Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · DET at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Red Wings

FinalWed, Feb 4

DETDetroit Red Wings1 UTAUtah Hockey Club4

The verdict · coin flip

The Mammoth won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

DET 1 · UTA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:13 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

Utah and Detroit's expected goals were nearly identical—4.11 to 3.93, a 51-49 edge to Utah—yet the Mammoth won 4-1. The gap is Vejmelka's brilliance and Detroit's wastefulness.

The Red Wings underperformed their expected goals by 2.93. K. Vejmelka saved 2.93 goals above expected, turning a close underlying game into a decisive result. That symmetry is no accident: Utah's goaltending excellence fed Detroit's offensive misfire.

Detroit actually had the dangerous chances. High-danger chances favored the Red Wings 6-4; Utah converted 2 of 4 (50%), Detroit 1 of 6. The Mammoth's edge came from efficiency and net-front work—3 goals off the rush on 26 chances, and 0.087 expected goals per shot versus Detroit's 0.056. Quality over volume.

Utah held 46% of shot attempts, a disadvantage offset by superior positioning and finishing. J. Gibson (DET) posted +1.11 above expected with 21 saves on 24 shots, but Vejmelka's 0.967 save percentage (29 on 30) drowned Detroit's chances.

Clayton Keller's snap shot from the point at 17:42 was the turning point.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Feb 4

DET

UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Red Wings

Chances 3.9 – 4.1Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

DET

3.93

UTA

4.11

49% of the chances51%

The board read DET 1, UTA 4. The chances read DET 3.9, UTA 4.1.

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

Luck check

UTA

−0.1

goals above expected

UTA4.11 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

DET3.93 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Red Wings left 2.9 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 00:57UTAS. Durzi0–1
P1 08:11UTAN. SchmaltzPP0–2
P3 04:40UTAD. Guenther0–3
P3 15:52DETD. LarkinPP1–3
P3 17:42UTAC. KellerEN1–4

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

Where the shots came from

DET

53 shots

Final

93 shots

UTA

40 shots

DET UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

DETUTA

1 / 6

1.41 xG

High danger

2 / 4

1.74 xG

0 / 19

1.93 xG

Medium

1 / 20

1.80 xG

0 / 45

0.59 xG

Low

1 / 23

0.57 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

K. Vejmelka

+2.9

UTA · 29/30

B+

J. Gibson

+1.1

DET · 21/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Red Wings

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 6–9

00:57UTAS. Durzi0–1
08:11UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(B. Hayton, C. Keller)0–2

2ndshots 11–9no goals

3rdshots 13–7

04:40UTAD. Guenther0–3
15:52DETD. Larkinpower play(J. van Riemsdyk, M. Seider)1–3
17:42UTAC. Kellerempty net(N. Schmaltz, L. Crouse)1–4

score reads DET–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.11

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

−0.1

Finishing

Goals below what those chances were worth

1.071

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

40.2%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.93Expected goals4.11

UTA 51% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal25

6High-danger chances4

70All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: DET 67% · UTA 33%

Faceoffs · UTA won41%off50%neu57%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

DET1 / 6 · 1.41 xG

UTA2 / 4 · 1.74 xG

Medium dangermid-range

DET0 / 19 · 1.93 xG

UTA1 / 20 · 1.80 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

DET0 / 45 · 0.59 xG

UTA1 / 23 · 0.57 xG

DET went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 1.93 expected goals — 1.9 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

DET

1 G · 3.93 xG · -2.9

UTA

4 G · 4.11 xG · -0.1

012345

DET finished -2.9 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

DET

SNAP0/22

SLAP0/15

WRIST1/5

TIP IN0/7

BACKHAND0/4

BAT0/0

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/17

UTA

SNAP3/15

SLAP0/10

WRIST1/7

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/1

BAT0/1

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/7

DET

UTA

Off the rush

0 G on 27

2.41 xG

3 G on 26

2.12 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 6

0.82 xG

0 G on 3

0.28 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DET went 0-for-22, UTA 3-for-15. UTA scored 3 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

J. Gibson

DET · 21/24 · .875

+1.1

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/41.7-0.3

Medium1/201.8+0.8

Low1/230.6-0.4

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 29/30 · .967

+2.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/61.4+0.4

Medium0/191.9+1.9

Low0/450.6+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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

DET

53 shots

Final

93 shots

UTA

40 shots

DET UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — DET 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

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 21:10 on ice · +1

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:23 on ice · +1

M. Seider

#53 · D · DET

0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 30:34 on ice · -1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Feb 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 4:08 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 Mammoth are the clear lean according to underlying play. The model projects a 2.4–2.7 score favoring Utah, giving the Mammoth 56% win probability.

Utah dominates at 5v5. The Mammoth control 52.0% of expected goals versus Detroit's 49.0% and drive 53.0% Corsi to the Red Wings' 49.0%—a territorial tilt that compounds through a full game. Detroit's offense has slightly outperformed its xG (PDO: 0.985 vs. Utah's 1.003), but Utah's luck may follow.

Dylan Guenther drives Utah's offense, carrying 1.02 xG/60 with 28G and 15A on 16.8% conversion. Daniil But generates at a similar 1.01 xG/60 despite 2G 2A, signaling either variance or deployment in lower-scoring situations. Detroit counters with Alex DeBrincat (0.88 xG/60, 17G 28A) and Marco Kasper (0.81 xG/60, 7G 8A), but both shoot below season norms—Kasper at 6.1%, DeBrincat at 9.0%.

Neither team scores from high-danger chances or rebounds at any meaningful rate (both 0%), indicating efficient but not explosive finishing. The difference is throughput: Utah generates more looks, so Utah finishes more goals.

K. Vejmelka and J. Gibson are both on back-to-backs. Watch for backup starts or tired starters to flatten the model's edge. Axel Sandin-Pellikka is Detroit's defensive weak link, and Maveric Lamoureux fills that role for Utah—though Utah's territorial pressure should blunt his impact.

The model's 56% lean reflects Utah's 5v5 dominance. The Mammoth dictate play, generate more at even strength, and convert efficiently. That usually wins.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 56%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

45%

55%

DET50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DET 2.4–2.7 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

DET← edge

edge →UTA

49.0%52.0%

49.0%53.0%

2.382.64

2.502.39

1.732.26

2.071.99

0.9851.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.985 vs 1.003) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

DET

5-3-2

-2 GD · 1d rest

UTA

7-3-0

+14 GD · 1d rest

0.985

DET 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 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.
K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
J. Gibson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

DET

Expected in goal

J. Gibson

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup John Gibson · +11.7 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.917 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

DET

Alex DeBrincat17G 28A

0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.0% sh

Marco Kasper7G 8A

0.81 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.1% 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