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

Mammoth edge the Rangers in overtime

The verdict · coin flip

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

UTA 3 · NYR 2
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:17 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

Utah's overtime win looked closer than the scoreboard suggested. Expected goals split 3.93–4.14, with the Rangers holding 47% of shot attempts. Yet New York underperformed their chances by 1.93 goals—a brutal variance swing in a two-goal defeat.

Sean Durzi's wrist shot from the doorstep ended it at 01:06 of overtime. The Rangers, despite the loss, executed precisely where it mattered most: the rush. Both teams scored twice rushing the net. New York did it on 27 attempts, Utah on 33, each finding comparable tempo advantages in transition. Where New York broke: finishing. K. Vejmelka stopped 1.9 goals above expected. I. Shesterkin put up 9-for-9 saves with a 4.1-goal cushion above expected—a towering performance that couldn't overcome his team's offensive drought.

The Rangers' power play nearly salvaged the game. Two playmakers dominated: A. Panarin logged 2 assists in 24:56, while M. Zibanejad matched him with 2 assists in 24:45. New York converted 2 of 13 power-play chances despite generating just 1.70 expected goals—the kind of efficiency variance that decides tight games.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 5
UTA
3
NYR
2

Mammoth edge the Rangers in overtime

Chances 4.1 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
4.14
NYR
3.93
51% of the chances49%

The board read UTA 3, NYR 2. The chances read UTA 4.1, NYR 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−1.1
goals above expected
UTA4.14 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
NYR3.93 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Rangers left 1.9 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 08:29NYRA. LafrenièrePP0–1
  2. P2 12:38UTAD. Guenther1–1
  3. P2 16:36NYRV. TrocheckPP1–2
  4. P3 06:15UTAM. Carcone2–2
  5. OT 01:06UTAS. Durzi3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
48 shots
3
Final
91 shots
NYR
43 shots
2
UTA attackNYR attack
UTA NYR Goal
48
shots · 3 in
43
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTANYR
2 / 6
1.49 xG
High danger
1 / 8
2.00 xG
1 / 19
2.06 xG
Medium
1 / 10
1.25 xG
0 / 39
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.68 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
I. Shesterkin
+4.1
NYR · 9/9
A
K. Vejmelka
+1.9
UTA · 22/24
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth edge the Rangers in overtime

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 12–7no goals
    2ndshots 8–14
    1. 08:29NYRA. Lafrenièrepower play(M. Zibanejad, A. Panarin)0–1
    2. 12:38UTAD. Guenther(I. Cole)1–1
    3. 16:36NYRV. Trocheckpower play(A. Panarin, M. Zibanejad)1–2
    3rdshots 6–3
    1. 06:15UTAM. Carcone(J. Marino)2–2
    OTshots 1–0
    1. 01:06UTAS. Durzi(N. Schmaltz, L. Crouse)3–2

    score reads UTA–NYR

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.14
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.1
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.008
    UTA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    55.2%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.14Expected goals3.93
    UTA 51% of the chance quality
    27Shots on goal24
    6High-danger chances8
    64All attempts (Corsi)52
    Adjusted for score: UTA 56% · NYR 44%
    Faceoffs · NYR won53%off50%neu47%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA2 / 6 · 1.49 xG
    NYR1 / 8 · 2.00 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA1 / 19 · 2.06 xG
    NYR1 / 10 · 1.25 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 39 · 0.60 xG
    NYR0 / 34 · 0.68 xG

    UTA went 1-for-19 from medium danger on 2.06 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    3 G · 4.14 xG · -1.1
    NYR
    2 G · 3.93 xG · -1.9
    012345

    UTA finished -1.1 against expected, NYR -1.9.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST3/27
    SNAP0/10
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/2
    SLAP0/4
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/16
    NYR
    WRIST1/16
    SNAP0/18
    TIP IN1/3
    BACKHAND0/4
    SLAP0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/9
    UTA
    NYR
    Off the rush
    2 G on 33
    2.99 xG
    2 G on 27
    2.69 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 2
    0.33 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.55 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-27, NYR 1-for-16. UTA 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 · 22/24 · .917
    +1.9
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/82.0+1.0
    Medium1/101.3+0.3
    Low0/340.7+0.7

    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

    I. Shesterkin
    NYR · 9/9 · 1.000
    +4.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.5-0.5
    Medium1/192.1+1.1
    Low0/390.6+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

    J. Quick
    NYR · 15/18 · .833
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/61.5-0.5
    Medium1/192.1+1.1
    Low0/390.6+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

    91 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    48 shots
    3
    Final
    91 shots
    NYR
    43 shots
    2
    UTA attackNYR attack
    UTA NYR Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, NYR 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
    A. Panarin
    #10 · L · NYR
    0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 24:56 on ice · -2
    M. Zibanejad
    #93 · C · NYR
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 24:45 on ice · -1
    S. Durzi
    #50 · D · UTA
    1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 22:09 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Jan 5
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:15 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 2.5–2.4, Mammoth at 51% win probability—about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. Mammoth owns the underlying play decisively enough to merit the edge, but not enough to trust it.

    Mammoth dominates at 5v5: 52.0% expected goal share against 48.0%, and 53.0% Corsi percentage versus 49.0%. That territorial tilt is real. But both teams run nearly identical PDO (Mammoth 1.003, Rangers 1.009), which means both are converting at reasonable clips—no obvious regression waiting to ambush either side.

    The differentiator is shot quality. Dylan Guenther leads Mammoth's charge at 1.02 xG per 60 minutes with 28 goals and 15 assists; he's also tallied 3 high-danger chances and converted at 16.8%. Daniil But sits at 1.01 xG/60 with 2 goals, 2 assists, and 1 high-danger goal, though his 5.6% shooting rate suggests he's due some regression upward. For the Rangers, Adam Sykora generates 0.91 xG/60 across 3 goals and 1 assist with a 20.0% conversion rate—an unsustainably high clip. Gabe Perreault lags at 0.79 xG/60 but has accumulated 8 goals and 11 assists with 2 high-danger chances and a 13.1% shooting percentage.

    Mammoth's defense shows structural weakness, with Maveric Lamoureux as the liability. The Rangers' equivalent weakness is Vincent Iorio. Both teams sit at 0% high-danger and 0% rebound goal rate, suggesting either a data issue or disciplined positioning—either way, one opportunistic goal changes everything.

    This is a game that lives on the margin—personnel quality tilts Mammoth's way, but environmental variance is enormous at this scoring range.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 51%
    51%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    UTA50NYR

    UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.4 NYR; 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 →NYR
    52.0%48.0%
    53.0%49.0%
    2.642.26
    2.392.40
    2.261.88
    1.991.90
    1.0031.009

    UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.009) says NYR has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    UTA
    5-5-0
    +3 GD · 2d rest
    NYR
    4-5-1
    -3 GD · 2d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.009
    NYR 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.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    2 days rest.867 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    NYR
    Expected in goal
    I. Shesterkin
    2 days rest.973 last start
    Backup Igor Shesterkin · +21.3 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
    NYR
    Adam Sykora3G 1A
    0.91 xG/60 · 0 HD · 20.0% sh
    Gabe Perreault8G 11A
    0.79 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.1% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next