Backcheck
Recap · NJD at UTA

Devils steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.40–4.12 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 9:02 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
NJD
New Jersey Devils
2
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.40Expected goals4.12
63% share for the better side
22Shot attempts (SOG)33
3High-danger chances7
49Corsi (all attempts)73
Score-adjusted: 41% / 59%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Mammoth were robbed. They created chances worth 4.12 expected goals to the Devils' 2.40, controlled 63% of the dangerous opportunities, and lost anyway 2-1. The Devils won on luck and goaltending, not hockey.

J. Markstrom made this possible. The Devils' goaltender saved 3.12 goals above expected on a night when the Mammoth's offense created quality looks but couldn't finish. He stopped 7 of 7 high-danger chances—perfect. K. Vejmelka made 20 saves but couldn't hold the line.

The Mammoth dominated shot quality. They fired 33 shots to New Jersey's 22, and their expected-goal count (4.12 to 2.40) showed how much better their looks were. Seven high-danger chances landed in Markstrom's crease; three in Vejmelka's. The Mammoth created 6 rebound opportunities and converted one. That kind of efficiency doesn't survive.

Stefan Noesen's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 04:20) marked the turning point—the moment the Mammoth's chances began to slip. The Devils capitalized where it mattered; the Mammoth's inability to finish turned dominance into defeat.

N. Hischier orchestrated the win with two assists, logging 22:08. C. Brown scored in 22:16. L. Hughes contributed an assist in 20:33. Three Devils stars. None was the Mammoth's K. Vejmelka, who faced an onslaught and held firm when the game came down to what could have been.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NJD2 / 3 · 0.77 xG
UTA0 / 7 · 1.71 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NJD0 / 12 · 1.22 xG
UTA1 / 19 · 1.93 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NJD0 / 34 · 0.41 xG
UTA0 / 47 · 0.48 xG

UTA went 0-for-7 from high danger on 1.71 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NJD
2 G · 2.40 xG · -0.4
UTA
1 G · 4.12 xG · -3.1
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. MarkstromNJD
+3.1
K. VejmelkaUTA
+0.4

NJD finished -0.4 against expected, UTA -3.1 — J. Markstrom (NJD) saved 3.1 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
NJD
SNAP1/20
SLAP0/5
WRIST1/3
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/17
UTA
SNAP0/19
SLAP0/6
WRIST0/8
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/6
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/28
NJD
UTA
Off the rush
1 G on 16 · 1.42 xG
1 G on 27 · 2.70 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4 · 0.68 xG
0 G on 6 · 1.01 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NJD went 1-for-20, UTA 0-for-19.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
N. Hischier
#13 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 22:08 TOI · +1
C. Brown
#16 · R · NJD
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:16 TOI · +1
L. Hughes
#43 · D · NJD
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:33 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • NJD stole this one. UTA owned 63% of the xG and lost.
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) stopped 3.1 goals above expected.
  • UTA couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • NJD created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA underperformed xG by 3.1 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) saved 3.1 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • J. Markstrom was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 7 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · NJD at UTA · 9:00 PM ET

Devils at Mammoth: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 9:00 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
UTA
Model favorite
45%
55%
NJD50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.42.7 UTA; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

NJD← edge
edge →UTA
50.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
51.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.45xGF / 602.64
2.50xGA / 602.39
1.66Goals for / gm2.26
2.23Goals against / gm1.99
0.971PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.971 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The models split hairs. Utah's 55% win probability in a 2.4–2.7 xG contest marks this as a near pick'em, the closest thing to indifference the projection layers offer. Form, though, points toward the Mammoth. Utah sits 5-5-0 in their last ten while New Jersey wallows at -13 goal differential over the same stretch—a gap that suggests something structural beneath New Jersey's recent collapse.

The season's underlying play clarifies little. New Jersey's 50.0% xG% and 51.0% Corsi% marginally outpace Utah's 52.0% xG% and 53.0% Corsi%. The real divergence surfaces in luck: New Jersey's 0.971 PDO signals cold-shooting regression waiting to reverse, while Utah's 1.003 sits unsustainably high. Both K. Vejmelka and J. Allen face back-to-backs, introducing starter uncertainty when reliability matters most.

The skaters tell a sharper story. Timo Meier drives New Jersey's offense at 1.08 xG/60 with 13 goals and 15 assists—three from high-danger areas at a restrained 6.7% shooting rate. Jack Hughes follows at 0.88 xG/60 on 18 goals and 17 assists, posting just one high-danger goal but an impressive 11.5% conversion. Dylan Guenther anchors Utah at 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals and 15 assists; three high-danger chances combined with a 16.8% shooting rate that skews unsustainably hot. Daniil But occupies Utah's secondary lane at 1.01 xG/60 despite only 2 goals and 2 assists, carrying one high-danger chance at 5.6% efficiency.

New Jersey's defense lacks cohesion—Johnathan Kovacevic bleeds chances—while Utah's vulnerability concentrates on Maveric Lamoureux. Neither offense converts secondary opportunities; both sit at 0% high-danger and rebound conversion rates, meaning puck movement and primary scorer isolation drive outcomes. Everything points toward a game won through execution rather than scheme, which is another way of saying the oddsmakers nailed it: this stays a coin flip through sixty minutes.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters