Backcheck
Recap · UTA at FLA

Mammoth steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.23–3.86 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 12, 3:09 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
4
Home
FLA
Florida Panthers
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.23Expected goals3.86
63% share for the better side
20Shot attempts (SOG)30
1High-danger chances4
38Corsi (all attempts)62
Score-adjusted: 36% / 64%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Mammoth won 4–3 despite controlling just 37% of expected goals. Florida dominated play at 63% xG. This was a heist.

The Panthers held 60% of shot attempts (30–20 on goal) and generated 4 high-danger chances to Utah's 1. Their problem was finishing: Florida underperformed their xG by 0.86 goals while Utah overperformed by 1.77. That's variance, not skill.

Utah won through the rush. The Mammoth scored 4 goals on 18 rush chances; Florida managed 3 on 32. Utah capitalized on scarcity. Florida couldn't convert volume.

V. Vanecek stole the night. He stopped 27 of 30 shots (0.900 SV%) and outperformed his expected save percentage by 0.86 goals. S. Bobrovsky's night was worse: 16 of 19 shots got through, an 0.842 SV%, 0.77 goals below expected.

Carter Verhaeghe's snap shot from the top of the circles (third period, 19:44) opened the floodgates.

Utah scored 2 goals from low-danger spots—the shots goalies need to stop.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 1 · 0.36 xG
FLA0 / 4 · 0.76 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA2 / 15 · 1.58 xG
FLA2 / 21 · 2.41 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA2 / 22 · 0.29 xG
FLA1 / 37 · 0.68 xG

UTA went 2-for-22 from low danger on 0.29 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
4 G · 2.23 xG · +1.8
FLA
3 G · 3.86 xG · -0.9
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
V. VanecekUTA
+0.9
S. BobrovskyFLA
-0.8

UTA finished +1.8 against expected, FLA -0.9 — V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 0.9 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST2/5
SNAP0/11
TIP IN1/5
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/8
FLA
WRIST1/31
SNAP2/7
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/1
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/1
OTHER0/14
UTA
FLA
Off the rush
4 G on 18 · 1.63 xG
3 G on 32 · 2.82 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.25 xG
0 G on 5 · 0.70 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-5, FLA 1-for-31. UTA scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
S. Durzi
#50 · D · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:56 TOI · +1
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 25:37 TOI · +1
S. Bennett
#9 · C · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:10 TOI · -3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • UTA stole this one. FLA owned 63% of the xG and lost.
  • UTA scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • FLA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 32 rush chances.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 18 rush chances.
  • FLA created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA outperformed their expected goals by 1.8 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at FLA · 7:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Panthers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 2:45 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
UTA
Model favorite
51%
49%
UTA50FLA

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.62.6 FLA; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

UTA← edge
edge →FLA
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
53.0%Corsi%52.0%
2.64xGF / 602.48
2.39xGA / 602.56
2.26Goals for / gm1.98
1.99Goals against / gm2.21
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.989

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.989) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Utah and Florida project to identical 2.6 goals with the Mammoth holding just 51% win probability—a true pick'em defined by whether Utah's underlying edge converts.

Utah dominates at 5v5. Their 52.0% expected goals share and 53.0% Corsi mark show they control the territorial battle. Their 1.003 PDO indicates they're converting close to expectation; Florida's 0.989 sits below, suggesting regression. Utah's 8-1-1 recent record confirms this isn't noise—the Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace.

Florida arrives vulnerable. At -7 goal differential over their last 10 games with a 49.0% xG%, the Panthers are getting pushed around. Goaltender D. Tarasov plays on a back-to-back, creating risk: either a backup gets the call or Utah faces a tired starter.

Utah's rest advantage sharpens this. The Mammoth have three days between games; Florida has one. That gap compounds when the Panthers' metrics are already trailing.

Dylan Guenther drives Utah's offense. At 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals on a 16.8% shooting rate, he's converting efficiently. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals on 5.6% shooting) tells a different story: excellent chance generation paired with minimal finish.

Sam Bennett (0.97 xG/60, 18 goals, 13.1% shooting) carries Florida's attack, but his shot rate is inflated relative to his underlying play. Brad Marchand (0.93 xG/60, 17 goals, 19.5% shooting) faces the same problem: his scoring has outrun his chances. Florida's offense is banking on unsustainable conversion rates to keep pace.

Utah's 51% edge reflects their superior process bleeding into efficiency. The only lever Florida can pull is goaltending—a sharp Tarasov keeps them within a goal; a tired or backup option and Utah's territorial dominance becomes a rout. The model sees it as genuinely even odds. The data agrees.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
FLA
Sam Bennett18G 19A
0.97 xG/60 · 6 HD · 13.1% sh
Brad Marchand17G 9A
0.93 xG/60 · 3 HD · 19.5% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters