Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at CBJ

Mammoth edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Final / OTSat, Mar 7

UTAUtah Hockey Club5 CBJColumbus Blue Jackets4

The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.00–3.62 and won anyway.

UTA 5 · CBJ 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:52 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 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 breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Mar 7

UTA

CBJ

Mammoth edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

Chances 3.0 – 3.6Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Blue Jackets deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

3.00

CBJ

3.62

45% of the chances55%

The board read UTA 5, CBJ 4. The chances read UTA 3.0, CBJ 3.6.

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

Luck check

UTA

+2.0

goals above expected

UTA3.00 expected · 5 scored

Expected

Scored

CBJ3.62 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth scored 2.0 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 07:25UTAM. Carcone1–0
P1 19:25CBJD. Severson1–1
P2 12:12UTAD. Guenther2–1
P2 16:03CBJM. Olivier2–2
P3 03:00UTAA. Kerfoot3–2
P3 04:54UTAL. Cooley4–2
P3 13:38CBJA. Fantilli4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

40 shots

Final

87 shots

CBJ

47 shots

UTA CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTACBJ

2 / 5

1.26 xG

High danger

2 / 4

0.95 xG

2 / 12

1.24 xG

Medium

0 / 19

2.06 xG

1 / 35

0.50 xG

Low

2 / 51

0.61 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

K. Vejmelka

−0.4

UTA · 27/31

E. Merzlikins

−2.0

CBJ · 20/25

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

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 11–6

07:25UTAM. Carcone(K. Stenlund, A. Kerfoot)1–0
19:25CBJD. Severson(C. Coyle, M. Olivier)1–1

2ndshots 5–11

12:12UTAD. Guenther(C. Keller, N. DeSimone)2–1
16:03CBJM. Olivier(C. Coyle, D. Severson)2–2

3rdshots 8–13

03:00UTAA. Kerfoot(M. Carcone, M. Weegar)3–2
04:54UTAL. Cooley(L. Crouse, I. Cole)4–2
13:38CBJA. Fantilli(M. Marchment, K. Marchenko)4–3
14:08CBJM. Marchment(K. Marchenko, A. Fantilli)4–4

OTshots 1–1

02:08UTAL. Cooley(C. Keller, J. Marino)5–4

score reads UTA–CBJ

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.00

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.0

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.042

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

41.3%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.00Expected goals3.62

CBJ 55% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal31

5High-danger chances4

52All attempts (Corsi)74

Adjusted for score: UTA 39% · CBJ 61%

Faceoffs · CBJ won61%off57%neu39%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA2 / 5 · 1.26 xG

CBJ2 / 4 · 0.95 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA2 / 12 · 1.24 xG

CBJ0 / 19 · 2.06 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 35 · 0.50 xG

CBJ2 / 51 · 0.61 xG

CBJ went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.06 expected goals — 2.1 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

5 G · 3.00 xG · +2.0

CBJ

4 G · 3.62 xG · +0.4

0123456

UTA finished +2.0 against expected, CBJ +0.4.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST1/19

SNAP1/9

BACKHAND1/4

SLAP1/3

TIP IN1/4

DEFLECTED0/1

OTHER0/12

CBJ

WRIST1/17

SNAP0/12

BACKHAND2/9

SLAP1/6

TIP IN0/3

DEFLECTED0/0

OTHER0/27

UTA

CBJ

Off the rush

5 G on 25

2.37 xG

3 G on 31

2.44 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 2

0.42 xG

1 G on 6

0.60 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-19, CBJ 1-for-17. UTA scored 5 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 · 27/31 · .871

-0.4

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/40.9-1.1

Medium0/192.1+2.1

Low2/510.6-1.4

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

E. Merzlikins

CBJ · 20/25 · .800

-2.0

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.3-0.7

Medium2/121.2-0.8

Low1/350.5-0.5

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

40 shots

Final

87 shots

CBJ

47 shots

UTA CBJ GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, CBJ 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. Severson

#78 · D · CBJ

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:14 on ice · +1

A. Fantilli

#19 · C · CBJ

1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:04 on ice · +2

K. Marchenko

#86 · R · CBJ

0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 19:58 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:03 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 2.5–2.6 game with Columbus at 52% win probability. This is a coin flip, confirmed by the underlying numbers: both teams generate identical expected goals at 52.0% xG%, Utah holds a marginal possession edge (53.0% Corsi% to 51.0%), and both register exactly 1.003 PDO. Talent is matched. Form will decide it.

Columbus has a genuine advantage there. An 8-1-1 record over the last ten games puts the Blue Jackets' momentum in a different stratosphere from Utah's recent pace. In a tight matchup, that matters.

Goaltending hands neither side an edge. Both J. Greaves and V. Vanecek are on back-to-backs, which means either fatigue or a backup start—too close to call. Whoever takes the net fresher steals a marginal advantage.

Players to Watch

UTA: Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting) generates chances at an elite rate; Utah's conversion lags behind his volume. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goal, 5.6% shooting) is running at a massive discount to his expected production, regression waiting to happen.

CBJ: Boone Jenner (0.98 xG/60, 11G 21A, 2 HD goals, 9.6% shooting) drives Columbus's entire offensive system. Mathieu Olivier (0.89 xG/60, 12G 9A, 1 HD goal, 13.3% shooting) outperforms his expected-goal rate significantly, converting opportunities metrics say he shouldn't.

The structural weakness cuts both ways: neither team generates high-danger chances at scale (0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate for both). Guenther and Jenner carry their respective offensive burdens, but neither is converting at sustainable rates. Utah's Maveric Lamoureux and Columbus's Conor Garland are defensive liabilities—the team limiting their opposite number's ice time gains separation.

Columbus's form wins the tiebreaker, but only barely. This game will be decided by execution, not talent. The Blue Jackets have the edge.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 52%

52%

CBJ

Model favorite

48%

52%

UTA50CBJ

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.6 CBJ; 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 →CBJ

52.0%52.0%

53.0%51.0%

2.642.63

2.392.43

2.262.12

1.991.98

1.0031.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 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

UTA

6-4-0

+7 GD · 1d rest

CBJ

8-1-1

+14 GD · 1d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

CBJ PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

J. Greaves is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
V. Vanecek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Blue Jackets are the hotter team by points pace (8-1-1 in their last 10).

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

V. Vanecek

back-to-back1.000 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.

CBJ

Expected in goal

J. Greaves

back-to-back.929 last start

Backup Jet Greaves · +16.5 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

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

CBJ

Boone Jenner11G 21A

0.98 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.6% sh

Mathieu Olivier12G 9A

0.89 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.3% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page