Backcheck
Recap · NSH at UTA

Predators steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

The Predators stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.81–4.50 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 10:19 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
NSH
Nashville Predators
4
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.81Expected goals4.50
62% share for the better side
26Shot attempts (SOG)31
5High-danger chances8
54Corsi (all attempts)73
Score-adjusted: 43% / 57%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Nashville's 4-3 win is a heist. The Mammoth controlled 62% of expected goals at 4.50–2.81 — one of the clearest mismatches between quality and result.

Utah dominated the board. The Mammoth held 54% of shot attempts (31–26 on goal) and created eight high-danger chances to Nashville's five. Yet they scored three times on 4.50 xG, leaving 1.50 goals in the rink.

J. Saros stole the game. The Predators goaltender stopped 28 of 31 (0.903 SV%), finishing 1.50 goals above expected. V. Vanecek allowed 1.19 goals beyond expectation on 22 of 26 attempts (0.846 SV%) — the margin.

Steven Stamkos's wrist shot from the slot at 13:17 of the third period was the turning point. Nashville converted 40% of high-danger chances (2 of 5), crashing the net effectively and capitalizing on four rebound opportunities (one converted). Utah found efficiency only off the rush — 2 goals on 34 attempts — and wasted their other premium opportunities.

Everything else belonged to Nashville: slot discipline, rebound access, goaltending, the scoreboard.

This lingers. Utah earned the win based on volume, shot quality, and workload. Saros and variance overruled it.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
NSH2 / 5 · 1.32 xG
UTA1 / 8 · 1.88 xG
Medium dangermid-range
NSH2 / 10 · 0.97 xG
UTA1 / 18 · 1.99 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
NSH0 / 39 · 0.53 xG
UTA1 / 47 · 0.63 xG

NSH went 2-for-10 from medium danger on 0.97 expected goals — 1.0 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
NSH
4 G · 2.81 xG · +1.2
UTA
3 G · 4.50 xG · -1.5
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. SarosNSH
+1.5
V. VanecekUTA
-1.2

NSH finished +1.2 against expected, UTA -1.5 — J. Saros (NSH) saved 1.5 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
NSH
SNAP2/20
WRIST2/7
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/17
UTA
SNAP1/24
WRIST0/6
BACKHAND1/5
SLAP1/8
TIP IN0/8
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/21
NSH
UTA
Off the rush
2 G on 21 · 0.98 xG
2 G on 34 · 3.81 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4 · 0.78 xG
0 G on 2 · 0.33 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 2-for-20, UTA 1-for-24. NSH scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
S. Stamkos
#91 · C · NSH
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:12 TOI · +1
R. O'Reilly
#90 · C · NSH
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:33 TOI · +1
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 19:20 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • NSH stole this one. UTA owned 62% of the xG and lost.
  • J. Saros (NSH) stopped 1.5 goals above expected.
  • V. Vanecek (UTA) gave up 1.2 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • NSH was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 34 rush chances.
  • NSH was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • NSH created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA underperformed xG by 1.5 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Saros (NSH) saved 1.5 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · NSH at UTA · 9:00 PM ET

The Mammoth are the model's lean over the Predators on the rest edge

By the ModelJul 11, 10:18 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
UTA
Model favorite
45%
55%
NSH50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 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

NSH← edge
edge →UTA
49.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
50.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.48xGF / 602.64
2.58xGA / 602.39
1.84Goals for / gm2.26
2.21Goals against / gm1.99
0.992PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.992 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Utah enters favored, with the model giving the Mammoth a 55% win probability in a projected 2.4–2.7 goal game. The advantage flows from superior shot quality: Utah generates 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5—an edge that compounds in close, low-scoring contests. The Mammoth also control possession, maintaining 53.0% Corsi, which forces Nashville into a reactive posture.

Rest magnifies the tilt. The Predators play on 1 day of rest while the Mammoth arrive on 5 days—a gap that favors the rested team in tight games. Add J. Saros on a back-to-back: the Predators likely start a backup or an overworked starter.

Both teams have recorded 0% high-danger goal conversion and 0% rebound scoring. Defensively, Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's obvious weak link. Maveric Lamoureux represents Utah's equivalent liability.

Players to Watch

NSH

  • Zachary L'Heureux — 0.85 xG/60, 4G 0A, 1 HD goals, 16.0% shooting
  • Filip Forsberg — 0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting

UTA

  • Dylan Guenther — 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting
  • Daniil But — 1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goals, 5.6% shooting
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NSH
Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A
0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh
Filip Forsberg23G 17A
0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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