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

Mammoth run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

The verdict · earned

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

WPG 3 · UTA 5
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:44 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's 5-3 win over Winnipeg was more convincing than the score. The Mammoth dominated expected goals 5.24 to 2.90—a 64-36 split that reflected total control.

Utah held 60% of shot attempts (36-24) and won high-danger chances 8-5, converting 50% of them. The Mammoth were ruthless off the rush with 3 goals on 32 chances. On the power play, Utah scored twice on 15 shots (1.31 xG) versus Winnipeg's two goals on 6 attempts (0.63 xG).

E. Comrie stopped 31 of 35 shots, posting a save percentage 1.24 goals above expected. K. Vejmelka finished at 0.875 save percentage (21-24). Both teams crashed the net effectively—Utah with 4 rebound opportunities (1 converted), Winnipeg with 6 opportunities (1 converted).

Alexander Kerfoot's wrist shot from the high slot in the third period proved decisive.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 14
WPG
3
UTA
5

Mammoth run the Jets off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 2.9 – 5.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
WPG
2.90
UTA
5.24
36% of the chances64%

The board read WPG 3, UTA 5. The chances read WPG 2.9, UTA 5.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−0.2
goals above expected
UTA5.24 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
WPG2.90 expected · 3 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
  1. P1 08:05UTAL. Cooley0–1
  2. P2 04:54UTAN. SchmaltzPP0–2
  3. P2 17:09WPGK. ConnorPP1–2
  4. P3 07:16UTAN. SchmaltzPP1–3
  5. P3 07:42UTAJ. Peterka1–4
  6. P3 12:36WPGM. Scheifele2–4
  7. P3 14:23WPGI. RosenPP3–4
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
WPG
36 shots
3
Final
94 shots
UTA
58 shots
5
WPG attackUTA attack
WPG UTA Goal
36
shots · 3 in
58
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
WPGUTA
1 / 5
1.08 xG
High danger
4 / 8
2.38 xG
2 / 13
1.29 xG
Medium
1 / 22
2.18 xG
0 / 28
0.53 xG
Low
0 / 44
0.68 xG

The Mammoth buried 4 of 8 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
E. Comrie
+1.2
WPG · 31/35
C
K. Vejmelka
−0.1
UTA · 21/24
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth run the Jets 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 6–14
  1. 08:05UTAL. Cooley(N. Schmidt)0–1
2ndshots 6–15
  1. 04:54UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(M. Sergachev, D. Guenther)0–2
  2. 17:09WPGK. Connorpower play(G. Vilardi, M. Scheifele)1–2
3rdshots 12–7
  1. 07:16UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(L. Cooley, C. Keller)1–3
  2. 07:42UTAJ. Peterka1–4
  3. 12:36WPGM. Scheifele(K. Connor, G. Vilardi)2–4
  4. 14:23WPGI. Rosenpower play3–4
  5. 19:36UTAA. Kerfootempty net3–5

score reads WPG–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
5.24
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
−0.2
Finishing
Goals below what those chances were worth
1.002
UTA puck luck
About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
61.7%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.90Expected goals5.24
UTA 64% of the chance quality
24Shots on goal36
5High-danger chances8
46All attempts (Corsi)74
Adjusted for score: WPG 43% · UTA 57%
Faceoffs · UTA won56%off53%neu37%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
WPG1 / 5 · 1.08 xG
UTA4 / 8 · 2.38 xG
Medium dangermid-range
WPG2 / 13 · 1.29 xG
UTA1 / 22 · 2.18 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
WPG0 / 28 · 0.53 xG
UTA0 / 44 · 0.68 xG

UTA went 4-for-8 from high danger on 2.38 expected goals — 1.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
WPG
3 G · 2.90 xG · +0.1
UTA
5 G · 5.24 xG · -0.2
0123456

WPG finished +0.1 against expected, UTA -0.2.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
WPG
SNAP2/18
SLAP0/7
WRIST1/6
TIP IN0/4
BACKHAND0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/10
UTA
SNAP0/21
SLAP0/13
WRIST4/10
TIP IN0/8
BACKHAND1/4
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/16
WPG
UTA
Off the rush
1 G on 20
1.81 xG
3 G on 32
2.82 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 6
0.84 xG
1 G on 4
0.61 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: WPG went 2-for-18, UTA 0-for-21. UTA scored 3 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
E. Comrie
WPG · 31/35 · .886
+1.2
saved above expected
B+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger4/82.4-1.6
Medium1/222.2+1.2
Low0/440.7+0.7

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 · 21/24 · .875
-0.1
saved above expected
C
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.1+0.1
Medium2/131.3-0.7
Low0/280.5+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

94 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
WPG
36 shots
3
Final
94 shots
UTA
58 shots
5
WPG attackUTA attack
WPG UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — WPG 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
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
2 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 21:21 on ice · -1
M. Scheifele
#55 · C · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:14 on ice · -1
K. Connor
#81 · L · WPG
1 G · 1 A · 6 SOG · 20:52 on ice · -1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Apr 14
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:41 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 gives Utah the edge—the Mammoth project at 56% win probability and a 2.4–2.7 goal range. The case rests on two legs: Utah's dominant underlying metrics and Winnipeg's rest deficit.

Utah's xG split of 52.0% to 48.0% tells you who controls the game at even strength. The Corsi gap widens to 53.0% for the Mammoth versus 49.0% for the Jets, suggesting territorial tilt toward Utah. This isn't close.

The rest advantage tilts the same way. Utah enters on one day of rest; Winnipeg on three. More rest doesn't automatically yield better play, but Utah's metrics are strong enough that the advantage carries weight here. V. Vanecek plays on a back-to-back, complicating Winnipeg's goaltending picture. Watch whether he starts or a backup gets the call.

Nino Niederreiter is Winnipeg's engine: 0.87 xG per 60, six goals, six assists, and three high-danger chances. His 8.6% shooting rate suggests regression risk, but the volume and quality remain real. Kyle Connor runs a similar workload at 0.83 xG per 60, with 25 goals and 30 assists. His 13.0% shooting rate is closer to sustainable.

Utah's corresponding threat is Dylan Guenther, who leads with 1.02 xG per 60, 28 goals, and 15 assists—the most prolific scorer in this matchup. His 16.8% shooting rate is elevated, but three high-danger chances suggest the volume carries risk. Daniil But offers another offensive threat at 1.01 xG per 60, though the injury alert—hasn't played in 19 days—likely removes him from the equation.

Both offenses have hit the same tactical wall: 0% of goals arrive as high-danger plays, and 0% come off rebounds. Colin Miller is Winnipeg's defensive weak link in key matchups. Utah's corresponding liability is Maveric Lamoureux.

The Mammoth are favored on the strength of their possession metrics and Utah's rest edge over Winnipeg's tired goaltender.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 56%
56%
UTA
Model favorite
44%
56%
WPG50UTA

UTA by 12 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score WPG 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
WPG← edge
edge →UTA
48.0%52.0%
49.0%53.0%
2.342.64
2.552.39
1.902.26
2.101.99
0.9981.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.998 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
WPG
7-3-0
+3 GD · 3d rest
UTA
6-4-0
+4 GD · 1d rest
0.998
WPG 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 48.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 52.0% 5v5 xG vs 48.0%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 53.0% — expect territorial tilt.
  • V. Vanecek is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
  • The Jets have 2 more days of rest.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
WPG
Expected in goal
C. Hellebuyck
3 days rest.750 last start
Backup Connor Hellebuyck · +5.5 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

UTA
Expected in goal
V. Vanecek
back-to-back.826 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
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% 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