Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at VAN

Mammoth pull away from the Canucks

FinalSat, Apr 4

UTAUtah Hockey Club7 VANVancouver Canucks4

The verdict · earned

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

UTA 7 · VAN 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:24 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 won 7–4, but the Canucks held 48% of shot attempts—suggesting the margin widened beyond what shot volume alone could explain.

Expected goals backed Utah: 3.36–2.34, or 59–41. Both teams, though, torched their xG projections. Utah overperformed by 3.64 goals; Vancouver overperformed by 1.66. Utah's efficiency came through three vectors: rush scoring (6 goals on 21 attempts), high-danger conversion (6-for-8), and superior shot quality (0.070 xG per attempt versus Vancouver's 0.050).

Vancouver wasn't outworked. They scored 3 goals on 19 rush attempts and generated 2 high-danger chances. What killed them was Utah's conversion rate. Utah's goalie underperformed expected by 1.66; Vancouver's fell 2.64 short—both struggled, but the gap compounded the margin.

The Canucks' power play was dominant—2 goals on 6 shots—but couldn't keep pace with Utah's overall scoring efficiency. Execution and goaltending luck separated two teams that played closer than the scoreboard suggests.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 4

UTA

VAN

Mammoth pull away from the Canucks

Chances 3.4 – 2.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

3.36

VAN

2.34

59% of the chances41%

The board read UTA 7, VAN 4. The chances read UTA 3.4, VAN 2.3.

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

Luck check

UTA

+3.6

goals above expected

UTA3.36 expected · 7 scored

Expected

Scored

VAN2.34 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth scored 3.6 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 02:28VANL. Karlsson0–1
P1 13:34UTAK. Yamamoto1–1
P1 18:30UTAC. Keller2–1
P2 02:05VANL. Karlsson2–2
P2 07:04UTAC. KellerPP3–2
P2 11:55UTAD. Guenther4–2
P3 00:20VANJ. DeBruskPP4–3

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

37 shots

Final

69 shots

VAN

32 shots

UTA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 7 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTAVAN

3 / 6

1.83 xG

High danger

0 / 2

0.56 xG

3 / 11

1.14 xG

Medium

2 / 10

1.24 xG

1 / 31

0.39 xG

Low

2 / 35

0.54 xG

The Mammoth buried 3 of 6 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

K. Vejmelka

−1.7

UTA · 19/23

N. Tolopilo

−2.6

VAN · 18/24

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Canucks

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

02:28VANL. Karlsson(P. Joseph, L. Ohgren)0–1
13:34UTAK. Yamamoto(L. Cooley)1–1
18:30UTAC. Keller(L. Crouse, N. DeSimone)2–1

2ndshots 9–7

02:05VANL. Karlsson(V. Mancini, T. Blueger)2–2
07:04UTAC. Kellerpower play(D. Guenther, M. Sergachev)3–2
11:55UTAD. Guenther(J. Marino, L. Cooley)4–2

3rdshots 8–5

00:20VANJ. DeBruskpower play(F. Hronek)4–3
01:32UTAL. Crouse(C. Keller)5–3
04:40VANM. Rossipower play(F. Hronek, B. Boeser)5–4
11:45UTAL. O'Brien(B. Tanev, N. Schmidt)6–4
19:07UTAC. Kellerempty net(N. Schmaltz, I. Cole)7–4

score reads UTA–VAN

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.36

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+3.6

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.061

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

50.5%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.36Expected goals2.34

UTA 59% of the chance quality

25Shots on goal23

6High-danger chances2

48All attempts (Corsi)47

Adjusted for score: UTA 48% · VAN 52%

Faceoffs · VAN won55%off55%neu50%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA3 / 6 · 1.83 xG

VAN0 / 2 · 0.56 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA3 / 11 · 1.14 xG

VAN2 / 10 · 1.24 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 31 · 0.39 xG

VAN2 / 35 · 0.54 xG

UTA went 3-for-11 from medium danger on 1.14 expected goals — 1.9 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

7 G · 3.36 xG · +3.6

VAN

4 G · 2.34 xG · +1.7

012345678

UTA finished +3.6 against expected, VAN +1.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST3/17

SNAP1/5

SLAP0/8

TIP IN2/5

BACKHAND1/2

OTHER0/11

VAN

WRIST1/5

SNAP0/17

SLAP0/3

TIP IN2/6

BACKHAND1/1

OTHER0/15

UTA

VAN

Off the rush

6 G on 21

2.45 xG

3 G on 19

1.64 xG

Off rebounds

0 G on 0

0.00 xG

0 G on 1

0.14 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-17, VAN 1-for-5. UTA scored 6 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 · 19/23 · .826

-1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/20.6+0.6

Medium2/101.2-0.8

Low2/350.5-1.5

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

N. Tolopilo

VAN · 18/24 · .750

-2.6

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger3/61.8-1.2

Medium3/111.1-1.9

Low1/310.4-0.6

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

69 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

37 shots

Final

69 shots

VAN

32 shots

UTA VAN GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, VAN 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

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

3 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:21 on ice · +3

F. Hronek

#17 · D · VAN

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 26:59 on ice · -2

D. Guenther

#11 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 17:03 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Apr 4

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:29 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

Utah enters with a 55% win probability according to underlying models—a projection that translates to a 2.7-2.4 scoreline in their favor. This is a pick'em masquerading as conviction.

The Mammoth are the hotter team, running at a 5-4-1 pace over their last 10 games. Vancouver sits at minus-19 in goal differential over the same span—a sign that the Canucks have been thoroughly dominated in shot volume and quality. Utah's advantage extends beyond recent form. The Mammoth control 52.0% of 5v5 expected goals versus Vancouver's 44.0%, and drive possession at 53.0% Corsi, which means Utah will own the territorial battle.

Yet Vancouver carries an embedded advantage: a PDO of 0.974 signals the Canucks are running colder than their underlying process deserves. That metric—a blend of save percentage and shooting accuracy—invariably regresses upward over time. Vancouver has room to get lucky.

Both starting goalies navigate back-to-back situations. N. Tolopilo for Utah and K. Vejmelka for Vancouver. Whichever team gets fresher goaltending gains an edge.

Availability shapes this matchup. Daniil But, Utah's secondary weapon at 1.01 xG/60, is likely sidelined after 9 days without playing, which removes a scoring threat but simplifies Vancouver's defense. Filip Chytil, Vancouver's most dangerous forward at 1.03 xG/60, hasn't played in 61 days and is likely on injured reserve—a far steeper loss for the Canucks.

Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 3 hard-chance goals) becomes Utah's de facto offensive engine. Drew O'Connor (13G, 11A, 3 hard-chance goals) carries additional offensive responsibility for Vancouver, given Chytil's absence.

Tactically, both rosters show 0% hard-chance and 0% rebound-goal rates—a statistical oddity worth skepticism. Victor Mancini is Vancouver's weakest defensive link. Maveric Lamoureux fills that role for Utah.

By process, Utah holds a clear edge. By the chaos of back-to-backs and missing players, this remains a coin flip.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

55%

45%

UTA50VAN

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score UTA 2.7–2.4 VAN; 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 →VAN

52.0%44.0%

53.0%46.0%

2.642.22

2.392.81

2.261.60

1.992.56

1.0030.974

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 0.974) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 10

UTA

5-4-1

+5 GD · 1d rest

VAN

2-8-0

-19 GD · 1d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

0.974

VAN 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 44.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Regression watch

The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 44.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
N. Tolopilo is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
K. Vejmelka is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
The Mammoth are the hotter team by points pace (5-4-1 in their last 10).
The Canucks are underwater at -19 goal differential over their last 10.
The Canucks' PDO is 0.974 — running cold, due for positive regression.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

K. Vejmelka

back-to-back.926 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.

VAN

Expected in goal

N. Tolopilo

back-to-back.895 last start

Backup Kevin Lankinen · -19.3 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.

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

VAN

Filip Chytil3G 0A

1.03 xG/60 · 1 HD · 15.0% sh

Drew O'Connor13G 11A

0.85 xG/60 · 3 HD · 11.8% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page