Backcheck
Recap · UTA at WPG

V. Vanecek stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Jets

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.83–4.88 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 1:19 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
3
Home
WPG
Winnipeg Jets
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.83Expected goals4.88
56% share for the better side
32Shot attempts (SOG)30
5High-danger chances11
63Corsi (all attempts)61
Score-adjusted: 51% / 49%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Utah stole this one. The Mammoth edged Winnipeg 3-2 despite losing the expected-goals battle 4.88–3.83—a 56–44 split that should have favored the Jets.

V. Vanecek was the difference. The Mammoth goaltender stopped 28 of 30 shots (0.933 SV%), outperforming expected by 2.88 goals. C. Hellebuyck was also solid (29/32, 0.906 SV%, +0.83), but Vanecek's surplus decided the contest.

The gap widened in high-danger chances. Winnipeg generated 11; Utah generated 5. That advantage should have translated to multiple goals. Instead, the Jets converted zero and the Mammoth scored twice on the rush despite generating far fewer dangerous opportunities. Utah was lethal on transitions—2 goals on 31 rush attempts. Winnipeg crashed the net harder, generating 8 rebound chances, but couldn't finish any of them.

Winnipeg's underlying play was convincing: they generated 0.080 expected goals per shot compared to Utah's 0.061, a quality-over-quantity advantage. But quality means nothing without conversion. The Jets underperformed their xG by 2.88 goals—a margin that won't repeat.

Dylan Guenther's wrist shot from the high slot at 14:24 of the third period proved pivotal, breaking a tie and giving Utah the cushion it would keep.

The three-star selections tell the story of both teams' efforts: J. Morrissey (2A, 24:09) kept Winnipeg's offense flowing; M. Sergachev (1G, 26:09) buried one for Utah; and D. DeMelo (1G, 22:39) also scored for the Mammoth. Morrissey's assists understate his value—his line controlled the game but couldn't finish.

On another night, Winnipeg's underlying edge converts to at least one point. Not this one.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 5 · 1.21 xG
WPG0 / 11 · 2.55 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA3 / 17 · 1.92 xG
WPG1 / 16 · 1.78 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 41 · 0.69 xG
WPG1 / 34 · 0.55 xG

WPG went 0-for-11 from high danger on 2.55 expected goals — 2.5 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
3 G · 3.83 xG · -0.8
WPG
2 G · 4.88 xG · -2.9
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
V. VanecekUTA
+2.9
C. HellebuyckWPG
+0.8

UTA finished -0.8 against expected, WPG -2.9 — V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 2.9 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST2/32
TIP IN0/7
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
BAT0/1
OTHER0/13
WPG
WRIST1/27
TIP IN0/5
SLAP1/6
BACKHAND0/3
SNAP0/3
DEFLECTED0/2
BAT0/0
OTHER0/15
UTA
WPG
Off the rush
2 G on 31 · 2.08 xG
1 G on 28 · 3.27 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.46 xG
0 G on 8 · 1.39 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 2-for-32, WPG 1-for-27. UTA scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Morrissey
#44 · D · WPG
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 24:09 TOI · +1
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
1 G · 0 A · 4 SOG · 26:09 TOI · -1
D. DeMelo
#2 · D · WPG
1 G · 0 A · 1 SOG · 22:39 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • UTA stole this one. WPG owned 56% of the xG and lost.
  • V. Vanecek (UTA) stopped 2.9 goals above expected.
  • Open game — 16 high-danger chances combined (WPG 11, UTA 5).
  • WPG generated far more dangerous chances — 0.080 xG/shot vs 0.061. Quality over quantity.
  • WPG couldn't convert — 0/11 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 31 rush chances.
  • WPG created 8 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • WPG underperformed xG by 2.9 — wasted quality chances.
  • V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 2.9 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at WPG · 6:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Jets: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 1:18 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
UTA
Model favorite
52%
48%
UTA50WPG

UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.62.5 WPG; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season profile · edge from the spine

Tale of the tape

UTA← edge
edge →WPG
52.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
53.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.64xGF / 602.34
2.39xGA / 602.55
2.26Goals for / gm1.90
1.99Goals against / gm2.10
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.998

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.998) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects Utah at 2.6 expected goals to Winnipeg's 2.5, with the Mammoth at 52% win probability. This is pick'em territory, and the underlying numbers explain why.

Utah owns the fundamental play. At 5v5, the Mammoth drive 52.0% expected goals against Winnipeg's 48.0%, and control possession at 53.0% Corsi compared to 49.0%. Yet Utah's 1.003 PDO sits barely ahead of Winnipeg's 0.998—puck luck has been nearly even, which is why this remains a flip rather than a runaway.

Dylan Guenther is Utah's primary threat: 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, 28 goals, 15 assists, and three high-danger chances. His 16.8% shooting rate is both sustainable and dangerous. Daniil But has generated 1.01 xG/60 but scored just 2 goals and 2 assists, with a 5.6% shooting rate suggesting upside.

Winnipeg counters with Kyle Connor, who has converted 25 goals and 30 assists on 0.83 xG/60—efficient offensive production. Nino Niederreiter operates at 0.87 xG/60 with 6 goals, 6 assists, and three high-danger chances, his 8.6% shooting rate offering room for variance.

Neither team has generated goals from high-danger or rebound situations, an unusual offensive pattern both sides may not sustain.

Utah's defensive liability is Maveric Lamoureux. Winnipeg's is Colin Miller. Utah's thin possession edge is already baked into the 52% moneyline. There's no margin of error to chase.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

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
WPG
Nino Niederreiter6G 6A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 8.6% sh
Kyle Connor25G 30A
0.83 xG/60 · 2 HD · 13.0% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters