Backcheck
← Thu, Nov 20 · slate
Recap · VGK at UTA

Golden Knights pull away from the Mammoth

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

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 5:00 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
4
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.52Expected goals2.98
54% share for the better side
33Shot attempts (SOG)26
5High-danger chances3
48Corsi (all attempts)59
Score-adjusted: 41% / 59%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

Utah underperformed their expected goals by 1.98 goals. The Mammoth generated 2.98 xG but scored one—a gap that explained the 4-1 scoreline despite Golden Knights holding only a 3.52-to-2.98 xG edge. A. Schmid's 0.962 save percentage and Utah's inability to finish explained the result.

Utah held 44% of shot attempts (26 to 33), created 6 rebound opportunities, and generated shots averaging 0.051 xG per attempt. None converted. Golden Knights were efficient: 2 goals on 5 high-danger chances (40%), and 3 on 23 rush attempts. B. Bowman's tip-in from the doorstep at 00:45 of the third was the turning point.

K. Vejmelka (UTA) finished 0.879 SV%; A. Schmid (VGK) recorded 0.962.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK2 / 5 · 1.35 xG
UTA0 / 3 · 0.68 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK1 / 14 · 1.57 xG
UTA1 / 16 · 1.67 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK1 / 29 · 0.60 xG
UTA0 / 40 · 0.62 xG

UTA went 0-for-3 from high danger on 0.68 expected goals — 0.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
4 G · 3.52 xG · +0.5
UTA
1 G · 2.98 xG · -2.0
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
A. SchmidVGK
+2.0
K. VejmelkaUTA
-0.5

VGK finished +0.5 against expected, UTA -2.0 — A. Schmid (VGK) saved 2.0 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
SNAP2/28
TIP IN1/4
SLAP0/3
BACKHAND1/3
BAT0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
WRIST0/0
OTHER0/9
UTA
SNAP1/22
TIP IN0/8
SLAP0/8
BACKHAND0/2
BAT0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
WRIST0/1
OTHER0/17
VGK
UTA
Off the rush
3 G on 23 · 2.46 xG
1 G on 25 · 1.86 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3 · 0.27 xG
0 G on 6 · 0.77 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VGK went 2-for-28, UTA 1-for-22. VGK scored 3 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
S. Theodore
#27 · D · VGK
0 G · 3 A · 3 SOG · 21:34 TOI · +2
J. Eichel
#9 · C · VGK
2 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 16:45 TOI · +2
B. Bowman
#42 · R · VGK
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:25 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • A. Schmid (VGK) stopped 2.0 goals above expected.
  • VGK had the higher quality looks — 0.073 xG/shot vs 0.051.
  • VGK was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
  • VGK was lethal off the rush — 3 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • UTA created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK created 3 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • A. Schmid (VGK) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · VGK at UTA · 9:00 PM ET

Golden Knights at Mammoth: a genuine coin flip

◆ By the ModelJul 11, 4:58 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
UTA
Model favorite
49%
51%
VGK50UTA

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score VGK 2.5–2.5 UTA; 19% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

VGK← edge
edge →UTA
54.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
52.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.52xGF / 602.64
2.11xGA / 602.39
2.12Goals for / gm2.26
2.10Goals against / gm1.99
0.983PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.983 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model has this dead even. A 2.5–2.5 projected scoring frame with the Mammoth at 51% win probability is as close to a pick'em as advanced forecasting gets.

Recency favors Vegas. The Golden Knights sit at 4–3–3 over their last ten, while Utah has collapsed to minus-12 in goal differential across the same span. The underlying play is murkier. Vegas owns a 54.0% expected goals share at five-on-five versus Utah's 52.0%, yet Utah leads in Corsi at 53.0% to Vegas's 52.0%—shot attempt volume without corresponding shot quality. More revealing: Vegas's PDO is 0.983, well below neutral, suggesting positive regression ahead, while Utah's sits at 1.003, inflated and unsustainable.

Goaltending backstory matters. Both V. Vanecek and A. Schmid are working on back-to-backs; either team could pivot to a backup or roll out a fatigued starter.

Players to Watch

VGK

  • Tomas Hertl — 0.88 xG/60, 5G 17A, 1 HD goals, 4.3% shooting
  • Brandon Saad — 0.91 xG/60, 3G 6A, 1 HD goals, 4.1% shooting (inactive)

UTA

  • Dylan Guenther — 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting
  • Daniil But — 1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goals, 5.6% shooting

Hertl anchors Vegas's offense; Guenther's 28-goal output dominates for Utah. Neither team generates secondary scoring from high-danger chances or rebounds—both at 0%—leaving outcomes to primary shot efficiency and discipline. Rasmus Andersson is Vegas's defensive vulnerability, while Maveric Lamoureux holds that role for Utah.

The model's output reflects genuine ambiguity. This is a coin flip because both teams own credible paths to victory.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

VGK
Brandon Saad3G 6A
0.91 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.1% sh
Tomas Hertl5G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 4.3% sh
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
Source · MoneyPuck skaters
◆ Back to the front page