Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater

Breakdown · NJD at UTA

Devils steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

FinalFri, Dec 19

NJDNew Jersey Devils2 UTAUtah Hockey Club1

The verdict · stolen

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

NJD 2 · UTA 1

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:02 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

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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Dec 19

NJD

UTA

Devils steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

Chances 2.4 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

NJD

2.40

UTA

4.12

37% of the chances63%

The board read NJD 2, UTA 1. The chances read NJD 2.4, UTA 4.1.

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

Luck check

NJD

−0.4

goals above expected

NJD2.40 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA4.12 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth left 3.1 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 09:35UTAD. ButPP0–1
P2 11:21NJDC. Brown1–1
P3 04:20NJDS. NoesenPP2–1

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

Where the shots came from

NJD

32 shots

Final

77 shots

UTA

45 shots

NJD UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 1 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NJDUTA

2 / 3

0.77 xG

High danger

0 / 7

1.71 xG

0 / 12

1.22 xG

Medium

1 / 19

1.93 xG

0 / 34

0.41 xG

Low

0 / 47

0.48 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 7 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

J. Markstrom

+3.1

NJD · 32/33

K. Vejmelka

+0.4

UTA · 20/22

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Devils steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

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 9–7

09:35UTAD. Butpower play(S. Durzi)0–1

2ndshots 6–18

11:21NJDC. Brown(N. Hischier)1–1

3rdshots 7–8

04:20NJDS. Noesenpower play(N. Hischier, L. Hughes)2–1

score reads NJD–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.40

NJD chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.4

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.027

NJD puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

40.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.40Expected goals4.12

UTA 63% of the chance quality

22Shots on goal33

3High-danger chances7

49All attempts (Corsi)73

Adjusted for score: NJD 41% · UTA 59%

Faceoffs · UTA won68%off50%neu40%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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

NJD finished -0.4 against expected, UTA -3.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

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

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

J. Markstrom

NJD · 32/33 · .970

+3.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/71.7+1.7

Medium1/191.9+0.9

Low0/470.5+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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 20/22 · .909

+0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/30.8-1.2

Medium0/121.2+1.2

Low0/340.4+0.4

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

77 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NJD

32 shots

Final

77 shots

UTA

45 shots

NJD UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NJD left, UTA 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

N. Hischier

#13 · C · NJD

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 22:08 on ice · +1

C. Brown

#16 · R · NJD

1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:16 on ice · +1

L. Hughes

#43 · D · NJD

0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:33 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Dec 19

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:00 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

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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

45%

55%

NJD50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NJD 2.4–2.7 UTA; 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

NJD← edge

edge →UTA

50.0%52.0%

51.0%53.0%

2.452.64

2.502.39

1.662.26

2.231.99

0.9711.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.971 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

NJD

3-7-0

-13 GD · 1d rest

UTA

5-5-0

+5 GD · 1d rest

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Allen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (5-5-0 in their last 10).
The Devils are underwater at -13 goal differential over their last 10.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Allen

back-to-back.973 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

back-to-back.964 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page