Mammoth edge the Blue Jackets in overtime
The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.00–3.62 and won anyway.
The underlying story
The Mammoth won 5-4 in overtime, but expected goals (3.62–3.00) suggested a close game with Columbus slightly favored. Utah overperformed their xG by 2.00 goals—either elite finishing or remarkably fortunate bounces.
The Blue Jackets dominated possession: 55% of shot attempts (31–25) and efficiency in the high-danger zone (2 of 4, 50%). Yet Utah was lethal on the rush, converting 5 of 25 chances while Columbus got 3 of 31. That 2-goal differential on the rush accounted for most of Utah's outperformance.
Goaltending reinforced the gap. E. Merzlikins faced 25 shots but allowed 2.00 goals more than expected, posting a 0.800 SV%. K. Vejmelka was superior, stopping 27 of 31 for a 0.871 mark, benefiting from lower-quality chances despite Utah's shot deficit.
Columbus scored twice from low-danger spots—the type of goals a goaltender should stop. Logan Cooley's slap shot from the slot at 02:08 of overtime ended the contest.
The danger ladder
CBJ went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.06 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.
Finishing vs expected
UTA finished +2.0 against expected, CBJ +0.4 — E. Merzlikins (CBJ) allowed 2.0 more goals than expected.
Shot diet
Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-19, CBJ 1-for-17. UTA scored 5 of theirs off the rush.
- E. Merzlikins (CBJ) gave up 2.0 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
- CBJ was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/4 on HD chances (50%).
- UTA was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
- CBJ scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
- CBJ was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 31 rush chances.
- UTA was lethal off the rush — 5 goals on 25 rush chances.
- CBJ created 6 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
- UTA outperformed their expected goals by 2.0 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.