Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Thu, Mar 19 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at VGK

Mammoth shut out the Golden Knights, 4-0

FinalThu, Mar 19
UTAUtah Hockey Club4VGKVegas Golden Knights0
The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.86–5.13 and won anyway.

UTA 4 · VGK 0
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:00 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

The Golden Knights controlled this game on paper and got humiliated on the scoreboard. Vegas held 57% of expected goals and still lost 4-0—a heist by Utah's standards.

K. Vejmelka made this possible. The Utah goaltender stopped 28 of 28 shots, saving 5.13 goals above expected. He was a wall on high-danger chances, turning away all nine attempts cleanly. A. Hill gave up 2.32 goals more than expected for Vegas, and A. Schmid's 14 saves couldn't reverse the damage.

The Golden Knights' problem wasn't effort—they took 61% of shot attempts (28-18) and generated nine high-danger chances to Utah's five. The problem was finishing. Vegas went 0-for-9 on those prime opportunities. That level of offensive impotence rarely happens, and it proved fatal against Vejmelka's perfect game.

Utah's attack was ruthless on the rush, scoring twice on 20 rush chances. C. Keller led with two goals, while B. Hayton added another goal and an assist. M. Sergachev chipped in with an assist.

Vegas crashed the net effectively—they generated four rebound opportunities—but couldn't convert a single one. The scoreline looked lopsided, but it was really the inverse: Utah was opportunistic while Vegas, despite controlling the play, couldn't execute. That's not how the game usually works.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 19
UTA
4
VGK
0

Mammoth shut out the Golden Knights, 4-0

Chances 3.9 – 5.1Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Golden Knights deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.86
VGK
5.13
43% of the chances57%

The board read UTA 4, VGK 0. The chances read UTA 3.9, VGK 5.1.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.1
goals above expected
UTA3.86 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
VGK5.13 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Golden Knights left 5.1 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 02:52UTAC. Keller1–0
  2. P1 06:05UTAC. Keller2–0
  3. P1 08:12UTAJ. McBain3–0
  4. P3 19:12UTAB. HaytonEN4–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
29 shots
4
Final
85 shots
VGK
56 shots
0
UTA attackVGK attack
UTA VGK Goal
29
shots · 4 in
56
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTAVGK
1 / 5
2.35 xG
High danger
0 / 9
2.15 xG
3 / 10
1.09 xG
Medium
0 / 19
2.34 xG
0 / 27
0.42 xG
Low
0 / 38
0.64 xG

The Golden Knights went 0 for 9 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
K. Vejmelka
+5.1
UTA · 28/28
A+
A. Schmid
+3.9
VGK · 14/14
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth shut out the Golden Knights, 4-0

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. 02:52UTAC. Keller(J. Marino, N. Schmidt)1–0
  2. 06:05UTAC. Keller(L. Crouse, N. Schmaltz)2–0
  3. 08:12UTAJ. McBain(B. Hayton, M. Sergachev)3–0
2ndshots 9–11no goals
    3rdshots 2–10
    1. 19:12UTAB. Haytonempty net(K. Stenlund)4–0

    score reads UTA–VGK

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    3.86
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.1
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.095
    UTA puck luck
    Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
    38.9%
    Shot attempts
    Under half — they were outshot
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    3.86Expected goals5.13
    VGK 57% of the chance quality
    18Shots on goal28
    5High-danger chances9
    42All attempts (Corsi)66
    Adjusted for score: UTA 32% · VGK 68%
    Faceoffs · VGK won62%off50%neu39%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    UTA1 / 5 · 2.35 xG
    VGK0 / 9 · 2.15 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    UTA3 / 10 · 1.09 xG
    VGK0 / 19 · 2.34 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    UTA0 / 27 · 0.42 xG
    VGK0 / 38 · 0.64 xG

    VGK went 0-for-19 from medium danger on 2.34 expected goals — 2.3 left on the table.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    UTA
    4 G · 3.86 xG · +0.1
    VGK
    0 G · 5.13 xG · -5.1
    0123456

    UTA finished +0.1 against expected, VGK -5.1.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    UTA
    WRIST3/17
    SLAP0/6
    SNAP1/5
    TIP IN0/1
    BACKHAND0/0
    DEFLECTED0/0
    OTHER0/13
    VGK
    WRIST0/23
    SLAP0/12
    SNAP0/8
    TIP IN0/6
    BACKHAND0/6
    DEFLECTED0/1
    OTHER0/10
    UTA
    VGK
    Off the rush
    2 G on 20
    1.70 xG
    0 G on 27
    3.29 xG
    Off rebounds
    1 G on 1
    0.14 xG
    0 G on 4
    0.70 xG

    Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-17, VGK 0-for-23. 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
    K. Vejmelka
    UTA · 28/28 · 1.000
    +5.1
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger0/92.1+2.1
    Medium0/192.3+2.3
    Low0/380.6+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

    A. Hill
    VGK · 0/3 · .000
    +0.9
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/52.4+1.4
    Medium3/101.1-1.9
    Low0/270.4+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

    A. Schmid
    VGK · 14/14 · 1.000
    +3.9
    saved above expected
    A+
    the night
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/52.4+1.4
    Medium3/101.1-1.9
    Low0/270.4+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

    85 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    UTA
    29 shots
    4
    Final
    85 shots
    VGK
    56 shots
    0
    UTA attackVGK attack
    UTA VGK Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, VGK 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. Keller
    #9 · R · UTA
    2 G · 0 A · 6 SOG · 14:26 on ice · +2
    B. Hayton
    #27 · C · UTA
    1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 14:01 on ice · +2
    M. Sergachev
    #98 · D · UTA
    0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 22:44 on ice · +1
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    What the model said beforehand

    Before the game

    Written Thu, Mar 19
    Open the pre-game read
    Written from the numbers

    The read

    Edited for clarity
    ◆ By the ModelJul 12, 7:58 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 calls this a true pick'em: projected to 2.4–2.6 goals either way, with Vegas at 54% win probability. Utah has run hot—5-3-2 in the last 10—while Vegas has collapsed to -5 goal differential over the same span.

    Vegas leads in expected goals (54.0% xG), meaning they're generating cleaner chances. Utah's edge is possession-based—53.0% Corsi%—which often doesn't translate to goals. Expected goals predict future scoring better than raw shot volume does. Vegas's PDO sits at 0.983, indicating they're running cold and due for positive regression. Utah's 1.003 PDO means they're in line with their underlying talent level.

    A. Hill draws the start on a back-to-back—watch for a backup or a tired starter, since goaltending fatigue tilts games more than most stats capture.

    Utah's offense hinges on Dylan Guenther, whose 1.02 xG per 60 is elite. His 28 goals, 3 high-danger chances, and 16.8% shooting rate prove he's not riding variance. Daniil But is a riddle: 1.01 xG per 60 with only 2 goals and 5.6% conversion. Vegas counters with Brandon Saad at 3 goals on 4.1% shooting—underperforming—and Tomas Hertl, who has 5 goals and 17 assists on 1 high-danger chance and 0.88 xG per 60. Hertl dominates distribution.

    Both teams oddly sit at 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate. More relevant: Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's defensive weak link; Rasmus Andersson is Vegas's. Whichever team exploits its opponent's back line first likely wins.

    What the model said beforehand

    The model's lean

    VGK 54%
    53%
    VGK
    Model favorite
    47%
    53%
    UTA50VGK

    VGK by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.4–2.6 VGK; 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 →VGK
    52.0%54.0%
    53.0%52.0%
    2.642.52
    2.392.11
    2.262.12
    1.992.10
    1.0030.983

    UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.983) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

    Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
    Form · Last 10
    UTA
    5-3-2
    -1 GD · 2d rest
    VGK
    3-7-0
    -5 GD · 1d rest
    1.003
    UTA PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    0.983
    VGK PDO
    Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
    What decides it

    Keys to the game

    Regression watch
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Things to watch
    • A. Hill is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
    • The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (5-3-2 in their last 10).
    • The Golden Knights are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
    • The Golden Knights' PDO is 0.983 — running cold, due for positive regression.
    Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

    Lineups

    NHL box score
    UTA
    Expected in goal
    V. Vanecek
    2 days rest.900 last start
    Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

    No completed game on file for this club yet.

    VGK
    Expected in goal
    A. Hill
    back-to-back.958 last start
    Backup Akira Schmid · -1.0 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
    VGK
    Brandon Saad3G 6A
    0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
    Tomas Hertl5G 17A
    0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page