Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · EDM at UTA

Mammoth run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Final / OTTue, Apr 7

EDMEdmonton Oilers5 UTAUtah Hockey Club6

The verdict · earned

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

EDM 5 · UTA 6

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:53 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

Edmonton controlled the play by nearly every metric and still lost—a rare indictment of luck and execution in overtime.

Utah edged Edmonton 6-5 in OT, but the real story is Edmonton's remarkable misfortune. The Mammoth dominated expected goals (4.53–2.87, 61% of the 5v5 xG share), held 54% of shot attempts (31–26 on goal), and won the high-danger chances battle 5–3. Yet Edmonton managed to out-luck Utah by more than two goals. The Oilers overperformed their xG by 2.13 goals—elite finishing or excellent bounces—while Utah barely exceeded their projection (1.47). Normally, a team this unlucky wins the game. Utah's deeper xG advantage, combined with Edmonton's inability to sustain their finish in overtime, decided it.

Goaltending told the same story. K. Vejmelka (Utah) stopped 21 of 26 shots (0.808 SV%), underperforming expected by 2.13 goals—a sign of rough luck, not poor play. T. Jarry (Edmonton) surrendered 25 of 31 (0.806 SV%), yielding 1.47 more than expected. Yet Utah's edge in volume mattered more than either goalie's variance.

The turning point arrived at 00:33 of overtime when Clayton Keller fired a snap shot from the high slot. It ended a game Utah deserved to win on the numbers, even as Edmonton's xG overrun made it closer than it should've been.

Utah wasn't infallible: they went 0 for 5 on high-danger chances, a rarity that won't repeat. But they compensated on the rush, converting 6 goals on 44 rush attempts—lethal efficiency. Edmonton countered with 4 goals on 22 rush chances, their own clinic in fast-break execution. Neither team crashed the offensive glass effectively (Utah: 5 rebound chances, 0 converted; Edmonton: 3 chances, 1 converted).

Three Stars

#97 C. McDavid (EDM) — 1G, 1A in 22:05
#9 C. Keller (UTA) — 1G, 1A in 19:35
#8 N. Schmaltz (UTA) — 2G in 19:23

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · OT · Apr 7

EDM

UTA

Mammoth run the Oilers off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 4.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value

EDM

2.87

UTA

4.53

39% of the chances61%

The board read EDM 5, UTA 6. The chances read EDM 2.9, UTA 4.5.

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

Luck check

UTA

+1.5

goals above expected

UTA4.53 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

EDM2.87 expected · 5 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

P1 01:53UTAJ. Peterka0–1
P1 02:04EDMC. Lazar1–1
P1 08:56EDMC. McDavidPP2–1
P1 14:43EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins3–1
P2 10:28UTAN. Schmaltz3–2
P2 15:19UTAL. Cooley3–3
P2 16:06EDMV. Podkolzin4–3

+4 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

EDM

37 shots

Final

101 shots

UTA

64 shots

EDM UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 5 in

shots · 6 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

EDMUTA

1 / 3

0.77 xG

High danger

0 / 5

1.17 xG

3 / 14

1.62 xG

Medium

5 / 23

2.36 xG

1 / 28

0.48 xG

Low

1 / 53

1.00 xG

High-danger looks: EDM 1 of 3, UTA 0 of 5.

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

In the net

D-

T. Jarry

−1.5

EDM · 25/31

K. Vejmelka

−2.1

UTA · 21/26

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth run the Oilers 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 7–11

01:53UTAJ. Peterka(I. Cole, M. Carcone)0–1
02:04EDMC. Lazar(A. Henrique, M. Ekholm)1–1
08:56EDMC. McDavidpower play(E. Bouchard, T. Jarry)2–1
14:43EDMR. Nugent-Hopkins(K. Kapanen)3–1

2ndshots 12–10

10:28UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller, L. Crouse)3–2
15:19UTAL. Cooley(D. Guenther, S. Durzi)3–3
16:06EDMV. Podkolzin(D. Nurse, C. McDavid)4–3
19:24UTAN. Schmaltzshorthanded(J. Marino, A. Kerfoot)4–4

3rdshots 7–9

02:09EDMC. Dach(T. Frederic, J. Dickinson)5–4
12:56UTAA. Kerfoot(S. Durzi, M. Carcone)5–5

OTshots 0–1

00:33UTAC. Kellerpower play(M. Sergachev, D. Guenther)5–6

score reads EDM–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

4.53

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+1.5

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

0.963

UTA puck luck

Below 1.000 — the bounces went against them

64.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.87Expected goals4.53

UTA 61% of the chance quality

26Shots on goal31

3High-danger chances5

45All attempts (Corsi)81

Adjusted for score: EDM 32% · UTA 68%

Faceoffs · UTA won63%off39%neu40%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

EDM1 / 3 · 0.77 xG

UTA0 / 5 · 1.17 xG

Medium dangermid-range

EDM3 / 14 · 1.62 xG

UTA5 / 23 · 2.36 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

EDM1 / 28 · 0.48 xG

UTA1 / 53 · 1.00 xG

UTA went 5-for-23 from medium danger on 2.36 expected goals — 2.6 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

EDM

5 G · 2.87 xG · +2.1

UTA

6 G · 4.53 xG · +1.5

01234567

EDM finished +2.1 against expected, UTA +1.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

EDM

SNAP2/20

SLAP0/6

TIP IN0/3

BACKHAND2/6

WRIST1/2

BAT0/0

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/8

UTA

SNAP2/29

SLAP3/11

TIP IN1/13

BACKHAND0/3

WRIST0/6

BAT0/1

WRAP AROUND0/1

OTHER0/17

EDM

UTA

Off the rush

4 G on 22

2.00 xG

6 G on 44

3.09 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.63 xG

0 G on 5

0.46 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: EDM went 2-for-20, UTA 2-for-29. 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

T. Jarry

EDM · 25/31 · .806

-1.5

saved above expected

D-

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger0/51.2+1.2

Medium5/232.4-2.6

Low1/531.0+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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 21/26 · .808

-2.1

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/30.8-0.2

Medium3/141.6-1.4

Low1/280.5-0.5

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

101 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

EDM

37 shots

Final

101 shots

UTA

64 shots

EDM UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

C. McDavid

#97 · C · EDM

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:05 on ice · -1

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 19:35 on ice

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

2 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 19:23 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Apr 7

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 10:47 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 see a pick'em: Edmonton projects 2.5–2.7 goals against Utah's 53% win probability. There's no edge baked in.

Both offenses run at 52.0% expected-goals share at 5v5, but Utah's territorial control is the real split. The Mammoth should own this game's puck and territory; Edmonton's PDO sits at 0.982, running cold and due for regression. Utah's at 1.003, riding lucky bounces. One cancels the other.

For the Oilers, Zach Hyman (1.23 xG/60) is their most dangerous 5v5 threat—14 goals, 13 assists, with a 13.0% shooting rate reflecting both volume and skill. Connor McDavid (0.92 xG/60, 25 goals, 33 assists) remains the engine at 13.7% shooting. Both will draw Utah's focus. Utah has to run them off the puck and lean on their structure.

Utah counters with Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60), who leads in pure scoring: 28 goals and 15 assists at 16.8% shooting. He's generating chances at volume and finishing them. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals, 2 assists) looked like a threat on paper but is likely out after 12 days away—a signal of injury.

Utah's control edge is concrete: 53% Corsi. That means they'll dictate pace and territory. Edmonton has to weather the possession drought and punish Utah's mistakes in transition. The Oilers' defensive weakness is right-side; Jake Walman will draw Utah's hunt. Conversely, Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's liability—Edmonton should test him.

Both teams show zero high-danger-goal rate and zero rebound-goal rate in the available data, which reads like an artifact—ignore it. Real games produce those chances.

Utah's possession edge is real. Edmonton's luck reversal is real. One cancels the other. The model sees Utah at 53%, a thin edge built on control. That's the 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

7-3-0

+4 GD · 2d rest

UTA

6-4-0

+9 GD · 3d 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.
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.848 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

3 days rest.826 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +6.9 GSAx this season

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