Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Sat, Sep 26 · the slate
Breakdown · COL at UTA · Preseason

Mammoth shut out the Avalanche, 2-0

FinalSat, Sep 26
COLColorado Avalanche0UTAUtah Mammoth2
The verdict · earned

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

COL 0 · UTA 2
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 27, 12:10 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited 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 beat Colorado 2-0 with two first-period goals. K. Vejmelka made all 25 shots count.

Utah's offensive control masked an underperformance. They held 67% of expected goals but finished with just two goals, underperforming their workload by 4.56—a gap that ordinarily costs teams the game. Colorado's situation was bleaker: three expected goals on the whole night, zero conversions on seven high-danger attempts.

L. Cooley scored at 10:35 of the first, a rebound from seven feet on the power play (19% scoring chance), assisted by C. Keller and D. Guenther. J. McBain had opened it at 6:38 with a snap from eight feet (23% chance), set up by B. Hayton and N. Schmidt. Both arrived in the same window, leaving Colorado no time to recover.

Utah turned that scoring drought into an advantage by controlling Colorado's counter: 38 rush attempts by the Avalanche yielded 4.80 expected goals and zero results. Utah's speed game produced ten high-danger chances and finished on two of them. Vejmelka saved 3.21 goals above expected, covering Utah's finish gap. S. Wedgewood, Colorado's starter, saved 4.56 above expected across 33 of 35 stops—an individual excellence that mattered less when the team behind him couldn't generate enough offensive chances to make it count.

Three Stars

  • #9 C. Keller (UTA) — 1A, 21:04
  • #92 L. Cooley (UTA) — 1G, 19:40
  • #11 D. Guenther (UTA) — 1A, 18:54

The goals

  • UTA 0–1, 06:38 of the first. J. McBain, snap shot from 8 feet, a 23% chance by the model, past S. Wedgewood. Assists: B. Hayton, N. Schmidt. 1 second after a COL hit by F. Lysell. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • UTA 0–2, 10:35 of the first on the power play. L. Cooley, snap shot from 7 feet, a 19% chance by the model (a rebound), past S. Wedgewood. Assists: C. Keller, D. Guenther. 3 seconds after a UTA shot by L. Cooley. Win probability moved 12 points.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Preseason · Sep 26
COL
0
UTA
2

Mammoth shut out the Avalanche, 2-0

Chances 3.2 – 6.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
COL
3.21
UTA
6.56
33% of the chances67%

The board read COL 0, UTA 2. The chances read COL 3.2, UTA 6.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
−4.6
goals above expected
UTA6.56 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
COL3.21 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Avalanche left 3.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+14
win-probability points
54% → 68% for UTA
UTA 100%the game, start to finish
COL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
UTAP1 06:38

J. McBain makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 06:38UTAJ. McBain23%0–1
  2. P1 10:35UTAL. CooleyPP19%0–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
COL
36 shots
0
Final
96 shots
UTA
60 shots
2
COL attackUTA attack
COL UTA Goal
36
shots · 0 in
60
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
COLUTA
0 / 7
1.41 xG
High danger
2 / 10
2.45 xG
0 / 10
1.39 xG
Medium
0 / 35
3.89 xG
0 / 31
0.41 xG
Low
0 / 30
0.23 xG

The Avalanche went 0 for 7 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A+
S. Wedgewood
+4.6
COL · 33/35 · 60:00
Best save · a 51% chance, wrist from 3 ft · P1 10:32
A+
K. Vejmelka
+3.2
UTA · 25/25 · 60:00
Best save · a 24% chance, backhand from 6 ft · P2 04:41
Best skater on the ice
A+
UTA
L. Cooley
C · impact 2.57
19:40
Ice time
1–0
G – A
1.53
Own xG
77%
xG share
Impact · top 4
L. Cooley2.6A+
D. Guenther2.0A+
C. Keller2.0A+
B. Hayton1.5A
Report card
COLUTA
OffenseB+A+
DefenseFD-
TransitionFA+
Special teamsFC
GoaltendingA+A+
DisciplineFA+
LuckBD
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why UTA won
  1. 01K. Vejmelka stole it
  2. 02Dangerous off the rush
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why COL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth shut out the Avalanche, 2-0

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 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 8–12
  1. 06:38UTAJ. McBain(B. Hayton, N. Schmidt)0–1

    Snap shot from 8 feet, a 23% chance, past S. Wedgewood. 1s after a COL hit by F. Lysell. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: N. Schmidt, M. Weegar, L. Crouse, B. Hayton, J. McBain · against B. Burns, S. Behrens, F. Lysell, T. Nielsen, T. Hughes

  2. 10:35UTAL. Cooleypower play(C. Keller, D. Guenther)0–2

    Snap shot from 7 feet, a 19% chance (a rebound), past S. Wedgewood. 3s after a UTA shot by L. Cooley. Win probability moved 12 points.On the ice: A. Lee, V. Trocheck, J. Marino, M. Carcone, D. But · against N. Roy, A. Gagne, M. Jedlicka, G. Stjernberg

2ndshots 9–11no goals
    3rdshots 8–12no goals

      score reads COL–UTA

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      6.56
      UTA chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −4.6
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.027
      UTA puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      61.0%
      Shot attempts
      Over half — they had the puck more
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      3.21Expected goals6.56
      UTA 67% of the chance quality
      25Shots on goal35
      7High-danger chances10
      48All attempts (Corsi)75
      Adjusted for score: COL 45% · UTA 55%
      Faceoffs · UTA won80%off65%neu35%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      COL0 / 7 · 1.41 xG
      UTA2 / 10 · 2.45 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      COL0 / 10 · 1.39 xG
      UTA0 / 35 · 3.89 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      COL0 / 31 · 0.41 xG
      UTA0 / 30 · 0.23 xG

      UTA went 0-for-35 from medium danger on 3.89 expected goals — 3.9 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      COL
      0 G · 3.21 xG · -3.2
      UTA
      2 G · 6.56 xG · -4.6
      01234567

      COL finished -3.2 against expected, UTA -4.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      COL
      SNAP0/26
      SLAP0/2
      WRIST0/2
      TIP IN0/2
      BACKHAND0/4
      BETWEEN LEGS0/0
      OTHER0/12
      UTA
      SNAP2/28
      SLAP0/11
      WRIST0/8
      TIP IN0/8
      BACKHAND0/4
      BETWEEN LEGS0/1
      OTHER0/15
      COL
      UTA
      Off the rush
      0 G on 24
      2.72 xG
      0 G on 38
      4.80 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 2
      0.20 xG
      1 G on 6
      0.63 xG

      Snap shots carried the volume: COL went 0-for-26, UTA 2-for-28.

      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
      S. Wedgewood
      COL · 33/35 · .943
      started · 60:00 · loss
      +4.6
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      Attempts faced
      59
      Avg chance faced
      11.1%
      Stopped vs expected
      0.966 vs 0.889
      Rebounds allowed
      6 · 1 scored on
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/102.5+0.5
      Medium0/353.9+3.9
      Low0/140.2+0.2
      Shorthanded1/223.0+2.0
      Tips & deflections0/70.6+0.6
      The save
      51% chance stopped, a wrist from 3 ft · P1 10:32
      The one to have back
      19% chance went in, a snap from 7 ft · P1 10:35

      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 · 25/25 · 1.000
      started · 60:00 · win
      +3.2
      saved above expected
      A+
      the night
      Attempts faced
      36
      Avg chance faced
      8.9%
      Stopped vs expected
      1.000 vs 0.911
      Rebounds allowed
      2
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/71.4+1.4
      Medium0/101.4+1.4
      Low0/190.4+0.4
      Shorthanded0/81.1+1.1
      Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
      The save
      24% chance stopped, a backhand from 6 ft · P2 04:41

      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

      Every skater who dressed

      Who played

      Rated on what they produced and how fast

      Best skater on the ice by our rating: L. Cooley (UTA), 19:40 of ice, 1-0, 77% of the expected goals while he was out.

      COL18 skaters
      SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
      M. DiMarsicoC12:300-072B
      A. BeckmanL15:580-048C
      T. HughesR17:140-050C
      F. LysellR16:320-044C
      G. StjernbergD15:380-028C
      T. NielsenC15:500-039D
      A. GagneD16:250-052D
      J. MansonD15:530-036D
      B. BurnsD19:000-039D
      S. BehrensD13:190-033D
      G. BrindleyC18:120-033D
      V. HinostrozaC17:490-028D
      T. MakarL5:090-00D
      M. JedlickaC15:240-012F
      N. RoyC19:460-029F
      N. PrishchepovC13:540-022F
      W. AamodtD16:070-017F
      K. MiddletonD17:420-013F
      UTA18 skaters
      SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
      L. CooleyC19:401-077A+
      D. GuentherR18:540-186A+
      C. KellerR21:040-175A+
      B. HaytonC14:150-170A
      A. LeeL15:110-083A
      N. SchmaltzC20:330-077A
      J. McBainC10:431-052A
      M. SergachevD24:300-069A
      N. SchmidtD15:300-154B
      M. CarconeL14:010-084B
      V. TrocheckC19:270-062B
      J. MarinoD20:390-067B
      D. ButL11:090-074B
      D. SimashevD12:360-063B
      L. CrouseL11:430-062C
      K. StenlundC11:080-049C
      M. WeegarD17:040-053C
      A. PeekeD13:530-057C

      xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

      Scratched, COL: N. Kadri, B. Nelson, J. Schwartz, G. Landeskog, B. Kulak, J. Megna and 43 more. Scratched, UTA: L. O'Brien, A. Poganski, K. Rooney, B. Tanev, K. Yamamoto, N. DeSimone and 27 more. Referees Brandon Schrader and Morgan MacPhee; linesmen Joe Mahon and Ben O'Quinn.

