Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · STL at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Blues

FinalFri, Jan 9

STLSt. Louis Blues2 UTAUtah Hockey Club4

The verdict · earned

The Mammoth earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

STL 2 · UTA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:01 AMxG: 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 Mammoth beat the Blues 4–2, but expected goals—5.68 to 4.67—showed St. Louis had generated almost as much quality as Utah. The difference was ruthless: the Blues underperformed their xG by 2.67 goals, nearly twice Utah's 1.68, and went 0 for 9 on high-danger chances.

K. Vejmelka sealed it. The Mammoth goaltender stopped 26 of 28 shots for a 0.929 SV%, posting +2.67 above expected. He was direct and sharp. J. Hofer wasn't the issue for St. Louis—19 saves on 23, a 0.826 SV%, +1.68 above expected—but even strong netminding can't overcome that level of offensive drought on quality chances.

Nick Schmaltz struck the decisive blow at 6:57 of the third, snapping a shot from the high slot into daylight. Schmaltz finished with 2 goals and 1 assist in 23:28. Clayton Keller orchestrated from the wing with 3 assists in 18:09. Lawson Crouse chipped in 1 goal and 1 assist in 18:06.

Utah held 45% of shot attempts and converted when it counted. The high-danger chances were nearly even—Utah 10, St. Louis 9—but Utah's clinical finish on the rush (3 goals on 26 chances) won the game.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 9

STL

UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Blues

Chances 4.7 – 5.7Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

STL

4.67

UTA

5.68

45% of the chances55%

The board read STL 2, UTA 4. The chances read STL 4.7, UTA 5.7.

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

Luck check

UTA

−1.7

goals above expected

UTA5.68 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

STL4.67 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Blues 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 15:10UTAN. Schmaltz0–1
P2 07:45UTAL. Crouse0–2
P2 07:55STLO. Sundqvist1–2
P2 11:43UTAS. Durzi1–3
P2 16:27STLP. BuchnevichPP2–3
P3 06:57UTAN. SchmaltzPP2–4

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

Where the shots came from

STL

49 shots

Final

92 shots

UTA

43 shots

STL UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 2 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

STLUTA

0 / 9

2.16 xG

High danger

3 / 10

3.95 xG

1 / 18

1.94 xG

Medium

0 / 13

1.13 xG

1 / 38

0.57 xG

Low

1 / 39

0.61 xG

The Blues went 0 for 9 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

K. Vejmelka

+2.7

UTA · 26/28

J. Hofer

+1.7

STL · 19/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Blues

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 13–6

15:10UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)0–1

2ndshots 6–9

07:45UTAL. Crouse(C. Keller, J. Marino)0–2
07:55STLO. Sundqvist(N. Walker)1–2
11:43UTAS. Durzi(N. Schmaltz, L. Crouse)1–3
16:27STLP. Buchnevichpower play(J. Snuggerud, R. Thomas)2–3

3rdshots 9–8

06:57UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(J. Peterka, C. Keller)2–4

score reads STL–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

5.68

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.7

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.034

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

48.8%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.67Expected goals5.68

UTA 55% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal23

9High-danger chances10

65All attempts (Corsi)62

Adjusted for score: STL 55% · UTA 45%

Faceoffs · UTA won44%off53%neu71%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

STL0 / 9 · 2.16 xG

UTA3 / 10 · 3.95 xG

Medium dangermid-range

STL1 / 18 · 1.94 xG

UTA0 / 13 · 1.13 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

STL1 / 38 · 0.57 xG

UTA1 / 39 · 0.61 xG

STL went 0-for-9 from high danger on 2.16 expected goals — 2.2 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

STL

2 G · 4.67 xG · -2.7

UTA

4 G · 5.68 xG · -1.7

0123456

STL finished -2.7 against expected, UTA -1.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

STL

SNAP1/26

SLAP0/7

TIP IN0/7

WRIST1/5

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/2

WRAP AROUND0/1

POKE0/0

OTHER0/16

UTA

SNAP4/25

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/5

WRIST0/4

BACKHAND0/3

BAT0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

POKE0/1

OTHER0/19

STL

UTA

Off the rush

2 G on 30

2.94 xG

3 G on 26

2.24 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 8

1.56 xG

1 G on 4

0.63 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 1-for-26, UTA 4-for-25. UTA scored 3 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

J. Hofer

STL · 19/23 · .826

+1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/104.0+0.9

Medium0/131.1+1.1

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 26/28 · .929

+2.7

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/92.2+2.2

Medium1/181.9+0.9

Low1/380.6-0.4

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

92 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

STL

49 shots

Final

92 shots

UTA

43 shots

STL UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 23:28 on ice · +3

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 18:09 on ice · +3

L. Crouse

#67 · L · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 18:06 on ice · +3

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Fri, Jan 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:00 AMEdited 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 Utah Mammoth should beat the St. Louis Blues on the underlying numbers. The model projects a 2.4–2.6 goal Utah win with the Mammoth at 55% win probability.

The evidence starts with dominance in puck possession and shot quality. Utah owns 52.0% 5v5 expected goals against St. Louis's 49.0%—a meaningful edge in how often they generate dangerous chances. They also lead Corsi at 53.0% to 48.0%, which means expect territorial tilt: the Mammoth spend more time in offensive territory.

St. Louis enters already underwater. Over their last 10 games, the Blues sit at -6 goal differential, suggesting their offense and defense haven't clicked together recently. Utah's underlying advantage compounds that weakness.

Jimmy Snuggerud leads St. Louis's effort at 0.86 expected goals per 60 minutes—solid for a winger—but he's also the Blues' defensive liability, a recurring weak point the Mammoth should target. Dylan Holloway pairs with him at 0.82 xG/60 and 10.8% shooting, but neither generates at Utah's top threat's pace.

Dylan Guenther, Utah's primary scorer, operates at 1.02 expected goals per 60, a clear step above Snuggerud. He carries 28 goals with three high-danger chances, marking both volume and efficiency. Daniil But, Utah's secondary threat, sits at 1.01 xG/60 despite just two goals—small-sample noise likely to normalize. His shot quality signals he's due.

Both teams face the same constraint: goaltending on a back-to-back. K. Vejmelka and J. Binnington may see reduced minutes or tired play. Watch for backup starts or sluggish performances.

St. Louis's offensive woes run deeper than recent form. Their 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate—unusually low in both—suggest they're missing the types of chances that reliably convert. Snuggerud's 11.9% shooting helps mask it, but that won't sustain. Utah's defensive weak link, Maveric Lamoureux, remains a target, but the Mammoth's scoring depth means they'll outscore mistakes.

Utah has the territorial and shot-quality edge, likely fresher goaltending, and a top scorer in Guenther who's both productive and efficient. The Blues' recent cold spell and structural weakness tilt this squarely in the Mammoth's direction.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

45%

55%

STL50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.4–2.6 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

STL← edge

edge →UTA

49.0%52.0%

48.0%53.0%

2.342.64

2.402.39

2.002.26

2.121.99

1.0001.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 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

STL

5-4-1

-6 GD · 1d rest

UTA

5-5-0

+3 GD · 1d rest

1.000

STL 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 Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Binnington is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blues are underwater at -6 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

STL

Expected in goal

J. Binnington

back-to-back.800 last start

Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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.970 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

STL

Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A

0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh

Dylan Holloway13G 24A

0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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