Motion-blurred skater in a red sweater
Breakdown · UTA at CHI

Blackhawks edge the Mammoth in overtime

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 2 · CHI 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:30 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

High-danger chances split 4–4, yet Chicago won 3–2. The Blackhawks' edge wasn't in chance volume—it was in goaltending. D. Commesso posted a 0.920 save percentage, stopping 1.07 goals above expected. V. Vanecek (0.885 SV%, 0.79 above expected) kept Utah in range but couldn't match.

The underlying metrics backed Chicago's win: 55% of expected goals (3.79–3.07) and 51% of shot attempts. But equal high-danger chances (4–4) meant both teams had legitimate scoring opportunities. Utah underperformed their 3.07 xG by 1.07 goals; Chicago underperformed their 3.79 xG by 0.79 goals. Commesso's advantage converted that into a win.

On rush chances, the Blackhawks scored 3 of 23 times; Utah scored 2 of 28. Frank Nazar ended it at 02:36 of overtime with a wrist shot from the high slot.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 9
UTA
2
CHI
3

Blackhawks edge the Mammoth in overtime

Chances 3.1 – 3.8Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blackhawks earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.07
CHI
3.79
45% of the chances55%

The board read UTA 2, CHI 3. The chances read UTA 3.1, CHI 3.8.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
CHI
−0.8
goals above expected
CHI3.79 expected · 3 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.07 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 09:43UTAB. Hayton1–0
  2. P1 13:46CHIA. Mangiapane1–1
  3. P1 16:26UTAD. Guenther2–1
  4. P2 15:35CHIA. Burakovsky2–2
  5. OT 02:36CHIF. NazarPP2–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
37 shots
2
Final
81 shots
CHI
44 shots
3
UTA attackCHI attack
UTA CHI Goal
37
shots · 2 in
44
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTACHI
1 / 4
1.04 xG
High danger
0 / 4
0.99 xG
1 / 18
1.61 xG
Medium
2 / 18
2.18 xG
0 / 32
0.41 xG
Low
1 / 32
0.62 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 1 of 4, CHI 0 of 4.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
D. Commesso
+1.1
CHI · 23/25
B+
V. Vanecek
+0.8
UTA · 23/26
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blackhawks edge the Mammoth 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 6–8
  1. 09:43UTAB. Hayton(N. DeSimone, I. Cole)1–0
  2. 13:46CHIA. Mangiapane(R. Donato, I. Mikheyev)1–1
  3. 16:26UTAD. Guenther(C. Keller, N. Schmaltz)2–1
2ndshots 9–11
  1. 15:35CHIA. Burakovsky(C. Bedard, R. Greene)2–2
3rdshots 8–6no goals
    OTshots 2–1
    1. 02:36CHIF. Nazarpower play(T. Teravainen, C. Bedard)2–3

    score reads UTA–CHI

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.79
    CHI chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    −0.8
    Finishing
    Goals below what those chances were worth
    1.018
    CHI puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.07Expected goals3.79
    CHI 55% of the chance quality
    25Shots on goal26
    4High-danger chances4
    54All attempts (Corsi)54
    Adjusted for score: UTA 49% · CHI 52%
    Faceoffs · CHI won56%off50%neu53%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA1 / 4 · 1.04 xG
    CHI0 / 4 · 0.99 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA1 / 18 · 1.61 xG
    CHI2 / 18 · 2.18 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 32 · 0.41 xG
    CHI1 / 32 · 0.62 xG

    CHI went 0-for-4 from high danger on 0.99 expected goals — 1.0 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    2 G · 3.07 xG · -1.1
    CHI
    3 G · 3.79 xG · -0.8
    012345

    UTA finished -1.1 against expected, CHI -0.8.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST1/25
    SLAP0/4
    BACKHAND0/4
    SNAP0/2
    TIP IN1/2
    DEFLECTED0/0
    CRADLE0/0
    OTHER0/17
    CHI
    WRIST1/26
    SLAP0/6
    BACKHAND0/4
    SNAP0/4
    TIP IN0/2
    DEFLECTED1/1
    CRADLE1/1
    OTHER0/10
    UTA
    CHI
    Off the rush
    2 G on 28
    2.57 xG
    3 G on 23
    2.25 xG
    Off rebounds
    0 G on 1
    0.10 xG
    0 G on 3
    0.61 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-25, CHI 1-for-26. CHI 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
    V. Vanecek
    UTA · 23/26 · .885
    +0.8
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/41.0+1.0
    Medium2/182.2+0.2
    Low1/320.6-0.4

    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

    D. Commesso
    CHI · 23/25 · .920
    +1.1
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/41.0+0.0
    Medium1/181.6+0.6
    Low0/320.4+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

    81 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    37 shots
    2
    Final
    81 shots
    CHI
    44 shots
    3
    UTA attackCHI attack
    UTA CHI Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, CHI 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
    C. Bedard
    #98 · C · CHI
    0 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 21:06 on ice · +1
    R. Greene
    #20 · C · CHI
    0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 21:15 on ice · +1
    I. Cole
    #28 · D · UTA
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 20:50 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Mon, Mar 9
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:27 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

    Utah's expected-goals advantage should be decisive. The model projects a UTA 2.8 - 2.4 CHI result with the Mammoth favored at 57% win probability—a verdict built on territory control and shot quality, not variance.

    The underlying numbers overwhelmingly favor Utah. At 5v5, the Mammoth hold a 52.0% xG share and a 53.0% Corsi mark, indicating persistent territorial advantage and more dangerous attempts. Chicago sits at 42.0% xG and 46.0% Corsi—a double-digit gap in both metrics that signals a team being systematically outworked at volume and placement. These are structural advantages, not close calls.

    Utah's recent form amplifies the gap. Over the last 10 games, the Mammoth are 6-4-0, a pace that wins divisions. Chicago sits at -12 goal differential over the same stretch, evidence that neither puck luck nor execution is cooperating. When possession dominance meets directional form, the gap compounds.

    Goaltending introduces randomness. Both A. Soderblom and K. Vejmelka face back-to-back scheduling, creating backup-start or tired-starter risk for each side. This volatility could tighten or widen Utah's edge depending on who starts.

    Dylan Guenther is Utah's offensive engine: 1.02 xG/60, 28 goals, 16.8% shooting rate—elite finish on elite volume. Chicago cannot neutralize him; the best the defense can do is contain supporting play. Daniil But at 1.01 xG/60 carries positive-regression risk with only 2 goals on 5.6% shooting, meaning additional volume could unlock production. Expect these two to see high volume against Chicago's weak link, Maveric Lamoureux.

    Chicago's counteroffensive is insufficient. Tyler Bertuzzi generates 0.85 xG/60 with 20 goals and 18.0% shooting—respectable, not elite. Connor Bedard's 0.82 xG/60 reflects efficient finishing at 11.8% but on limited volume; neither scales to Guenther's threat. The volume asymmetry is decisive.

    The model reads Utah's structural advantage as overwhelming. The underlying play—the xG share, the Corsi dominance, the recent trajectory—aligns with the 57% projection. Chicago has elite finishing to draw from, but Utah's territorial control should determine the game.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    UTA 57%
    57%
    UTA
    Model favorite
    57%
    43%
    UTA50CHI

    UTA by 14 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.8–2.4 CHI; 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 →CHI
    52.0%42.0%
    53.0%46.0%
    2.642.17
    2.392.94
    2.261.84
    1.992.41
    1.0030.996

    UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.996) 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
    CHI
    2-6-2
    -12 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.996
    CHI PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Where the edges live
    • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    Things to watch
    • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 42.0%.
    • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
    • A. Soderblom is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (6-4-0 in their last 10).
    • The Blackhawks are underwater at -12 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.871 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.

    CHI
    Expected in goal
    A. Soderblom
    back-to-back.871 last start
    Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 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.

    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
    CHI
    Tyler Bertuzzi20G 15A
    0.85 xG/60 · 7 HD · 18.0% sh
    Connor Bedard17G 27A
    0.82 xG/60 · 5 HD · 11.8% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next