Motion-blurred skater in a Tampa Bay Lightning sweater

Breakdown · UTA at TBL

Lightning shut out the Mammoth, 2-0

FinalMon, Jan 26

UTAUtah Hockey Club0 TBLTampa Bay Lightning2

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 0 · TBL 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:42 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

A. Vasilevskiy's perfect night obscured how squandered Tampa Bay's offensive dominance actually was. The Lightning held a 4.33–3.84 expected-goals edge but couldn't convert—0 for 5 on high-danger chances—allowing Utah to stay within sight until the scoreboard betrayed the underlying script.

The Lightning claimed 51% of shot attempts (29–28) and out-generated Utah on quality, posting 0.082 expected goals per shot against Utah's 0.059. Yet they scored only twice. A. Vasilevskiy's 28 saves on 28 shots (+3.84 versus expected) did the heavy lifting, a goaltending performance rarely seen at the professional level.

K. Vejmelka on the Utah side was no slouch—27 of 29 saves, +2.33 against his xG, and a perfect 5 for 5 on high-danger chances. The issue: his team never generated the volume. Utah trailed in both shot volume and shot quality, then compounded the problem by underperforming their own expected goals by 3.84.

Neither team was ruthless with rebounds. Tampa crashed the net and created 3 rebound opportunities but converted none. Utah manufactured 6 and scored on zero. This was a game the advanced stats said should have been much tighter—the Lightning generated 53% of expected goals but got 100% of the result.

The outcome hinged on goaltending: A. Vasilevskiy's flawless execution versus K. Vejmelka's strong night that came up just short. When one team shoots better but can't capitalize, and the other's goalie is untouchable, the scoreboard reflects the goalie, not the system. That's what happened here.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Jan 26

UTA

TBL

Lightning shut out the Mammoth, 2-0

Chances 3.8 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Lightning earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

3.84

TBL

4.33

47% of the chances53%

The board read UTA 0, TBL 2. The chances read UTA 3.8, TBL 4.3.

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

Luck check

TBL

−2.3

goals above expected

TBL4.33 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA3.84 expected · 0 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth left 3.8 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 17:38TBLD. RaddyshPP0–1
P3 19:14TBLA. CirelliPP0–2

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

44 shots

Final

88 shots

TBL

44 shots

UTA TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 0 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTATBL

0 / 3

0.70 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.36 xG

0 / 23

2.73 xG

Medium

1 / 21

2.38 xG

0 / 39

0.41 xG

Low

1 / 27

0.59 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 3 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

A. Vasilevskiy

+3.8

TBL · 28/28

K. Vejmelka

+2.3

UTA · 27/29

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Lightning shut out the Mammoth, 2-0

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 12–11no goals

2ndshots 8–6

17:38TBLD. Raddyshpower play(N. Kucherov, J. Guentzel)0–1

3rdshots 8–12

19:14TBLA. Cirellipower play(J. Moser, N. Kucherov)0–2

score reads UTA–TBL

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.33

TBL chances

Goals their shots were worth

−2.3

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.038

TBL puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

44.9%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.84Expected goals4.33

TBL 53% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal29

3High-danger chances5

65All attempts (Corsi)53

Adjusted for score: UTA 57% · TBL 43%

Faceoffs · TBL won50%off50%neu44%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA0 / 3 · 0.70 xG

TBL0 / 5 · 1.36 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA0 / 23 · 2.73 xG

TBL1 / 21 · 2.38 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA0 / 39 · 0.41 xG

TBL1 / 27 · 0.59 xG

UTA went 0-for-23 from medium danger on 2.73 expected goals — 2.7 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

0 G · 3.84 xG · -3.8

TBL

2 G · 4.33 xG · -2.3

012345

UTA finished -3.8 against expected, TBL -2.3.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

SNAP0/26

SLAP0/5

TIP IN0/6

WRIST0/0

BACKHAND0/7

POKE0/0

OTHER0/21

TBL

SNAP0/11

SLAP1/9

TIP IN0/7

WRIST1/12

BACKHAND0/4

POKE0/1

OTHER0/9

UTA

TBL

Off the rush

0 G on 28

2.82 xG

1 G on 27

2.89 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 6

0.72 xG

0 G on 3

0.62 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-26, TBL 0-for-11.

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

+2.3

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.4+1.4

Medium1/212.4+1.4

Low1/270.6-0.4

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

A. Vasilevskiy

TBL · 28/28 · 1.000

+3.8

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/30.7+0.7

Medium0/232.7+2.7

Low0/390.4+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

UTA

44 shots

Final

88 shots

TBL

44 shots

UTA TBL GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, TBL 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. Kucherov

#86 · R · TBL

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 18:20 on ice

J. Moser

#90 · D · TBL

0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 25:29 on ice

D. Raddysh

#43 · D · TBL

1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 25:17 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Mon, Jan 26

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:40 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 Lightning are favored here, but barely. The model projects a 2.5 to 2.7 goal game with Tampa Bay at 53% win probability—a genuine toss-up.

Both teams generated similar shot volume at even strength. Utah posted 52.0% xG% and 53.0% Corsi%. Tampa Bay posted 54.0% xG% and 53.0% Corsi%—a marginal edge in possession. The Lightning's PDO of 1.019 signals they're running hot and regression should follow. Utah's 1.003 PDO suggests closer alignment with their true talent.

Goaltending adds uncertainty. J. Johansson faces a back-to-back, which could trigger a backup start or a fatigued starter.

Utah's offense centers on Dylan Guenther, who generates 1.02 xG per 60 and has scored 28 goals with 15 assists, 3 from high-danger areas. His 16.8% shooting rate leaves room for variance. Daniil But sits at 1.01 xG/60 with just 2 goals and 2 assists, 1 from a high-danger area. He carries a 5.6% shooting rate—among the lowest on the team.

Tampa Bay counters with Brandon Hagel, who leads at 1.10 xG per 60 and has posted 23 goals and 26 assists, 2 from high-danger areas, at 15.8% shooting. Anthony Cirelli records 0.95 xG/60 and has scored 15 goals, 5 from high-danger areas, at 17.0%—an unusual production suggesting some luck.

Utah's defensive weak link is Maveric Lamoureux. Tampa Bay's is Victor Hedman. Both teams carry an unusual tactical fingerprint: 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate, suggesting shot distribution patterns unlikely to persist.

The Lightning's talent edge is minimal. Utah can steal this.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

TBL 53%

53%

TBL

Model favorite

47%

53%

UTA50TBL

TBL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.7 TBL; 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 →TBL

52.0%54.0%

53.0%53.0%

2.642.67

2.392.28

2.262.38

1.991.85

1.0031.019

TBL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.019) says TBL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

8-1-1

+14 GD · 2d rest

TBL

8-1-1

+19 GD · 1d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.019

TBL PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Regression watch

The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Things to watch

J. Johansson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Lightning's PDO is 1.019 — running hot, expect some regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

2 days rest.931 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

TBL

Expected in goal

J. Johansson

back-to-back.793 last start

Backup Andrei Vasilevskiy · +24.7 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.

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

TBL

Brandon Hagel23G 26A

1.10 xG/60 · 2 HD · 15.8% sh

Anthony Cirelli15G 18A

0.95 xG/60 · 5 HD · 17.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page