Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Sat, Oct 24 · the slate
Breakdown · TBL at UTA

Mammoth edge the Lightning in overtime

Final / OTSat, Oct 24
TBLTampa Bay Lightning4UTAUtah Mammoth5
The verdict · earned

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

TBL 4 · UTA 5
◆ By the ModelOct 25, 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

The Mammoth beat the Lightning 5-4 in overtime, and Dmitri Simashev ended it. He had already tied the game in the second period, after Utah scored three times in a row to erase a two-goal deficit.

The shot numbers point the other way. The Mammoth held just 46% of shot attempts, so Tampa Bay generated more of the shot volume. Expected goals, which weigh the quality of each chance rather than counting them, still gave Utah the edge, though only a slight one.

Utah's most dangerous weapon was the rush, and five of its goals came that way. K. Vejmelka was the difference in the crease. He stopped 1.21 more goals than that workload should have allowed.

The Lightning's report card shows where it hurt. Defense earned an F, and transition gaps showed up in every period.

Simashev's overtime winner was a wrist shot from the doorstep. It moved win probability 50 points, the largest swing of the night.

Editor's note, not part of the column: the draft's goaltending line doesn't match its goal log. It lists 29 saves on 32 shots for K. Vejmelka (3 goals allowed), but the log shows four Lightning goals past him. D. Hildeby's line (23 saves on 28) matches his five goals against. I left the save counts out of the column and used only the draft's +1.21 figure. Please check the source before publishing.

The goals

  • TBL 1–0, 05:10 of the first. J. Guentzel, shot from 11 feet, a 10% chance by the model (a rebound), past K. Vejmelka. 1 second after a TBL shot by J. Guentzel. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • UTA 1–1, 07:02 of the first. K. Yamamoto, wrist shot from 14 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • TBL 2–1, 10:06 of the first. P. Holmberg, snap shot from 35 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past K. Vejmelka. Assists: E. Cernak, R. McDonagh. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • TBL 3–1, 12:42 of the first on the power play. B. Point, backhander from 6 feet, a 14% chance by the model (a rebound), past K. Vejmelka. Assists: N. Kucherov, C. D'Astous. 2 seconds after a TBL shot by N. Kucherov. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • UTA 3–2, 17:39 of the first on the power play. D. Guenther, slap shot from 33 feet, a 10% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Assists: M. Sergachev, C. Keller. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • TBL 4–2, 05:32 of the second. C. Geekie, wrist shot from 7 feet, a 30% chance by the model (off the rush), past K. Vejmelka. Assists: S. Sabourin. 8 seconds after a UTA blocked shot by C. Geekie. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • UTA 4–3, 14:39 of the second. A. Lee, tip-in from 7 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Assists: M. Weegar, V. Trocheck. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • UTA 4–4, 17:02 of the second. D. Simashev, snap shot from 38 feet, a 7% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Assists: A. Peeke, V. Trocheck. Win probability moved 25 points.
  • UTA 4–5, 01:44 of overtime. D. Simashev, wrist shot from 3 feet, an 82% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Assists: B. Hayton, K. Vejmelka. Win probability moved 50 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 · OT · Oct 24
TBL
4
UTA
5

Mammoth edge the Lightning in overtime

Chances 4.2 – 5.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Mammoth earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
TBL
4.21
UTA
4.99
46% of the chances54%

The board read TBL 4, UTA 5. The chances read TBL 4.2, UTA 5.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.0
goals above expected
UTA4.99 expected · 5 scored
Expected
Scored
TBL4.21 expected · 4 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
The swing
+50
win-probability points
50% → 100% for UTA
UTA 100%the game, start to finish
TBL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
UTAOT 01:44

D. Simashev makes it 4–5.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 05:10TBLJ. Guentzel10%1–0
  2. P1 07:02UTAK. Yamamoto14%1–1
  3. P1 10:06TBLP. Holmberg11%2–1
  4. P1 12:42TBLB. PointPP14%3–1
  5. P1 17:39UTAD. GuentherPP10%3–2
  6. P2 05:32TBLC. Geekie30%4–2
  7. P2 14:39UTAA. Lee11%4–3
+2 more on the full breakdown
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
TBL
48 shots
4
Final
95 shots
UTA
47 shots
5
TBL attackUTA attack
TBL UTA Goal
48
shots · 4 in
47
shots · 5 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
TBLUTA
1 / 4
0.92 xG
High danger
1 / 9
2.42 xG
3 / 25
2.94 xG
Medium
4 / 22
2.33 xG
0 / 31
0.35 xG
Low
0 / 29
0.24 xG

High-danger looks: TBL 1 of 4, UTA 1 of 9.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
B+
K. Vejmelka
+1.2
UTA · 29/32 · 61:44
Best save · a 23% chance, snap from 20 ft · P3 11:27
C
D. Hildeby
−0.0
TBL · 23/28 · 61:44
Best save · a 22% chance, snap from 6 ft · P2 01:13
Best skater on the ice
A+
UTA
K. Yamamoto
R · impact 2.08
16:31
Ice time
1–0
G – A
0.63
Own xG
73%
xG share
Impact · top 4
K. Yamamoto2.1A+
P. Holmberg1.7A+
D. Simashev1.7A+
B. Hayton1.6A
Report card
TBLUTA
OffenseA+A+
DefenseFF
TransitionC-C+
Special teamsAB+
GoaltendingCB+
DisciplineCC
LuckCB
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. 02Power play cashed in
  3. 03K. Vejmelka tilted the crease
Why TBL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Rebound control was shaky
  3. 03Allowed 4.99 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 9 high-danger shots (2.42 xG) and 31 rush shots (3.91 xG).
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth edge the Lightning in overtime

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 12–9
  1. 05:10TBLJ. Guentzel1–0

    Shot from 11 feet, a 10% chance (a rebound), past K. Vejmelka. 1s after a TBL shot by J. Guentzel. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: J. Carlson, J. Guentzel, A. Cirelli, B. Hagel, J. Moser · against A. Lee, M. Weegar, N. Schmaltz, L. Crouse, M. Sergachev

  2. 07:02UTAK. Yamamoto1–1

    Wrist shot from 14 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: K. Stenlund, N. DeSimone, J. McBain, D. Simashev, D. But · against J. Carlson, S. Sabourin, J. Viel, J. Moser, C. Geekie

  3. 10:06TBLP. Holmberg(E. Cernak, R. McDonagh)2–1

    Snap shot from 35 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past K. Vejmelka. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: R. McDonagh, Z. Girgensons, E. Cernak, P. Holmberg, I. Mikheyev · against A. Lee, K. Yamamoto, N. DeSimone, B. Hayton, D. Simashev

  4. 12:42TBLB. Pointpower play(N. Kucherov, C. D'Astous)3–1

    Backhander from 6 feet, a 14% chance (a rebound), past K. Vejmelka. 2s after a TBL shot by N. Kucherov. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: R. McDonagh, S. Sabourin, E. Cernak, J. Viel, C. Geekie · against V. Trocheck, C. Keller, N. DeSimone, D. Guenther, D. Simashev

  5. 17:39UTAD. Guentherpower play(M. Sergachev, C. Keller)3–2

    Slap shot from 33 feet, a 10% chance (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: A. Lee, M. Weegar, M. Sergachev, K. Yamamoto, B. Hayton · against J. Carlson, N. Kucherov, B. Point, G. Goncalves, J. Moser

2ndshots 11–8
  1. 05:32TBLC. Geekie(S. Sabourin)4–2

    Wrist shot from 7 feet, a 30% chance (off the rush), past K. Vejmelka. 8s after a UTA block. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: Z. Girgensons, P. Holmberg, I. Mikheyev, J. Moser, E. Lilleberg · against K. Stenlund, N. DeSimone, J. McBain, D. Simashev, D. But

  2. 14:39UTAA. Lee(M. Weegar, V. Trocheck)4–3

    Tip-in from 7 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: N. Schmidt, L. Crouse, K. Stenlund, A. Peeke, J. McBain · against J. Carlson, N. Kucherov, B. Point, C. D'Astous, G. Goncalves

  3. 17:02UTAD. Simashev(A. Peeke, V. Trocheck)4–4

    Snap shot from 38 feet, a 7% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Win probability moved 25 points.On the ice: N. Schmidt, N. Schmaltz, L. Crouse, C. Keller, A. Peeke · against S. Sabourin, J. Viel, C. D'Astous, E. Lilleberg, C. Geekie

3rdshots 9–9no goals
    OTshots 1–2
    1. 01:44UTAD. Simashev(B. Hayton, K. Vejmelka)4–5

      Wrist shot from 3 feet, an 82% chance, a near-certain one (off the rush), past D. Hildeby. Win probability moved 50 points.

    score reads TBL–UTA

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

    The numbers

    XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
    4.99
    UTA chances
    Goals their shots were worth
    +0.0
    Finishing
    Goals above what those chances were worth
    1.017
    UTA puck luck
    About 1.000 — a normal night for bounces
    50.0%
    Shot attempts
    Over half — they had the puck more
    Split by club

    Who controlled the game

    4.21Expected goals4.99
    UTA 54% of the chance quality
    33Shots on goal28
    4High-danger chances9
    60All attempts (Corsi)60
    Adjusted for score: TBL 48% · UTA 52%
    Faceoffs · UTA won65%off50%neu67%def
    Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
    How the game was won

    The danger ladder

    shotsgoalsexpected
    High dangerslot & crease
    TBL1 / 4 · 0.92 xG
    UTA1 / 9 · 2.42 xG
    Medium dangermid-range
    TBL3 / 25 · 2.94 xG
    UTA4 / 22 · 2.33 xG
    Low dangerperimeter & point
    TBL0 / 31 · 0.35 xG
    UTA0 / 29 · 0.24 xG

    UTA went 4-for-22 from medium danger on 2.33 expected goals — 1.7 above expected.

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

    Finishing vs expected

    expectedactual
    TBL
    4 G · 4.21 xG · -0.2
    UTA
    5 G · 4.99 xG · +0.0
    0123456

    TBL finished -0.2 against expected, UTA +0.0.

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

    Shot diet

    goalsshots
    TBL
    SNAP1/21
    SLAP0/13
    WRIST1/5
    BACKHAND1/5
    TIP IN0/1
    POKE0/1
    BAT0/1
    OTHER1/13
    UTA
    SNAP1/25
    SLAP1/6
    WRIST2/6
    BACKHAND0/4
    TIP IN1/5
    POKE0/1
    BAT0/0
    OTHER0/13
    TBL
    UTA
    Off the rush
    2 G on 30
    3.52 xG
    5 G on 31
    3.91 xG
    Off rebounds
    2 G on 6
    0.47 xG
    0 G on 6
    0.82 xG

    Snap shots carried the volume: TBL went 1-for-21, UTA 1-for-25. 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
    D. Hildeby
    TBL · 23/28 · .821
    started · 61:44 · OT loss
    -0.0
    saved above expected
    C
    the night
    Attempts faced
    47
    Avg chance faced
    10.6%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.894 vs 0.894
    Rebounds allowed
    6
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/92.4+1.4
    Medium4/222.3-1.7
    Low0/160.2+0.2
    Shorthanded1/50.5-0.5
    Tips & deflections1/50.5-0.5
    The save
    22% chance stopped, a snap from 6 ft · P2 01:13
    The one to have back
    7% chance went in, a snap from 38 ft · P2 17:02

    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 · 29/32 · .906
    started · 61:44 · win
    +1.2
    saved above expected
    B+
    the night
    Attempts faced
    48
    Avg chance faced
    8.8%
    Stopped vs expected
    0.917 vs 0.912
    Rebounds allowed
    6 · 2 scored on
    By dangerG/attxGsaved
    High danger1/40.9-0.1
    Medium3/252.9-0.1
    Low0/190.3+0.3
    Shorthanded1/101.0-0.0
    Tips & deflections0/10.1+0.1
    The save
    23% chance stopped, a snap from 20 ft · P3 11:27
    The one to have back
    10% chance went in from 11 ft · P1 05:10

    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: K. Yamamoto (UTA), 16:31 of ice, 1-0, 73% of the expected goals while he was out.

    TBL18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    P. HolmbergR14:111-073A+
    B. PointC18:341-064A
    B. HagelL22:510-065A
    C. GeekieC10:091-031B
    J. GuentzelC19:321-059B
    S. SabourinRin 9 min9:260-141B
    N. KucherovR20:020-149C
    R. McDonaghD18:300-156C
    C. D'AstousD20:060-147C
    E. CernakD20:580-145C
    I. MikheyevR13:170-059C
    G. GoncalvesC16:250-045C
    J. CarlsonD21:410-052D
    J. MoserD20:010-036D
    Z. GirgensonsC9:060-042D
    A. CirelliC19:460-040D
    E. LillebergD15:260-049F
    J. VielL8:510-046F
    UTA18 skaters
    SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
    K. YamamotoR16:311-073A+
    D. SimashevD15:532-042A+
    B. HaytonC15:540-159A
    A. LeeL15:531-055A
    C. KellerR16:070-177A
    M. WeegarD25:200-164B
    V. TrocheckC21:020-238B
    D. GuentherR19:151-044B
    A. PeekeD20:380-152B
    M. SergachevD26:010-152C
    K. StenlundC11:180-056C
    J. McBainC10:060-058D
    N. SchmidtD18:500-039D
    L. CooleyC19:270-037D
    N. SchmaltzC14:580-043D
    N. DeSimoneD11:180-039F
    D. ButL6:540-028F
    L. CrouseL12:280-022F

    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, TBL: V. Hedman, M. Crozier, D. James. Scratched, UTA: L. O'Brien, J. Marino, A. Duda. Referees Gord Dwyer and Ben Betker; linesmen Tyson Baker and Dan Kelly.

    Graded against a league-average game

    Report card

    Seven dimensions · A+ to F
    DimensionTBLUTA
    Offense
    ▸Basis

    TBL Created 4.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 30 rush shots (3.52 xG).

    UTA Created 4.99 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 9 high-danger shots (2.42 xG) and 31 rush shots (3.91 xG).

    A+
    100
    A+
    100
    Defense
    ▸Basis

    TBL Allowed 4.99 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 9 high-danger shots (2.42 xG) and 31 rush shots (3.91 xG).

    UTA Allowed 4.21 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.92 xG) and 30 rush shots (3.52 xG).

    F
    34
    F
    49
    Transition
    ▸Basis

    TBL Rush shots 30–31, rush xG 3.52–3.91 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    UTA Rush shots 31–30, rush xG 3.91–3.52 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

    C-
    71
    C+
    79
    Special teams
    ▸Basis

    TBL 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.99 PP xG.

    UTA 1-for-3 on the power play (33%; league ≈21%) with 0.46 PP xG.

    A
    95
    B+
    87
    Goaltending
    ▸Basis

    TBL -0.01 goals saved above expected on 28 shots against.

    UTA +1.21 goals saved above expected on 32 shots against.

    C
    75
    B+
    87
    Discipline
    ▸Basis

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

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

    C
    75
    C
    75
    Luck

    Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

    ▸Basis

    TBL Finishing -0.21 goals vs xG plus -0.01 GSAx of save luck = -0.22 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    UTA Finishing +0.01 goals vs xG plus +1.21 GSAx of save luck = +1.22 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

    C
    73
    B
    85
    Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
    What the model flagged
    STRENGTHUTA

    Dangerous off the rush

    5 goals on 31 rush shots worth 3.91 xG.

    WARNINGTBL

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 31 rush shots worth 3.91 xG (5 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    WARNINGUTA

    Rush defense leaked all night

    Gave up 30 rush shots worth 3.52 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

    STRENGTHTBL

    Dangerous off the rush

    2 goals on 30 rush shots worth 3.52 xG.

    STRENGTHUTA

    Power play cashed in

    1-for-3 on the power play (33%) on 0.46 PP xG.

    STRENGTHTBL

    Power play cashed in

    1-for-3 on the power play (33%) on 0.99 PP xG.

    95 shots · press play to watch the game back

    Where the shots came from

    NHL play-by-play coordinates
    TBL
    48 shots
    4
    Final
    95 shots
    UTA
    47 shots
    5
    TBL attackUTA attack
    TBL UTA Goal

    Each club shoots toward its own end — TBL 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
    V. Trocheck
    #16 · C · UTA
    0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:02 on ice · +2
    D. Simashev
    #26 · D · UTA
    2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 15:53 on ice · +2
    M. Sergachev
    #98 · D · UTA
    0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 26:01 on ice
    Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
    Keep going

    Where to next

    Back to the front page