Motion-blurred skater in a Minnesota Wild sweater
Breakdown · UTA at MIN

Wild shut out the Mammoth, 5-0

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 0 · MIN 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:42 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

Utah's 3.08 expected goals and zero goals is the story — Minnesota's goaltending and execution converted a competitive matchup into a shutout.

Minnesota controlled the primary metrics: 60% of 5v5 expected goals (4.53–3.08), 55% of shots (30–25), 8–4 high-danger chances. But Utah generated 3.08 xG, meaning the gap between competitive play and a blowout came down to goaltending and finishing.

F. Gustavsson saved 3.1 goals above expected at 1.000 save percentage on 25 shots. Utah's xG wasn't weak; their execution was. K. Vejmelka faced 30 shots and stopped 25, respectable percentages that couldn't withstand Minnesota's efficiency.

The turning point was Ryan Hartman's backhander from the doorstep (P3, 18:39). Minnesota capitalized on the rush — three goals on 23 chances, a conversion rate Utah never approached. Rebounding efficiency separated them further: Minnesota converted two of five rebound opportunities while Utah's three generated nothing.

Utah underperformed their xG by 3.08 goals, a stark reminder that chance quality doesn't guarantee results. This wasn't a dominant performance; it was Minnesota's goaltending standing in the way of Utah's underlying competitiveness.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 10
UTA
0
MIN
5

Wild shut out the Mammoth, 5-0

Chances 3.1 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Wild earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.08
MIN
4.53
41% of the chances60%

The board read UTA 0, MIN 5. The chances read UTA 3.1, MIN 4.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
MIN
+0.5
goals above expected
MIN4.53 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.08 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth left 3.1 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. P1 14:10MINK. Kaprizov0–1
  2. P2 08:43MINM. Boldy0–2
  3. P3 02:09MINB. Brink0–3
  4. P3 06:09MIND. Yurov0–4
  5. P3 18:39MINR. Hartman0–5
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
42 shots
0
Final
93 shots
MIN
51 shots
5
UTA attackMIN attack
UTA MIN Goal
42
shots · 0 in
51
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAMIN
0 / 4
0.90 xG
High danger
2 / 8
2.05 xG
0 / 13
1.56 xG
Medium
2 / 17
1.84 xG
0 / 40
0.63 xG
Low
1 / 42
0.63 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
F. Gustavsson
+3.1
MIN · 25/25
D
K. Vejmelka
−0.5
UTA · 25/30
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Wild shut out the Mammoth, 5-0

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 7–7
  1. 14:10MINK. Kaprizov(V. Tarasenko)0–1
2ndshots 10–12
  1. 08:43MINM. Boldy(M. Johansson, J. Eriksson Ek)0–2
3rdshots 8–11
  1. 02:09MINB. Brink0–3
  2. 06:09MIND. Yurov(V. Tarasenko, Q. Hughes)0–4
  3. 18:39MINR. Hartman(N. Foligno, K. Kaprizov)0–5

score reads UTA–MIN

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.53
MIN chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.075
MIN puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.0%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.08Expected goals4.53
MIN 60% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal30
4High-danger chances8
57All attempts (Corsi)67
Adjusted for score: UTA 51% · MIN 49%
Faceoffs · MIN won63%off38%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 4 · 0.90 xG
MIN2 / 8 · 2.05 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA0 / 13 · 1.56 xG
MIN2 / 17 · 1.84 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 40 · 0.63 xG
MIN1 / 42 · 0.63 xG

UTA went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.56 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
0 G · 3.08 xG · -3.1
MIN
5 G · 4.53 xG · +0.5
0123456

UTA finished -3.1 against expected, MIN +0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST0/25
SNAP0/7
TIP IN0/4
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND0/1
CRADLE0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/15
MIN
WRIST3/29
SNAP1/6
TIP IN0/6
SLAP0/5
BACKHAND1/3
CRADLE0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/16
UTA
MIN
Off the rush
0 G on 28
2.03 xG
3 G on 23
2.13 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.47 xG
2 G on 5
1.16 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-25, MIN 3-for-29. MIN 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
K. Vejmelka
UTA · 25/30 · .833
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/82.0+0.1
Medium2/171.8-0.2
Low1/420.6-0.4

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

F. Gustavsson
MIN · 25/25 · 1.000
+3.1
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium0/131.6+1.6
Low0/400.6+0.6

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

93 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
42 shots
0
Final
93 shots
MIN
51 shots
5
UTA attackMIN attack
UTA MIN Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, MIN 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
K. Kaprizov
#97 · L · MIN
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 20:45 on ice · +2
V. Tarasenko
#91 · R · MIN
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 14:02 on ice · +3
Q. Hughes
#43 · D · MIN
0 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 23:43 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 10
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:52 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 sees Minnesota at 51% to win—essentially a pick'em. The pregame projection sits at UTA 2.5 MIN 2.6, confirming that neither team projects a meaningful edge.

On paper, these teams are built for a draw. Utah and Minnesota both generate expected goals at 52.0% at 5v5, a signal that puck possession translates equally to both benches. But Utah's territorial advantage is real: they control shot attempts at 53.0% Corsi, while Minnesota sits at 48.0%. That gap—five points of volume—should theoretically push more chances toward the Wild net. Yet both PDOs (1.003 for Utah, 1.007 for Minnesota) sit near neutral, meaning neither has banked unsustainable luck from bounces and goalie performance.

The separation comes down to individual talent and matchups. Dylan Guenther drives Utah's offense at 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, backing a 28-goal, 15-assist season with a 16.8% shooting rate and three high-danger goals. He's the principal offensive weapon Minnesota must account for, and that burden falls on a defense vulnerable through Maveric Lamoureux. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A) occupies the secondary lane, though his 5.6% shooting suggests regression coming.

Minnesota counters with Matt Boldy, a 22-goal threat at 0.89 xG/60 with a more sustainable 13.7% conversion rate and five high-danger tallies. That finishing efficiency—the ratio of real goals to chances created—is the dimension where Boldy outpaces his Utah counterpart. Robby Fabbri rounds out the focus group at 0.88 xG/60, though his 6.9% shooting and minimal touch (2G 3A) suggest he'll operate at the margins. Fabbri is also likely unavailable tonight, marked inactive.

The defensive weak link for Minnesota sits with Matt Kiersted, a structural liability Utah's top six will test repeatedly.

This is what evenness looks like: identical top-line generation (52.0% xG%), offsetting territorial control and luck factors, and two separate scoring hierarchies where neither side commands an obvious advantage. The 51% win probability isn't uncertainty—it's accurate pricing.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

MIN 51%
51%
MIN
Model favorite
49%
51%
UTA50MIN

MIN by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.5–2.6 MIN; 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 →MIN
52.0%52.0%
53.0%48.0%
2.642.55
2.392.40
2.262.04
1.991.93
1.0031.007

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.007) says MIN 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 · 2d rest
MIN
7-2-1
+12 GD · 2d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.007
MIN 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.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
2 days rest.871 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

MIN
Expected in goal
J. Wallstedt
2 days rest.944 last start
Backup Filip Gustavsson · +1.4 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
MIN
Matt Boldy22G 18A
0.89 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Robby Fabbri2G 3A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 6.9% sh
Keep going

Where to next