Backcheck
Recap · UTA at STL

Blues shut out the Mammoth, 1-0

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

By the ModelJul 11, 6:17 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
0
Home
STL
St. Louis Blues
1
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.14Expected goals3.50
53% share for the better side
18Shot attempts (SOG)19
6High-danger chances7
64Corsi (all attempts)47
Score-adjusted: 59% / 41%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The expected-goals line reads 3.50–3.14 in St. Louis's favor—a near-even split despite the 1-0 scoreline. Both teams had chances. Both teams squandered them, leaving 2.50 goals on the board for the Blues and 3.14 for Utah.

The Blues controlled volume (51% shot attempts, 19–18 on goal) and efficiency (0.074 xG per shot vs Utah's 0.049). That gap separated the two teams.

Dylan Holloway ended the impasse at 18:10 of the second period with a wrist shot from the top of the circles. One goal proved sufficient.

The story is conversion failure. The Blues went 0 for 7 on high-danger chances; Utah went 0 for 6. St. Louis had better looks but still couldn't execute.

J. Hofer (STL) stopped all 18 attempts and saved 3.14 goals above expected. That performance defined the game—not dominance, but precision. K. Vejmelka (UTA) answered with 18 stops on 19 attempts (0.947 SV%, +2.50 above expected). His work kept Utah in the game.

P. Broberg earned an assist in 23:40; R. Thomas added one in 21:27. Holloway's wrist shot—the game's only moment of finish—was all the difference.


How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 6 · 1.60 xG
STL0 / 7 · 1.60 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA0 / 11 · 0.98 xG
STL1 / 15 · 1.54 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA0 / 47 · 0.56 xG
STL0 / 25 · 0.36 xG

UTA went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.60 expected goals — 1.6 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
0 G · 3.14 xG · -3.1
STL
1 G · 3.50 xG · -2.5
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
+2.5
J. HoferSTL
+3.1

UTA finished -3.1 against expected, STL -2.5 — J. Hofer (STL) saved 3.1 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST0/17
SLAP0/8
SNAP0/9
BACKHAND0/1
TIP IN0/2
DEFLECTED0/2
WRAP AROUND0/0
OTHER0/25
STL
WRIST1/15
SLAP0/6
SNAP0/3
BACKHAND0/7
TIP IN0/1
DEFLECTED0/0
WRAP AROUND0/1
OTHER0/14
UTA
STL
Off the rush
0 G on 21 · 2.19 xG
1 G on 24 · 2.50 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4 · 0.54 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.71 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 0-for-17, STL 1-for-15.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
P. Broberg
#6 · D · STL
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 23:40 TOI · +1
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 21:27 TOI · +1
D. Holloway
#81 · L · STL
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:44 TOI · +1
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) stopped 2.5 goals above expected.
  • STL generated far more dangerous chances — 0.074 xG/shot vs 0.049. Quality over quantity.
  • STL couldn't convert — 0/7 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • STL created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • STL underperformed xG by 2.5 — wasted quality chances.
  • UTA underperformed xG by 3.1 — wasted quality chances.
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 2.5 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at STL · 8:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Blues: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 6:15 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
UTA
Model favorite
51%
49%
UTA50STL

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.52.5 STL; 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 →STL
52.0%5v5 xG%49.0%
53.0%Corsi%48.0%
2.64xGF / 602.34
2.39xGA / 602.40
2.26Goals for / gm2.00
1.99Goals against / gm2.12
1.003PDO — luck, not skill1.000

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 1.000) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects 2.5–2.5, Mammoth at 51% win probability—a genuine coin flip.

Utah owns the underlying play. The Mammoth generate 52.0% expected goals at 5v5, command 53.0% Corsi—a territorial advantage that translates to time in the offensive zone. St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi, the inverse. By shot generation alone, Utah should separate. Yet St. Louis hasn't regressed; its PDO sits at 1.000, Utah's at 1.003—both neutral, both sustainable.

The edge lives with Dylan Guenther. At 1.02 xG/60, he's Utah's engine, backed by 28 goals and 15 assists. Three high-danger chances have converted; his 16.8% shooting rate suggests room to run. Daniil But trails at 1.01 xG/60 and sits at 2 goals and 2 assists with a 5.6% conversion rate—suppressed, and worth monitoring for regression. St. Louis answers with Jimmy Snuggerud and Dylan Holloway. Snuggerud generates 0.86 xG/60 across 15 goals and 22 assists, landing 2 high-danger looks; Holloway runs 0.82 xG/60 and owns 13 goals and 24 assists off 1 high-danger goal. Both play inside Utah's possession envelope yet remain efficient relative to their chances.

Defense breaks the tie. Maveric Lamoureux represents Utah's weak link; Utah's blue line sees 0% high-danger and rebound goals, a clean slate that won't hold. St. Louis's defensive vulnerabilities center on Snuggerud—an unusual liability for a player whose 22 assists versus 15 goals signal off-puck creation. If Utah targets him, the Mammoth control the matchup. If St. Louis uses him as a net-front presence and release valve, Utah's depth advantage vanishes.

Utah's shot generation tips the scales, but Guenther's workload is unsustainable if But doesn't convert. St. Louis's complementary scoring through Snuggerud and Holloway offers insurance. This is the kind of game where the better team on the scoresheet loses because the other team doesn't need perfection.

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
STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters