Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
Breakdown · LAK at UTA

Mammoth edge the Kings in overtime

The verdict · coin flip

The Mammoth won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

LAK 3 · UTA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:30 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

The Mammoth defeated the Kings 4–3 in overtime, surviving a game where the underlying metrics suggested a dead heat. Expected goals split 4.33–4.33, a perfectly even split—yet the Kings scored just three.

K. Vejmelka's brilliance made the difference. The Mammoth netminder saved 1.33 goals above expected, posting a 0.917 SV% on 33 of 36 shots. On high-danger chances specifically, he was perfect: 100% on 8 shots. D. Kuemper, meanwhile, allowed a 0.882 SV% (30/34) for the Kings—the Kings' underperformance (−1.33 xG) was almost entirely chance variance, not volume.

The Mammoth held 49% of shot attempts (34–36 on goal) and 9–8 in high-danger chances—marginal edges that wouldn't explain an overtime win. But the Kings' execution abandoned them when it mattered: 0 for 8 on high-danger chances. The Mammoth found their edge on the rush, converting 2 of 24 chances. The Kings also converted 2 rushes—on 29 attempts—a statistical tie that masked a timing problem.

N. Schmaltz ended it at 01:46 of overtime with a snap shot from a sharp angle, the final blow to a Kings team that had created opportunities but couldn't convert them into goals.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · OT · Mar 22
LAK
3
UTA
4

Mammoth edge the Kings in overtime

Chances 4.3 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
LAK
4.33
UTA
4.33
50% of the chances50%

The board read LAK 3, UTA 4. The chances read LAK 4.3, UTA 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−0.3
goals above expected
UTA4.33 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
LAK4.33 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 07:04UTAL. Crouse0–1
  2. P1 07:40LAKA. Laferriere1–1
  3. P1 09:19UTAL. Crouse1–2
  4. P1 09:47LAKQ. Byfield2–2
  5. P2 16:11UTAN. Schmaltz2–3
  6. P3 16:30LAKA. Panarin3–3
  7. OT 01:46UTAN. Schmaltz3–4
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
LAK
57 shots
3
Final
104 shots
UTA
47 shots
4
LAK attackUTA attack
LAK UTA Goal
57
shots · 3 in
47
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
LAKUTA
0 / 8
1.74 xG
High danger
3 / 9
2.22 xG
2 / 19
1.99 xG
Medium
1 / 13
1.46 xG
1 / 52
0.60 xG
Low
0 / 40
0.66 xG

The Kings went 0 for 8 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.3
UTA · 33/36
B
D. Kuemper
+0.3
LAK · 30/34
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth edge the Kings 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 12–15
  1. 07:04UTAL. Crouse(J. Marino)0–1
  2. 07:40LAKA. Laferriere(Q. Byfield)1–1
  3. 09:19UTAL. Crouse(A. Kerfoot, K. Stenlund)1–2
  4. 09:47LAKQ. Byfield2–2
2ndshots 10–6
  1. 16:11UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller, L. Crouse)2–3
3rdshots 14–12
  1. 16:30LAKA. Panarin(D. Doughty)3–3
OTshots 0–1
  1. 01:46UTAN. Schmaltz(M. Sergachev, K. Stenlund)3–4

score reads LAK–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.33
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.3
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.026
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
44.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.33Expected goals4.33
UTA 50% of the chance quality
36Shots on goal34
8High-danger chances9
79All attempts (Corsi)62
Adjusted for score: LAK 57% · UTA 43%
Faceoffs · UTA won31%off40%neu58%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
LAK0 / 8 · 1.74 xG
UTA3 / 9 · 2.22 xG
Medium dangermid-range
LAK2 / 19 · 1.99 xG
UTA1 / 13 · 1.46 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
LAK1 / 52 · 0.60 xG
UTA0 / 40 · 0.66 xG

LAK went 0-for-8 from high danger on 1.74 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
LAK
3 G · 4.33 xG · -1.3
UTA
4 G · 4.33 xG · -0.3
012345

LAK finished -1.3 against expected, UTA -0.3.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
LAK
SNAP2/29
WRIST1/11
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/7
BACKHAND0/3
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
BAT0/0
OTHER0/22
UTA
SNAP3/27
WRIST0/6
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
POKE0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
BAT1/1
OTHER0/15
LAK
UTA
Off the rush
2 G on 29
2.84 xG
2 G on 24
2.33 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 7
1.02 xG
1 G on 5
0.84 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: LAK went 2-for-29, UTA 3-for-27. LAK 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
D. Kuemper
LAK · 30/34 · .882
+0.3
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger3/92.2-0.8
Medium1/131.5+0.5
Low0/400.7+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 · 33/36 · .917
+1.3
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/81.7+1.7
Medium2/192.0-0.0
Low1/520.6-0.4

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

104 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
LAK
57 shots
3
Final
104 shots
UTA
47 shots
4
LAK attackUTA attack
LAK UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — LAK 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
L. Crouse
#67 · L · UTA
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 17:41 on ice · +1
Q. Byfield
#55 · R · LAK
1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:01 on ice
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
2 G · 0 A · 7 SOG · 15:59 on ice · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sun, Mar 22
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:29 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 projects a 2.4-2.5 game with the Mammoth at 52% win probability — this matchup defies prediction. Both teams are matched across every meaningful dimension.

Their 5v5 metrics are nearly identical: both at 52.0% xG%, the Kings at 52.0% Corsi% and Utah at 53.0%, PDO values of 1.002 and 1.003 respectively. Neither team has seized underlying advantage. When the numbers split this evenly, variance takes over.

Both V. Vanecek and A. Forsberg are on back-to-backs, which means either team faces potential fatigue — a backup start, or a starter running on empty at a critical moment.

Alex Laferriere is the Kings' primary scoring threat: 16 goals on 0.87 xG/60 suggests he's efficiently converting chances, backed by 2 high-danger goals and a 9.9% shooting rate that should hold. Jared Wright has generated 0.83 xG/60 without scoring (0G, 4A), which means whether he produces will shape the Kings' ceiling tonight.

Utah's Dylan Guenther operates at another tier: 28 goals at 1.02 xG/60, with 3 high-danger goals and a 16.8% shooting rate. He's both generating elite volume and finishing at an elite rate — a rare pairing. Daniil But adds 1.01 xG/60 (2G, 5.6% shooting, 1 high-danger goal), indicating Utah has secondary scoring depth even if But's goal total lags his shot quality.

Los Angeles's defensive liability is Adrian Kempe; Utah's is Maveric Lamoureux. In a game this close, defensive matchup exposure becomes the deciding margin.

Both teams face a task: the Kings must contain Guenther, Utah must focus on Laferriere. Both teams also carry identical statistical anomalies — 0% high-danger goal rate and 0% rebound goal rate — that may or may not repeat.

This is a genuine coin flip masquerading as hockey.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 52%
52%
UTA
Model favorite
48%
52%
LAK50UTA

UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score LAK 2.4–2.5 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
LAK← edge
edge →UTA
52.0%52.0%
52.0%53.0%
2.422.64
2.202.39
1.852.26
1.711.99
1.0021.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.002 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
LAK
4-4-2
-3 GD · 1d rest
UTA
5-3-2
+1 GD · 1d rest
1.002
LAK PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch
  • V. Vanecek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • A. Forsberg is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
LAK
Expected in goal
A. Forsberg
back-to-back.938 last start
Backup Darcy Kuemper · -5.8 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.

UTA
Expected in goal
V. Vanecek
back-to-back.909 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
LAK
Alex Laferriere16G 18A
0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh
Jared Wright0G 4A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% 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