goal swing between the pipes explains most of the scoreboard.

Detroit did not help itself. The Red Wings generated three high-danger chances and scored once, underperforming their 2.52 xG by 1.53. Utah overperformed its 2.53 xG by 1.48, converting 4 goals from chances that suggested 2 or 3.

K. Stenlund's snap shot from the high slot (P3, 16:23) pivoted the game. C. Keller (1G, 1A, 16:43), M. Sergachev (1A, 22:32), and N. Schmaltz (1A, 20:08) executed in Utah's favor. Shot attempts finished level at 28 apiece. The scoreboard reflected outlier play by both teams.

Vejmelka stole this game. Talbot surrendered it.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 17

UTA

DET

Mammoth pull away from the Red Wings

Chances 2.5 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

2.52

DET

2.53

50% of the chances50%

The board read UTA 4, DET 1. The chances read UTA 2.5, DET 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

UTA

+1.5

goals above expected

UTA2.52 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DET2.53 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P2 01:44UTAC. Keller1–0
P2 14:17UTAJ. McBain2–0
P3 09:55DETE. FinniePP2–1
P3 15:52UTAD. Guenther3–1
P3 16:23UTAK. Stenlund4–1

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

UTA

40 shots

Final

80 shots

DET

40 shots

UTA DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 4 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTADET

3 / 3

0.71 xG

High danger

0 / 0

0.00 xG

1 / 11

1.12 xG

Medium

1 / 17

2.00 xG

0 / 44

0.70 xG

Low

0 / 42

0.52 xG

The Mammoth buried 3 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

K. Vejmelka

+1.5

UTA · 27/28

D-

C. Talbot

−1.5

DET · 24/28

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Red Wings

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown

backcheckreport.com

01 / 08 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 8–11no goals

2ndshots 8–12

01:44UTAC. Keller(N. Schmaltz, J. Peterka)1–0
14:17UTAJ. McBain(M. Carcone, S. Durzi)2–0

3rdshots 12–5

09:55DETE. Finniepower play(J. Leonard)2–1
15:52UTAD. Guenther3–1
16:23UTAK. Stenlund(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)4–1

score reads UTA–DET

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.52

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.052

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.6%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.52Expected goals2.53

DET 50% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal28

3High-danger chances0

58All attempts (Corsi)59

Adjusted for score: UTA 46% · DET 54%

Faceoffs · DET won47%off69%neu47%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA3 / 3 · 0.71 xG

DET0 / 0 · 0.00 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA1 / 11 · 1.12 xG

DET1 / 17 · 2.00 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA0 / 44 · 0.70 xG

DET0 / 42 · 0.52 xG

UTA went 3-for-3 from high danger on 0.71 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

4 G · 2.52 xG · +1.5

DET

1 G · 2.53 xG · -1.5

012345

UTA finished +1.5 against expected, DET -1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

SNAP2/14

WRIST2/19

TIP IN0/2

SLAP0/1

BACKHAND0/4

OTHER0/18

DET

SNAP1/19

WRIST0/9

TIP IN0/6

SLAP0/5

BACKHAND0/1

OTHER0/19

UTA

DET

Off the rush

0 G on 21

1.24 xG

1 G on 28

2.02 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 2

0.45 xG

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-14, DET 1-for-19.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG: Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD: High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi: Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.: Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx: Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO: Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.

Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 27/28 · .964

+1.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

Medium1/172.0+1.0

Low0/420.5+0.5

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

C. Talbot

DET · 24/28 · .857

-1.5

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/30.7-2.3

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low0/440.7+0.7

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

40 shots

Final

80 shots

DET

40 shots

UTA DET GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, DET right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first

Three stars · computed, not voted

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:43 on ice · +2

M. Sergachev

#98 · D · UTA

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:32 on ice · +2

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 20:08 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Dec 17

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 8:40 PMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

UTA is projected at 51% win probability in a forecast of 2.6 goals to DET's 2.5. This is about as close to a pick'em as the model offers.

The Mammoth own the underlying play at 5v5, controlling 52.0% expected goals and 53.0% Corsi. Detroit sits at 49.0% on both. PDO differentials (1.003 for UTA, 0.985 for DET) suggest variance in how each team's record was formed.

Players to Watch

UTA

Dylan Guenther — 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting
Daniil But — 1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goals, 5.6% shooting

DET

Alex DeBrincat — 0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A, 2 HD goals, 9.0% shooting
Marco Kasper — 0.81 xG/60, 7G 8A, 1 HD goals, 6.1% shooting

Both teams score 0% of their goals from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds. Maveric Lamoureux is UTA's defensive weak link; Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's. The Mammoth's underlying play advantage meets Detroit's structural discipline, a balance the model captures at 51% for UTA.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 51%

51%

UTA

Model favorite

51%

49%

UTA50DET

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.5 DET; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates

Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG

UTA← edge

edge →DET

52.0%49.0%

53.0%49.0%

2.642.38

2.392.50

2.261.73

1.992.07

1.0030.985

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.985) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

4-6-0

+3 GD · 3d rest

DET

5-3-2

+0 GD · 3d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.985

DET PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

3 days rest.750 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

3 days rest1.000 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG

UTA

Dylan Guenther28G 15A

1.02 xG/60 · 3 HD · 16.8% sh

Daniil But2G 2A

1.01 xG/60 · 1 HD · 5.6% sh

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page