Backcheck
Recap · WPG at UTA

Mammoth edge the Jets in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 11, 10:06 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
3
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.33Expected goals3.40
59% share for the better side
26Shot attempts (SOG)22
5High-danger chances4
55Corsi (all attempts)52
Score-adjusted: 58% / 42%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. HellebuyckWPG
-0.6
K. VejmelkaUTA
-0.7

WPG finished +0.7 against expected, UTA +0.6 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) allowed 0.7 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 25:19 TOI · +1
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 23:48 TOI
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 23:03 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • WPG generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
  • UTA generated far more dangerous chances — 0.065 xG/shot vs 0.042. Quality over quantity.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • WPG was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 18 rush chances.
  • UTA created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · WPG at UTA · 7:00 PM ET

The Mammoth are the model's lean over the Jets on the underlying numbers

By the ModelJul 11, 9:26 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

56%
UTA
Model favorite
44%
56%
WPG50UTA

UTA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 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

WPG← edge
edge →UTA
48.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
49.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.34xGF / 602.64
2.55xGA / 602.39
1.90Goals for / gm2.26
2.10Goals against / gm1.99
0.998PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.998 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters