Backcheck
Recap · DAL at UTA

Mammoth hold off the Stars

The Mammoth won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

By the ModelJul 12, 12:58 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
DAL
Dallas Stars
1
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
2
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

2.98Expected goals3.06
51% share for the better side
27Shot attempts (SOG)27
6High-danger chances6
48Corsi (all attempts)62
Score-adjusted: 45% / 55%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

The Stars underperformed their expected goals by 1.98 goals while Utah underperformed by just 1.06—a metric gap that better explains the 2-1 result than the scoreboard does. K. Vejmelka's 0.963 save percentage and +1.98 xG overperformance powered the Mammoth win; J. Oettinger's 0.926 and +1.06 couldn't recover Dallas's offensive misfire.

Utah and Dallas split shot attempts exactly: 27 apiece, converted to 26-for-27 and 25-for-27. Expected goals finished 3.06 to 2.98, a 51-49 edge to the Mammoth. High-danger chances went 6-6.

John Marino's snap shot from the wing at 4:03 of the third period proved decisive. The underlying story: J. Oettinger held 100% of six high-danger chances, yet Dallas still squandered volume across the board. Utah created four rebound opportunities and converted zero, surviving on Vejmelka's overperformance.

J. Marino and N. Schmaltz (both UTA) each finished 1G, 1A. M. Rantanen (DAL) accounted for Dallas's lone tally. The game stayed mechanically even on volume and expected output. Utah's goalie and one late break made the difference.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
DAL1 / 6 · 1.51 xG
UTA0 / 6 · 1.36 xG
Medium dangermid-range
DAL0 / 12 · 1.10 xG
UTA1 / 10 · 1.05 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
DAL0 / 30 · 0.37 xG
UTA1 / 46 · 0.65 xG

UTA went 0-for-6 from high danger on 1.36 expected goals — 1.4 left on the table.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
DAL
1 G · 2.98 xG · -2.0
UTA
2 G · 3.06 xG · -1.1
01234
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. OettingerDAL
+1.1
K. VejmelkaUTA
+2.0

DAL finished -2.0 against expected, UTA -1.1 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 2.0 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
DAL
SNAP0/14
WRIST1/9
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/3
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/15
UTA
SNAP1/12
WRIST0/14
SLAP0/11
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/19
DAL
UTA
Off the rush
0 G on 21 · 1.95 xG
1 G on 22 · 1.80 xG
Off rebounds
1 G on 2 · 0.50 xG
0 G on 4 · 0.68 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: DAL went 0-for-14, UTA 1-for-12.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
J. Marino
#6 · D · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 21:14 TOI · +2
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 1 SOG · 17:57 TOI · +2
M. Rantanen
#96 · R · DAL
1 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 22:11 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • J. Oettinger (DAL) stopped 1.1 goals above expected.
  • UTA couldn't convert — 0/6 on high-danger chances. That won't happen often.
  • UTA created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • DAL underperformed xG by 2.0 — wasted quality chances.
  • J. Oettinger was a wall on HD chances — 100% SV on 6 high-danger shots.
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · DAL at UTA · 9:00 PM ET

Stars at Mammoth: a genuine coin flip

By the ModelJul 12, 12:57 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

54%
UTA
Model favorite
46%
54%
DAL50UTA

UTA by 8 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score DAL 2.42.6 UTA; 18% chance it's tied after 60.

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

Tale of the tape

DAL← edge
edge →UTA
51.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
47.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.36xGF / 602.64
2.29xGA / 602.39
2.07Goals for / gm2.26
1.68Goals against / gm1.99
1.024PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 4 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.024 vs 1.003) says DAL has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

The model projects a DAL 2.4–2.6 UTA game with the Mammoth at 54% win probability—as close to a pick'em as you'll find.

Utah is the hotter team by points pace (6-3-1 in their last 10), while Dallas sits underwater at -8 goal differential over the same span. The Mammoth's territorial edge appears substantial: they drive Corsi at 53.0% compared to Dallas's 47.0%, and lead in xG% (52.0% to 51.0%). Dallas's PDO of 1.024 suggests positive variance that won't persist—expect some regression.

Jason Robertson leads Dallas's attack at 0.96 xG/60, with 25G 21A and 2 HD goals on 12.4% shooting. Michael Bunting supports at 0.83 xG/60 with 8G 14A and 7.6% shooting. For Utah, Dylan Guenther is the primary driver: 1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, and a hot 16.8% shooting rate. Daniil But contributes 1.01 xG/60 despite modest point totals (2G 2A) and 5.6% shooting, with 1 HD goal to show for his volume.

Both K. Vejmelka and C. DeSmith are on back-to-backs, introducing uncertainty in net. Dallas's defensive weak link is Tyler Myers; Utah's is Maveric Lamoureux.

This is a genuine coin flip, just one weighted slightly toward the team with superior territory and the less fragile luck.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

DAL
Jason Robertson25G 21A
0.96 xG/60 · 2 HD · 12.4% sh
Michael Bunting8G 14A
0.83 xG/60 · 0 HD · 7.6% 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