Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Tue, Jan 27 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at FLA

Mammoth steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

FinalTue, Jan 27
UTAUtah Hockey Club4FLAFlorida Panthers3
The verdict · stolen

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

UTA 4 · FLA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:09 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 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.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 27
UTA
4
FLA
3

Mammoth steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

Chances 2.2 – 3.9Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Panthers deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
2.23
FLA
3.86
37% of the chances63%

The board read UTA 4, FLA 3. The chances read UTA 2.2, FLA 3.9.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+1.8
goals above expected
UTA2.23 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
FLA3.86 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth scored 1.8 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 15:46UTAN. SchmaltzSH1–0
  2. P2 02:52FLAS. Vilmanis1–1
  3. P2 03:46UTAS. Durzi2–1
  4. P2 09:55FLAC. Schwindt2–2
  5. P3 11:05UTAM. Sergachev3–2
  6. P3 19:04UTAB. HaytonEN4–2
  7. P3 19:44FLAC. VerhaeghePP4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
30 shots
4
Final
78 shots
FLA
48 shots
3
UTA attackFLA attack
UTA FLA Goal
30
shots · 4 in
48
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAFLA
0 / 1
0.36 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.76 xG
2 / 15
1.58 xG
Medium
2 / 21
2.41 xG
2 / 22
0.29 xG
Low
1 / 37
0.68 xG

The Panthers went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
V. Vanecek
+0.9
UTA · 27/30
D-
S. Bobrovsky
−0.8
FLA · 16/19
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth steal one from the Panthers against the run of play

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 7–11
  1. 15:46UTAN. Schmaltzshorthanded1–0
2ndshots 5–10
  1. 02:52FLAS. Vilmanis1–1
  2. 03:46UTAS. Durzi(J. McBain, M. Carcone)2–1
  3. 09:55FLAC. Schwindt2–2
3rdshots 8–9
  1. 11:05UTAM. Sergachev(S. Durzi)3–2
  2. 19:04UTAB. Haytonempty net(K. Stenlund)4–2
  3. 19:44FLAC. Verhaeghepower play(S. Bennett, B. Marchand)4–3

score reads UTA–FLA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.23
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.057
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
38.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.23Expected goals3.86
FLA 63% of the chance quality
20Shots on goal30
1High-danger chances4
38All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: UTA 36% · FLA 64%
Faceoffs · FLA won25%off57%neu33%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
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

UTA finished +1.8 against expected, FLA -0.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
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
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
V. Vanecek
UTA · 27/30 · .900
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.8+0.8
Medium2/212.4+0.4
Low1/370.7-0.3

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

S. Bobrovsky
FLA · 16/19 · .842
-0.8
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/10.4+0.4
Medium2/151.6-0.4
Low2/220.3-1.7

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

78 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
30 shots
4
Final
78 shots
FLA
48 shots
3
UTA attackFLA attack
UTA FLA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, FLA 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
S. Durzi
#50 · D · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 19:56 on ice · +1
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
1 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 25:37 on ice · +1
S. Bennett
#9 · C · FLA
0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:10 on ice · -3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Jan 27
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 2:45 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

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.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 51%
51%
UTA
Model favorite
51%
49%
UTA50FLA

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.6 FLA; 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 →FLA
52.0%49.0%
53.0%52.0%
2.642.48
2.392.56
2.261.98
1.992.21
1.0030.989

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.989) 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
+14 GD · 3d rest
FLA
6-4-0
-7 GD · 1d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.989
FLA 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%.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
  • D. Tarasov 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).
  • The Panthers are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Mammoth have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
3 days rest.931 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

FLA
Expected in goal
D. Tarasov
back-to-back.955 last start
Backup Sergei Bobrovsky · -12.2 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.

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
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
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page