Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at LAK

Mammoth pull away from the Kings

FinalSat, Mar 28

UTAUtah Hockey Club6 LAKLos Angeles Kings2

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 6 · LAK 2

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:26 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's 6-2 win concealed a balanced game underneath. At 5v5, Utah's expected-goals lead was modest—56 percent of the total (4.07–3.22)—yet they outperformed their model by 1.93 goals. Los Angeles had the shot volume (52 percent, 31 attempts) but couldn't capitalize: zero high-danger goals on five chances.

The difference came in net. D. Kuemper surrendered 2.59 goals above expected, the crease collapse that doomed Los Angeles. A. Forsberg came in relief and was impeccable (11/11 saves, 1.000 SV%), yet somehow generated 1.66 goals above expected—a statistical anomaly. K. Vejmelka was efficient: 29 saves on 31 shots, 1.22 goals above expected.

Utah's control stemmed from transition. The Mammoth scored five goals on 27 rush attempts, a conversion rate that overwhelmed Los Angeles's neutral-zone defense. Utah's power play added two more goals on nine shots.

M. Sergachev orchestrated the flow with four assists in 25:13. C. Keller added two helpers in 16:52. For Los Angeles, A. Kempe (1G, 1A in 20:02) made plays but couldn't overcome the deficit.

Utah won this through elite finishing and transition dominance. Los Angeles didn't. The xG showed balance; the scoreboard showed a blowout. That gap is where this game lived.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Mar 28

UTA

LAK

Mammoth pull away from the Kings

Chances 4.1 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

4.07

LAK

3.22

56% of the chances44%

The board read UTA 6, LAK 2. The chances read UTA 4.1, LAK 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations

Luck check

UTA

+1.9

goals above expected

UTA4.07 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK3.22 expected · 2 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth scored 1.9 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season

Every goal, in order

P1 02:31UTAA. Kerfoot1–0
P1 16:33UTAL. Cooley2–0
P1 17:51LAKA. Kopitar2–1
P1 19:51UTAL. CooleyPP3–1
P2 12:37UTAA. Kerfoot4–1
P2 16:17UTAN. SchmaltzPP5–1
P3 04:34LAKA. Kempe5–2

+1 more on the full breakdown

NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model

Where the shots came from

UTA

40 shots

Final

87 shots

LAK

47 shots

UTA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 2 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTALAK

2 / 7

1.72 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.24 xG

3 / 17

1.88 xG

Medium

1 / 11

1.15 xG

1 / 41

0.47 xG

Low

1 / 44

0.83 xG

The Kings went 0 for 5 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance

In the net

A+

A. Forsberg

+4.1

LAK · 11/11

B+

K. Vejmelka

+1.2

UTA · 29/31

+1 more on the full breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Kings

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 12–9

02:31UTAA. Kerfoot(J. Marino)1–0
16:33UTAL. Cooley(M. Sergachev, D. Guenther)2–0
17:51LAKA. Kopitar(A. Kempe, J. Edmundson)2–1
19:51UTAL. Cooleypower play(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)3–1

2ndshots 4–8

12:37UTAA. Kerfoot(I. Cole)4–1
16:17UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)5–1

3rdshots 12–14

04:34LAKA. Kempe5–2
13:53UTAJ. McBainempty net(J. Peterka, M. Sergachev)6–2

score reads UTA–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.07

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.9

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.059

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

52.0%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.07Expected goals3.22

UTA 56% of the chance quality

28Shots on goal31

7High-danger chances5

65All attempts (Corsi)60

Adjusted for score: UTA 46% · LAK 54%

Faceoffs · LAK won67%off52%neu43%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA2 / 7 · 1.72 xG

LAK0 / 5 · 1.24 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA3 / 17 · 1.88 xG

LAK1 / 11 · 1.15 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 41 · 0.47 xG

LAK1 / 44 · 0.83 xG

LAK went 0-for-5 from high danger on 1.24 expected goals — 1.2 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

6 G · 4.07 xG · +1.9

LAK

2 G · 3.22 xG · -1.2

01234567

UTA finished +1.9 against expected, LAK -1.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST4/26

TIP IN1/8

SLAP0/2

BACKHAND0/2

SNAP1/1

DEFLECTED0/1

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/25

LAK

WRIST1/28

TIP IN1/4

SLAP0/9

BACKHAND0/4

SNAP0/1

DEFLECTED0/0

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/13

UTA

LAK

Off the rush

5 G on 27

3.06 xG

1 G on 30

2.49 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 1

0.26 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 4-for-26, LAK 1-for-28. UTA scored 5 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 · 29/31 · .935

+1.2

saved above expected

B+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.2+1.2

Medium1/111.1+0.1

Low1/440.8-0.2

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. Forsberg

LAK · 11/11 · 1.000

+4.1

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.7-0.3

Medium3/171.9-1.1

Low1/410.5-0.5

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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 11/16 · .688

-0.9

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/71.7-0.3

Medium3/171.9-1.1

Low1/410.5-0.5

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

40 shots

Final

87 shots

LAK

47 shots

UTA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, LAK 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 · 4 A · 1 SOG · 25:13 on ice · +1

A. Kempe

#9 · R · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 20:02 on ice · +1

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 16:52 on ice

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Mar 28

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 9:35 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 expected goal range and gives the Kings exactly 52% win probability—as close to a pick'em as exists.

Utah and Los Angeles have identical 5v5 xG% at 52.0%, with Utah's Corsi% at 53.0% barely ahead of Los Angeles' 52.0%. Both PDOs hover around neutral: 1.003 for the Mammoth, 1.002 for the Kings. The underlying play is functionally balanced.

Utah's recent form darkens the picture. Over their last ten games, the Mammoth sit at -9 goal differential, evidence they're grinding out tighter contests than their talent should produce.

Goaltending volatility cuts both ways. Both D. Kuemper (LAK) and V. Vanecek (UTA) are on back-to-backs—watch for backups starting or starters running on fumes.

Utah's offensive engine turns on Dylan Guenther. At 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals and 15 assists, he's hunting at elite volume; his 16.8% shooting rate signals luck running hot, though three high-danger goals prove he creates chances to score. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60) generates similar shot quality with 2 goals and 2 assists, but at 5.6% shooting, he's underperforming his opportunities.

Los Angeles leans on Alex Laferriere. At 0.87 xG/60 with 16 goals and 18 assists, Laferriere works on lower xG volume but a 9.9% shooting rate—he's making his moderate chances count. Jared Wright (0.83 xG/60) has recorded 4 assists with 0 goals, a floor piece waiting to break through or confirm his ceiling.

Both teams carry 0% high-danger goal rates and 0% rebound rates, likely sample noise rather than meaningful defensive pattern.

Utah's Maveric Lamoureux and Los Angeles' Adrian Kempe are defensive weak links. If the game swings, these matchups could be the hinge.

The model detects no advantage. Utah's form regresses slightly, but the underlying metrics are mirror images. The goaltending back-to-back adds variance no team controls. This is genuinely a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%

52%

LAK

Model favorite

48%

52%

UTA50LAK

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.4–2.5 LAK; 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 →LAK

52.0%52.0%

53.0%52.0%

2.642.42

2.392.20

2.261.85

1.991.71

1.0031.002

The season numbers split 3–3 — no clear process edge — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.002) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

3-5-2

-9 GD · 1d rest

LAK

4-2-4

+0 GD · 1d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.002

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

Things to watch

D. Kuemper is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
V. Vanecek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Mammoth are underwater at -9 goal differential over their last 10.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

V. Vanecek

back-to-back.739 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.

LAK

Expected in goal

D. Kuemper

back-to-back1.000 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.

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

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

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page