WARNINGUTA
Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 22 rush shots worth 1.72 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Morning report · executive brief
Utah Mammoth
◆ By the ModelWed, Nov 4Latest file · Tue, Nov 32026-27As of Wed, Oct 7
One page on where Mammothactually stand: what the model likes, what it is worried about, and which of those worries are real problems rather than bad luck that should even out. Everything below is computed from this club's games — no votes, no panel.
Executive summary
Last time out (Tue, Nov 3): UTA 3 - 2 TOR — a win over the Maple Leafs.
The model's top flag from that game: rush defense leaked all night — Gave up 22 rush shots worth 1.72 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Season complete · final ledger
99
Games filed
54
Wins (all)
45
Losses (all)
328
Goals for
291
Goals against
No scheduled fixture on file — counts from published recaps; OT/SO losses count as losses
Last game report card · UTA @ TOR · Tue, Nov 3
Graded vs a league-average game
Report card
DimensionUTATOR
Offense
▸Basis
UTA Created 4.65 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (1.76 xG) and 39 rush shots (2.53 xG).
TOR Created 2.25 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.46 xG) and 22 rush shots (1.72 xG).
A+
100
C-
72
Defense
▸Basis
UTA Allowed 2.25 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.46 xG) and 22 rush shots (1.72 xG).
TOR Allowed 4.65 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (1.76 xG) and 39 rush shots (2.53 xG).
C+
78
F
46
Transition
▸Basis
UTA Rush shots 39–22, rush xG 2.53–1.72 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
TOR Rush shots 22–39, rush xG 1.72–2.53 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).
A-
92
F
58
Special teams
▸Basis
UTA 2-for-3 on the power play (67%; league ≈21%) with 1.23 PP xG.
TOR 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.37 PP xG.
A+
100
F
55
Goaltending
▸Basis
UTA +0.25 goals saved above expected on 29 shots against.
TOR +1.65 goals saved above expected on 36 shots against.
C+
78
A-
91
Discipline
▸Basis
UTA Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.
TOR Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.
B-
80
C-
70
Luck
Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral
▸Basis
UTA Finishing -1.65 goals vs xG plus +0.25 GSAx of save luck = -1.40 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
TOR Finishing -0.25 goals vs xG plus +1.65 GSAx of save luck = +1.40 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.
D
64
B
86
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
Five critical insights
STRENGTHUTA
Dangerous off the rush
1 goals on 39 rush shots worth 2.53 xG.
STRENGTHUTA
Power play cashed in
2-for-3 on the power play (67%) on 1.23 PP xG.
STRENGTHUTA
Won on the merits
The Mammoth controlled 67% of expected goals (4.65–2.25) and won 3-2 — result matched process.
LUCKUTA
Cold finishing night
Scored 3 on 4.65 xG — -1.65 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.
Warning signs
WARNINGUTA
Rush defense leaked all night
Gave up 22 rush shots worth 1.72 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Positive trends
STRENGTHUTA
Dangerous off the rush
1 goals on 39 rush shots worth 2.53 xG.
STRENGTHUTA
Power play cashed in
2-for-3 on the power play (67%) on 1.23 PP xG.
STRENGTHUTA
Won on the merits
The Mammoth controlled 67% of expected goals (4.65–2.25) and won 3-2 — result matched process.
STRENGTHUTA
C. Keller led the way
3A in 18:47 — the game's first star.
STRENGTHUTA
M. Sergachev made a difference
2A in 25:52 — the game's second star.
Grade trends · last graded games
OffenseA+avg 94▲ IMPROVING
DefenseC+avg 62▲ IMPROVING
TransitionA-avg 86▲ IMPROVING
Special teamsA+avg 67▲ IMPROVING
GoaltendingC+avg 74▲ IMPROVING
DisciplineB-avg 75▲ IMPROVING
LuckDavg 66→ FLAT
UTA latest graded game vs the average of its prior graded games
Schedule load · logistics
How hard is this team’s season, logistically? This grades the schedule itself — travel, rest, and clustering — separate from how good the team is.
Logistics, not talent
Schedule load
AVERAGE
Load index
58/ 100 · pctile vs league
The 14th-heaviest schedule in the league — 84 games, 1.3 days average rest.
Total travel
47,653
road miles flown
10
Back-to-backs
2 games, 0 days off
15
3-in-4s
3 games / 4 nights
16
4-in-6s
4 games / 6 nights
6
Longest road trip
4,816 mi
Rest-days distribution
0d10
1d53
2d13
3+d7
Nights of rest before each game · 0 days = red, 3+ = green
Rest advantage
21 games with more rest than the opponent · 22 with fewer · 40 even.
Hardest stretches
6 games in 10 days with 5,201 travel miles
Feb 12 – Feb 21
6 games in 9 days with 2,674 travel miles
Nov 25 – Dec 3
6 games in 12 days with 5,127 travel miles
Feb 26 – Mar 9
Source · NHL schedule · arena coordinates · rest & travel model
Recommended actions
- 01
Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.
Rush defense leaked all nightcoach