      Graded against a league-average game

      Report card

      Seven dimensions · A+ to F
      DimensionCOLUTA
      Offense
      ▸Basis

      COL Created 3.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (1.41 xG) and 24 rush shots (2.72 xG).

      UTA Created 6.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 10 high-danger shots (2.45 xG) and 38 rush shots (4.80 xG).

      B+
      89
      A+
      100
      Defense
      ▸Basis

      COL Allowed 6.56 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 10 high-danger shots (2.45 xG) and 38 rush shots (4.80 xG).

      UTA Allowed 3.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (1.41 xG) and 24 rush shots (2.72 xG).

      F
      15
      D-
      61
      Transition
      ▸Basis

      COL Rush shots 24–38, rush xG 2.72–4.80 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

      UTA Rush shots 38–24, rush xG 4.80–2.72 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

      F
      47
      A+
      100
      Special teams
      ▸Basis

      COL 0-for-4 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 1.13 PP xG.

      UTA 1-for-8 on the power play (12%; league ≈21%) with 2.99 PP xG.

      F
      59
      C
      75
      Goaltending
      ▸Basis

      COL +4.56 goals saved above expected on 35 shots against.

      UTA +3.21 goals saved above expected on 25 shots against.

      A+
      100
      A+
      100
      Discipline
      ▸Basis

      COL Took 8 penalties for 18 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

      UTA Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 8 for 18 on the other side.

      F
      50
      A+
      100
      Luck

      Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

      ▸Basis

      COL Finishing -3.21 goals vs xG plus +4.56 GSAx of save luck = +1.35 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

      UTA Finishing -4.56 goals vs xG plus +3.21 GSAx of save luck = -1.35 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

      B
      86
      D
      64
      Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
      What the model flagged
      STRENGTHCOL

      S. Wedgewood stole it

      S. Wedgewood stopped 33 of 35 (0.943) — +4.56 goals saved above expected in a 2-goal game.

      LUCKUTA

      Cold finishing night

      Scored 2 on 6.56 xG — -4.56 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

      WARNINGCOL

      Rush defense leaked all night

      Gave up 38 rush shots worth 4.80 xG (0 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

      STRENGTHUTA

      K. Vejmelka stole it

      K. Vejmelka stopped 25 of 25 (1.000) — +3.21 goals saved above expected in a 2-goal game.

      STRENGTHUTA

      Dangerous off the rush

      0 goals on 38 rush shots worth 4.80 xG.

      LUCKCOL

      Cold finishing night

      Scored 0 on 3.21 xG — -3.21 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

      96 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      COL
      36 shots
      0
      Final
      96 shots
      UTA
      60 shots
      2
      COL attackUTA attack
      COL UTA Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — COL 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 · 1 A · 3 SOG · 21:04 on ice
      L. Cooley
      #92 · C · UTA
      1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 19:40 on ice
      D. Guenther
      #11 · R · UTA
      0 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:54 on ice
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Sep 26
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Model draft
      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 26, 4:13 PMRaw model copyDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

      The model projects a COL 3.3 - 3.1 UTA game with the Avalanche at 53% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

      Keys to the game

      • Scott Wedgewood has been a season-long wall. Scott Wedgewood: +14.1 GSAx over 45 games (0.921 SV%).
      • Nathan MacKinnon drives the Avalanche offense. Nathan MacKinnon: 31G 74A, 1.46 xG/60, 13 high-danger goals.
      • Shutdown Assignment: Mammoth. Highest individual xG/60 on COL. Gets 44 HD shots. Limit slot access.

      Season 5v5 Numbers

      MetricCOLUTA
      xG%56.6%51.5%
      Corsi%56.4%52.9%
      PDO1.0211.003

      Rates from 2025-26 — the 2026-27 sample isn't live yet.

      Where the Edges Live

      • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.5%.
      • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.

      Regression Watch

      • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.

      Goaltending Matchup

      • Goalie matchup: M. Blackwood (+8.9 GSAx in 39 GP, 90.4% SV) vs S. Cossa.
      • M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.

