Mammoth pull away from the Islanders
The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.74–3.29 and won anyway.
The underlying story
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 danger ladder
UTA went 5-for-16 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 3.6 above expected.
Finishing vs expected
UTA finished +4.3 against expected, NYI -1.3 — D. Rittich (NYI) allowed 3.2 more goals than expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-17, NYI 0-for-23. UTA scored 7 of theirs off the rush.
- K. Vejmelka (UTA) stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
- D. Rittich (NYI) gave up 3.2 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
- NYI couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
- UTA scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
- NYI was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 24 rush chances.
- UTA was lethal off the rush — 7 goals on 29 rush chances.
- NYI created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- UTA outperformed their expected goals by 4.3 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
- K. Vejmelka was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
- UTA power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 19 PP shots (0.94 xG).