Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
Breakdown · UTA at NYI

Mammoth pull away from the Islanders

The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.74–3.29 and won anyway.

UTA 7 · NYI 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:40 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 Islanders should have been competitive here. They didn't convert.

Expected goals had New York winning the underlying battle—the Islanders generated 3.29 to Utah's 2.74, a 55–45 split. They held 51% of shot attempts and out-manufactured high-danger chances 5–3. By every measure of process, they played the better game. The scoreboard said 7–2.

The difference was execution, both ways. K. Vejmelka stopped 1.29 goals above expected on 20 saves. D. Rittich, working the majority of the game for New York, gave up 3.17 more than expected in just 9 saves. The Islanders paid for it in bulk.

Utah's two low-danger goals were the kind of bounces goaltenders digest as part of the job, but they were also elite finishes. The Islanders' 0 of 5 on high-danger chances was the inverse—brutal variance. Vejmelka recorded a 100% save percentage on 5 high-danger attempts.

Where Utah truly dominated was the rush. They scored 7 goals on 29 rush opportunities. The Islanders managed 2 on 24. Utah's power play was equally clinical: 2 goals on 19 shots.

Nick Schmaltz's snap shot from the slot (P3, 16:55) arrived as the moment the game tipped.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 1
UTA
7
NYI
2

Mammoth pull away from the Islanders

Chances 2.7 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Islanders deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
2.74
NYI
3.29
45% of the chances55%

The board read UTA 7, NYI 2. The chances read UTA 2.7, NYI 3.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+4.3
goals above expected
UTA2.74 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
NYI3.29 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth scored 4.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 00:36UTAD. Guenther1–0
  2. P2 02:35NYIC. Ritchie1–1
  3. P2 10:20UTAD. Guenther2–1
  4. P2 16:19UTAN. Schmaltz3–1
  5. P3 02:52UTAM. SergachevPP4–1
  6. P3 05:41UTAC. KellerPP5–1
  7. P3 11:48NYIM. SchaeferPP5–2
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
39 shots
7
Final
74 shots
NYI
35 shots
2
UTA attackNYI attack
UTA NYI Goal
39
shots · 7 in
35
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTANYI
0 / 3
0.68 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.06 xG
5 / 16
1.44 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.65 xG
2 / 37
0.62 xG
Low
1 / 36
0.59 xG

The Islanders went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.3
UTA · 20/22
B
M. Hogberg
+0.7
NYI · 5/7
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Islanders

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 5–11no goals
    2ndshots 6–8
    1. 00:36UTAD. Guenther(B. Hayton, M. Sergachev)1–0
    2. 02:35NYIC. Ritchie(M. Shabanov, M. Warren)1–1
    3. 10:20UTAD. Guenther(L. Crouse, B. Hayton)2–1
    4. 16:19UTAN. Schmaltz3–1
    3rdshots 10–3
    1. 02:52UTAM. Sergachevpower play(C. Keller, D. Guenther)4–1
    2. 05:41UTAC. Kellerpower play(N. Schmaltz, M. Sergachev)5–1
    3. 11:48NYIM. Schaeferpower play(J. Drouin, M. Shabanov)5–2
    4. 13:54UTAD. Guenther(L. Crouse, S. Durzi)6–2
    5. 16:55UTAN. Schmaltz(J. Peterka, C. Keller)7–2

    score reads UTA–NYI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.74
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +4.3
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.089
    UTA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    50.5%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    2.74Expected goals3.29
    NYI 55% of the chance quality
    21Shots on goal22
    3High-danger chances5
    56All attempts (Corsi)55
    Adjusted for score: UTA 47% · NYI 53%
    Faceoffs · NYI won50%off50%neu54%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA0 / 3 · 0.68 xG
    NYI0 / 5 · 1.06 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA5 / 16 · 1.44 xG
    NYI1 / 14 · 1.65 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA2 / 37 · 0.62 xG
    NYI1 / 36 · 0.59 xG