      Players to Watch

      COL

      • Nathan MacKinnon — 1.46 xG/60, 31G 74A, 13 HD goals, 8.9% shooting
      • Gabriel Landeskog — 1.16 xG/60, 11G 21A, 4 HD goals, 8.3% shooting

      UTA

      • Jack McBain — 0.99 xG/60, 7G 16A, 6 HD goals, 6.6% shooting
      • Barrett Hayton — 0.98 xG/60, 3G 15A, 5 HD goals, 2.5% shooting

      Key Matchups

      COL

      • Key matchup: Neutralize Nathan MacKinnon (31G, 1.46 xG/60, 13 HD goals)
      • COL converts 29% from LD — goalie must track long-range shots

      UTA

      • UTA scores 51% of goals from HD — collapse and protect the slot
      • Attack when Dmitri Simashev (D) is on ice — 2.60 xGA/60

      Tactical Notes

      • COL: 0% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
      • COL defensive weak link: Gabriel Landeskog
      • UTA: 1% HD goal rate, 0% rebound goal rate
      • UTA defensive weak link: Dmitri Simashev

      Data: NHL API, Backcheck xG model

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      COL 53%
      53%
      COL
      Model favorite
      53%
      47%
      COL50UTA

      COL by 6 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score COL 3.3–3.1 UTA; 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
      COL← edge
      edge →UTA
      56.6%51.5%
      56.4%52.9%
      3.593.18
      2.763.00
      3.633.27
      2.402.93
      1.0211.003

      COL holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.021 vs 1.003) says COL has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · No games yet
      COL
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      UTA
      0-0-0
      +0 GD · 0d rest
      1.021
      COL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      1.003
      UTA PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      WARNINGCOL

      M. Blackwood on a back-to-back

      M. Blackwood projects to start on no rest, the second night of a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or tired legs.

      Test the goalie early with traffic and second-chance pressure.

      STRENGTHCOL

      Nathan MacKinnon drives the Avalanche offense

      Nathan MacKinnon: 31G 74A, 1.46 xG/60, 13 high-danger goals.

      STRENGTHCOL

      Scott Wedgewood has been a season-long wall

      Scott Wedgewood: +14.1 GSAx over 45 games (0.921 SV%).

      TACTICALUTA

      Shutdown Assignment: Mammoth

      Highest individual xG/60 on COL. Gets 44 HD shots. Limit slot access.

      Key matchup: Neutralize Nathan MacKinnon (31G, 1.46 xG/60, 13 HD goals)

      Where the edges live
      • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.5%.
      • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Avalanche own the underlying play — 56.6% 5v5 xG vs 51.5%.
      • The Avalanche drive Corsi at 56.4% — expect territorial tilt.
      • Goalie matchup: M. Blackwood (+8.9 GSAx in 39 GP, 90.4% SV) vs S. Cossa.
      • M. Blackwood is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Avalanche's PDO is 1.021 — running hot, expect some regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      COL
      preseason · vs WPG · Fri, Sep 25
      Expected in goal
      M. Blackwood
      back-to-back.923 last start60:00 played
      Backup Scott Wedgewood · +14.1 GSAx this season
      Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.
      Forwards · 12
      • F. Svechkov15:14
      • B. Nelson13:51
      • T. Hughes15:37
      • T. Makar14:08
      • P. Kelly13:51
      • N. MacKinnon16:39
      • G. Brindley10:59
      • A. Lehkonen13:48
      • J. Schwartz12:49
      • M. Necas17:27
      • N. Kadri16:02
      • G. Landeskog16:05
      Defence · 6
      • W. Aamodt17:01
      • D. Toews20:51
      • C. Makar22:04
      • B. Kulak21:17
      • N. Juulsen15:25
      • S. Malinski19:01
      UTA
      preseason · vs VGK · Thu, Sep 24
      Expected in goal
      S. Cossa
      1 day rest.857 last start60:39 played
      Backup Karel Vejmelka · +0.9 GSAx this season
      Forwards · 12
      • B. Tanev14:20
      • C. Desnoyers12:26
      • J. McBain18:36
      • B. Hayton17:32
      • L. O'Brien15:29
      • K. Yamamoto16:41
      • B. McCartney11:30
      • Y. Borikov14:19
      • T. Iginla11:57
      • K. Stenlund16:16
      • J. Roy13:48
      • G. Smith13:27
      Defence · 6
      • Z. Jones15:34
      • D. Simashev21:44
      • N. DeSimone21:32
      • T. Lavoie15:57
      • A. Duda22:59
      • N. Schmidt21:31

      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
      COL
      Nathan MacKinnon31G 74A
      1.46 xG/60 · 13 HD · 8.9% sh
      Gabriel Landeskog11G 21A
      1.16 xG/60 · 4 HD · 8.3% sh
      UTA
      Jack McBain7G 16A
      0.99 xG/60 · 6 HD · 6.6% sh
      Barrett Hayton3G 15A
      0.98 xG/60 · 5 HD · 2.5% sh
      Keep going

      Where to next

      Back to the front page