Breakdown · CHI at UTA

Blackhawks steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

Final / OTThu, Mar 12

CHIChicago Blackhawks3 UTAUtah Hockey Club2

The verdict · stolen

The Blackhawks stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.33–5.93 and won anyway.

CHI 3 · UTA 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:58 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

Chicago won 3-2 in overtime despite the Mammoth holding 72% of expected goals. Utah out-shot the Blackhawks 31-23 and created far superior chances. This was theft.

S. Knight stole the show, saving 3.93 goals above expected while stopping all 12 high-danger chances. Utah's problem was not goaltending—it was execution. They generated higher-quality looks (0.078 xG per shot versus Chicago's 0.054) but couldn't convert: 0-for-12 on high-danger chances.

C. Bedard ended it at 03:57 of overtime with a snap shot from the doorstep, finishing with 1G-1A in 23:28. F. Nazar (1G-1A in 16:48) and T. Bertuzzi (1G-1A in 15:31) provided the support.

Utah owned the night but couldn't finish it. They managed only two goals on 39 rush chances and created five rebound opportunities without converting any. K. Vejmelka (0.870 SV%, 20 of 23 saves) underperformed by 0.67 goals expected—he wasn't the problem.

Chicago generated lower-volume danger than their shot count suggested (23 attempts on 2.33 xG) but punished what they had. Utah put up 31 shots on 5.93 xG and left three goals on the ice.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Mar 12

CHI

UTA

Blackhawks steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

Chances 2.3 – 5.9Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

CHI

2.33

UTA

5.93

28% of the chances72%

The board read CHI 3, UTA 2. The chances read CHI 2.3, UTA 5.9.

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

Luck check

CHI

+0.7

goals above expected

CHI2.33 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

UTA5.93 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth left 3.9 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P2 05:47UTAD. Guenther0–1
P3 02:18CHIT. BertuzziPP1–1
P3 09:17CHIF. Nazar2–1
P3 13:45UTAJ. Peterka2–2
OT 03:57CHIC. Bedard3–2

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

Where the shots came from

CHI

31 shots

Final

89 shots

UTA

58 shots

CHI UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 3 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

CHIUTA

3 / 3

0.71 xG

High danger

0 / 12

3.04 xG

0 / 9

1.06 xG

Medium

2 / 22

2.17 xG

0 / 31

0.56 xG

Low

0 / 42

0.72 xG

The Mammoth went 0 for 12 from the slot.

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

In the net

A+

S. Knight

+3.9

CHI · 29/31

K. Vejmelka

−0.7

UTA · 20/23

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Blackhawks steal one from the Mammoth against the run of play

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 4–6no goals

2ndshots 8–7

05:47UTAD. Guenther(L. Cooley, M. Sergachev)0–1

3rdshots 8–13

02:18CHIT. Bertuzzipower play(C. Bedard, F. Nazar)1–1
09:17CHIF. Nazar(T. Teravainen, T. Bertuzzi)2–1
13:45UTAJ. Peterka(M. Carcone)2–2

OTshots 3–5

03:57CHIC. Bedard(A. Vlasic, N. Lardis)3–2

score reads CHI–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

2.33

CHI chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.044

CHI puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

36.1%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.33Expected goals5.93

UTA 72% of the chance quality

23Shots on goal31

3High-danger chances12

43All attempts (Corsi)76

Adjusted for score: CHI 37% · UTA 63%

Faceoffs · UTA won78%off47%neu56%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

CHI3 / 3 · 0.71 xG

UTA0 / 12 · 3.04 xG

Medium dangermid-range

CHI0 / 9 · 1.06 xG

UTA2 / 22 · 2.17 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

CHI0 / 31 · 0.56 xG

UTA0 / 42 · 0.72 xG

UTA went 0-for-12 from high danger on 3.04 expected goals — 3.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

CHI

3 G · 2.33 xG · +0.7

UTA

2 G · 5.93 xG · -3.9

01234567

CHI finished +0.7 against expected, UTA -3.9.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

CHI

SNAP3/22

WRIST0/2

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/1

SLAP0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/12

UTA

SNAP2/24

WRIST0/12

TIP IN0/6

BACKHAND0/7

SLAP0/7

WRAP AROUND0/2

OTHER0/18

CHI

UTA

Off the rush

1 G on 20

1.58 xG

2 G on 39

4.69 xG

Off rebounds

2 G on 2

0.45 xG

0 G on 5

0.75 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 3-for-22, UTA 2-for-24. UTA scored 2 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

S. Knight

CHI · 29/31 · .935

+3.9

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/123.0+3.0

Medium2/222.2+0.2

Low0/420.7+0.7

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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 20/23 · .870

-0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/30.7-2.3

Medium0/91.1+1.1

Low0/310.6+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

89 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

CHI

31 shots

Final

89 shots

UTA

58 shots

CHI UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI left, UTA 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

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 23:28 on ice

F. Nazar

#91 · C · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 16:48 on ice

T. Bertuzzi

#59 · L · CHI

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:31 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 12

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 6:56 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 favors Utah at 61% in a 2.3–2.9 projection, a verdict built on the Mammoth's dominance at 5v5. Utah controls the game in ways that matter.

Start with possession. Utah's 52.0% 5v5 xG% means the Mammoth generate significantly more high-quality shots than Chicago's 42.0%. The Corsi gap widens this picture: 53.0% to 46.0%, indicating Utah dictates where the puck spends time. Chicago's -7 goal differential over their last ten games isn't variance—it's a team getting outplayed. Utah's 6-3-1 record in the same span confirms the opposite.

The luck adjustment is minimal. Chicago's PDO of 0.996 and Utah's 1.003 suggest neither team is running unsustainable hot or cold. That means Utah's underlying edge is durable, not a mirage awaiting regression.

Chicago's path requires precision. Tyler Bertuzzi (0.85 xG/60, 20G, 15A, 7 HD goals, 18.0% shooting) delivers elite finishing—rare air that compensates for low volume. Connor Bedard (0.82 xG/60, 17G, 27A, 5 HD goals, 11.8% shooting) manufactures chances; his assist total exceeds what the expected-goals model predicts, a signature of creation from broken plays.

Utah counters through overwhelming volume. Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28G, 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting) and Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G, 2A, 1 HD goal, 5.6% shooting) both operate at elite efficiency rates. They will punish the territory Chicago surrenders.

The wild card: K. Vejmelka on a back-to-back. Utah's goaltending depth matters if the starter runs thin. But the model absorbs that risk into its 61% projection.

This is a territory game. Utah suffocates through possession; Chicago needs impossible shot-making to steal a result the underlying numbers don't support.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 61%

61%

UTA

Model favorite

39%

61%

CHI50UTA

UTA by 22 points of win probability — a clear lean. Projected score CHI 2.3–2.9 UTA; 17% 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

CHI← edge

edge →UTA

42.0%52.0%

46.0%53.0%

2.172.64

2.942.39

1.842.26

2.411.99

0.9961.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.996 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

CHI

3-5-2

-7 GD · 2d rest

UTA

6-3-1

+3 GD · 1d rest

0.996

CHI PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.003

UTA 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.
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 (6-3-1 in their last 10).
The Blackhawks are underwater at -7 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

CHI

Expected in goal

D. Commesso

2 days rest.920 last start

Backup Spencer Knight · +10.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

back-to-back.833 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.

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

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page