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

Mammoth run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 6 · SEA 2
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:08 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

Utah dominated Seattle across every possession metric—they controlled 62 percent of expected goals (4.17–2.59) and won 6-2.

The gap in shot quality was decisive. Utah generated seven high-danger chances to Seattle's two, and Utah's average shot was worth 0.067 expected goals versus Seattle's 0.050—meaning Utah's attempts were categorically more dangerous. Seattle generated volume (27 shot attempts, 47 percent of the total), but without quality it becomes a liability.

J. Daccord bore the cost. His 0.806 save percentage finished 1.83 goals below expectation, a massive underperformance against his workload. K. Vejmelka stopped 25 of 27 shots for a 0.926 save percentage, 1.83 goals above expected—a function of Utah's superior shot quality rather than goaltending excellence.

Utah's power play was the decisive edge. Three goals on 12 shots and 0.89 expected goals represents conversion at the elite ceiling. On the rush, Utah was equally lethal: five goals on 32 chances, a rate Seattle's transition defense couldn't match.

Utah ultimately outperformed their expected goals by 1.83, meaning the 6-2 margin reflected finish and dominance alike. The underlying story was one-directional: Utah created better chances, finished cleaner, and ran Seattle off the ice in every measure that matters.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 2
UTA
6
SEA
2

Mammoth run the Kraken off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 4.2 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
4.17
SEA
2.59
62% of the chances38%

The board read UTA 6, SEA 2. The chances read UTA 4.2, SEA 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+1.8
goals above expected
UTA4.17 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
SEA2.59 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth scored 1.8 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 00:41SEAJ. Eberle0–1
  2. P1 13:45SEAB. McMann0–2
  3. P1 16:27UTAL. CooleyPP1–2
  4. P2 10:05UTAL. Cooley2–2
  5. P2 14:56UTAN. SchmaltzPP3–2
  6. P3 04:39UTAJ. Peterka4–2
  7. P3 07:27UTAD. Guenther5–2
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
48 shots
6
Final
87 shots
SEA
39 shots
2
UTA attackSEA attack
UTA SEA Goal
48
shots · 6 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTASEA
2 / 7
1.68 xG
High danger
1 / 2
0.46 xG
2 / 15
1.84 xG
Medium
1 / 15
1.55 xG
2 / 40
0.65 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.58 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B
K. Vejmelka
+0.6
UTA · 25/27
F
J. Daccord
−1.8
SEA · 25/31
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth run the Kraken 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 12–9
  1. 00:41SEAJ. Eberle(A. Larsson, J. McCann)0–1
  2. 13:45SEAB. McMann(C. Stephenson, K. Kakko)0–2
  3. 16:27UTAL. Cooleypower play(N. Schmaltz, D. Guenther)1–2
2ndshots 8–10
  1. 10:05UTAL. Cooley(M. Weegar, M. Sergachev)2–2
  2. 14:56UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(C. Keller, D. Guenther)3–2
3rdshots 11–8
  1. 04:39UTAJ. Peterka(K. Yamamoto, S. Durzi)4–2
  2. 07:27UTAD. Guenther(L. Cooley, K. Yamamoto)5–2
  3. 16:37UTAM. Carconepower play6–2

score reads UTA–SEA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.17
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.8
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.058
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
54.4%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.17Expected goals2.59
UTA 62% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal27
7High-danger chances2
62All attempts (Corsi)52
Adjusted for score: UTA 54% · SEA 46%
Faceoffs · SEA won40%off47%neu37%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA2 / 7 · 1.68 xG
SEA1 / 2 · 0.46 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA2 / 15 · 1.84 xG
SEA1 / 15 · 1.55 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA2 / 40 · 0.65 xG
SEA0 / 35 · 0.58 xG

UTA went 2-for-40 from low danger on 0.65 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
6 G · 4.17 xG · +1.8
SEA
2 G · 2.59 xG · -0.6
01234567

UTA finished +1.8 against expected, SEA -0.6.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST2/26
SNAP3/8
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/4
DEFLECTED1/4
OTHER0/14
SEA
WRIST0/23
SNAP1/5
BACKHAND1/3
SLAP0/6
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/13
UTA
SEA
Off the rush
5 G on 32
2.66 xG
1 G on 23
1.68 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 4
0.78 xG
1 G on 3
0.50 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-26, SEA 0-for-23. 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 · 25/27 · .926
+0.6
saved above expected
B
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/20.5-0.5
Medium1/151.6+0.6
Low0/350.6+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

J. Daccord
SEA · 25/31 · .806
-1.8
saved above expected
F
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/71.7-0.3
Medium2/151.8-0.2
Low2/400.7-1.4

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

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
48 shots
6
Final
87 shots
SEA
39 shots
2
UTA attackSEA attack
UTA SEA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, SEA 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. Cooley
#92 · C · UTA
2 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:14 on ice · +1
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 16:48 on ice · +1
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:44 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 2
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:07 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 Utah's Mammoth at 54% win probability in a 2.6–2.4 game against Seattle—about as close to even odds as hockey gets.

Utah owns the underlying play. The Mammoth control 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 and drive 53.0% Corsi, suggesting territorial dominance. Seattle sits at 46.0% xG and 45.0% Corsi, compounded by a minus-10 goal differential over their last ten games.

The Mammoth also hold a rest edge: Utah arrives on four days between games while the Kraken manage only one. This could affect Seattle's goaltending. P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back, creating the possibility of a backup start or a visibly fatigued starter.

Utah's offense runs through Dylan Guenther, who carries 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes and 28 goals on a 16.8% shooting rate with 15 assists and 3 high-danger chances. His scoring efficiency is elite, and Seattle's defense will need to neutralize him directly. Daniil But, Utah's second-line threat at 1.01 xG/60 with 2 goals and 2 assists, is likely out—he hasn't played in seven days and remains day-to-day.

Seattle's counterweight is Shane Wright, who produces 0.77 xG/60 with 8 goals on a 10.4% shooting rate, 10 assists, and 4 high-danger chances. He's a legitimate secondary threat. Berkly Catton follows at 0.68 xG/60 with 6 goals at 8.8% shooting, 8 assists, and 5 high-danger chances. Neither reaches Guenther's output, but both operate with marginal shooting efficiency, suggesting upside if percentages regress to expectation.

Utah's underlying metrics reveal a peculiar edge: the team generates no high-danger goals and no rebound goals at 5v5, a statistical anomaly for a team leading in xG%. This should concern Utah's coaching staff, though the shot-volume advantage should eventually convert. Maveric Lamoureux is identified as a defensive liability, a potential target for Seattle's forecheck.

Seattle similarly generates 0% high-danger and rebound goals, though like Utah's metric, this will likely correct. Chandler Stephenson represents the team's defensive weakness—another exploitation point for Utah's attack-oriented approach.

The Mammoth's model advantage stems from their ability to dominate play at even strength while enjoying a rest-day buffer. Seattle has the talent to steal this game—especially if Wright and Catton click—but Utah's 54% projection reflects the underlying superiority in possession and deployment. This is a genuine coin flip only because Utah hasn't yet converted their territorial advantage into margin; once they do, the projection will widen.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 54%
54%
UTA
Model favorite
54%
46%
UTA50SEA

UTA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.6–2.4 SEA; 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 →SEA
52.0%46.0%
53.0%45.0%
2.642.13
2.392.51
2.261.87
1.991.95
1.0031.011

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.011) says SEA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 10
UTA
4-5-1
-4 GD · 4d rest
SEA
3-5-2
-10 GD · 1d rest
1.003
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.011
SEA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

Where the edges live
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 46.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • P. Grubauer is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Kraken are underwater at -10 goal differential over their last 10.
  • The Mammoth have 3 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
4 days rest.935 last start
Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

SEA
Expected in goal
P. Grubauer
back-to-back.913 last start
Backup Joey Daccord · -6.2 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
SEA
Shane Wright8G 10A
0.77 xG/60 · 4 HD · 10.4% sh
Berkly Catton6G 8A
0.68 xG/60 · 5 HD · 8.8% sh
Keep going

Where to next