Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Edmonton Oilers sweater
← Tue, Mar 24 · the slate
Breakdown · EDM at UTA

Oilers run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalTue, Mar 24
EDMEdmonton Oilers5UTAUtah Hockey Club2
The verdict · earned

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

EDM 5 · UTA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:49 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

K. Vejmelka's breakdown decided this game before the final siren. The Mammoth goalie surrendered 1.63 more goals than expected, turning what could have been competitive into a 5-2 rout. Edmonton's dominance in underlying numbers—61% of expected goals at 5v5 (3.95–2.56)—was even more severe than the scoreline suggested.

The Oilers suffocated Utah through sheer shot quality. Edmonton averaged 0.064 expected goals per shot; Utah managed just 0.043. That gap is the difference between sustained pressure and desperation.

Utah's V. Vanecek provided unexpected cover, saving 1.58 goals above expected despite 10 minutes of work. T. Jarry's +0.56 wasn't comparable, giving Utah the goaltending edge—a small mercy against Edmonton's dominance.

Connor McDavid's wrist shot from the slot proved decisive, arriving late in the third when the outcome was certain. By then, Edmonton's 26 shot attempts to Utah's 18 had already decided the game. The Oilers' 7 high-danger chances to 4 reflected the gap in execution.

Edmonton converted 3 of 21 rush chances. Utah had 3 rebound opportunities and converted none. That's the difference between a team that dictates and one that survives.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 24
EDM
5
UTA
2

Oilers run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.0 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Oilers earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
EDM
3.95
UTA
2.56
61% of the chances39%

The board read EDM 5, UTA 2. The chances read EDM 4.0, UTA 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
EDM
+1.1
goals above expected
EDM3.95 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA2.56 expected · 2 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 11:12UTAA. Kerfoot0–1
  2. P1 14:27EDMJ. Roslovic1–1
  3. P2 11:24EDMM. SavoieSH2–1
  4. P2 11:59UTAL. CrousePP2–2
  5. P2 12:07EDMC. McDavid3–2
  6. P2 15:04EDMJ. Roslovic4–2
  7. P3 19:52EDMC. McDavidEN5–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
EDM
42 shots
5
Final
75 shots
UTA
33 shots
2
EDM attackUTA attack
EDM UTA Goal
42
shots · 5 in
33
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
EDMUTA
2 / 7
2.21 xG
High danger
1 / 4
0.93 xG
2 / 8
1.01 xG
Medium
0 / 10
1.10 xG
1 / 47
0.73 xG
Low
1 / 45
0.53 xG

The Oilers buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
V. Vanecek
+4.0
UTA · 10/10
B
T. Jarry
+0.6
EDM · 16/18
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Oilers run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

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 8–3
  1. 11:12UTAA. Kerfoot(S. Durzi, I. Cole)0–1
  2. 14:27EDMJ. Roslovic(J. Walman, R. Nugent-Hopkins)1–1
2ndshots 7–7
  1. 11:24EDMM. Savoieshorthanded(E. Bouchard, A. Henrique)2–1
  2. 11:59UTAL. Crousepower play(M. Carcone, M. Weegar)2–2
  3. 12:07EDMC. McDavid(M. Ekholm, E. Bouchard)3–2
  4. 15:04EDMJ. Roslovic(Z. Hyman, E. Bouchard)4–2
3rdshots 11–8
  1. 19:52EDMC. McDavidempty net5–2

score reads EDM–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.95
EDM chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.1
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.047
EDM puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
51.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.95Expected goals2.56
EDM 61% of the chance quality
26Shots on goal18
7High-danger chances4
62All attempts (Corsi)59
Adjusted for score: EDM 48% · UTA 52%
Faceoffs · UTA won50%off52%neu53%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
EDM2 / 7 · 2.21 xG
UTA1 / 4 · 0.93 xG
Medium dangermid-range
EDM2 / 8 · 1.01 xG
UTA0 / 10 · 1.10 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
EDM1 / 47 · 0.73 xG
UTA1 / 45 · 0.53 xG

UTA went 0-for-10 from medium danger on 1.10 expected goals — 1.1 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
EDM
5 G · 3.95 xG · +1.1
UTA
2 G · 2.56 xG · -0.6
0123456

EDM finished +1.1 against expected, UTA -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
EDM
SNAP0/12
WRIST5/15
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/20
UTA
SNAP2/15
WRIST0/5
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/2
POKE0/0
OTHER0/26
EDM
UTA
Off the rush
3 G on 21
2.92 xG
1 G on 22
1.60 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.25 xG
0 G on 3
0.56 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: EDM went 0-for-12, UTA 2-for-15. EDM 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
T. Jarry
EDM · 16/18 · .889
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/40.9-0.1
Medium0/101.1+1.1
Low1/450.5-0.5

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

V. Vanecek
UTA · 10/10 · 1.000
+4.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.2+0.2
Medium2/81.0-1.0
Low1/470.7-0.3

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 · 11/15 · .733
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/72.2+0.2
Medium2/81.0-1.0
Low1/470.7-0.3

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

75 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
EDM
42 shots
5
Final
75 shots
UTA
33 shots
2
EDM attackUTA attack
EDM UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — EDM 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. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 23:04 on ice · +4
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 20:42 on ice · +2
J. Roslovic
#28 · C · EDM
2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 15:44 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Mar 24
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 8:48 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 cannot pick a winner. Edmonton and Utah both sit at 52.0% expected goals at five-on-five, yet the Mammoth hold a 53% win probability. The predictive spread—2.5 to 2.7 goals in Utah's favor—is about as close to even odds as projection gets.

Why This Is a Coin Flip

The Oilers are running cold. Over their last 10 games, Edmonton sits at -8 in goal differential—a gap that badly underperforms their underlying production. Their 0.982 PDO betrays the real problem: they're shooting below their expected generation and getting nothing from their goaltending. Regression toward the mean is owed.

Utah controls the ice. The Mammoth's 53.0% Corsi at five-on-five means Edmonton will chase all series; the Oilers respond with 50.0%. Utah's 1.003 PDO—running slightly hot—extends their edge.

The Vejmelka Variable

K. Vejmelka's back-to-back start creates real uncertainty. A backup appearance or fatigued starter tilts toward Edmonton; a full-strength performance extends Utah's advantage.

The Player Matchups

Connor McDavid (0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists, five high-danger goals, 13.7% shooting) is Edmonton's lifeline. Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60, 14 goals, 13 assists, one high-danger goal, 13.0% shooting) generates significant secondary scoring.

Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28 goals, 15 assists, three high-danger goals, 16.8% shooting) is Utah's volume machine, built to punish Edmonton's territorial deficit. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals, 2 assists, one high-danger goal, 5.6% shooting) presents an X-factor.

The Defensive Liability

Both teams register 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound conversion—impossible numbers that reveal noise in the sample. Jake Walman (Edmonton) and Maveric Lamoureux (Utah) are the defensive weak points.

Utah's territorial advantage and Edmonton's pending PDO regression offset each other perfectly. This is a genuine coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 53%
53%
UTA
Model favorite
47%
53%
EDM50UTA

UTA by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score EDM 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
EDM← edge
edge →UTA
52.0%52.0%
50.0%53.0%
2.642.64
2.472.39
2.132.26
2.291.99
0.9821.003

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.982 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
EDM
5-4-1
-8 GD · 2d rest
UTA
5-3-2
+1 GD · 1d rest
0.982
EDM 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.
Regression watch
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Things to watch
  • 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 Oilers are underwater at -8 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Oilers' PDO is 0.982 — running cold, due for positive regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
EDM
Expected in goal
C. Ingram
2 days rest.852 last start
Backup Connor Ingram · +1.7 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.917 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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% 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