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

Mammoth run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

SEA 3 · UTA 6
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:10 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

Seattle generated 4.06 expected goals but scored only 3—underperforming by 1.06 despite quality chances. Utah's 6-3 win reflected what the underlying metrics showed: complete Mammoth dominance.

The Mammoth controlled 60% of shot attempts (31–21) and 60% of expected goals (6.20–4.06), with high-danger chances 10–6 in their favor. Utah's rush attack was lethal: 3 goals on 21 chances. They also crashed the net harder—6 rebound opportunities with 1 converted, versus Seattle's 4 and 1.

N. Schmidt led the way: 2 goals and 2 assists in 20:39. L. Crouse added 1 goal and 2 assists in 18:42, and C. Keller contributed 2 assists in 18:08. Barrett Hayton's snap shot from the slot in the third period (19:09) was the turning point.

Grubauer (0.833 SV%, +1.20 expected) was solid in defeat. Vejmelka (0.857 SV%, +1.06 expected) matched him. Utah simply controlled the game from end to end.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 17
SEA
3
UTA
6

Mammoth run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.1 – 6.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
SEA
4.06
UTA
6.20
40% of the chances60%

The board read SEA 3, UTA 6. The chances read SEA 4.1, UTA 6.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−0.2
goals above expected
UTA6.20 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA4.06 expected · 3 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 01:09SEAJ. Eberle1–0
  2. P1 02:47UTAK. StenlundSH1–1
  3. P2 00:28UTAN. Schmidt1–2
  4. P2 04:31UTAN. Schmaltz1–3
  5. P2 15:11SEAM. Beniers2–3
  6. P2 17:43SEAC. Stephenson3–3
  7. P3 14:30UTAN. Schmidt3–4
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
SEA
39 shots
3
Final
88 shots
UTA
49 shots
6
SEA attackUTA attack
SEA UTA Goal
39
shots · 3 in
49
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
SEAUTA
2 / 6
1.83 xG
High danger
3 / 10
3.96 xG
1 / 16
1.86 xG
Medium
2 / 15
1.71 xG
0 / 33
0.37 xG
Low
1 / 43
0.52 xG

The Mammoth buried 3 of 10 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
P. Grubauer
+1.2
SEA · 25/30
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.1
UTA · 18/21
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth run the Kraken 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 12–12
  1. 01:09SEAJ. Eberle(K. Kakko, M. Beniers)1–0
  2. 02:47UTAK. Stenlundshorthanded(L. Crouse, I. Cole)1–1
2ndshots 7–8
  1. 00:28UTAN. Schmidt(J. McBain, D. Guenther)1–2
  2. 04:31UTAN. Schmaltz(L. Crouse, N. Schmidt)1–3
  3. 15:11SEAM. Beniers(V. Dunn, B. Catton)2–3
  4. 17:43SEAC. Stephenson(F. Gaudreau, E. Tolvanen)3–3
3rdshots 2–11
  1. 14:30UTAN. Schmidt(C. Keller)3–4
  2. 15:12UTAL. Crouse(C. Keller, N. Schmidt)3–5
  3. 19:09UTAB. Haytonempty net(J. Marino, K. Vejmelka)3–6

score reads SEA–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
6.20
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.034
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
55.3%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.06Expected goals6.20
UTA 60% of the chance quality
21Shots on goal31
6High-danger chances10
55All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: SEA 47% · UTA 53%
Faceoffs · UTA won52%off48%neu59%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
SEA2 / 6 · 1.83 xG
UTA3 / 10 · 3.96 xG
Medium dangermid-range
SEA1 / 16 · 1.86 xG
UTA2 / 15 · 1.71 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
SEA0 / 33 · 0.37 xG
UTA1 / 43 · 0.52 xG

UTA went 3-for-10 from high danger on 3.96 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
SEA
3 G · 4.06 xG · -1.1
UTA
6 G · 6.20 xG · -0.2
01234567

SEA finished -1.1 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
SEA
SNAP0/17
SLAP0/5
WRIST2/9
BACKHAND1/5
TIP IN0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/16
UTA
SNAP5/24
SLAP1/10
WRIST0/6
BACKHAND0/2
TIP IN0/5
DEFLECTED0/1
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/19
SEA
UTA
Off the rush
1 G on 22
2.29 xG
3 G on 21
2.12 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
1.24 xG
1 G on 6
0.83 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: SEA went 0-for-17, UTA 5-for-24. 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
P. Grubauer
SEA · 25/30 · .833
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/104.0+1.0
Medium2/151.7-0.3
Low1/430.5-0.5

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 · 18/21 · .857
+1.1
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/61.8-0.2
Medium1/161.9+0.9
Low0/330.4+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

88 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
SEA
39 shots
3
Final
88 shots
UTA
49 shots
6
SEA attackUTA attack
SEA UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — SEA 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. Schmidt
#88 · D · UTA
2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 20:39 on ice · +4
L. Crouse
#67 · L · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:42 on ice · +3
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:08 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 17
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 1:08 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 favors Utah at 58% win probability, projecting a 2.3-2.7 Mammoth victory in Seattle.

Utah's edge rests on territorial and shot-quality dominance. The Mammoth generate 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals against the Kraken's 46.0%, and control 53.0% of shot attempts — a sustained territorial advantage that should show up in shot volume and scoring chances.

Both teams carry PDO regress risk that could steepen margins. Seattle sits at 1.011, Utah at 1.003 — suggesting some performance will revert to means before long, which favors the Mammoth if Utah's underlying control persists.

Goaltending introduces volatility. K. Vejmelka faces a back-to-back start for Seattle; J. Daccord does likewise for Utah. Either could see a backup, or both could start on tired legs. If Vejmelka absorbs the full workload after recent action, Utah's shot volume becomes more dangerous.

On offense, Dylan Guenther drives Utah's attack. He generates 1.02 xG per 60 — elite creation — and has converted at 16.8%, a mark that hints at both offensive talent and some regression risk. His 28 goals and 15 assists anchor Utah's depth. Daniil But offers secondary punch at 1.01 xG per 60, though his 5.6% shooting (2 goals, 2 assists) signals he's due for regression.

Seattle counters with Shane Wright, whose 0.77 xG per 60 and 10.4% conversion rate (8 goals, 10 assists) suggest a wiry, efficient finisher. Berkly Catton provides secondary volume at 0.68 xG per 60, shooting at a high 8.8% clip despite only 6 goals — a sign his 8 assists are real playmaking, not variance.

Defensively, both clubs harbor weak links. Chandler Stephenson bleeds chances for Seattle; Maveric Lamoureux does the same for Utah. Neither team has converted hard-chance or rebound opportunities at high rates — both sit at 0%, leaving room for breakout performances if these defensive gaps are exploited.

Utah's advantage lies in sustained quality rather than peak moments. The Mammoth don't need to blow Seattle out; they just need to keep doing what the underlying numbers say they're doing: controlling possession and shot placement.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 58%
58%
UTA
Model favorite
42%
58%
SEA50UTA

UTA by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SEA 2.3–2.7 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
SEA← edge
edge →UTA
46.0%52.0%
45.0%53.0%
2.132.64
2.512.39
1.872.26
1.951.99
1.0111.003

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.011 vs 1.003) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
SEA
5-2-3
+7 GD · 1d rest
UTA
6-3-1
+10 GD · 1d rest
1.011
SEA 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 46.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • 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. Daccord 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
SEA
Expected in goal
J. Daccord
back-to-back.870 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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.963 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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% 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