    UTA went 5-for-16 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 3.6 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    7 G · 2.74 xG · +4.3
    NYI
    2 G · 3.29 xG · -1.3
    012345678

    UTA finished +4.3 against expected, NYI -1.3.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST3/17
    SNAP4/8
    SLAP0/9
    TIP IN0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/17
    NYI
    WRIST0/23
    SNAP2/3
    SLAP0/1
    TIP IN0/5
    BACKHAND0/2
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/20
    UTA
    NYI
    Off the rush
    7 G on 29
    2.22 xG
    2 G on 24
    2.37 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 2
    0.19 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.44 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-17, NYI 0-for-23. UTA scored 7 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
    K. Vejmelka
    UTA · 20/22 · .909
    +1.3
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/51.1+1.1
    Medium1/141.6+0.7
    Low1/360.6-0.4

    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

    D. Rittich
    NYI · 9/14 · .643
    -2.3
    saved above expected
    F
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium5/161.4-3.6
    Low2/370.6-1.4

    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

    M. Hogberg
    NYI · 5/7 · .714
    +0.7
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium5/161.4-3.6
    Low2/370.6-1.4

    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

    74 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    39 shots
    7
    Final
    74 shots
    NYI
    35 shots
    2
    UTA attackNYI attack
    UTA NYI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, NYI 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
    D. Guenther
    #11 · R · UTA
    3 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:23 on ice · +3
    M. Sergachev
    #98 · D · UTA
    1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:36 on ice
    N. Schmaltz
    #8 · C · UTA
    2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:07 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Jan 1
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:39 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 sees a 52% Mammoth edge, but projects just 2.7 goals for Utah against 2.6 for the Islanders. This is about as even as a game gets.

    Utah owns the underlying play. The Mammoth control territory at 53.0% Corsi and generate chances at 52.0% expected goals. The Islanders' 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi suggest they'll spend the night chasing. Yet the Islanders carry recent form—6-3-1 in their last 10—which typically correlates to goaltending luck more than skill.

    The matchup hinges on chance generation at five-on-five. Dylan Guenther drives Utah's offense at 1.02 xG per 60 minutes, backed by 28 goals and 16.8% shooting efficiency. He has 3 high-danger goals this season. On the other flank, Anders Lee paces the Islanders at 1.20 xG per 60—the game's most dangerous individual matchup. Lee's 9 goals and 6.4% shooting suggest efficiency concerns, but his 2 high-danger goals confirm he's finding the right areas.

    Utah's secondary threat is Daniil But, who generates 1.01 xG per 60 despite a season-long conversion drought at 5.6% shooting. Two goals on a decent volume of chances is a small-sample drag that should regress. Bo Horvat offers the Islanders a similar offset: 18 goals at 12.8% efficiency mask a 0.87 xG per 60 rate. His 3 high-danger goals are real, but his overall volume suggests he's riding performance luck.

    The goaltending footnote: D. Rittich is working a back-to-back. If he starts, expect fatigue to soften Utah's territorial advantage. A backup appearance would shift rim-and-chase pressure to the Islanders.

    Neither defense presents a clear liability—Maveric Lamoureux (Utah) and Alexander Romanov (Islanders) are the weak links on their respective bluelines, though the term is relative—but the margin between Utah's possession edge and its 52% win probability is razor-thin. The Mammoth own the underlying play, but not by enough to separate from a team riding hot goaltending. Call it pick'em.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 52%
    52%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    52%
    48%
    UTA50NYI

    UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.7–2.6 NYI; 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 →NYI
    52.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.642.48
    2.392.69
    2.261.78
    1.991.94
    1.0030.993

    UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.993) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    UTA
    4-6-0
    -2 GD · 2d rest
    NYI
    6-3-1
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.993
    NYI 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.
    • D. Rittich is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Islanders are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    V. Vanecek
    2 days rest.846 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    NYI
    Expected in goal
    D. Rittich
    back-to-back.895 last start
    Backup Ilya Sorokin · +25.3 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
    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
    NYI
    Anders Lee9G 20A
    1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
    Bo Horvat18G 10A
    0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next