Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a St. Louis Blues sweater
← Thu, Apr 16 · the slate
Breakdown · STL at UTA

Blues run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

FinalThu, Apr 16
STLSt. Louis Blues5UTAUtah Hockey Club3
The verdict · earned

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

STL 5 · UTA 3
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:57 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

St. Louis overwhelmed Utah on shot quality despite a closer battle in volume. The Mammoth held 44% of shot attempts, a respectable near-split. Expected goals told a different story: 4.98–2.53 (66–34%) in the Blues' favor.

Utah generated 0.044 expected goals per shot. St. Louis generated 0.096. The Blues nearly doubled Utah's shot quality. High-danger chances finished 7–2 for STL. The rush-attack gulf was stark: 5 Blues goals on 21 chances versus 2 Mammoth goals on 23 chances.

Utah's goalies fought hard. V. Vanecek saved 4.0 goals above expected. K. Vejmelka saved 2.0 goals above expected. It wasn't enough. Utah scored twice from low-danger spots—shots opposing goaltenders are supposed to stop. The Mammoth crashed effectively for 3 rebound opportunities and converted 1, but couldn't overcome the gap in chance quality.

The turning point: Robert Thomas's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 19:22), crystallizing where the Blues found their advantage.

J. Hofer (STL) needed only competence, posting 20 saves on 23 shots (0.870 SV%). He was. St. Louis converted its quality into goals. Utah didn't.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Apr 16
STL
5
UTA
3

Blues run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

Chances 5.0 – 2.5Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Blues earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
STL
4.98
UTA
2.53
66% of the chances34%

The board read STL 5, UTA 3. The chances read STL 5.0, UTA 2.5.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
STL
+0.0
goals above expected
STL4.98 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
UTA2.53 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 03:45STLP. Buchnevich1–0
  2. P1 16:55UTAM. Carcone1–1
  3. P2 00:45UTAL. Crouse1–2
  4. P2 08:14STLR. Thomas2–2
  5. P2 11:07STLR. Thomas3–2
  6. P2 18:52UTAK. Yamamoto3–3
  7. P3 17:03STLL. Mailloux4–3
+1 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
STL
40 shots
5
Final
82 shots
UTA
42 shots
3
STL attackUTA attack
STL UTA Goal
40
shots · 5 in
42
shots · 3 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
STLUTA
2 / 7
3.22 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.40 xG
2 / 9
1.13 xG
Medium
1 / 14
1.50 xG
1 / 36
0.63 xG
Low
2 / 42
0.63 xG

The Blues buried 2 of 7 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
V. Vanecek
+4.0
UTA · 9/10
A
K. Vejmelka
+2.0
UTA · 15/18
+1 more on the full breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Blues run the Mammoth 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 11–9
  1. 03:45STLP. Buchnevich(J. Kyrou, P. Suter)1–0
  2. 16:55UTAM. Carcone(J. Peterka, J. Marino)1–1
2ndshots 7–11
  1. 00:45UTAL. Crouse(M. Weegar, C. Keller)1–2
  2. 08:14STLR. Thomas(D. Holloway)2–2
  3. 11:07STLR. Thomas(C. Fowler, D. Holloway)3–2
  4. 18:52UTAK. Yamamoto(M. Weegar, C. Keller)3–3
3rdshots 11–3
  1. 17:03STLL. Mailloux4–3
  2. 19:22STLR. Thomasempty net(J. Snuggerud, P. Broberg)5–3

score reads STL–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.98
STL chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.0
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.044
STL puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
47.3%
Shot attempts
Under half — they were outshot
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.98Expected goals2.53
STL 66% of the chance quality
29Shots on goal23
7High-danger chances2
52All attempts (Corsi)58
Adjusted for score: STL 46% · UTA 54%
Faceoffs · UTA won59%off45%neu48%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL2 / 7 · 3.22 xG
UTA0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL2 / 9 · 1.13 xG
UTA1 / 14 · 1.50 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL1 / 36 · 0.63 xG
UTA2 / 42 · 0.63 xG

UTA went 2-for-42 from low danger on 0.63 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
5 G · 4.98 xG · +0.0
UTA
3 G · 2.53 xG · +0.5
0123456

STL finished +0.0 against expected, UTA +0.5.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
SNAP0/17
WRIST3/8
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND1/3
OTHER0/12
UTA
SNAP1/15
WRIST1/13
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/16
STL
UTA
Off the rush
5 G on 21
2.78 xG
2 G on 23
1.77 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2
0.17 xG
1 G on 3
0.41 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-17, UTA 1-for-15. STL 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
J. Hofer
STL · 20/23 · .870
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium1/141.5+0.5
Low2/420.6-1.4

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

V. Vanecek
UTA · 9/10 · .900
+4.0
saved above expected
A+
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/73.2+1.2
Medium2/91.1-0.9
Low1/360.6-0.4

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

K. Vejmelka
UTA · 15/18 · .833
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger2/73.2+1.2
Medium2/91.1-0.9
Low1/360.6-0.4

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

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
STL
40 shots
5
Final
82 shots
UTA
42 shots
3
STL attackUTA attack
STL UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — STL 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
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
3 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:54 on ice · +2
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:14 on ice · -1
M. Weegar
#52 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:29 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Thu, Apr 16
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:55 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 owns this matchup on the underlying numbers. The model projects 2.4–2.6 goals for the Blues but assigns Utah 55% win probability—a gap that reflects the Mammoth's possession control.

The Mammoth dictate where play happens. Utah's 52.0% 5v5 expected goals and 53.0% Corsi% represent a territorial edge wide enough to expect consistent advantage. St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi—they will chase all night. When one team controls the puck at this margin, possession tends to correlate with shot volume and goals.

Both goaltenders arrive on their second straight game. K. Vejmelka and J. Binnington are fatigue risks; either could start compromised or yield to a backup.

Players to Watch

St. Louis: Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15G, 22A, 11.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance goals) is the offensive engine. Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13G, 24A, 10.8% shooting) provides secondary scoring. Snuggerud is also a defensive liability—Utah will hunt his gaps.

Utah: Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28G, 15A, 16.8% shooting, 3 hard-chance goals) is the class of the ice—his finishing efficiency stands apart. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G, 2A, 1 hard-chance goal) is sidelined; he hasn't played in 21 days.

St. Louis must contain Guenther and limit Snuggerud's defensive exposure. Utah's path is simpler: build on possession, attack Snuggerud's gaps, and target Maveric Lamoureux, whose defense is the structural weak point.

Possession this wide does not typically lie. Utah should control the game.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

UTA 55%
55%
UTA
Model favorite
45%
55%
STL50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 2.4–2.6 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
STL← edge
edge →UTA
49.0%52.0%
48.0%53.0%
2.342.64
2.402.39
2.002.26
2.121.99
1.0001.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.000 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
STL
6-3-1
+11 GD · 1d rest
UTA
6-4-0
+5 GD · 1d rest
1.000
STL 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. Binnington 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
STL
Expected in goal
J. Binnington
back-to-back.783 last start
Backup Joel Hofer · +11.7 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.875 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
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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