Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a green sweater
← Sat, Jan 31 · the slate
Breakdown · DAL at UTA

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalSat, Jan 31
DALDallas Stars3UTAUtah Hockey Club2
The verdict · earned

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

DAL 3 · UTA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:36 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

Dallas dominated the underlying metrics — 68% expected goals (4.46–2.06), 32 shots on goal to 14 — yet won 3-2. K. Vejmelka's excellence on high-danger chances and Dallas' finishing failures explain why the advantage compressed to one goal.

The Stars generated superior shot quality: 0.073 expected goals per shot against Utah's 0.051, with a six-to-three edge in high-danger chances. They went 0 for 6. Vejmelka turned aside all six high-danger attempts and posted a 0.906 save percentage, 1.46 goals better than expected. Utah's offense ran through the rush: two goals on seventeen chances, their only significant offensive threat.

Dallas' power play was decisive: two goals on thirteen shots with 1.04 expected goals. They also crashed effectively for rebounds (four opportunities, one converted). Dallas underperformed their xG by 1.46 goals.

K. Yamamoto's wrist shot from the high slot at 6:41 of the first opened the scoring. Dallas' dominance outweighed Utah's rush efficiency.

  • #77 J. Peterka (UTA) — 2A in 17:50
  • #56 K. Yamamoto (UTA) — 2G in 13:56
  • #14 J. Benn (DAL) — 2A in 13:40
The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Jan 31
DAL
3
UTA
2

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.5 – 2.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Stars earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
4.46
UTA
2.06
68% of the chances32%

The board read DAL 3, UTA 2. The chances read DAL 4.5, UTA 2.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
DAL
−1.5
goals above expected
DAL4.46 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA2.06 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

Both sides finished close to what their chances were worth. This one was earned on the ice.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:11DALT. HarleyPP1–0
  2. P1 07:42DALW. JohnstonPP2–0
  3. P1 10:23UTAK. Yamamoto2–1
  4. P1 16:37DALM. Duchene3–1
  5. P3 06:41UTAK. Yamamoto3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
50 shots
3
Final
76 shots
UTA
26 shots
2
DAL attackUTA attack
DAL UTA Goal
50
shots · 3 in
26
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALUTA
0 / 6
2.28 xG
High danger
0 / 3
0.67 xG
3 / 15
1.45 xG
Medium
2 / 10
1.08 xG
0 / 40
0.73 xG
Low
0 / 27
0.31 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 3 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.5
UTA · 29/32
C
C. DeSmith
+0.1
DAL · 12/14
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Stars run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 10–5
  1. 02:11DALT. Harleypower play(M. Bourque, J. Benn)1–0
  2. 07:42DALW. Johnstonpower play(M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen)2–0
  3. 10:23UTAK. Yamamoto(J. Peterka, J. Marino)2–1
  4. 16:37DALM. Duchene(J. Benn, S. Steel)3–1
2ndshots 11–5no goals
    3rdshots 11–4
    1. 06:41UTAK. Yamamoto(J. Peterka, B. Hayton)3–2

    score reads DAL–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.46
    DAL chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −1.5
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    0.999
    DAL puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    60.4%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.46Expected goals2.06
    DAL 68% of the chance quality
    32Shots on goal14
    6High-danger chances3
    61All attempts (Corsi)40
    Adjusted for score: DAL 55% · UTA 45%
    Faceoffs · UTA won27%off59%neu50%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    DAL0 / 6 · 2.28 xG
    UTA0 / 3 · 0.67 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    DAL3 / 15 · 1.45 xG
    UTA2 / 10 · 1.08 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    DAL0 / 40 · 0.73 xG
    UTA0 / 27 · 0.31 xG

    DAL went 0-for-6 from high danger on 2.28 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    DAL
    3 G · 4.46 xG · -1.5
    UTA
    2 G · 2.06 xG · -0.1
    012345

    DAL finished -1.5 against expected, UTA -0.1.

