Motion-blurred skater in a New Jersey Devils sweater

Breakdown · UTA at NJD

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge the Mammoth

FinalSat, Jan 3

UTAUtah Hockey Club1 NJDNew Jersey Devils4

The verdict · stolen

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.72–3.39 and won anyway.

UTA 1 · NJD 4

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:02 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 Devils won 4-1. The underlying numbers didn't. Expected goals split 3.72–3.39, favoring Utah — the sort of edge that typically translates to the scoreboard. J. Markstrom changed the equation. The Devils' goaltender stopped 30 of 31 shots (0.968 SV%) and saved 2.72 goals above expected, stealing a win the xG metrics suggested Utah had earned.

K. Vejmelka went the other way, making 26 of 30 saves (0.867 SV%, -0.61 vs expected). Utah generated 3.72 expected goals on 31 shot attempts but scored one—a 2.72-goal gap they couldn't close. The Devils, by contrast, scraped together 3.39 xG on 30 shots but buried four, including three from low-danger spots that ordinarily don't find the back of the net.

The imbalance traces to discipline in specific phases. The Devils ran 26 rush chances and buried two. Utah crashed effectively for rebounds, generating four, but couldn't convert any. The Devils held 49% of shot attempts and bent that advantage into high-danger looks, outscoring Utah 5–4 on chances from the prime area. The night pivoted on Michael Carcone's wrist shot from the high slot (12:35, third period).

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 3

UTA

NJD

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge the Mammoth

Chances 3.7 – 3.4Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Devils took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

3.72

NJD

3.39

52% of the chances48%

The board read UTA 1, NJD 4. The chances read UTA 3.7, NJD 3.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

NJD

+0.6

goals above expected

NJD3.39 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA3.72 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth left 2.7 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 12:27NJDJ. Bratt0–1
P1 14:18NJDT. Meier0–2
P2 15:13NJDN. HischierPP0–3
P2 16:43NJDD. Hamilton0–4
P3 12:35UTAM. Carcone1–4

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

UTA

48 shots

Final

88 shots

NJD

40 shots

UTA NJD GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTANJD

0 / 4

0.82 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.17 xG

0 / 19

2.25 xG

Medium

0 / 14

1.68 xG

1 / 39

0.64 xG

Low

3 / 30

0.54 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

J. Markstrom

+2.7

NJD · 30/31

K. Vejmelka

−0.6

UTA · 26/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge the Mammoth

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 12–9

12:27NJDJ. Bratt(B. Pesce, J. Hughes)0–1
14:18NJDT. Meier(D. Mercer, B. Pesce)0–2

2ndshots 5–12

15:13NJDN. Hischierpower play(J. Hughes, J. Bratt)0–3
16:43NJDD. Hamilton(L. Glendening)0–4

3rdshots 14–9

12:35UTAM. Carcone(B. Hayton, S. Durzi)1–4

score reads UTA–NJD

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.39

NJD chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.065

NJD puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.72Expected goals3.39

UTA 52% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal30

4High-danger chances5

62All attempts (Corsi)49

Adjusted for score: UTA 62% · NJD 38%

Faceoffs · NJD won44%off60%neu57%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA0 / 4 · 0.82 xG

NJD1 / 5 · 1.17 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA0 / 19 · 2.25 xG

NJD0 / 14 · 1.68 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 39 · 0.64 xG

NJD3 / 30 · 0.54 xG

NJD went 3-for-30 from low danger on 0.54 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

1 G · 3.72 xG · -2.7

NJD

4 G · 3.39 xG · +0.6

012345

UTA finished -2.7 against expected, NJD +0.6.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST1/24

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/6

SNAP0/4

BACKHAND0/5

WRAP AROUND0/2

POKE0/0

OTHER0/14

NJD

WRIST2/20

SLAP0/6

TIP IN1/5

SNAP0/6

BACKHAND0/1

WRAP AROUND1/1

POKE0/1

OTHER0/9

UTA

NJD

Off the rush

1 G on 31

1.99 xG

2 G on 26

2.67 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 4

0.69 xG

1 G on 2

0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-24, NJD 2-for-20. NJD scored 2 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 · 26/30 · .867

-0.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.2+0.2

Medium0/141.7+1.7

Low3/300.5-2.5

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

J. Markstrom

NJD · 30/31 · .968

+2.7

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/40.8+0.8

Medium0/192.3+2.3

Low1/390.6-0.4

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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

48 shots

Final

88 shots

NJD

40 shots

UTA NJD GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, NJD 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

B. Pesce

#22 · D · NJD

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:56 on ice · +1

J. Hughes

#86 · C · NJD

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:17 on ice · +1

J. Bratt

#63 · L · NJD

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:38 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 3

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 10:51 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 2.6-2.5 Utah victory with the Mammoth at exactly 50% win probability. This is a coin flip.

Utah holds 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 with a 53.0% shot-attempt share and 1.003 PDO—indicating league-average conversion. New Jersey generates 50.0% expected goals and 51.0% shot attempts, but their 0.971 PDO indicates they're running cold and due for positive regression. The Devils have been outscored by 7 goals over their last 10.

Dylan Guenther powers Utah's attack: 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, 28 goals, 15 assists, and a 16.8% shooting rate—elite for high-volume production. He owns 3 high-danger goals. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals, 2 assists, 5.6% shooting, 1 high-danger goal) works from lower-percentage opportunities.

Timo Meier is New Jersey's offensive centerpiece at 1.08 xG/60—the highest rate in the matchup—13 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger goals. Jack Hughes operates at 0.88 xG/60 with 18 goals and 17 assists, suggesting he's finding scoring area outside high-danger zones. His 1 high-danger goal hints at the gap between expected and actual production.

Both teams generate 0% of their offense from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds, a mutual constraint that eliminates an entire category of scoring opportunity. Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's defensive liability; Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 51%

51%

UTA

Model favorite

51%

49%

UTA50NJD

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.5 NJD; 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 →NJD

52.0%50.0%

53.0%51.0%

2.642.45

2.392.50

2.261.66

1.992.23

1.0030.971

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.971) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

5-5-0

+5 GD · 2d rest

NJD

4-5-1

-7 GD · 2d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.971

NJD PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Devils are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
The Devils' PDO is 0.971 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

2 days rest.909 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NJD

Expected in goal

J. Allen

2 days rest.943 last start

Backup Jacob Markstrom · -11.9 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

NJD

Timo Meier13G 15A

1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh

Jack Hughes18G 17A

0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page