Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · DAL at UTA

Mammoth hold off the Stars

FinalThu, Jan 15

The verdict · coin flip

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

DAL 1 · UTA 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:58 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 Stars underperformed their expected goals by 1.98 goals while Utah underperformed by just 1.06—a metric gap that better explains the 2-1 result than the scoreboard does. K. Vejmelka's 0.963 save percentage and +1.98 xG overperformance powered the Mammoth win; J. Oettinger's 0.926 and +1.06 couldn't recover Dallas's offensive misfire.

Utah and Dallas split shot attempts exactly: 27 apiece, converted to 26-for-27 and 25-for-27. Expected goals finished 3.06 to 2.98, a 51-49 edge to the Mammoth. High-danger chances went 6-6.

John Marino's snap shot from the wing at 4:03 of the third period proved decisive. The underlying story: J. Oettinger held 100% of six high-danger chances, yet Dallas still squandered volume across the board. Utah created four rebound opportunities and converted zero, surviving on Vejmelka's overperformance.

J. Marino and N. Schmaltz (both UTA) each finished 1G, 1A. M. Rantanen (DAL) accounted for Dallas's lone tally. The game stayed mechanically even on volume and expected output. Utah's goalie and one late break made the difference.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 15

DAL

UTA

Mammoth hold off the Stars

Chances 3.0 – 3.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

DAL

2.98

UTA

3.06

49% of the chances51%

The board read DAL 1, UTA 2. The chances read DAL 3.0, UTA 3.1.

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

Luck check

UTA

−1.1

goals above expected

UTA3.06 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

DAL2.98 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Stars left 2.0 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 19:53UTAN. Schmaltz0–1
P3 02:04DALM. RantanenPP1–1
P3 04:03UTAJ. Marino1–2

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

Where the shots came from

DAL

33 shots

Final

76 shots

UTA

43 shots

DAL UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DALUTA

1 / 6

1.51 xG

High danger

0 / 6

1.36 xG

0 / 12

1.10 xG

Medium

1 / 10

1.05 xG

0 / 30

0.37 xG

Low

1 / 46

0.65 xG

High-danger looks: DAL 1 of 6, UTA 0 of 6.

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

In the net

K. Vejmelka

+2.0

UTA · 26/27

B+

J. Oettinger

+1.1

DAL · 25/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth hold off the Stars

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 5–10no goals

2ndshots 12–10

19:53UTAN. Schmaltz(J. Marino, C. Keller)0–1

3rdshots 10–7

02:04DALM. Rantanenpower play(W. Johnston, J. Robertson)1–1
04:03UTAJ. Marino(N. Schmaltz)1–2

score reads DAL–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.06

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−1.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.011

UTA puck luck

About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces

56.4%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.98Expected goals3.06

UTA 51% of the chance quality

27Shots on goal27

6High-danger chances6

48All attempts (Corsi)62

Adjusted for score: DAL 45% · UTA 55%

Faceoffs · UTA won52%off79%neu74%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DAL1 / 6 · 1.51 xG

UTA0 / 6 · 1.36 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DAL0 / 12 · 1.10 xG

UTA1 / 10 · 1.05 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DAL0 / 30 · 0.37 xG

UTA1 / 46 · 0.65 xG

UTA went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.36 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DAL

1 G · 2.98 xG · -2.0

UTA

2 G · 3.06 xG · -1.1

01234

DAL finished -2.0 against expected, UTA -1.1.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

DAL

SNAP0/14

WRIST1/9

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND0/2

OTHER0/15

UTA

SNAP1/12

WRIST0/14

SLAP0/11

TIP IN1/4

BACKHAND0/2

OTHER0/19

DAL

UTA

Off the rush

0 G on 21

1.95 xG

1 G on 22

1.80 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 2

0.50 xG

0 G on 4

0.68 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-14, UTA 1-for-12.

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. Oettinger

DAL · 25/27 · .926

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/61.4+1.4

Medium1/101.1+0.1

Low1/460.7-0.3

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 26/27 · .963

+2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.5+0.5

Medium0/121.1+1.1

Low0/300.4+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

76 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DAL

33 shots

Final

76 shots

UTA

43 shots

DAL UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL 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

J. Marino

#6 · D · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:14 on ice · +2

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:57 on ice · +2

M. Rantanen

#96 · R · DAL

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:11 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Jan 15

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 12:57 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 DAL 2.4–2.6 UTA game with the Mammoth at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Utah is the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10), while Dallas sits underwater at -8 goal differential over the same span. The Mammoth's territorial edge appears substantial: they drive Corsi at 53.0% compared to Dallas's 47.0%, and lead in xG% (52.0% to 51.0%). Dallas's PDO of 1.024 suggests positive variance that won't persist—expect some regression.

Jason Robertson leads Dallas's attack at 0.96 xG/60, with 25G 21A and 2 HD goals on 12.4% shooting. Michael Bunting supports at 0.83 xG/60 with 8G 14A and 7.6% shooting. For Utah, Dylan Guenther is the primary driver: 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, and a hot 16.8% shooting rate. Daniil But contributes 1.01 xG/60 despite modest point totals (2G 2A) and 5.6% shooting, with 1 HD goal to show for his volume.

Both K. Vejmelka and C. DeSmith are on back-to-backs, introducing uncertainty in net. Dallas's defensive weak link is Tyler Myers; Utah's is Maveric Lamoureux.

This is a genuine coin flip, just one weighted slightly toward the team with superior territory and the less fragile luck.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 54%

54%

UTA

Model favorite

46%

54%

DAL50UTA

UTA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 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

DAL← edge

edge →UTA

51.0%52.0%

47.0%53.0%

2.362.64

2.292.39

2.072.26

1.681.99

1.0241.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.003) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DAL

2-4-4

-8 GD · 1d rest

UTA

6-3-1

+10 GD · 1d rest

1.024

DAL 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 drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

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.
C. DeSmith is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Stars are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DAL

Expected in goal

C. DeSmith

back-to-back.917 last start

Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.950 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

DAL

Jason Robertson25G 21A

0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh

Michael Bunting8G 14A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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