    Source · Backcheck xG model
    Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
    What they shot — and what went in

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    DAL
    SNAP2/26
    WRIST0/9
    TIP IN1/8
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/1
    WRAP AROUND0/1
    DEFLECTED0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/11
    UTA
    SNAP1/14
    WRIST1/5
    TIP IN0/1
    SLAP0/3
    BACKHAND0/2
    WRAP AROUND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    BAT0/1
    OTHER0/14
    DAL
    UTA
    Off the rush
    1 G on 23
    1.85 xG
    2 G on 17
    1.64 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 4
    1.33 xG
    0 G on 0
    0.00 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 2-for-26, UTA 1-for-14. UTA scored 2 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
    C. DeSmith
    DAL · 12/14 · .857
    +0.1
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/30.7+0.7
    Medium2/101.1-0.9
    Low0/270.3+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

    K. Vejmelka
    UTA · 29/32 · .906
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/62.3+2.3
    Medium3/151.4-1.6
    Low0/400.7+0.7

    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

    76 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    DAL
    50 shots
    3
    Final
    76 shots
    UTA
    26 shots
    2
    DAL attackUTA attack
    DAL UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, UTA 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
    J. Peterka
    #77 · R · UTA
    0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:50 on ice · +2
    K. Yamamoto
    #56 · R · UTA
    2 G · 0 A · 2 SOG · 13:56 on ice · +2
    J. Benn
    #14 · L · DAL
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 13:40 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Sat, Jan 31
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 3:33 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 this at 2.4–2.6 goals, with Utah at 54% win probability—the closest thing to a true pick'em you'll see. There's no clear favorite here, only different ways each team can win.

    Utah's foundation is territorial dominance. Their 53.0% Corsi reflects a team that controls play—they spend more time in Dallas's end, generate more shot attempts, and methodically build pressure over 60 minutes. Dallas responds at 47.0% Corsi, meaning they'll absorb extended possessions and play reactive hockey. Yet this territorial tilt doesn't translate to a canyon of expected goals: Utah generates at 52.0% xG%, Dallas at 51.0%. One percentage point separates them on chances. The Mammoth win by pressing advantages that compound across shifts, not by creating overwhelming danger.

    Dallas's offense operates on efficiency rather than volume. Their 1.024 PDO—actual goals against expected goals—signals unsustainable conversion. Jason Robertson leads with 25 goals at 0.96 xG/60, meaning his production exceeds his underlying danger. Michael Bunting (8 goals, 7.6% shooting) sits even further below his chance quality. Utah counters with Dylan Guenther (28 goals, 1.02 xG/60), whose output aligns with his chances, and Daniil But (1.01 xG/60), who generates quality looks despite only 2 goals scored. But's underperformance is Dallas's counterintuitive problem: elite scorers regress, but so do players who should be scoring more.

    Both goaltenders land on back-to-backs. K. Vejmelka and J. Oettinger could split duties or deliver tired efforts. Either outcome tilts the leverage slightly Utah's way, since the Mammoth don't need elite goaltending to win a game they're controlling territorially.

    Tyler Myers remains Dallas's defensive weak point, while Maveric Lamoureux occupies the same role for Utah. These vulnerabilities matter more when possession is tight. Given Utah's 53.0% Corsi, the Mammoth will have more chances to expose Dallas's back end.

    Utah's path forward is clear: dominate territory, limit Robertson's touches, and convert one of But's high-danger chances. Dallas's path is narrower: rely on shooting percentages that can't sustain and hope Vejmelka stays sharp. The Mammoth have the structural advantage. The Stars have the more fragile foundation.

    Three Stars

    • Dylan Guenther (UTA) — 1.02 xG/60, 28 goals
    • Jason Robertson (DAL) — 0.96 xG/60, 25 goals
    • Utah's possession (53.0% Corsi) — controls territory and game flow
    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 54%
    54%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    46%
    54%
    DAL50UTA

    UTA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.4–2.6 UTA; 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
    DAL← edge
    edge →UTA
    51.0%52.0%
    47.0%53.0%
    2.362.64
    2.292.39
    2.072.26
    1.681.99
    1.0241.003

    UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.024 vs 1.003) says DAL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    DAL
    5-4-1
    +1 GD · 1d rest
    UTA
    7-2-1
    +12 GD · 1d rest
    1.024
    DAL PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Regression watch
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Things to watch
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Stars' PDO is 1.024 — running hot, expect some regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    DAL
    Expected in goal
    J. Oettinger
    back-to-back.810 last start
    Backup Jake Oettinger · +5.7 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.

    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    back-to-back.848 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 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
    DAL
    Jason Robertson25G 21A
    0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
    Michael Bunting8G 14A
    0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page