Motion-blurred skater in a Columbus Blue Jackets sweater
Breakdown · CBJ at UTA

Blue Jackets run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

CBJ 3 · UTA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:46 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

Columbus dominated Utah on the underlying metrics — 66% of 5v5 expected goals (4.55–2.37) and a 7–2 high-danger-chance edge — yet the 3–2 overtime result masks the thoroughness of the Blue Jackets' control. V. Vanecek's exceptional goaltending kept the Mammoth in a game the metrics suggested Columbus should have won decisively.

Vanecek saved 1.55 goals above expected, essentially stealing one. That differential — one goal beyond an average performance — explains why Columbus's dominance didn't translate to a larger margin. The Blue Jackets generated higher-quality chances throughout, averaging 0.062 expected goals per shot versus Utah's 0.036, and attacked the crease relentlessly. They crashed for 6 rebound opportunities, converting one; they were lethal on the rush, scoring 2 of 33 chances; their power play converted 2 on 13 shots for 1.87 expected goals.

Yet Columbus still underperformed their expected goals by 1.55. They had the looks; finishing faltered. J. Greaves steadied the Blue Jackets in net with a 0.926 save percentage on 25 of 27 stops — solid, if not spectacular.

Dmitri Voronkov's overtime tip-in at 01:01 broke the deadlock, arriving from the high-danger areas Columbus had dominated all evening.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Jan 11
CBJ
3
UTA
2

Blue Jackets run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.5 – 2.4Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CBJ
4.55
UTA
2.37
66% of the chances34%

The board read CBJ 3, UTA 2. The chances read CBJ 4.5, UTA 2.4.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CBJ
−1.6
goals above expected
CBJ4.55 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA2.37 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:47CBJM. Pyyhtia1–0
  2. P1 16:20UTAJ. McBain1–1
  3. P2 01:02UTAM. Sergachev1–2
  4. P2 18:31CBJC. CoylePP2–2
  5. OT 01:01CBJD. VoronkovPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CBJ
53 shots
3
Final
94 shots
UTA
41 shots
2
CBJ attackUTA attack
CBJ UTA Goal
53
shots · 3 in
41
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CBJUTA
2 / 7
1.92 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.44 xG
1 / 17
1.87 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.24 xG
0 / 50
0.77 xG
Low
1 / 52
0.68 xG

The Blue Jackets buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
V. Vanecek
+1.6
UTA · 33/36
B
J. Greaves
+0.4
CBJ · 25/27
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blue Jackets run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 11–7
  1. 02:47CBJM. Pyyhtia(D. Heinen, I. Provorov)1–0
  2. 16:20UTAJ. McBain(C. Keller, N. DeSimone)1–1
2ndshots 14–8
  1. 01:02UTAM. Sergachev(C. Keller, N. Schmaltz)1–2
  2. 18:31CBJC. Coylepower play(A. Fantilli, K. Marchenko)2–2
3rdshots 9–12no goals
    OTshots 2–0
    1. 01:01CBJD. Voronkovpower play(Z. Werenski, K. Marchenko)3–2

    score reads CBJ–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.55
    CBJ chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.6
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.010
    CBJ puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    52.9%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.55Expected goals2.37
    CBJ 66% of the chance quality
    36Shots on goal27
    7High-danger chances2
    74All attempts (Corsi)66
    Adjusted for score: CBJ 53% · UTA 47%
    Faceoffs · UTA won50%off67%neu46%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    CBJ2 / 7 · 1.92 xG
    UTA0 / 2 · 0.44 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    CBJ1 / 17 · 1.87 xG
    UTA1 / 12 · 1.24 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    CBJ0 / 50 · 0.77 xG
    UTA1 / 52 · 0.68 xG

    CBJ went 1-for-17 from medium danger on 1.87 expected goals — 0.9 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    CBJ
    3 G · 4.55 xG · -1.6
    UTA
    2 G · 2.37 xG · -0.4
    012345

