Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at NSH

Mammoth pull away from the Predators

FinalSat, Jan 24

UTAUtah Hockey Club5 NSHNashville Predators2

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 5 · NSH 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:23 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 prevailed 5-2, but the Predators underperformed their expected goals by 1.79 — a gap that K. Vejmelka's excellence (0.931 SV%, +1.79 vs expected) explains entirely.

The Mammoth's dominance was real. They controlled high-danger chances 9-2 and claimed 56% of expected goals (4.79–3.79). The Predators held 48% of shot attempts but lacked the precision to capitalize.

Where goaltending became decisive: J. Saros (0.867 SV%, +0.79 vs expected) couldn't match Vejmelka's performance. The Mammoth's two low-danger goals represented chances any opposing goalie should stop. Combined with the Predators' underperformance, those miscues compounded into a three-goal deficit.

Both teams executed well on the rush. The Predators scored 2 on 24 chances; the Mammoth scored 4 on 25. Neither team crashed the net effectively: the Predators generated 7 rebound opportunities (0 conversions), the Mammoth created 5 (1 conversion). The deciding factor was shot quality — the Mammoth's 0.086 xG per shot versus the Predators' 0.065 meant their chances had more teeth.

JJ Peterka's high-slot shot (P3, 18:28) marked the game's turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 24

UTA

NSH

Mammoth pull away from the Predators

Chances 4.8 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

4.79

NSH

3.79

56% of the chances44%

The board read UTA 5, NSH 2. The chances read UTA 4.8, NSH 3.8.

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

Luck check

UTA

+0.2

goals above expected

UTA4.79 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

NSH3.79 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Predators left 1.8 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 03:43NSHS. StamkosPP0–1
P2 03:00UTAC. Keller1–1
P2 05:13UTAM. Carcone2–1
P2 08:10UTAK. Yamamoto3–1
P2 16:39NSHJ. Marchessault3–2
P3 11:02UTAB. HaytonPP4–2
P3 18:28UTAJ. PeterkaEN5–2

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

42 shots

Final

87 shots

NSH

45 shots

UTA NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTANSH

1 / 9

3.03 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.48 xG

2 / 15

1.37 xG

Medium

2 / 22

2.75 xG

2 / 32

0.39 xG

Low

0 / 34

0.55 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 1 of 9, NSH 0 of 2.

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

In the net

K. Vejmelka

+1.8

UTA · 27/29

B+

J. Saros

+0.8

NSH · 26/30

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Predators

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 10–8

03:43NSHS. Stamkospower play(R. Josi)0–1

2ndshots 12–11

03:00UTAC. Keller(M. Sergachev, S. Durzi)1–1
05:13UTAM. Carcone(K. Yamamoto)2–1
08:10UTAK. Yamamoto(M. Sergachev, S. Durzi)3–1
16:39NSHJ. Marchessault(B. Skjei)3–2

3rdshots 9–10

11:02UTAB. Haytonpower play(D. Guenther, M. Sergachev)4–2
18:28UTAJ. Peterkaempty net(D. Guenther, B. Hayton)5–2

score reads UTA–NSH

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.79

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.2

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.055

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

49.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.79Expected goals3.79

UTA 56% of the chance quality

31Shots on goal29

9High-danger chances2

56All attempts (Corsi)58

Adjusted for score: UTA 47% · NSH 53%

Faceoffs · NSH won50%off41%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA1 / 9 · 3.03 xG

NSH0 / 2 · 0.48 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA2 / 15 · 1.37 xG

NSH2 / 22 · 2.75 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA2 / 32 · 0.39 xG

NSH0 / 34 · 0.55 xG

UTA went 1-for-9 from high danger on 3.03 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

5 G · 4.79 xG · +0.2

NSH

2 G · 3.79 xG · -1.8

0123456

UTA finished +0.2 against expected, NSH -1.8.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST3/25

SNAP0/8

TIP IN1/3

BACKHAND0/2

SLAP0/2

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER1/15

NSH

WRIST1/13

SNAP0/17

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/5

SLAP1/4

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/13

UTA

NSH

Off the rush

4 G on 25

2.89 xG

2 G on 24

2.36 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 5

0.85 xG

0 G on 7

1.10 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-25, NSH 1-for-13. UTA scored 4 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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 27/29 · .931

+1.8

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.5+0.5

Medium2/222.8+0.8

Low0/340.6+0.6

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

J. Saros

NSH · 26/30 · .867

+0.8

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/93.0+2.0

Medium2/151.4-0.6

Low2/320.4-1.6

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

42 shots

Final

87 shots

NSH

45 shots

UTA NSH GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, NSH 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

M. Sergachev

#98 · D · UTA

0 G · 3 A · 1 SOG · 23:32 on ice · +1

S. Durzi

#50 · D · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:14 on ice · +1

D. Guenther

#11 · R · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 17:06 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Jan 24

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:21 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 2.6-2.6 tie with Utah at 51% to win—a coin flip masquerading as analysis. The Mammoth are genuinely the hotter team on both ends of the scoresheet, but Nashville's goaltending uncertainty could flip it.

Utah enters with serious momentum: 8-1-1 in their last ten. That form sits atop a season-long edge in possession—52.0% xG and 53.0% Corsi at even strength. Nashville counters with slightly better execution at the margins (1.003 PDO vs. 0.992), but their underlying metrics lag: 49.0% xG, 50.0% Corsi. Utah drives the territorial tilt; Nashville has converted more of what little it generates.

The goaltending question is Nashville's lifeline. J. Saros faces a back-to-back, which could mean a start from the backup or a fatigued starter. That's worth monitoring—it might shift Utah's edge in expected goals into actual ones.

Utah's attack centers on Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 16.8% shooting) and Daniil But (2G, 1.01 xG/60, 5.6% shooting). Guenther's volume and conversion are the real threat; But is a secondary weapon sitting on elite shot-generation but vastly underperforming in goals. Nashville counters with Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4G, 16.0% shooting) and Filip Forsberg (23G, 0.80 xG/60, 13.6% shooting). Forsberg's volume keeps him dangerous even if his per-60 trails.

Both teams generate zero high-danger and zero rebound goals—a statistical quirk that suggests either elite defensive shape or incomplete tracking. Utah's defensive weak link is Maveric Lamoureux; Nashville's is Jonathan Marchessault. Neither team is executing at the margins, so the underlying possession advantage—Utah's to keep—becomes decisive.

This is what a true pick'em looks like: one team objectively better, one team a single goaltending decision or two-goal hot streak away from winning it anyway.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 51%

51%

UTA

Model favorite

51%

49%

UTA50NSH

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.6 NSH; 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

UTA← edge

edge →NSH

52.0%49.0%

53.0%50.0%

2.642.48

2.392.58

2.261.84

1.992.21

1.0030.992

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.992) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

8-1-1

+16 GD · 2d rest

NSH

6-4-0

-4 GD · 1d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.992

NSH 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.
J. Saros is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

2 days rest.862 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

NSH

Expected in goal

J. Saros

back-to-back.885 last start

Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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

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

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page