Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Thu, Oct 1 · the slate
Breakdown · CHI at UTA

Mammoth shut out the Blackhawks, 6-0

FinalThu, Oct 1
CHIChicago Blackhawks0UTAUtah Mammoth6
The verdict · earned

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

CHI 0 · UTA 6
◆ By the ModelOct 2, 12:22 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 dominated from the opening shift. K. Vejmelka was impenetrable from start to finish, and the Mammoth's transition attack found holes in Chicago's defense repeatedly, scoring early and often to build an insurmountable lead by the second intermission.

K. Vejmelka faced 15 shots on expected goals worth 2.24 and stopped all of them, exceeding his workload by 2.24 goals—a performance that backed Utah's dominance completely. A. Soderblom faced the flip side: six goals on expected goals of 4.33, underperforming by 1.67. Utah controlled 68% of shot attempts. Chicago generated six high-danger chances but couldn't convert once. Utah was lethal off the rush, scoring five times on 35 such opportunities.

D. But's tip-in at 12:50 of the third completed the rout. C. Keller supplied two assists in 17:43; D. Guenther (two goals in 14:33) and M. Carcone (one goal, one assist in 12:40) paced the Mammoth's depth.

The goals

  • UTA 0–1, 16:41 of the first on the power play. D. Guenther, snap shot from 32 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Assists: L. Cooley, C. Keller. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • UTA 0–2, 17:21 of the first. M. Carcone, wrist shot from 20 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Assists: K. Stenlund. 4 seconds after a UTA hit by L. Crouse. Win probability moved 13 points.
  • UTA 0–3, 09:47 of the second. N. Schmaltz, snap shot from 6 feet, a 10% chance by the model (a rebound), past A. Soderblom. Assists: V. Trocheck, M. Sergachev. 2 seconds after a UTA missed shot by M. Sergachev. A. Vlasic was 83 seconds into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 7 points.
  • UTA 0–4, 13:06 of the second. A. Lee, tip-in from 8 feet, a 9% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Assists: A. Peeke, D. Simashev.
  • UTA 0–5, 15:28 of the second on the power play. D. Guenther, tip-in from 6 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Assists: C. Keller, L. Crouse.
  • UTA 0–6, 12:50 of the third. D. But, tip-in from 14 feet, a 3% chance by the model (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Assists: M. Carcone, N. Schmidt. 10 seconds after a UTA shot by J. Marino.

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 · Oct 1
CHI
0
UTA
6

Mammoth shut out the Blackhawks, 6-0

Chances 2.2 – 4.3Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
CHI
2.24
UTA
4.33
34% of the chances66%

The board read CHI 0, UTA 6. The chances read CHI 2.2, UTA 4.3.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+1.7
goals above expected
UTA4.33 expected · 6 scored
Expected
Scored
CHI2.24 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Mammoth scored 1.7 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+17
win-probability points
54% → 71% for UTA
UTA 100%the game, start to finish
CHI 100%P1 · P2 · P3
UTAP1 16:41 · PP

D. Guenther makes it 0–1.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 16:41UTAD. GuentherPP11%0–1
  2. P1 17:21UTAM. Carcone8%0–2
  3. P2 09:47UTAN. Schmaltz10%0–3
  4. P2 13:06UTAA. Lee9%0–4
  5. P2 15:28UTAD. GuentherPP8%0–5
  6. P3 12:50UTAD. But3%0–6
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
CHI
31 shots
0
Final
85 shots
UTA
54 shots
6
CHI attackUTA attack
CHI UTA Goal
31
shots · 0 in
54
shots · 6 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
CHIUTA
0 / 4
0.87 xG
High danger
0 / 6
1.35 xG
0 / 11
1.10 xG
Medium
5 / 24
2.45 xG
0 / 27
0.27 xG
Low
1 / 35
0.53 xG

The Blackhawks went 0 for 4 from the slot.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
K. Vejmelka
+2.2
UTA · 15/15 · 60:00
Best save · a 30% chance, snap from 24 ft · P2 11:39
F
A. Soderblom
−1.7
CHI · 26/32 · 60:00
Best save · a 32% chance, backhand from 9 ft · P3 01:37
Best skater on the ice
A+
UTA
D. Guenther
R · impact 2.53
14:33
Ice time
2–0
G – A
0.51
Own xG
80%
xG share
Impact · top 4
D. Guenther2.5A+
C. Keller2.4A+
M. Carcone1.5A+
A. Lee1.4A
Report card
CHIUTA
OffenseCA+
DefenseFC
TransitionFA+
Special teamsFA+
GoaltendingFA+
DisciplineCC
LuckFA+
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why UTA won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02K. Vejmelka stole it
  3. 03Won on the merits
Why CHI lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth shut out the Blackhawks, 6-0

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 7–13
  1. 16:41UTAD. Guentherpower play(L. Cooley, C. Keller)0–1

    Snap shot from 32 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: N. Schmidt, L. Crouse, J. Marino, B. Hayton, J. McBain · against P. Kane, T. Bertuzzi, W. Kaiser, S. Rinzel, A. Frondell

  2. 17:21UTAM. Carcone(K. Stenlund)0–2

    Wrist shot from 20 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. 4s after a UTA hit by L. Crouse. Win probability moved 13 points.On the ice: V. Trocheck, N. Schmaltz, C. Keller, A. Peeke, D. Simashev · against T. Teravainen, B. Byram, A. Vlasic, F. Nazar, R. Kantserov

2ndshots 2–13
  1. 09:47UTAN. Schmaltz(V. Trocheck, M. Sergachev)0–3

    Snap shot from 6 feet, a 10% chance (a rebound), past A. Soderblom. 2s after a UTA miss by M. Sergachev. A. Vlasic was 83s into his shift for the defending side. Win probability moved 7 points.On the ice: N. Schmaltz, C. Keller, M. Sergachev, D. Guenther, L. Cooley · against I. Cole, J. Greenway, A. Vlasic, F. Nazar

  2. 13:06UTAA. Lee(A. Peeke, D. Simashev)0–4

    Tip-in from 8 feet, a 9% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Soderblom.On the ice: V. Trocheck, N. Schmidt, N. Schmaltz, J. Marino, C. Keller · against I. Cole, J. Greenway, A. Vlasic, C. Smith, R. Greene

  3. 15:28UTAD. Guentherpower play(C. Keller, L. Crouse)0–5

    Tip-in from 6 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Soderblom.On the ice: M. Weegar, K. Stenlund, M. Sergachev, M. Carcone, D. But · against P. Kane, T. Bertuzzi, W. Kaiser, A. Levshunov, A. Frondell

3rdshots 6–6
  1. 12:50UTAD. But(M. Carcone, N. Schmidt)0–6

    Tip-in from 14 feet, a 3% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past A. Soderblom. 10s after a UTA shot by J. Marino.

score reads CHI–UTA

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

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.33
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+1.7
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.092
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
60.7%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

2.24Expected goals4.33
UTA 66% of the chance quality
15Shots on goal32
4High-danger chances6
42All attempts (Corsi)65
Adjusted for score: CHI 45% · UTA 55%
Faceoffs · UTA won71%off83%neu60%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
CHI0 / 4 · 0.87 xG
UTA0 / 6 · 1.35 xG
Medium dangermid-range
CHI0 / 11 · 1.10 xG
UTA5 / 24 · 2.45 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
CHI0 / 27 · 0.27 xG
UTA1 / 35 · 0.53 xG

UTA went 5-for-24 from medium danger on 2.45 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
CHI
0 G · 2.24 xG · -2.2
UTA
6 G · 4.33 xG · +1.7
01234567

CHI finished -2.2 against expected, UTA +1.7.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
CHI
SNAP0/19
SLAP0/6
WRIST0/2
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/11
UTA
SNAP2/26
SLAP0/7
WRIST1/8
TIP IN3/7
BACKHAND0/5
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/11
CHI
UTA
Off the rush
0 G on 19
2.08 xG
5 G on 35
3.52 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.09 xG
1 G on 5
0.37 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: CHI went 0-for-19, UTA 2-for-26. UTA 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
A. Soderblom
CHI · 26/32 · .812
started · 60:00 · loss
-1.7
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
54
Avg chance faced
8.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.889 vs 0.920
Rebounds allowed
5 · 1 scored on
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/61.4+1.4
Medium5/242.5-2.5
Low1/240.5-0.5
Shorthanded2/40.4-1.6
Tips & deflections3/80.5-2.5
The save
32% chance stopped, a backhand from 9 ft · P3 01:37
The one to have back
3% chance went in, a tip-in from 14 ft · P3 12:50

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 · 15/15 · 1.000
started · 60:00 · win
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
30
Avg chance faced
7.5%
Stopped vs expected
1.000 vs 0.925
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/40.9+0.9
Medium0/111.1+1.1
Low0/150.3+0.3
Shorthanded0/20.3+0.3
Tips & deflections0/10.0+0.0
The save
30% chance stopped, a snap from 24 ft · P2 11:39

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: D. Guenther (UTA), 14:33 of ice, 2-0, 80% of the expected goals while he was out.

CHI18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
J. GreenwayL13:520-032C
R. KantserovR16:360-052C
A. FrondellC18:100-034C
C. SmithR14:130-035C
A. LevshunovD19:510-041C
T. TeravainenC13:000-040D
R. GreeneC17:040-036D
W. KaiserD19:490-025D
I. ColeD14:520-036D
T. BertuzziL18:150-031D
F. NazarC17:230-033D
S. RinzelD17:300-029D
B. ByramD24:490-036D
P. KaneR19:190-032F
O. MooreC11:250-014F
N. LardisL10:180-04F
R. DonatoC11:540-011F
A. VlasicD18:180-04F
UTA18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
D. GuentherR14:332-080A+
C. KellerR17:430-290A+
M. CarconeL12:401-139A+
A. LeeL12:071-058A
M. SergachevD22:570-183A
N. SchmaltzC18:121-078A
L. CooleyC16:070-178A
L. CrouseL15:150-173A
V. TrocheckC17:290-163B
D. SimashevD16:340-169B
K. StenlundC12:580-170B
M. WeegarD20:390-087B
D. ButL12:081-045B
N. SchmidtD18:560-169B
B. HaytonC13:490-083B
J. McBainC13:260-081C
A. PeekeD17:050-158C
J. MarinoD21:220-057C

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, CHI: A. Mangiapane, E. Del Mastro, K. Korchinski. Scratched, UTA: L. O'Brien, K. Yamamoto, N. DeSimone. Referees Francois St-Laurent and Carter Sandlak; linesmen Tommy Hughes and Travis Toomey.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionCHIUTA
Offense
▸Basis

CHI Created 2.24 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.87 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.08 xG).

UTA Created 4.33 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 6 high-danger shots (1.35 xG) and 35 rush shots (3.52 xG).

C
75
A+
100
Defense
▸Basis

CHI Allowed 4.33 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 6 high-danger shots (1.35 xG) and 35 rush shots (3.52 xG).

UTA Allowed 2.24 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.87 xG) and 19 rush shots (2.08 xG).

F
46
C
75
Transition
▸Basis

CHI Rush shots 19–35, rush xG 2.08–3.52 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

UTA Rush shots 35–19, rush xG 3.52–2.08 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

F
53
A+
97
Special teams
▸Basis

CHI 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.29 PP xG.

UTA 2-for-3 on the power play (67%; league ≈21%) with 0.37 PP xG.

F
52
A+
100
Goaltending
▸Basis

CHI -1.67 goals saved above expected on 32 shots against.

UTA +2.24 goals saved above expected on 15 shots against.

F
58
A+
97
Discipline
▸Basis

CHI Took 5 penalties for 13 PIM vs 5 for 13 on the other side.

UTA Took 5 penalties for 13 PIM vs 5 for 13 on the other side.

C
75
C
75
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

CHI Finishing -2.24 goals vs xG plus -1.67 GSAx of save luck = -3.91 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

UTA Finishing +1.67 goals vs xG plus +2.24 GSAx of save luck = +3.91 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

F
44
A+
100
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHUTA

Dangerous off the rush

5 goals on 35 rush shots worth 3.52 xG.

WARNINGCHI

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 35 rush shots worth 3.52 xG (5 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 15 of 15 (1.000) — +2.24 goals saved above expected in a 6-goal game.

LUCKCHI

Cold finishing night

Scored 0 on 2.24 xG — -2.24 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

LUCKUTA

PDO ran hot

Single-game PDO of 1.092 — the bounces went their way tonight.

LUCKCHI

PDO ran cold

Single-game PDO of 0.908 — the bounces went against them tonight.

85 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
CHI
31 shots
0
Final
85 shots
UTA
54 shots
6
CHI attackUTA attack
CHI UTA Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — CHI 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 · 2 A · 4 SOG · 17:43 on ice · +1
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
2 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 14:33 on ice · +1
M. Carcone
#53 · L · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 12:40 on ice · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page