Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Sun, Dec 21 · the slate
Breakdown · WPG at UTA

Mammoth edge the Jets in overtime

Final / OTSun, Dec 21
WPGWinnipeg Jets3UTAUtah Hockey Club4
The verdict · earned

The Mammoth earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

WPG 3 · UTA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:06 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 shot quality overwhelmed Winnipeg's volume. The Mammoth controlled 59% of 5v5 expected goals (3.40–2.33) while holding just 46% of shot attempts (22–26).

High-danger chances also favored Winnipeg (five to four), but Clayton Keller's overtime snap shot at 00:13 sealed a 4-3 victory the expected-goal model predicted.

Both goalies faced superior looks. C. Hellebuyck recorded 18 saves on 22 shots (0.818 SV%, -0.60 vs expected), while K. Vejmelka made 23 saves on 26 (0.885 SV%, -0.67 vs expected). High-quality chances beat both.

Utah's rebound discipline added the final margin. The Mammoth created four rebound opportunities and converted one.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Dec 21
WPG
3
UTA
4

Mammoth edge the Jets in overtime

Chances 2.3 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
2.33
UTA
3.40
41% of the chances59%

The board read WPG 3, UTA 4. The chances read WPG 2.3, UTA 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.6
goals above expected
UTA3.40 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.33 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:20UTAL. Crouse0–1
  2. P1 09:31UTAJ. Peterka0–2
  3. P2 03:01UTAA. Kerfoot0–3
  4. P2 11:18WPGK. ConnorPP1–3
  5. P3 15:23WPGK. Connor2–3
  6. P3 15:48WPGM. Barron3–3
  7. OT 00:13UTAC. Keller3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
40 shots
3
Final
75 shots
UTA
35 shots
4
WPG attackUTA attack
WPG UTA Goal
40
shots · 3 in
35
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGUTA
1 / 5
1.15 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.85 xG
1 / 7
0.65 xG
Medium
4 / 20
2.31 xG
1 / 43
0.53 xG
Low
0 / 28
0.25 xG

High-danger looks: WPG 1 of 5, UTA 0 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
D
C. Hellebuyck
−0.6
WPG · 18/22
D
K. Vejmelka
−0.7
UTA · 23/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth edge the Jets in overtime

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 5–7
  1. 05:20UTAL. Crouse(D. Guenther, B. Hayton)0–1
  2. 09:31UTAJ. Peterka(C. Keller, N. Schmaltz)0–2
2ndshots 8–8
  1. 03:01UTAA. Kerfoot(S. Durzi, M. Sergachev)0–3
  2. 11:18WPGK. Connorpower play(M. Scheifele, G. Vilardi)1–3
3rdshots 13–6
  1. 15:23WPGK. Connor(J. Morrissey, M. Scheifele)2–3
  2. 15:48WPGM. Barron(T. Pearson)3–3
OTshots 0–1
  1. 00:13UTAC. Keller(D. Guenther, M. Sergachev)3–4

score reads WPG–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.40
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.6
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.022
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
48.6%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.33Expected goals3.40
UTA 59% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal22
5High-danger chances4
55All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: WPG 58% · UTA 42%
Faceoffs · UTA won48%off44%neu57%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG1 / 5 · 1.15 xG
UTA0 / 4 · 0.85 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG1 / 7 · 0.65 xG
UTA4 / 20 · 2.31 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG1 / 43 · 0.53 xG
UTA0 / 28 · 0.25 xG

UTA went 4-for-20 from medium danger on 2.31 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
3 G · 2.33 xG · +0.7
UTA
4 G · 3.40 xG · +0.6
012345

WPG finished +0.7 against expected, UTA +0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
SNAP1/19
SLAP2/12
TIP IN0/4
WRIST0/3
BACKHAND0/0
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BETWEEN LEGS0/0
OTHER0/15
UTA
SNAP1/13
SLAP2/13
TIP IN1/3
WRIST0/2
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
BETWEEN LEGS0/1
OTHER0/17
WPG
UTA
Off the rush
3 G on 18
1.72 xG
3 G on 23
2.32 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 1
0.01 xG
1 G on 4
0.67 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 1-for-19, UTA 1-for-13. WPG scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

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
C. Hellebuyck
WPG · 18/22 · .818
-0.6
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium4/202.3-1.7
Low0/280.3+0.3

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 · 23/26 · .885
-0.7
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium1/70.7-0.3
Low1/430.5-0.5

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
40 shots
3
Final
75 shots
UTA
35 shots
4
WPG attackUTA attack
WPG UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 25:19 on ice · +1
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:48 on ice
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 23:03 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Dec 21
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:26 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

Utah's underlying dominance gives it the edge in MoneyPuck's projection: a 2.4–2.7 game favoring the Mammoth at 56% win probability. The model is translating a decisive territorial advantage into a genuine favorite.

The gap lives in the shot metrics that predict goal volume. Utah owns 52.0% of the expected goals at 5v5, with a Corsi advantage at 53.0%—meaning the Mammoth are dictating play direction and puck position. Winnipeg's 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi reflect a team absorbing sustained pressure. Neither club is running unusual goal luck (WPG at 0.998 PDO, UTA at 1.003), so there's no variance mystery to chase—just Utah playing tighter, more territorial hockey.

The Mammoth's advantage sharpens at the player level. Dylan Guenther carries 1.02 xG per 60 minutes with 28 goals on the season and a 16.8% shooting rate that reflects both volume and elite finishing. Daniil But provides secondary thrust at 1.01 xG/60. For Winnipeg, Nino Niederreiter generates 0.87 xG per 60 with 6 goals and 6 assists, though his 8.6% shooting rate suggests he's running below expectation. Kyle Connor remains a threat at 0.83 xG/60 with 25 goals and a 13.0% conversion rate—sustainable but not explosive.

The matchup asymmetry tilts Utah's way. Guenther's shot generation outpaces Niederreiter's output by a clean margin; if Winnipeg commits defensive resources to slow him, that's energy Utah controls while still cycling possession. Connor's efficiency keeps the Jets dangerous, but he's working with fewer chances than Guenther receives.

Utah's 4-point lead in xG%, replicated in Corsi%, doesn't guarantee a blowout. These margins convert into the model's 56% win probability precisely because they're decisive but not insurmountable. Winnipeg has absorbed pressure before; Connor's volume and Niederreiter's finishing suggest the Jets won't fold quietly. But the model's lean on Utah reflects a team controlling its own game, and at these odds, that's the profitable side.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 56%
56%
UTA
Model favorite
44%
56%
WPG50UTA

UTA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 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
WPG← edge
edge →UTA
48.0%52.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.342.64
2.552.39
1.902.26
2.101.99
0.9981.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
WPG
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
UTA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
0.998
WPG PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
UTA 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 48.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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