Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · NSH at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Predators

FinalThu, Apr 9

NSHNashville Predators1 UTAUtah Hockey Club4

The verdict · stolen

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.47–3.31 and won anyway.

NSH 1 · UTA 4

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:08 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

K. Vejmelka stole this game. The Predators controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5 and dominated the shot map, but Utah's goalie saved 3.47 goals above expected in a 4-1 win that violated every advanced metric except the one that matters.

The numbers explain the heist. Utah held 47% of shot attempts (27–30), but the xG split went 3.31–4.47 in Nashville's favor. High-danger chances finished 5–7 for the Predators, yet they scored once. K. Vejmelka posted 29/30 saves and a 0.967 SV%, while J. Saros faced 30 shots, stopped 23, and posted a 0.852 SV%.

Utah's path to victory was clinical precision. The Mammoth were lethal on the rush — 4 goals on 30 chances — and converted 2 of 5 high-danger opportunities (40%). The Predators wasted their dominance. They created 6 rebound chances and converted one. Nashville created and squandered chances as Vejmelka stood tall.

The turning point: Erik Haula's backhander from the doorstep at 10:22 of the third period. C. Keller (UTA) dominated with 3 assists in 17:39. N. Schmaltz posted 1G, 1A in 18:58, and D. Guenther contributed 1G, 1A in 17:58.

Utah converted when it mattered most while Nashville's overwhelming dominance evaporated against elite goaltending and ruthless finishing.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Apr 9

NSH

UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Predators

Chances 4.5 – 3.3Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

The Predators deserved better.

Expected goals · chance value

NSH

4.47

UTA

3.31

57% of the chances43%

The board read NSH 1, UTA 4. The chances read NSH 4.5, UTA 3.3.

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

Luck check

UTA

+0.7

goals above expected

UTA3.31 expected · 4 scored

Expected

Scored

NSH4.47 expected · 1 scored

Expected

Scored

The Predators left 3.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

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

Every goal, in order

P1 14:26UTAK. Yamamoto0–1
P2 05:35UTAN. SchmaltzPP0–2
P3 03:03UTAL. Crouse0–3
P3 06:05UTAD. Guenther0–4
P3 10:22NSHE. HaulaPP1–4

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

Where the shots came from

NSH

52 shots

Final

97 shots

UTA

45 shots

NSH UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 1 in

shots · 4 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

NSHUTA

1 / 7

1.57 xG

High danger

2 / 5

1.26 xG

0 / 17

2.04 xG

Medium

2 / 10

1.25 xG

0 / 41

0.86 xG

Low

0 / 41

0.80 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 5 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

A+

K. Vejmelka

+3.5

UTA · 29/30

J. Saros

−0.7

NSH · 23/27

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Predators

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 7–9

14:26UTAK. Yamamoto(D. Guenther, L. Cooley)0–1

2ndshots 12–6

05:35UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(C. Keller, L. Cooley)0–2

3rdshots 11–12

03:03UTAL. Crouse(C. Keller, M. Sergachev)0–3
06:05UTAD. Guenther(C. Keller, N. Schmaltz)0–4
10:22NSHE. Haulapower play(Z. L'Heureux, B. Skjei)1–4

score reads NSH–UTA

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.31

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+0.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.056

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

46.3%

Shot attempts

Under half — they were outshot

Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.47Expected goals3.31

NSH 57% of the chance quality

30Shots on goal27

7High-danger chances5

65All attempts (Corsi)56

Adjusted for score: NSH 59% · UTA 41%

Faceoffs · UTA won31%off40%neu55%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NSH1 / 7 · 1.57 xG

UTA2 / 5 · 1.26 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NSH0 / 17 · 2.04 xG

UTA2 / 10 · 1.25 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NSH0 / 41 · 0.86 xG

UTA0 / 41 · 0.80 xG

NSH went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 2.04 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NSH

1 G · 4.47 xG · -3.5

UTA

4 G · 3.31 xG · +0.7

012345

NSH finished -3.5 against expected, UTA +0.7.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NSH

SNAP0/19

WRIST0/11

SLAP0/10

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/5

WRAP AROUND0/2

OTHER0/13

UTA

SNAP2/25

WRIST2/9

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/11

NSH

UTA

Off the rush

0 G on 32

3.18 xG

4 G on 30

2.85 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 6

0.84 xG

0 G on 4

0.27 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-19, UTA 2-for-25. UTA scored 4 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

J. Saros

NSH · 23/27 · .852

-0.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/51.3-0.7

Medium2/101.3-0.8

Low0/410.8+0.8

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 · 29/30 · .967

+3.5

saved above expected

A+

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/71.6+0.6

Medium0/172.0+2.0

Low0/410.9+0.9

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

97 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

NSH

52 shots

Final

97 shots

UTA

45 shots

NSH UTA GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

Each club shoots toward its own end — NSH 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. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 17:39 on ice · +2

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:58 on ice · +1

D. Guenther

#11 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:58 on ice · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 9

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:07 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

Utah leans to the model's preference. The projection gives the Mammoth 55% win probability, targeting a 2.4–2.7 score for Nashville.

The advantage traces to possession. Utah controls 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 versus Nashville's 49.0%, and owns 53.0% Corsi to the Predators' 50.0%. Utah's PDO of 1.003 edges Nashville's 0.992—a modest goaltending or puck-luck advantage.

K. Vejmelka and J. Annunen both play back-to-back starts.

Players to Watch

Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4G, 1 HD goal, 16.0% shooting) and Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting) shoulder Nashville's offense. Utah replies with Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting) and Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goal, 5.6% shooting), though But missed 14 days and likely sits out.

Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive liability; Maveric Lamoureux serves as Utah's. Both teams register 0% on high-danger and rebound goals. Whoever commands possession forces the other into reactive play. Utah's territorial edge should sustain.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%

55%

UTA

Model favorite

45%

55%

NSH50UTA

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

NSH← edge

edge →UTA

49.0%52.0%

50.0%53.0%

2.482.64

2.582.39

1.842.26

2.211.99

0.9921.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.992 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

NSH

6-3-1

+9 GD · 1d rest

UTA

7-3-0

+11 GD · 1d rest

0.992

NSH 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 own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.

Things to watch

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 49.0%.
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.
J. Annunen is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

NSH

Expected in goal

J. Annunen

back-to-back1.000 last start

Backup Juuse Saros · -9.3 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.808 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

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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