Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater

Breakdown · UTA at LAK · Preseason

Mammoth pull away from the Kings

FinalTue, Sep 22

The verdict · coin flip

The Mammoth won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

UTA 6 · LAK 3

Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The shots and grades below describe this game only: nothing here counts toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 23, 12:44 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Raw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Mammoth rolled past the Kings 6-3 in a game the underlying numbers called close to even — expected goals split 3.49–3.34, a slight edge to the Kings.

The numbers behind the result. The Kings held 39% of shot attempts (22–35 on goal). Expected goals finished 3.49–3.34 (51–49% split), and high-danger chances went 5–3.

Variance watch. The Mammoth overperformed their xG by 2.66 goals.

Turning point. Anders Lee's wrist shot from the wing (P3, 19:10).

Goaltending

K. Vejmelka (UTA): 19/22 saves, 0.864 SV%
D. Kuemper (LAK): 29/34 saves, 0.853 SV% (-1.66 vs expected)

Storylines

UTA generated higher-quality looks than the shot total suggests.
D. Kuemper (LAK) gave up 1.7 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
LAK generated far more dangerous chances — 0.081 xG/shot vs 0.056. Quality over quantity.
LAK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 22 rush chances.
UTA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 27 rush chances.
LAK created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
UTA created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
UTA outperformed their expected goals by 2.7 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.

Final: UTA 6 – LAK 3

Data: NHL API, MoneyPuck xG model

Goals

P1 08:49 — UTA D. But (M. Weegar, T. Iginla), power play → 1-0
P1 18:43 — UTA C. Keller (unassisted) → 2-0
P2 02:42 — LAK B. Clarke (A. Kempe, Q. Byfield), power play → 2-1
P2 03:51 — UTA N. Schmaltz (M. Sergachev, C. Keller) → 3-1
P2 12:22 — UTA A. Lee (D. But, M. Weegar) → 4-1
P2 16:23 — LAK M. Chromiak (B. Clarke) → 4-2
P3 01:48 — LAK T. Ward (K. Connors, L. Lefebvre) → 4-3
P3 03:14 — UTA L. O'Brien (M. Lamoureux, M. Sergachev) → 5-3
P3 19:10 — UTA A. Lee (D. Guenther, L. Cooley), empty net → 6-3

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page

Final · Preseason · Sep 22

UTA

LAK

Mammoth pull away from the Kings

Chances 3.3 – 3.5Did they deserve it? →

Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value

UTA

3.34

LAK

3.49

49% of the chances51%

The board read UTA 6, LAK 3. The chances read UTA 3.3, LAK 3.5.

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

Luck check

UTA

+2.7

goals above expected

UTA3.34 expected · 6 scored

Expected

Scored

LAK3.49 expected · 3 scored

Expected

Scored

The Mammoth scored 2.7 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 08:49UTAD. ButPP1–0
P1 18:43UTAC. Keller2–0
P2 02:42LAKB. ClarkePP2–1
P2 03:51UTAN. Schmaltz3–1
P2 12:22UTAA. Lee4–1
P2 16:23LAKM. Chromiak4–2
P3 01:48LAKT. Ward4–3

+2 more on the full breakdown

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

Where the shots came from

UTA

44 shots

Final

80 shots

LAK

36 shots

UTA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

shots · 6 in

shots · 3 in

Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it

Chances by danger

UTALAK

2 / 3

0.75 xG

High danger

1 / 5

1.30 xG

3 / 16

1.94 xG

Medium

2 / 13

1.75 xG

1 / 41

0.65 xG

Low

0 / 25

0.45 xG

The Mammoth buried 2 of 3 high-danger looks.

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

In the net

K. Vejmelka

+0.5

UTA · 19/22

D. Kuemper

−1.7

LAK · 29/34

Report card

UTALAK

OffenseBA-

DefenseFD

TransitionD+B-

Special teamsB-C+

GoaltendingB-F

DisciplineA+F

LuckA+F

Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown

Why it went the way it went

Why UTA won

01Dangerous off the rush
02Power play cashed in
03The moment it turned

Why LAK lost

01Rush defense leaked all night
02Paraded to the penalty box
03D. Kuemper gave one back

Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown

The numbers, checked

BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Kings

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 / 10 · Final

Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play

1stshots 13–6

08:49UTAD. Butpower play(M. Weegar, T. Iginla)1–0
18:43UTAC. Keller2–0

2ndshots 14–5

02:42LAKB. Clarkepower play(A. Kempe, Q. Byfield)2–1
03:51UTAN. Schmaltz(M. Sergachev, C. Keller)3–1
12:22UTAA. Lee(D. But, M. Weegar)4–1
16:23LAKM. Chromiak(B. Clarke)4–2

3rdshots 8–11

01:48LAKT. Ward(K. Connors, L. Lefebvre)4–3
03:14UTAL. O'Brien(M. Lamoureux, M. Sergachev)5–3
19:10UTAA. Leeempty net(D. Guenther, L. Cooley)6–3

score reads UTA–LAK

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

Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play

3.34

UTA chances

Goals their shots were worth

+2.7

Finishing

Goals above what those chances were worth

1.030

UTA puck luck

Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way

58.3%

Shot attempts

Over half — they had the puck more

Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.34Expected goals3.49

LAK 51% of the chance quality

35Shots on goal22

3High-danger chances5

60All attempts (Corsi)43

Adjusted for score: UTA 52% · LAK 48%

Faceoffs · LAK won38%off39%neu58%def

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

UTA2 / 3 · 0.75 xG

LAK1 / 5 · 1.30 xG

Medium dangermid-range

UTA3 / 16 · 1.94 xG

LAK2 / 13 · 1.75 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

UTA1 / 41 · 0.65 xG

LAK0 / 25 · 0.45 xG

UTA went 2-for-3 from high danger on 0.75 expected goals — 1.3 above expected.

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

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

UTA

6 G · 3.34 xG · +2.7

LAK

3 G · 3.49 xG · -0.5

01234567

UTA finished +2.7 against expected, LAK -0.5.

Source · Backcheck xG model

Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

UTA

WRIST3/22

SNAP2/8

SLAP0/6

TIP IN1/5

BACKHAND0/3

POKE0/0

OTHER0/16

LAK

WRIST0/12

SNAP0/6

SLAP1/5

TIP IN1/5

BACKHAND1/3

POKE0/2

OTHER0/10

UTA

LAK

Off the rush

3 G on 27

1.88 xG

3 G on 22

2.70 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 3

0.32 xG

0 G on 4

0.52 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-22, LAK 0-for-12. 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

K. Vejmelka

UTA · 19/22 · .864

+0.5

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger1/51.3+0.3

Medium2/131.8-0.3

Low0/250.5+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

D. Kuemper

LAK · 29/34 · .853

-1.7

saved above expected

the night

By dangerG/attxGsaved

High danger2/30.8-1.3

Medium3/161.9-1.1

Low1/410.7-0.3

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

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F

DimensionUTALAK

Offense

▸Basis

UTA Created 3.34 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 3 high-danger shots (0.75 xG) and 27 rush shots (1.88 xG).

LAK Created 3.49 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.30 xG) and 22 rush shots (2.70 xG).

A-

Defense

▸Basis

UTA Allowed 3.49 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.30 xG) and 22 rush shots (2.70 xG).

LAK Allowed 3.34 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 3 high-danger shots (0.75 xG) and 27 rush shots (1.88 xG).

Transition

▸Basis

UTA Rush shots 27–22, rush xG 1.88–2.70 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

LAK Rush shots 22–27, rush xG 2.70–1.88 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

D+

B-

Special teams

▸Basis

UTA 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.78 PP xG.

LAK 1-for-4 on the power play (25%; league ≈21%) with 0.50 PP xG.

B-

C+

Goaltending

▸Basis

UTA +0.49 goals saved above expected on 22 shots against.

LAK -1.66 goals saved above expected on 34 shots against.

B-

Discipline

▸Basis

UTA Took 8 penalties for 22 PIM vs 9 for 32 on the other side.

LAK Took 9 penalties for 32 PIM vs 8 for 22 on the other side.

A+

100

Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

UTA Finishing +2.66 goals vs xG plus +0.49 GSAx of save luck = +3.15 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

LAK Finishing -0.49 goals vs xG plus -1.66 GSAx of save luck = -2.15 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

A+

100

Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately

What the model flagged

WARNINGUTA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 22 rush shots worth 2.70 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHLAK

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 22 rush shots worth 2.70 xG.

LUCKUTA

Ran hot in front of the net

Scored 6 on 3.34 xG — +2.66 above expected. Shooting luck like that regresses.

WARNINGLAK

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 27 rush shots worth 1.88 xG (3 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHUTA

Dangerous off the rush

3 goals on 27 rush shots worth 1.88 xG.

WARNINGLAK

Paraded to the penalty box

Took 9 penalties for 32 minutes (opponent: 8 for 22).

Cut the stick infractions — the penalty differential is a controllable.

80 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates

UTA

44 shots

Final

80 shots

LAK

36 shots

UTA LAK GoalBigger dot · more dangerous look

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

B. Clarke

#92 · D · LAK

1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 24:38 on ice

M. Sergachev

#98 · D · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 24:07 on ice · +1

M. Weegar

#52 · D · UTA

0 G · 2 A · 4 SOG · 21:52 on ice · +1

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Tue, Sep 22

Open the pre-game read

Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity

Preseason · exhibition

Split squads and prospects, not the club that will take the ice in October. The rates below are last season's; this exhibition will not count toward season records, form, rankings or player numbers.

◆ By the ModelSep 21, 11:49 PMEdited 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 projects a UTA 3.1 to 3.2 LAK game with the Kings at 52% win probability — about as close to a pick'em as you'll find. On underlying metrics, the two teams are indistinguishable: UTA leads in xG% (51.5% to 51.4%) and Corsi% (52.9% to 52.1%), margins so thin they're noise. This one comes down to assignment detail and goaltending.

Dylan Guenther has arrived as UTA's engine: 28 goals, 1.02 xG/60, three high-danger chances. His 16.8% shooting rate suggests room to regress, but the work underneath is real. LA will task someone to neutralize him; whether that works depends on how much room the top line creates in transition.

Alex Laferriere is the counter-threat. Sixteen goals on 0.87 xG/60 means he's been efficient but not generating high-volume looks — 9.9% shooting makes him due for positive regression. UTA's defense needs to keep his line from building momentum down low, where he's earned his two high-danger chances.

Daniil But (2 goals, 1.01 xG/60, one HD goal) and Jared Wright (0 goals, four assists, 0.83 xG/60) are the secondary engines, both on trajectories that matter. But's 5.6% shooting is the outlier; Wright's role is assist-first.

Neither team has scored a high-danger or rebound goal yet this season — a small-sample curiosity that suggests either defensive commitment or variance you'd expect to normalize. Maveric Lamoureux anchors UTA's backend; Adrian Kempe does the same for LA.

The deciding factor sits between the pipes. Darcy Kuemper's -9.2 GSAx over 50 games is a hole UTA cannot ignore. In a game where both teams throw nearly identical underlying numbers at each other, goaltending breaks the tie.

Season rates in this preview are from 2025-26 — this season's sample isn't live yet.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

LAK 52%

52%

LAK

Model favorite

48%

52%

UTA50LAK

LAK by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 3.1–3.2 LAK; 16% 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 →LAK

51.5%51.4%

52.9%52.1%

3.183.10

3.002.93

3.272.68

2.932.90

1.0031.001

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.003 vs 1.001) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5

Form · Last 1

UTA

0-1-0

-3 GD · 2d rest

LAK

0-1-0

-2 GD · 2d rest

1.003

UTA PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

1.001

LAK PDO

Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000

What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICALLAK

Shutdown Assignment: Kings

Key matchup: Neutralize Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 3 HD goals)

TACTICALUTA

Shutdown Assignment: Mammoth

Key matchup: Neutralize Alex Laferriere (16G, 0.87 xG/60, 2 HD goals)

WARNINGUTA

Exploitable minutes: Maveric Lamoureux

Maveric Lamoureux is on ice for 2.98 xGA/60 and 4 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Maveric Lamoureux's shifts with the top line.

WARNINGLAK

Exploitable minutes: Adrian Kempe

Adrian Kempe is on ice for 2.47 xGA/60 and 43 high-danger shots against this season.

Hunt matchups against Adrian Kempe's shifts with the top line.

Things to watch

Two evenly matched teams on paper — this one tilts on goaltending.

Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score

UTA

Expected in goal

S. Cossa

2 days rest.917 last start

Backup Karel Vejmelka · +0.9 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

LAK

Expected in goal

A. Forsberg

2 days rest.800 last start

Backup Darcy Kuemper · -9.2 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

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

LAK

Alex Laferriere16G 18A

0.87 xG/60 · 2 HD · 9.9% sh

Jared Wright0G 4A

0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 0.0% sh

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page