Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Sat, Mar 14 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at UTA

Penguins hold off the Mammoth

FinalSat, Mar 14
PITPittsburgh Penguins4UTAUtah Hockey Club3
The verdict · stolen

The Penguins stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.72–3.53 and won anyway.

PIT 4 · UTA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:12 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

Pittsburgh stole this. The Mammoth dominated the expected-goal battle 3.53–2.72 (56–44%), controlled 56% of shot attempts (29–23 on goal), and held a 6–2 edge in high-danger chances. The Mammoth should have won. They didn't.

The Penguins overperformed their xG by 1.28 goals while the Mammoth's K. Vejmelka underperformed by the same margin. Pittsburgh's S. Skinner was exceptional, posting a +0.53 save quality mark on 26/29 stops. That gap between expectation and result is the margin.

Noel Acciari's snap shot from the doorstep in the third period was the turning point. Pittsburgh converted high-danger chances at a 50% clip (3 of 6), while the Mammoth wasted their advantage in volume. The Mammoth did score twice from low-danger spots, goals the opposing goalie should steal. Goaltending variance and shooting efficiency determined the outcome: Pittsburgh executed in tight space, the Mammoth didn't, and the result was a 4-3 win.

The Penguins were devastating on the rush, converting 4 of 23 chances into goals. The Mammoth scored twice on 29 rush attempts. Both teams found quick scoring opportunities, but Pittsburgh's edge in high-leverage moments ultimately prevailed.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 14
PIT
4
UTA
3

Penguins hold off the Mammoth

Chances 2.7 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
2.72
UTA
3.53
44% of the chances56%

The board read PIT 4, UTA 3. The chances read PIT 2.7, UTA 3.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+1.3
goals above expected
PIT2.72 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA3.53 expected · 3 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 05:06UTAD. Guenther0–1
  2. P1 06:37UTAD. GuentherPP0–2
  3. P2 14:48PITA. ManthaPP1–2
  4. P2 17:26PITT. Novak2–2
  5. P3 01:24PITB. RustPP3–2
  6. P3 04:17UTAI. Cole3–3
  7. P3 08:03PITN. Acciari4–3
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
33 shots
4
Final
80 shots
UTA
47 shots
3
PIT attackUTA attack
PIT UTA Goal
33
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITUTA
3 / 6
1.28 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.45 xG
1 / 8
0.79 xG
Medium
0 / 21
2.41 xG
0 / 28
0.65 xG
Low
2 / 45
0.68 xG

The Penguins buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
S. Skinner
+0.5
PIT · 26/29
D-
K. Vejmelka
−1.3
UTA · 19/23
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins hold off the Mammoth

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 8–12
  1. 05:06UTAD. Guenther0–1
  2. 06:37UTAD. Guentherpower play0–2
2ndshots 5–6
  1. 14:48PITA. Manthapower play(E. Karlsson, E. Chinakhov)1–2
  2. 17:26PITT. Novak(P. Wotherspoon, A. Mantha)2–2
3rdshots 10–11
  1. 01:24PITB. Rustpower play(R. Rakell, E. Chinakhov)3–2
  2. 04:17UTAI. Cole(A. Kerfoot, K. Stenlund)3–3
  3. 08:03PITN. Acciari(P. Wotherspoon, E. Karlsson)4–3

score reads PIT–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
2.72
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.051
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
38.2%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.72Expected goals3.53
UTA 56% of the chance quality
23Shots on goal29
6High-danger chances2
42All attempts (Corsi)68
Adjusted for score: PIT 41% · UTA 59%
Faceoffs · UTA won67%off47%neu54%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT3 / 6 · 1.28 xG
UTA1 / 2 · 0.45 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT1 / 8 · 0.79 xG
UTA0 / 21 · 2.41 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT0 / 28 · 0.65 xG
UTA2 / 45 · 0.68 xG

UTA went 0-for-21 from medium danger on 2.41 expected goals — 2.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
4 G · 2.72 xG · +1.3
UTA
3 G · 3.53 xG · -0.5
012345

PIT finished +1.3 against expected, UTA -0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
SNAP3/20
SLAP0/5
WRIST1/4
TIP IN0/1
BACKHAND0/3
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
UTA
SNAP1/17
SLAP0/12
WRIST1/7
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED1/2
OTHER0/21
PIT
UTA
Off the rush
4 G on 23
2.07 xG
2 G on 29
2.30 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.25 xG
0 G on 2
0.33 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 3-for-20, UTA 1-for-17. PIT scored 4 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. Skinner
PIT · 26/29 · .897
+0.5
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.6
Medium0/212.4+2.4
Low2/450.7-1.3

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 · 19/23 · .826
-1.3
saved above expected
D-
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/61.3-1.7
Medium1/80.8-0.2
Low0/280.7+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

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
33 shots
4
Final
80 shots
UTA
47 shots
3
PIT attackUTA attack
PIT UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT 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
E. Karlsson
#65 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 26:50 on ice · +2
P. Wotherspoon
#28 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:35 on ice · +2
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 20:18 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:09 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 models call this a pick'em: Utah at 53% win probability, projected between 2.5 and 2.7 goals per side. No clear edge emerges from the fundamentals.

Utah wins the territorial battle. Their 53.0% Corsi and 52.0% expected goals eclipse Pittsburgh's 50.0% and 51.0%, meaning the Mammoth will spend more of the game in the offensive zone. Both teams are outperforming their shot metrics (PDO: PIT 1.012, UTA 1.003), a regression waiting to happen.

Rickard Rakell is Pittsburgh's shot engine, generating 1.01 xG per 60 minutes across 13 goals and 13 assists. His 12.1% shooting rate means he's beating the average, not riding variance. Dylan Guenther mirrors Rakell's shot production (1.02 xG/60) but stacks 28 goals and 15 assists on a stunning 16.8% conversion—elite-tier finishing, not luck.

Daniil But projects a secondary threat for Utah: 1.01 xG/60 channeled into just 2 goals and 2 assists, a gap that suggests either sharp variance suppression or a player due for regression. Filip Hallander, Pittsburgh's highest-volume shot creator at 1.28 xG/60, faces uncertain status after recall from the AHL for additional evaluation.

Both sides are remarkably inefficient on secondary chances—0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate—concentrating their threat on prime looks. Utah's possession dominance sets up the framework, but Pittsburgh's shot efficiency could override it. That's why this one stays a true toss-up. Caleb Jones and Maveric Lamoureux represent defensive pressure points either team could exploit.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 53%
53%
UTA
Model favorite
47%
53%
PIT50UTA

UTA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score PIT 2.5–2.7 UTA; 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
PIT← edge
edge →UTA
51.0%52.0%
50.0%53.0%
2.662.64
2.552.39
2.452.26
2.121.99
1.0121.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.012 vs 1.003) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
PIT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
UTA
0-0-0
+0 GD · 0d rest
1.012
PIT 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 drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NHL stats API · our xG
PIT
Filip Hallander0G 3A
1.28 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh
Rickard Rakell13G 13A
1.01 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.1% 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