Backcheck
Recap · UTA at NJD

J. Markstrom stands tall as the Devils edge the Mammoth

The Devils stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 3.72–3.39 and won anyway.

By the ModelJul 11, 11:02 PMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
UTA
Utah Mammoth
1
Home
NJD
New Jersey Devils
4
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

3.72Expected goals3.39
52% share for the better side
31Shot attempts (SOG)30
4High-danger chances5
62Corsi (all attempts)49
Score-adjusted: 62% / 38%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Devils won 4-1. The underlying numbers didn't. Expected goals split 3.72–3.39, favoring Utah — the sort of edge that typically translates to the scoreboard. J. Markstrom changed the equation. The Devils' goaltender stopped 30 of 31 shots (0.968 SV%) and saved 2.72 goals above expected, stealing a win the xG metrics suggested Utah had earned.

K. Vejmelka went the other way, making 26 of 30 saves (0.867 SV%, -0.61 vs expected). Utah generated 3.72 expected goals on 31 shot attempts but scored one—a 2.72-goal gap they couldn't close. The Devils, by contrast, scraped together 3.39 xG on 30 shots but buried four, including three from low-danger spots that ordinarily don't find the back of the net.

The imbalance traces to discipline in specific phases. The Devils ran 26 rush chances and buried two. Utah crashed effectively for rebounds, generating four, but couldn't convert any. The Devils held 49% of shot attempts and bent that advantage into high-danger looks, outscoring Utah 5–4 on chances from the prime area. The night pivoted on Michael Carcone's wrist shot from the high slot (12:35, third period).

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 4 · 0.82 xG
NJD1 / 5 · 1.17 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA0 / 19 · 2.25 xG
NJD0 / 14 · 1.68 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA1 / 39 · 0.64 xG
NJD3 / 30 · 0.54 xG

NJD went 3-for-30 from low danger on 0.54 expected goals — 2.5 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
1 G · 3.72 xG · -2.7
NJD
4 G · 3.39 xG · +0.6
012345
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
K. VejmelkaUTA
-0.6
J. MarkstromNJD
+2.7

UTA finished -2.7 against expected, NJD +0.6 — J. Markstrom (NJD) saved 2.7 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST1/24
SLAP0/7
TIP IN0/6
SNAP0/4
BACKHAND0/5
WRAP AROUND0/2
POKE0/0
OTHER0/14
NJD
WRIST2/20
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/5
SNAP0/6
BACKHAND0/1
WRAP AROUND1/1
POKE0/1
OTHER0/9
UTA
NJD
Off the rush
1 G on 31 · 1.99 xG
2 G on 26 · 2.67 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 4 · 0.69 xG
1 G on 2 · 0.19 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-24, NJD 2-for-20. NJD scored 2 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
B. Pesce
#22 · D · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 22:56 TOI · +1
J. Hughes
#86 · C · NJD
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 19:17 TOI · +1
J. Bratt
#63 · L · NJD
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 18:38 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) stopped 2.7 goals above expected.
  • NJD scored 3 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • NJD was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 26 rush chances.
  • UTA created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • UTA underperformed xG by 2.7 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Markstrom (NJD) saved 2.7 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · UTA at NJD · 3:00 PM ET

Mammoth at Devils: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 11, 10:51 PMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

51%
UTA
Model favorite
51%
49%
UTA50NJD

UTA by 2 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 2.62.5 NJD; 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 →NJD
52.0%5v5 xG%50.0%
53.0%Corsi%51.0%
2.64xGF / 602.45
2.39xGA / 602.50
2.26Goals for / gm1.66
1.99Goals against / gm2.23
1.003PDO — luck, not skill0.971

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.003 vs 0.971) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a 2.6-2.5 Utah victory with the Mammoth at exactly 50% win probability. This is a coin flip.

Utah holds 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 with a 53.0% shot-attempt share and 1.003 PDO—indicating league-average conversion. New Jersey generates 50.0% expected goals and 51.0% shot attempts, but their 0.971 PDO indicates they're running cold and due for positive regression. The Devils have been outscored by 7 goals over their last 10.

Dylan Guenther powers Utah's attack: 1.02 expected goals per 60 minutes, 28 goals, 15 assists, and a 16.8% shooting rate—elite for high-volume production. He owns 3 high-danger goals. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2 goals, 2 assists, 5.6% shooting, 1 high-danger goal) works from lower-percentage opportunities.

Timo Meier is New Jersey's offensive centerpiece at 1.08 xG/60—the highest rate in the matchup—13 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger goals. Jack Hughes operates at 0.88 xG/60 with 18 goals and 17 assists, suggesting he's finding scoring area outside high-danger zones. His 1 high-danger goal hints at the gap between expected and actual production.

Both teams generate 0% of their offense from high-danger chances and 0% from rebounds, a mutual constraint that eliminates an entire category of scoring opportunity. Johnathan Kovacevic is New Jersey's defensive liability; Maveric Lamoureux is Utah's.

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
NJD
Timo Meier13G 15A
1.08 xG/60 · 3 HD · 6.7% sh
Jack Hughes18G 17A
0.88 xG/60 · 1 HD · 11.5% sh
Source · MoneyPuck skaters