Backcheck
Recap · SEA at UTA

Mammoth run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

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

By the ModelJul 12, 1:10 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
SEA
Seattle Kraken
3
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
6
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.06Expected goals6.20
60% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)31
6High-danger chances10
55Corsi (all attempts)68
Score-adjusted: 47% / 53%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
P. GrubauerSEA
+1.2
K. VejmelkaUTA
+1.1

SEA finished -1.1 against expected, UTA -0.2 — P. Grubauer (SEA) saved 1.2 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
N. Schmidt
#88 · D · UTA
2 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 20:39 TOI · +4
L. Crouse
#67 · L · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 18:42 TOI · +3
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 18:08 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • P. Grubauer (SEA) stopped 1.2 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 16 high-danger chances combined (UTA 10, SEA 6).
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • UTA created 6 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • SEA created 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · SEA at UTA · 5:00 PM ET

The Mammoth are the model's lean over the Kraken on the underlying numbers

By the ModelJul 12, 1:08 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

58%
UTA
Model favorite
42%
58%
SEA50UTA

UTA by 16 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score SEA 2.32.7 UTA; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

SEA← edge
edge →UTA
46.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
45.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.13xGF / 602.64
2.51xGA / 602.39
1.87Goals for / gm2.26
1.95Goals against / gm1.99
1.011PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.011 vs 1.003) says SEA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters