Motion-blurred skater in a Washington Capitals sweater
Breakdown · WSH at UTA

Capitals pull away from the Mammoth

The verdict · stolen

The Capitals stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.53–5.64 and won anyway.

WSH 7 · UTA 4
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:02 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

Washington won 7-4 by refusing to lose—despite yielding 62% of expected goals, the sort of advantage that usually ends in heartbreak. Utah owned the play; the Capitals owned the scoreboard.

The Mammoth controlled everything measurable. They held 62% of shot attempts (40–25) and 62% of expected goals (5.64–3.53). High-danger chances went 5–5, so Utah's edge came from sustained pressure, not desperation. Washington's three-goal margin came entirely from overperformance (3.47 goals above xG) and Utah's underperformance (1.64 under).

L. Thompson did the heavy lifting. The Washington goalie stopped 1.64 more than expected, turning a blowout into a theft. V. Vanecek gave up 2.61 over his workload, the gulf between a respectable effort and a collapse.

Washington's offense told two stories. They scored three times from low-danger spots—saves Utah's defense should have had. They also dominated the rush: three goals on 21 chances versus Utah's two on 39. Utah crashed the net effectively, creating five rebounding opportunities and converting one, but volume means nothing when the finishes don't match the possession.

Alex Ovechkin's wrist shot from the point at 19:54 of the third felt routine until it landed. By then, Washington had already stolen the rhythm Utah deserved.

The assists went to those who ran the offense. M. Sergachev (UTA) picked up three in 26:55; C. Keller (UTA) added three in 23:36. A. Ovechkin (WSH) answered with three goals in 18:27. One team created better chances. The other team finished them.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Mar 26
WSH
7
UTA
4

Capitals pull away from the Mammoth

Chances 3.5 – 5.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value
WSH
3.53
UTA
5.64
39% of the chances62%

The board read WSH 7, UTA 4. The chances read WSH 3.5, UTA 5.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
WSH
+3.5
goals above expected
WSH3.53 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA5.64 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored

The Capitals scored 3.5 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 02:07WSHI. Miroshnichenko1–0
  2. P1 13:04UTAD. GuentherPP1–1
  3. P1 16:59UTAD. Guenther1–2
  4. P1 19:53UTAL. CooleyPP1–3
  5. P2 05:01WSHA. Ovechkin2–3
  6. P2 11:28WSHA. Ovechkin3–3
  7. P3 02:43WSHA. BeauvillierPP4–3
+4 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WSH
38 shots
7
Final
107 shots
UTA
69 shots
4
WSH attackUTA attack
WSH UTA Goal
38
shots · 7 in
69
shots · 4 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WSHUTA
1 / 5
1.54 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.65 xG
3 / 13
1.56 xG
Medium
2 / 25
2.97 xG
3 / 33
0.43 xG
Low
1 / 57
1.01 xG

High-danger looks: WSH 1 of 5, UTA 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
K. Vejmelka
+3.5
UTA · 1/1
A
L. Thompson
+1.6
WSH · 36/40
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Capitals pull away from 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 8–11
  1. 02:07WSHI. Miroshnichenko(H. Lapierre, J. Chychrun)1–0
  2. 13:04UTAD. Guentherpower play(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)1–1
  3. 16:59UTAD. Guenther(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)1–2
  4. 19:53UTAL. Cooleypower play(N. Schmaltz, M. Sergachev)1–3
2ndshots 8–13
  1. 05:01WSHA. Ovechkin(R. Sandin, M. Fehérváry)2–3
  2. 11:28WSHA. Ovechkin(D. Strome, T. van Riemsdyk)3–3
3rdshots 9–16
  1. 02:43WSHA. Beauvillierpower play(C. Hutson, C. McMichael)4–3
  2. 06:02WSHR. Sandin(A. Beauvillier)5–3
  3. 08:06UTAM. Weegar(C. Keller, A. Kerfoot)5–4
  4. 09:54WSHI. Miroshnichenko(J. Chychrun)6–4
  5. 19:54WSHA. Ovechkinempty net(D. Strome)7–4

score reads WSH–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.53
WSH chances
Goals their shots were worth
+3.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.091
WSH puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
37.0%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.53Expected goals5.64
UTA 62% of the chance quality
25Shots on goal40
5High-danger chances5
51All attempts (Corsi)87
Adjusted for score: WSH 35% · UTA 65%
Faceoffs · UTA won67%off53%neu25%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WSH1 / 5 · 1.54 xG
UTA1 / 5 · 1.65 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WSH3 / 13 · 1.56 xG
UTA2 / 25 · 2.97 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WSH3 / 33 · 0.43 xG
UTA1 / 57 · 1.01 xG

WSH went 3-for-33 from low danger on 0.43 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WSH
7 G · 3.53 xG · +3.5
UTA
4 G · 5.64 xG · -1.6
012345678

WSH finished +3.5 against expected, UTA -1.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WSH
SNAP2/20
SLAP1/5
WRIST1/2
TIP IN2/8
BACKHAND1/2
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/13
UTA
SNAP1/31
SLAP1/14
WRIST1/12
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND1/4
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/1
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/18
WSH
UTA
Off the rush
3 G on 21
1.85 xG
2 G on 39
3.29 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.43 xG
1 G on 5
1.11 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WSH went 2-for-20, UTA 1-for-31. WSH 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
L. Thompson
WSH · 36/40 · .900
+1.6
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.6+0.7
Medium2/253.0+1.0
Low1/571.0+0.0

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 · 17/23 · .739
-2.5
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.5+0.5
Medium3/131.6-1.4
Low3/330.4-2.6

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

K. Vejmelka
UTA · 1/1 · 1.000
+3.5
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.5+0.5
Medium3/131.6-1.4
Low3/330.4-2.6

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

107 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WSH
38 shots
7
Final
107 shots
UTA
69 shots
4
WSH attackUTA attack
WSH UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WSH 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
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 26:55 on ice · -1
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 3 A · 4 SOG · 23:36 on ice · -1
A. Ovechkin
#8 · L · WSH
3 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 18:27 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Mar 26
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:01 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

Utah's Mammoth sit at 54% win probability—a designation reserved for games where prediction breaks down. The model's projection of a 2.5–2.8 goal spread confirms it: this is as close to a pick'em as mathematics gets.

The Mammoth control possession (53.0% Corsi) but have posted a -5 goal differential over their last ten. Their 52.0% expected goals share reveals the disconnect: territorial dominance without compensating chance creation. Process and outcome have sharply diverged.

Washington's path to survival runs through regression. The Capitals' PDO of 1.018 is unsustainably high, the mark of a team converting at rates no team maintains. They're outshooting their underlying play (50.0% xG%) and have tightened the scoreline as a result. One metric has inflated their record; the other will shrink it.

The player battle shapes both angles. Dylan Guenther powers Utah at 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals and three high-danger chances, a scoring profile that amplifies the Mammoth's territorial advantage. Washington counters with Alex Ovechkin (0.97 xG/60, 19 goals, 13.8% shooting) and Anthony Beauvillier (0.89 xG/60, 14 goals, 10.4% shooting), both generating chances efficiently.

Daniil But (1.01 xG/60) underwrites Utah's secondary scoring. Declan Chisholm is Washington's defensive weak link; Utah's Maveric Lamoureux has a similar liability. Beauvillier's performance will likely determine the margin.

Both goaltenders land on back-to-backs. K. Vejmelka and L. Thompson face identical rest, so the advantage neutralizes unless one cracks under fatigue.

The verdict hinges on whether Washington's unsustainable efficiency persists or Utah's process advantage converts. Utah should control this game; Washington is built to steal it. That tension—elite underlying numbers versus elite personnel—is why 54% win probability is the most honest forecast: neither team has escaped the noise.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 54%
54%
UTA
Model favorite
46%
54%
WSH50UTA

UTA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WSH 2.5–2.8 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
WSH← edge
edge →UTA
50.0%52.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.622.64
2.622.39
2.182.26
1.791.99
1.0181.003

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.018 vs 1.003) says WSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
WSH
4-4-2
-2 GD · 1d rest
UTA
4-4-2
-5 GD · 1d rest
1.018
WSH 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 Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some 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.
  • L. Thompson is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Mammoth are underwater at -5 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Capitals' PDO is 1.018 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
WSH
Expected in goal
L. Thompson
back-to-back.923 last start
Backup Logan Thompson · +29.3 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
K. Vejmelka
back-to-back.733 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
WSH
Alex Ovechkin19G 17A
0.97 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.8% sh
Anthony Beauvillier14G 9A
0.89 xG/60 · 2 HD · 10.4% 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