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

Mammoth shut out the Flyers, 3-0

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 3 · PHI 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:38 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's 3-0 victory masked an unusual inefficiency: they controlled 79% of 5v5 expected goals (5.74–1.54) but underperformed theirs by 2.74, suggesting they wasted multiple high-quality chances despite dominating the underlying battle.

The Flyers generated low-danger looks throughout. They held 41% of shot attempts (23–16 on goal) but managed only 1.54 expected goals—a 0.033 xG per shot—while the Mammoth's looks were crisp at 0.101 xG per shot. High-danger chances reinforced the gap: 11–2 in the Mammoth's favor.

The Mammoth's edge materialized on the rush. They converted 2 goals on 25 rush chances, an efficiency that the Flyers never approached. Michael Carcone's wrist shot from the slot at 18:12 of the third period typified that precision when it mattered.

V. Vanecek was exceptional, stopping 1.54 goals above expected on 16 shots. He turned aside everything the Flyers threw at him—necessary when your team leaves xG on the ice.

D. Vladar overperformed his expected save percentage at 0.909 on 22 shots, recording +3.74 against expected. It was an irony of the shutout loss: the losing goaltender played above his expected output, yet his team couldn't generate enough quality chances to overcome the Mammoth's efficiency.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 5
UTA
3
PHI
0

Mammoth shut out the Flyers, 3-0

Chances 5.7 – 1.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
5.74
PHI
1.54
79% of the chances21%

The board read UTA 3, PHI 0. The chances read UTA 5.7, PHI 1.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−2.7
goals above expected
UTA5.74 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI1.54 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Flyers left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P2 01:38UTAN. SchmaltzPP1–0
  2. P2 08:03UTAC. Keller2–0
  3. P3 18:12UTAM. CarconeEN3–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
40 shots
3
Final
66 shots
PHI
26 shots
0
UTA attackPHI attack
UTA PHI Goal
40
shots · 3 in
26
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAPHI
3 / 11
4.36 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.42 xG
0 / 9
1.01 xG
Medium
0 / 7
0.62 xG
0 / 37
0.38 xG
Low
0 / 37
0.49 xG

The Mammoth buried 3 of 11 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
D. Vladar
+3.7
PHI · 20/22
A
V. Vanecek
+1.5
UTA · 16/16
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth shut out the Flyers, 3-0

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 4–4no goals
    2ndshots 14–7
    1. 01:38UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(D. Guenther, S. Durzi)1–0
    2. 08:03UTAC. Keller(D. Guenther, N. Schmaltz)2–0
    3rdshots 5–5
    1. 18:12UTAM. Carconeempty net(K. Stenlund, J. Marino)3–0

    score reads UTA–PHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    5.74
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −2.7
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.053
    UTA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    55.3%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    5.74Expected goals1.54
    UTA 79% of the chance quality
    23Shots on goal16
    11High-danger chances2
    57All attempts (Corsi)46
    Adjusted for score: UTA 51% · PHI 50%
    Faceoffs · PHI won31%off67%neu52%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA3 / 11 · 4.36 xG
    PHI0 / 2 · 0.42 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA0 / 9 · 1.01 xG
    PHI0 / 7 · 0.62 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 37 · 0.38 xG
    PHI0 / 37 · 0.49 xG

    UTA went 3-for-11 from high danger on 4.36 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    3 G · 5.74 xG · -2.7
    PHI
    0 G · 1.54 xG · -1.5
    01234567

    UTA finished -2.7 against expected, PHI -1.5.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST1/22
    SNAP1/6
    BACKHAND1/6
    SLAP0/5
    TIP IN0/0
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/17
    PHI
    WRIST0/3
    SNAP0/12
    BACKHAND0/5
    SLAP0/3
    TIP IN0/3
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/20
    UTA
    PHI
    Off the rush
    2 G on 25
    2.80 xG
    0 G on 19
    1.35 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.14 xG
    0 G on 1
    0.03 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-22, PHI 0-for-3. 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
    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 16/16 · 1.000
    +1.5
    saved above expected
    A
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/20.4+0.4
    Medium0/70.6+0.6
    Low0/370.5+0.5

    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

    D. Vladar
    PHI · 20/22 · .909
    +3.7
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger3/114.4+1.4
    Medium0/91.0+1.0
    Low0/370.4+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

    66 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    40 shots
    3
    Final
    66 shots
    PHI
    26 shots
    0
    UTA attackPHI attack
    UTA PHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, PHI 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 · 2 SOG · 19:34 on ice · +1
    D. Guenther
    #11 · R · UTA
    0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 16:30 on ice · +1
    J. Marino
    #6 · D · UTA
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:40 on ice · +2
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 5
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 5:37 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 models project a 2.4–2.5 goal game, with Philadelphia at exactly 50% win probability. This is a pick'em.

    Utah and Philadelphia are statistically indistinguishable at 5v5. The Mammoth generate 52.0% expected goals; the Flyers generate 51.0%. But the Mammoth dominate territorial play—53.0% Corsi compared to Philadelphia's 48.0%—meaning Utah will spend more of this game in Philly's end. Both teams have unusually good PDO (1.003 for Utah, 1.008 for Philly), suggesting both have been fortunate with puck luck, though the edge is marginal.

    Philadelphia enters this matchup in freefall. Over their last 10 games, the Flyers are minus-7 in goal differential—a stretch that speaks to execution failure more than tactical confusion.

    Watch K. Vejmelka. Utah's starter is on the backend of a back-to-back; the Mammoth could deploy a fresh goaltender or take their chances with a fatigued Vejmelka. That decision shapes the math considerably.

    Players to Watch

    • Dylan Guenther (UTA) — 28 goals, 1.02 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals, 16.8% shooting. Prolific and efficient; Philadelphia's secondary defense has their hands full.
    • Daniil But (UTA) — 1.01 xG/60, 2 goals, 1 high-danger goal, 5.6% shooting. His underlying play suggests he's due; a productive night could turn Utah's territorial advantage into goals.
    • Owen Tippett (PHI) — 19 goals, 0.88 xG/60, 2 high-danger goals, 12.1% shooting. His ability to sustain that rate under Utah's territorial pressure is critical to a Flyers upset.
    • Christian Dvorak (PHI) — 12 goals, 0.81 xG/60, 3 high-danger goals, 11.2% shooting. His unsustainably high finishing rate and defensive vulnerabilities could be exposed when Philadelphia chases play on the road.

    Both teams generate zero high-danger goals and zero rebound goals at 5v5, a pattern suggesting both bluelines play conservatively. Utah's defensive weak link is Maveric Lamoureux. Utah will control play. Philadelphia will need to steal a win. At 50%, it's genuinely up for grabs.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    PHI 51%
    50%
    PHI
    Model favorite
    50%
    50%
    UTA50PHI

    PHI by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.4–2.5 PHI; 19% 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 →PHI
    52.0%51.0%
    53.0%48.0%
    2.642.26
    2.392.20
    2.261.96
    1.991.82
    1.0031.008

    UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.008) says PHI has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    UTA
    5-5-0
    +2 GD · 1d rest
    PHI
    4-4-2
    -7 GD · 2d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    1.008
    PHI 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.
    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.
    • The Flyers are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    K. Vejmelka
    back-to-back.920 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.

    PHI
    Expected in goal
    D. Vladar
    2 days rest.935 last start
    Backup Dan Vladar · +13.8 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
    PHI
    Owen Tippett19G 18A
    0.88 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.1% sh
    Christian Dvorak12G 21A
    0.81 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.2% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next