    CBJ finished -1.6 against expected, UTA -0.4.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    CBJ
    SNAP0/22
    WRIST2/14
    SLAP0/6
    TIP IN1/9
    BACKHAND0/2
    POKE0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    OTHER0/21
    UTA
    SNAP1/21
    WRIST0/5
    SLAP0/7
    TIP IN0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    POKE0/1
    DEFLECTED1/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    OTHER0/25
    CBJ
    UTA
    Off the rush
    2 G on 33
    2.38 xG
    1 G on 28
    2.11 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 6
    1.59 xG
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: CBJ went 0-for-22, UTA 1-for-21. CBJ 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
    J. Greaves
    CBJ · 25/27 · .926
    +0.4
    saved above expected
    B
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium1/121.2+0.2
    Low1/520.7-0.3

    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

    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 33/36 · .917
    +1.6
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger2/71.9-0.1
    Medium1/171.9+0.9
    Low0/500.8+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

    94 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    CBJ
    53 shots
    3
    Final
    94 shots
    UTA
    41 shots
    2
    CBJ attackUTA attack
    CBJ UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — CBJ 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 · 2 SOG · 21:00 on ice · +2
    K. Marchenko
    #86 · R · CBJ
    0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:11 on ice · -2
    Z. Werenski
    #8 · D · CBJ
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 28:19 on ice · -2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sun, Jan 11
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:21 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 model projects a 2.5-2.7 goal range and gives Utah 53% win probability. This is as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

    The teams are genuinely equivalent. Columbus and Utah both generate 52.0% expected goals at 5v5; Utah edges possession at 53.0% Corsis versus Columbus's 51.0%. Both sit at exactly 1.003 PDO, indicating neither is running hot or cold from a luck standpoint. The predictive numbers say this should be a coin flip—and the model agrees.

    Goaltending adds uncertainty. K. Vejmelka starts a back-to-back for Utah, and E. Merzlikins does the same for Columbus. One or both could see a backup, or face a fatigue-taxed starter. That's an X factor neither team wants in a close game.

    For Columbus, Boone Jenner is the fulcrum. He's generating 0.98 xG per 60 with 11 goals and 21 assists; his 2 high-danger goals on a 9.6% shooting rate suggest he's due some regression or breakout—either direction moves the needle. Mathieu Olivier at 0.89 xG per 60 carries 12 goals and a hot 13.3% shooting clip, which Utah's defense needs to respect.

    Utah counters with Dylan Guenther, who leads decisively: 1.02 xG per 60, 28 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger tallies at a 16.8% shooting rate. He's not running lucky; he's substantially better at finishing chances. Daniil But (1.01 xG per 60, 2 goals, 2 assists, 1 high-danger goal) is the secondary concern—promising metrics on a light goal total means more finishing is coming.

    The tactical detail: both teams sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, suggesting defensive systems that eliminate second chances. That tightness works against volume scoring but rewards opportunism. Conor Garland is Columbus's weak link on the back line; Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's. Both are attack targets.

    This isn't a guess. The models say coin flip, the matchups say coin flip, and the goaltending situation adds chaos. Utah's edge comes from better production at the point of attack, but Columbus's chance quality is nearly identical. Defer to the 53%.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 53%
    53%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    CBJ50UTA

    UTA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score CBJ 2.5–2.7 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
    CBJ← edge
    edge →UTA
    52.0%52.0%
    51.0%53.0%
    2.632.64
    2.432.39
    2.122.26
    1.981.99
    1.0031.003

    UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 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
    CBJ
    4-5-1
    -1 GD · 1d rest
    UTA
    6-4-0
    +8 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    CBJ PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Things to watch
    • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • E. Merzlikins 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
    CBJ
    Expected in goal
    E. Merzlikins
    back-to-back.871 last start
    Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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.929 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
    CBJ
    Boone Jenner11G 21A
    0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh
    Mathieu Olivier12G 9A
    0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% 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