Backcheck
Recap · UTA at NYI

Mammoth pull away from the Islanders

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 2.74–3.29 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 10:40 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
7
Home
NYI
New York Islanders
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.74Expected goals3.29
55% share for the better side
21Shot attempts (SOG)22
3High-danger chances5
56Corsi (all attempts)55
Score-adjusted: 47% / 53%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Islanders should have been competitive here. They didn't convert.

Expected goals had New York winning the underlying battle—the Islanders generated 3.29 to Utah's 2.74, a 55–45 split. They held 51% of shot attempts and out-manufactured high-danger chances 5–3. By every measure of process, they played the better game. The scoreboard said 7–2.

The difference was execution, both ways. K. Vejmelka stopped 1.29 goals above expected on 20 saves. D. Rittich, working the majority of the game for New York, gave up 3.17 more than expected in just 9 saves. The Islanders paid for it in bulk.

Utah's two low-danger goals were the kind of bounces goaltenders digest as part of the job, but they were also elite finishes. The Islanders' 0 of 5 on high-danger chances was the inverse—brutal variance. Vejmelka recorded a 100% save percentage on 5 high-danger attempts.

Where Utah truly dominated was the rush. They scored 7 goals on 29 rush opportunities. The Islanders managed 2 on 24. Utah's power play was equally clinical: 2 goals on 19 shots.

Nick Schmaltz's snap shot from the slot (P3, 16:55) arrived as the moment the game tipped.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 3 · 0.68 xG
NYI0 / 5 · 1.06 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA5 / 16 · 1.44 xG
NYI1 / 14 · 1.65 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA2 / 37 · 0.62 xG
NYI1 / 36 · 0.59 xG

UTA went 5-for-16 from medium danger on 1.44 expected goals — 3.6 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
7 G · 2.74 xG · +4.3
NYI
2 G · 3.29 xG · -1.3
012345678
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
+1.3
D. RittichNYI
-3.2
M. HogbergNYI
-1.1

UTA finished +4.3 against expected, NYI -1.3 — D. Rittich (NYI) allowed 3.2 more goals than expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST3/17
SNAP4/8
SLAP0/9
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/17
NYI
WRIST0/23
SNAP2/3
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/5
BACKHAND0/2
DEFLECTED0/1
OTHER0/20
UTA
NYI
Off the rush
7 G on 29 · 2.22 xG
2 G on 24 · 2.37 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.19 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.44 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 3-for-17, NYI 0-for-23. UTA scored 7 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
3 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 15:23 TOI · +3
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 20:36 TOI
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
2 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:07 TOI · +2
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) stopped 1.3 goals above expected.
  • D. Rittich (NYI) gave up 3.2 goals more than expected — well below their workload.
  • NYI couldn't convert — 0/5 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • NYI was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 24 rush chances.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 7 goals on 29 rush chances.
  • NYI created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA outperformed their expected goals by 4.3 — elite finishing or lucky bounces.
  • K. Vejmelka was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 5 high-danger shots.
  • UTA power play was dominant — 2 PPG on 19 PP shots (0.94 xG).
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at NYI · 3:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Islanders: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 10:39 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

52%
UTA
Model favorite
52%
48%
UTA50NYI

UTA by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.72.6 NYI; 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 →NYI
52.0%5v5 xG%48.0%
53.0%Corsi%49.0%
2.64xGF / 602.48
2.39xGA / 602.69
2.26Goals for / gm1.78
1.99Goals against / gm1.94
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.993

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.993) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model sees a 52% Mammoth edge, but projects just 2.7 goals for Utah against 2.6 for the Islanders. This is about as even as a game gets.

Utah owns the underlying play. The Mammoth control territory at 53.0% Corsi and generate chances at 52.0% expected goals. The Islanders' 48.0% xG and 49.0% Corsi suggest they'll spend the night chasing. Yet the Islanders carry recent form—6-3-1 in their last 10—which typically correlates to goaltending luck more than skill.

The matchup hinges on chance generation at five-on-five. Dylan Guenther drives Utah's offense at 1.02 xG per 60 minutes, backed by 28 goals and 16.8% shooting efficiency. He has 3 high-danger goals this season. On the other flank, Anders Lee paces the Islanders at 1.20 xG per 60—the game's most dangerous individual matchup. Lee's 9 goals and 6.4% shooting suggest efficiency concerns, but his 2 high-danger goals confirm he's finding the right areas.

Utah's secondary threat is Daniil But, who generates 1.01 xG per 60 despite a season-long conversion drought at 5.6% shooting. Two goals on a decent volume of chances is a small-sample drag that should regress. Bo Horvat offers the Islanders a similar offset: 18 goals at 12.8% efficiency mask a 0.87 xG per 60 rate. His 3 high-danger goals are real, but his overall volume suggests he's riding performance luck.

The goaltending footnote: D. Rittich is working a back-to-back. If he starts, expect fatigue to soften Utah's territorial advantage. A backup appearance would shift rim-and-chase pressure to the Islanders.

Neither defense presents a clear liability—Maveric Lamoureux (Utah) and Alexander Romanov (Islanders) are the weak links on their respective bluelines, though the term is relative—but the margin between Utah's possession edge and its 52% win probability is razor-thin. The Mammoth own the underlying play, but not by enough to separate from a team riding hot goaltending. Call it pick'em.

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
NYI
Anders Lee9G 20A
1.20 xG/60 · 2 HD · 6.4% sh
Bo Horvat18G 10A
0.87 xG/60 · 3 HD · 12.8% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters