Backcheck
Recap · UTA at CBJ

Mammoth edge the Blue Jackets in overtime

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

By the ModelJul 12, 6:52 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
5
Home
CBJ
Columbus Blue Jackets
4
FINAL / OT
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.00Expected goals3.62
55% share for the better side
25Shot attempts (SOG)31
5High-danger chances4
52Corsi (all attempts)74
Score-adjusted: 39% / 61%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

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.

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
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
-0.4
E. MerzlikinsCBJ
-2.0

UTA finished +2.0 against expected, CBJ +0.4 — E. Merzlikins (CBJ) allowed 2.0 more goals than expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
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
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Severson
#78 · D · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:14 TOI · +1
A. Fantilli
#19 · C · CBJ
1 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 20:04 TOI · +2
K. Marchenko
#86 · R · CBJ
0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 19:58 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • 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.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at CBJ · 7:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Blue Jackets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 6:03 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
CBJ
Model favorite
48%
52%
UTA50CBJ

CBJ by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.52.6 CBJ; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

UTA← edge
edge →CBJ
52.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
53.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.64xGF / 602.63
2.39xGA / 602.43
2.26Goals for / gm2.12
1.99Goals against / gm1.98
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

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.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters