Motion-blurred skater in a Colorado Avalanche sweater
Breakdown · UTA at COL

Avalanche shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

The verdict · coin flip

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

UTA 0 · COL 1
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:49 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 Avalanche won 1-0 despite expected goals finishing nearly dead even at 2.89–2.84 — a game the underlying metrics pegged as a toss-up. The story lay in execution: the Mammoth underperformed their xG by 2.84 goals, the Avalanche by 1.89.

The Avalanche controlled 45% of shot attempts (26–32), meaning the Mammoth generated more volume. High-danger chances split 3–3. By the numbers, this should have been a low-scoring, competitive game — not a shutout.

What separated the teams was variance at both ends. The Mammoth created quality looks but couldn't finish them, undershooting their expected output by 2.84 goals. The Avalanche similarly left 1.89 goals on the table but scored when it mattered: Samuel Girard's backhander from the slot in the second period (07:57).

Both goaltenders delivered outsize performances. S. Wedgewood (COL) recorded 32 saves on 32 shots (1.000 SV%), overperforming expected save percentage by 2.84 goals. V. Vanecek (UTA) stopped 25 of 26 (0.962 SV%), beating expectations by 1.89 goals. In a game this statistically even, exceptional goaltending and a single moment of finishing made the difference between a shutout and what the metrics suggested should have been a higher-scoring affair.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Dec 23
UTA
0
COL
1

Avalanche shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

Chances 2.8 – 2.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Avalanche took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
2.84
COL
2.89
50% of the chances50%

The board read UTA 0, COL 1. The chances read UTA 2.8, COL 2.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
COL
−1.9
goals above expected
COL2.89 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA2.84 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 2.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 07:57COLS. Girard0–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
39 shots
0
Final
75 shots
COL
36 shots
1
UTA attackCOL attack
UTA COL Goal
39
shots · 0 in
36
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTACOL
0 / 3
0.74 xG
High danger
1 / 3
0.69 xG
0 / 13
1.50 xG
Medium
0 / 14
1.67 xG
0 / 44
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 39
0.53 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Wedgewood
+2.8
COL · 32/32
A
V. Vanecek
+1.9
UTA · 25/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Avalanche shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

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 9–12no goals
    2ndshots 11–10
    1. 07:57COLS. Girard0–1
    3rdshots 12–4no goals

      score reads UTA–COL

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.89
      COL chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −1.9
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.018
      COL puck luck
      About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
      48.3%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.84Expected goals2.89
      COL 50% of the chance quality
      32Shots on goal26
      3High-danger chances3
      60All attempts (Corsi)56
      Adjusted for score: UTA 54% · COL 46%
      Faceoffs · COL won38%off33%neu63%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      UTA0 / 3 · 0.74 xG
      COL1 / 3 · 0.69 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      UTA0 / 13 · 1.50 xG
      COL0 / 14 · 1.67 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      UTA0 / 44 · 0.60 xG
      COL0 / 39 · 0.53 xG

      COL went 0-for-14 from medium danger on 1.67 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      UTA
      0 G · 2.84 xG · -2.8
      COL
      1 G · 2.89 xG · -1.9
      01234

      UTA finished -2.8 against expected, COL -1.9.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      UTA
      WRIST0/21
      SNAP0/6
      TIP IN0/5
      BACKHAND0/4
      SLAP0/2
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/21
      COL
      WRIST0/17
      SNAP0/6
      TIP IN0/4
      BACKHAND1/4
      SLAP0/5
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/20
      UTA
      COL
      Off the rush
      0 G on 26
      2.11 xG
      1 G on 28
      2.57 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 3
      0.57 xG
      0 G on 1
      0.19 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-21, COL 0-for-17.

      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
      V. Vanecek
      UTA · 25/26 · .962
      +1.9
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger1/30.7-0.3
      Medium0/141.7+1.7
      Low0/390.5+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

      S. Wedgewood
      COL · 32/32 · 1.000
      +2.8
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/30.7+0.7
      Medium0/131.5+1.5
      Low0/440.6+0.6

      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
      UTA
      39 shots
      0
      Final
      75 shots
      COL
      36 shots
      1
      UTA attackCOL attack
      UTA COL Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, COL 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
      S. Girard
      #49 · D · COL
      1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 17:02 on ice · +1
      C. Makar
      #8 · D · COL
      0 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 24:31 on ice
      M. Sergachev
      #98 · D · UTA
      0 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:11 on ice · -1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Tue, Dec 23
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 9:47 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 model projects a 2.5–2.9 goal spread to Colorado with the Avalanche at 56% win probability. That edge rests on genuine underlying dominance, but it's built on luck that historically fades.

      Colorado enters hot: 8-1-1 in their last 10. More fundamentally, they own 57.0% 5v5 expected goals against Utah's 52.0%. That five-point gap reflects territorial control, not randomness. Their 57.0% Corsi confirms it—they move the puck where they want and generate the chances that follow.

      The risk: Colorado's 1.021 PDO runs 18 points above neutral. Utah sits at 1.003. Shot luck regresses. When it does, the Avalanche's five-point underlying edge tightens accordingly.

      Artturi Lehkonen is the player to defend against. He produces 1.11 xG/60 with 18 goals and 22 assists, backed by 6 high-danger goals—elite-tier output. Ross Colton carries 1.10 xG/60 but 7 goals on 4.9% shooting; he trails his chance generation. Utah counters with Dylan Guenther, whose 1.02 xG/60 translates to 28 goals and 15 assists, including 3 high-danger goals. His 16.8% shooting is inflated—another regression candidate. Daniil But trails at 1.01 xG/60, 2 goals, and 2 assists; his 5.6% shooting runs low.

      Utah's defensive weak link is Maveric Lamoureux. Colorado's is Nazem Kadri. The former's liability compounds against Lehkonen, who thrives in space.

      K. Vejmelka starts on back-to-back fatigue or Utah turns to a backup. Either scenario favors Colorado. Against a 57.0% xG rate, fatigue or inexperience in net invites a run.

      The Avalanche deserve the 56% lean on play alone. Whether they hit the 2.5–2.9 margin or exceed it hinges on when their PDO normalizes.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      COL 56%
      56%
      COL
      Model favorite
      44%
      56%
      UTA50COL

      COL by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.9 COL; 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 →COL
      52.0%57.0%
      53.0%57.0%
      2.643.03
      2.392.30
      2.262.63
      1.991.56
      1.0031.021

      COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.021) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 10
      UTA
      5-5-0
      +1 GD · 1d rest
      COL
      8-1-1
      +13 GD · 2d rest
      1.003
      UTA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.021
      COL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      Where the edges live
      • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
      • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 57.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
      • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 57.0% — expect territorial tilt.
      • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Avalanche are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).
      • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      UTA
      Expected in goal
      K. Vejmelka
      back-to-back.885 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.

      COL
      Expected in goal
      M. Blackwood
      2 days rest.966 last start
      Backup Scott Wedgewood · +23.1 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
      COL
      Artturi Lehkonen18G 22A
      1.11 xG/60 · 6 HD · 14.9% sh
      Ross Colton7G 15A
      1.10 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.9% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next