Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Wed, Jan 7 · the slate
Breakdown · OTT at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Senators

FinalWed, Jan 7
OTTOttawa Senators1UTAUtah Hockey Club3
The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.57–2.84 and won anyway.

OTT 1 · UTA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:42 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 stole this game through elite goaltending. The Senators dominated in expected goals, controlling 56% at 5v5, yet lost 3-1 — the kind of scoreboard-xG mismatch that demands an explanation.

The numbers expose the heist. Utah generated 2.84 expected goals; the Senators, 3.57. Utah also held just 39% of shot attempts (21 on goal against 33). High-danger chances split 3–5 in Ottawa's favor. Every underlying metric favored the Senators, except one: K. Vejmelka's glove.

Vejmelka's performance was decisive. He saved 2.6 goals above expected, posting a 0.970 save percentage on 33 shots. L. Meriläinen's 0.857 save percentage proved insufficient for the Senators despite their 3.57 expected goals.

The Senators' undoing was finish. They created six rebound opportunities and converted one; their high-danger chances fell short. Daniil But's wrist shot from the doorstep (P3, 05:41) broke the game open in the third.

C. Keller recorded 2A in 22:31; M. Sergachev added 1A in 25:20. Utah's offense did what it needed. The Mammoth won the scoreboard; the Senators won the underlying play.

Three Stars

  • #9 C. Keller (UTA) — 2A in 22:31
  • #85 J. Sanderson (OTT) — 1A in 26:12
  • #98 M. Sergachev (UTA) — 1A in 25:20

Final: OTT 1 – UTA 3

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 7
OTT
1
UTA
3

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Senators

Chances 3.6 – 2.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Senators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
OTT
3.57
UTA
2.84
56% of the chances44%

The board read OTT 1, UTA 3. The chances read OTT 3.6, UTA 2.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.2
goals above expected
UTA2.84 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
OTT3.57 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Senators left 2.6 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. P1 03:59UTAL. Crouse0–1
  2. P1 07:20UTAJ. Marino0–2
  3. P1 17:41OTTR. Greig1–2
  4. P3 05:41UTAD. But1–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
OTT
49 shots
1
Final
83 shots
UTA
34 shots
3
OTT attackUTA attack
OTT UTA Goal
49
shots · 1 in
34
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
OTTUTA
1 / 5
1.18 xG
High danger
2 / 3
0.66 xG
0 / 17
1.61 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.87 xG
0 / 49
0.78 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.31 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
K. Vejmelka
+2.6
UTA · 32/33
C
L. Meriläinen
−0.2
OTT · 18/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Senators

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 7–9
  1. 03:59UTAL. Crouse(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)0–1
  2. 07:20UTAJ. Marino(C. Keller, N. Schmidt)0–2
  3. 17:41OTTR. Greig(A. Zub, J. Sanderson)1–2
2ndshots 14–5no goals
    3rdshots 12–7
    1. 05:41UTAD. But(J. McBain, B. Tanev)1–3

    score reads OTT–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    2.84
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.2
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.048
    UTA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    40.3%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.57Expected goals2.84
    OTT 56% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal21
    5High-danger chances3
    71All attempts (Corsi)48
    Adjusted for score: OTT 64% · UTA 36%
    Faceoffs · UTA won40%off47%neu37%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    OTT1 / 5 · 1.18 xG
    UTA2 / 3 · 0.66 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    OTT0 / 17 · 1.61 xG
    UTA1 / 14 · 1.87 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    OTT0 / 49 · 0.78 xG
    UTA0 / 31 · 0.31 xG

    OTT went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 1.61 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    OTT
    1 G · 3.57 xG · -2.6
    UTA
    3 G · 2.84 xG · +0.2
    01234

    OTT finished -2.6 against expected, UTA +0.2.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    OTT
    SNAP0/19
    WRIST1/15
    SLAP0/8
    BACKHAND0/2
    TIP IN0/4
    POKE0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/22
    UTA
    SNAP0/14
    WRIST2/5
    SLAP1/7
    BACKHAND0/6
    TIP IN0/1
    POKE0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/14
    OTT
    UTA
    Off the rush
    0 G on 26
    2.14 xG
    0 G on 19
    1.48 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 6
    0.54 xG
    1 G on 5
    0.77 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: OTT went 0-for-19, UTA 0-for-14.

    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
    L. Meriläinen
    OTT · 18/21 · .857
    -0.2
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/30.7-1.3
    Medium1/141.9+0.9
    Low0/310.3+0.3

    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

    K. Vejmelka
    UTA · 32/33 · .970
    +2.6
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/51.2+0.2
    Medium0/171.6+1.6
    Low0/490.8+0.8

    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

    83 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    OTT
    49 shots
    1
    Final
    83 shots
    UTA
    34 shots
    3
    OTT attackUTA attack
    OTT UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — OTT left, UTA 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
    C. Keller
    #9 · R · UTA
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 22:31 on ice · +2
    J. Sanderson
    #85 · D · OTT
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:12 on ice
    M. Sergachev
    #98 · D · UTA
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:20 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Wed, Jan 7
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 11, 11:40 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 this as a dead heat: 2.5–2.5, Senators at 50% win probability. No lean, no angle, no tell.

    Ottawa owns the underlying play. At 5v5, the Senators generate 56.0% expected goals compared to Utah's 52.0%—a meaningful edge in shot quality that typically sustains over time. Yet both teams' Corsi sits at 53.0%, so possession volume evens out. This suggests Ottawa has sharper shot selection.

    The goaltending situation tilts toward unpredictability. Both K. Vejmelka and H. Shepard start on back-to-backs, creating three possible paths: backup goalies (which reset the game), tired starters (which hurt their team), or both (chaos). This fog alone is worth noting.

    Utah leans on Dylan Guenther, who has 28 goals and generates 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes with three high-danger chances. His 16.8% shooting rate will normalize downward, but tonight he's the engine. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals in limited offense) runs secondary offense. Utah's defensive liability is Maveric Lamoureux; when the Senators attack, he's the weak link to target.

    Ottawa counters with Brady Tkachuk (1.19 xG/60, 11 goals, 7.5% shooting) and Dylan Cozens (1.00 xG/60, 13 goals, 9.5% shooting). Tkachuk's rate of dangerous chances is the contest's highest. The Senators' defense exposes Nick Jensen; Utah can exploit him on the forecheck.

    The PDO tell-tale: Ottawa sits at 0.993 (their luck is evaporating), Utah at 1.003 (same gentle regression). Neither team is riding a luck wave anymore, so what you see in underlying metrics is closer to what you'll get.

    This is the purest form of a coin flip. Utah has the raw firepower with Guenther and goalie health uncertainty cutting both ways. Ottawa has the shot quality advantage, meaning they'll generate chances—whether they convert depends on execution and goaltending. Both defenses have exploitable seams. Both teams' shooting rates are normalizing.

    The model says 50–50 because that's genuinely what the numbers show: equivalent talent, equivalent risk. Pick it if you must, but this game could go either way without anyone making a mistake.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    OTT 51%
    51%
    OTT
    Model favorite
    51%
    49%
    OTT50UTA

    OTT by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score OTT 2.5–2.5 UTA; 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
    OTT← edge
    edge →UTA
    56.0%52.0%
    53.0%53.0%
    2.662.64
    2.122.39
    2.182.26
    1.991.99
    0.9931.003

    The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (0.993 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    OTT
    6-3-1
    +6 GD · 1d rest
    UTA
    5-5-0
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    0.993
    OTT PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    Things to watch
    • The Senators own the underlying play — 56.0% 5v5 xG vs 52.0%.
    • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • H. Shepard is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    OTT
    Expected in goal
    H. Shepard
    back-to-back.833 last start
    Backup Linus Ullmark · -12.8 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.

    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    back-to-back.917 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 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
    OTT
    Brady Tkachuk11G 20A
    1.19 xG/60 · 2 HD · 7.5% sh
    Dylan Cozens13G 15A
    1.00 xG/60 · 1 HD · 9.5% 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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page