Backcheck
Recap · UTA at EDM

Oilers pull away from the Mammoth

The Oilers won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 11, 1:43 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
3
Home
EDM
Edmonton Oilers
6
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.36Expected goals3.60
52% share for the better side
23Shot attempts (SOG)24
5High-danger chances7
53Corsi (all attempts)51
Score-adjusted: 52% / 48%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Edmonton's 6-3 victory over Utah masks a game the expected-goals model rated nearly even. The Oilers squeezed 3.60 xG into 6 goals while holding Utah to 3.36 xG and 3 goals—a 2.40-goal overperformance that carried the margin.

The Oilers' edge was real but thin. They held 51% of shot attempts (24–23 on goal) and 52% of expected goals, yet scored twice as many goals as underlying play warranted. Utah's goaltending cracked first: K. Vejmelka surrendered 1.40 goals above expectation, coughing up three from low-danger areas while Edmonton converted elsewhere. S. Skinner answered with perfection on the other end—a 100% stop rate on five high-danger shots that could have narrowed the gap.

Utah generated the rush chances. The Mammoth matched Edmonton goal-for-goal off the rush (3 each) across identical 26-chance samples, but couldn't finish anywhere else. They went 0-for-5 on high-danger chances and failed to convert any of five rebound opportunities despite effectively crashing the net. Edmonton did the opposite: buried low-danger looks and executed in transition, a sequence Utah's defense couldn't disrupt.

The game's hidden story was deceptive. High-danger chances favored Edmonton 7–5. Connor McDavid's wrist shot from the point (third period, 17:34) swung momentum. Edmonton's elite conversion—skill, luck, or both—separated a contest that xG analysis would've called even.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 5 · 1.10 xG
EDM2 / 7 · 2.01 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA2 / 16 · 1.76 xG
EDM1 / 8 · 0.94 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA1 / 32 · 0.51 xG
EDM3 / 36 · 0.65 xG

EDM went 3-for-36 from low danger on 0.65 expected goals — 2.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
3 G · 3.36 xG · -0.4
EDM
6 G · 3.60 xG · +2.4
01234567
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
-1.4
S. SkinnerEDM
+0.4

UTA finished -0.4 against expected, EDM +2.4 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) allowed 1.4 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
SNAP1/23
WRIST2/4
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/5
SLAP0/2
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/15
EDM
SNAP4/12
WRIST1/14
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
SLAP1/3
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/15
UTA
EDM
Off the rush
3 G on 26 · 2.20 xG
3 G on 26 · 2.50 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 5 · 0.80 xG
1 G on 2 · 0.27 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-23, EDM 4-for-12. UTA scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
E. Bouchard
#2 · D · EDM
0 G · 3 A · 0 SOG · 18:53 TOI · +3
C. McDavid
#97 · C · EDM
2 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:37 TOI · +2
L. Draisaitl
#29 · C · EDM
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 20:43 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) gave up 1.4 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • UTA couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • EDM scored 3 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • EDM was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • UTA created 5 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • EDM outperformed their expected goals by 2.4 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • S. Skinner was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at EDM · 9:30 PM ET

Mammoth at Oilers: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 2:00 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
EDM
Model favorite
49%
51%
UTA50EDM

EDM by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.52.6 EDM; 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 →EDM
52.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
53.0%Corsi%50.0%
2.64xGF / 602.64
2.39xGA / 602.47
2.26Goals for / gm2.13
1.99Goals against / gm2.29
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.982

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.982) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a UTA 2.5–2.6 EDM game with Edmonton at 52% win probability—about as even a matchup as you'll find. Utah is hotter by points pace, posting an 8-2-0 record in their last 10.

Both teams match at 52.0% expected goals percentage, but Utah's territorial advantage is clear: 53.0% Corsi versus Edmonton's 50.0%. The Oilers' PDO of 0.982 suggests they're running cold, due for positive regression. Utah's PDO sits at 1.003.

Goaltending adds friction. C. Pickard faces a back-to-back, which may force a backup or deplete a starter.

Dylan Guenther (28G, 1.02 xG/60, 16.8% shooting) leads Utah with three hard-to-defend goals. Zach Hyman (14G, 1.23 xG/60, 13.0% shooting) carries Edmonton with just one hard-to-defend goal. Connor McDavid reaches 25 goals and 33 assists at 0.92 xG/60. Daniil But generates 1.01 expected goals per 60 on a 5.6% shooting rate.

Utah's defense remains disciplined: zero hard-to-defend goals allowed and zero rebound goals allowed. Maveric Lamoureux is their weakness. Edmonton's defense mirrors that structure, with Jake Walman as the leak.

This is genuinely a coin flip. Utah owns territory and recent form; Edmonton owns shot-luck recovery. The goaltending matchup decides which advantage prevails.

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
EDM
Zach Hyman14G 13A
1.23 xG/60 · 1 HD · 13.0% sh
Connor McDavid25G 33A
0.92 xG/60 · 5 HD · 13.7% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters