Backcheck
Recap · VGK at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Golden Knights

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.59–3.70 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 5:33 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
VGK
Vegas Golden Knights
1
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
5
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.59Expected goals3.70
55% share for the better side
34Shot attempts (SOG)23
6High-danger chances6
74Corsi (all attempts)53
Score-adjusted: 63% / 37%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Mammoth dismantled the Golden Knights 5–1 despite a 55–45 expected goals deficit—a clean heist built on perfect goaltending and clinical finishing.

Utah controlled the puck poorly and generated less quality offense than Vegas. Yet the Mammoth won. K. Vejmelka made it possible: 33 of 34 saves (0.971 SV%), +3.59 against expected, perfect on high-danger chances. C. Lindbom (VGK) held 18 of 21 (0.857 SV%), +0.70, but the Golden Knights couldn't finish.

Vegas generated 4.59 expected goals and scored once, going 0 for 6 on high-danger chances. Utah, despite 3.70 expected goals, seized the inefficiency with 3 of 6 from close range and two goals on 26 rush chances. Logan Cooley snapped one home from the wing (P3, 17:43), anchoring the offensive surge.

Utah's win defies the xG chart. Outshot and outchanced, the Mammoth prevailed because their goaltender was a wall and their strikers capitalized when it mattered. Vegas generated the better odds and left empty-handed.

Three Stars

  • L. Cooley (UTA) — 4G, 1A in 15:20
  • N. Schmidt (UTA) — 2A in 21:22
  • D. Guenther (UTA) — 1G, 1A in 15:04
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
VGK0 / 6 · 1.70 xG
UTA3 / 6 · 1.64 xG
Medium dangermid-range
VGK1 / 18 · 2.17 xG
UTA2 / 15 · 1.45 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
VGK0 / 50 · 0.72 xG
UTA0 / 32 · 0.61 xG

VGK went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.70 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
VGK
1 G · 4.59 xG · -3.6
UTA
5 G · 3.70 xG · +1.3
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
C. LindbomVGK
+0.7
K. VejmelkaUTA
+3.6

VGK finished -3.6 against expected, UTA +1.3 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 3.6 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
VGK
SNAP0/34
SLAP0/9
WRIST0/8
TIP IN0/0
BACKHAND1/2
DEFLECTED0/1
WRAP AROUND0/0
POKE0/1
OTHER0/19
UTA
SNAP3/20
SLAP0/5
WRIST1/5
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED1/2
WRAP AROUND0/2
POKE0/0
OTHER0/12
VGK
UTA
Off the rush
1 G on 29 · 3.17 xG
2 G on 26 · 2.33 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6 · 0.81 xG
1 G on 3 · 0.38 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: VGK went 0-for-34, UTA 3-for-20. UTA scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
L. Cooley
#92 · C · UTA
4 G · 1 A · 5 SOG · 15:20 TOI · +4
N. Schmidt
#88 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 0 SOG · 21:22 TOI · +2
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 15:04 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • UTA won despite being outplayed by xG (45%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) stopped 3.6 goals above expected.
  • UTA was clinical in the high-danger zone — 3/6 on HD chances (50%).
  • VGK couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • UTA created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK created 6 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • VGK underperformed xG by 3.6 — wasted quality chances.
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 3.6 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • K. Vejmelka was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.
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, 5:31 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 2.52.5 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 projects a 2.5–2.5 game with the Mammoth at 51% win probability. This is about as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

The underlying shot metrics are nearly identical: Vegas at 54.0% xG to Utah's 52.0%, but Utah edges the Corsi battle 53.0% to 52.0%. That divergence—Vegas generating higher-quality chances but Utah controlling volume—reflects the broader story in their PDOs. Vegas sits at 0.983, running cold and due for positive regression, while Utah sits at 1.003. Yet Utah arrives underwater anyway, posting a –9 goal differential over the last 10 games.

On Vegas's side, Brandon Saad operates at 0.91 xG/60 with 3 goals and 6 assists, but he's shooting 4.1% despite drawing only 1 high-danger chance. Tomas Hertl's numbers mirror the same pattern: 0.88 xG/60, 5 goals and 17 assists, 4.3% shooting on just 1 HD goal. Both are banking chances at unsustainable rates, a symptom of Vegas's colder luck.

Utah's edge belongs to Dylan Guenther, who sits at 1.02 xG/60, has 28 goals and 15 assists, and lands 3 high-danger chances while shooting 16.8%—a player generating and finishing at scale. Daniil But tracks at 1.01 xG/60 but has only 2 goals and 2 assists on 1 HD goal against 5.6% shooting, suggesting underperformance.

Both teams show 0% hard-goal and 0% rebound-goal rates, indicating matched red-zone discipline. Vegas carries Rasmus Andersson as a defensive weak link; Utah's is Maveric Lamoureux. Goaltending matters here: K. Vejmelka and A. Schmid both face back-to-back duty, raising the possibility of tired starters or backup switches. Whichever team gets the fresher goaltender steals half a game.

The spread confirms it: this is variance, not insight.

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