Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
Breakdown · UTA at WSH

Mammoth hold off the Capitals

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 3 · WSH 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:17 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 beat Washington 3-2, but the shot ledger lied—the Capitals held 52% of attempts yet generated only 40% of expected goals, the fundamental imbalance that decided the match.

Utah dominated high-danger territory. K. Vejmelka made all five high-danger saves; Washington converted zero of five. Utah scored twice from low-danger areas, the kind of opportunistic finishes that test goaltenders. L. Thompson made 20 saves on 23 shots and stopped 1.34 goals above expected, yet it wasn't enough.

The difference was rush efficiency. Utah converted three of 26 rush attempts; Washington converted two of 22. That narrow gap—one more finish in 26 chances—proved decisive. Utah's depth scoring and controlled pace kept the Capitals chasing quality rather than volume.

Ryan Leonard's snap shot from a sharp angle in the third period embodied Utah's opportunistic style. Utah's 4.34 expected goals to Washington's 2.95 reflected their possession advantage, though Utah underperformed their xG by 1.34—a reminder that even dominant play leaves goals on the ice.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 3
UTA
3
WSH
2

Mammoth hold off the Capitals

Chances 4.3 – 3.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
4.34
WSH
2.95
60% of the chances41%

The board read UTA 3, WSH 2. The chances read UTA 4.3, WSH 3.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−1.3
goals above expected
UTA4.34 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
WSH2.95 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 11:12UTAD. Guenther1–0
  2. P1 13:23UTAM. SergachevPP2–0
  3. P1 19:27WSHP. DuboisPP2–1
  4. P2 18:24UTAJ. PeterkaPP3–1
  5. P3 06:31WSHR. LeonardPP3–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
40 shots
3
Final
79 shots
WSH
39 shots
2
UTA attackWSH attack
UTA WSH Goal
40
shots · 3 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAWSH
0 / 7
2.36 xG
High danger
0 / 5
1.04 xG
1 / 14
1.46 xG
Medium
1 / 12
1.26 xG
2 / 57
0.52 xG
Low
1 / 39
0.65 xG

The Capitals went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
L. Thompson
+1.3
WSH · 20/23
B+
K. Vejmelka
+0.9
UTA · 23/25
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth hold off the Capitals

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 9–6
  1. 11:12UTAD. Guenther(C. Keller, N. Schmaltz)1–0
  2. 13:23UTAM. Sergachevpower play(C. Keller, D. Guenther)2–0
  3. 19:27WSHP. Duboispower play(R. Sandin)2–1
2ndshots 8–7
  1. 18:24UTAJ. Peterkapower play(L. Cooley, S. Durzi)3–1
3rdshots 6–12
  1. 06:31WSHR. Leonardpower play(D. Strome, J. Chychrun)3–2

score reads UTA–WSH

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.34
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−1.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.003
UTA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
58.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.34Expected goals2.95
UTA 60% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal25
7High-danger chances5
78All attempts (Corsi)56
Adjusted for score: UTA 54% · WSH 46%
Faceoffs · WSH won50%off46%neu61%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 7 · 2.36 xG
WSH0 / 5 · 1.04 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA1 / 14 · 1.46 xG
WSH1 / 12 · 1.26 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA2 / 57 · 0.52 xG
WSH1 / 39 · 0.65 xG

UTA went 0-for-7 from high danger on 2.36 expected goals — 2.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
3 G · 4.34 xG · -1.3
WSH
2 G · 2.95 xG · -0.9
012345

UTA finished -1.3 against expected, WSH -0.9.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
SNAP3/22
WRIST0/9
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/2
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/38
WSH
SNAP2/23
WRIST0/2
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/17
UTA
WSH
Off the rush
3 G on 26
2.25 xG
2 G on 22
1.70 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.49 xG
0 G on 5
0.70 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-22, WSH 2-for-23. 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
K. Vejmelka
UTA · 23/25 · .920
+0.9
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.0+1.0
Medium1/121.3+0.3
Low1/390.7-0.3

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

L. Thompson
WSH · 20/23 · .870
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/72.4+2.4
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low2/570.5-1.5

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

79 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
40 shots
3
Final
79 shots
WSH
39 shots
2
UTA attackWSH attack
UTA WSH Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, WSH 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
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:28 on ice · +1
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:41 on ice · +1
J. Chychrun
#6 · D · WSH
0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 27:52 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:16 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 a UTA 2.6 - 2.6 WSH game with the Capitals at 50% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Utah owns possession. A 53.0% Corsi and 52.0% xG rate mark them as the better team in play-direction—they dictate where the game is fought. Washington's 50.0% xG puts them in reactive mode, vulnerable to teams that can sustain pressure.

The crucial imbalance is in current results. Washington's 1.018 PDO—goals for and against relative to expected volume—is running materially hot. That variance corrects. Utah's 1.003 sits near baseline. When Washington's goaltending and defensive results regress toward expected levels, their underlying play alone may not sustain wins.

Dylan Guenther anchors Utah. At 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals, 15 assists, and 16.8% shooting anchored by three high-danger tallies, he's converting near his realistic ceiling. Daniil But follows at 1.01 xG/60 but has only 2 goals on his shot quality—he's underperforming his opportunities. Alex Ovechkin answers for Washington: 0.97 xG/60, 19 goals, 17 assists. His 13.8% shooting rate is elevated and will regress, though his underlying creation remains elite. Anthony Beauvillier rounds out their attack at 0.89 xG/60, 14 goals, 9 assists, converting at 10.4%.

Defensively, both teams have exposed points. Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's weak link. Declan Chisholm is vulnerable for Washington. When you layer that context over Utah's possession edge and Washington's currently inflated PDO, you arrive at perfect symmetry: one team has better play, one has riding luck, and both edges cancel exactly.

The 2.6 - 2.6 projection reflects that equilibrium. Possession advantage balanced against goaltending variance, with no factor wide enough to break the tie.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

WSH 50%
50%
WSH
Model favorite
50%
50%
UTA50WSH

WSH by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.6 WSH; 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 →WSH
52.0%50.0%
53.0%49.0%
2.642.62
2.392.62
2.262.18
1.991.79
1.0031.018

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.018) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
UTA
5-5-0
+4 GD · 2d rest
WSH
6-3-1
-1 GD · 2d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.018
WSH 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — 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.857 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

WSH
Expected in goal
C. Lindgren
2 days rest.826 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 GSAx this season

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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% sh
Keep going

Where to next