Chicago's dominance was less overwhelming than the scorecard suggests. The Mammoth carried the expected-goals advantage (2.56 to 2.28), which means Utah actually generated better shot quality—but couldn't finish. The Blackhawks, meanwhile, turned their limited chances into four goals.

Chicago finished 3 for 23 on rush attempts, and that efficiency mattered. Teuvo Teravainen's snap shot from the high slot proved the difference. The Mammoth answered with nothing; they mustered only three high-danger chances and converted zero. Utah's workload—28 shot attempts—suggested pressure, but the underlying numbers told a different story. K. Vejmelka faced those 28 attempts and allowed 1.72 more goals than expected. A. Soderblom stopped 2.56 above expectation, posting a perfect 22-for-22 night.

The gap between what the numbers promised and what happened is instructive. Utah dominated possession at 44% of shot attempts (22 to 28), yet that volume never translated to dangerous position play. Chicago, with fewer attempts, concentrated their threat—six high-danger chances to Utah's three. The Blackhawks made their advantages count. Teravainen finished with two goals; A. Vlasic and C. Murphy each contributed an assist.

This wasn't a game of parity dressed up in a blowout. It was an execution gap—Utah didn't miss by a little, and Chicago didn't get lucky. The Mammoth left points on the table by failing to convert high-quality looks. The Blackhawks punished every mistake.

Utah's Mammoth are the model's choice here. The projection: a 2.3–2.9 game favoring the Mammoth at 61% win probability.

Utah's form backs this. They're 6–4–0 in their last 10, while Chicago sits at –16 goal differential over the same stretch. The gap is real.

The underlying play is where Utah owns the advantage. At 5v5, the Mammoth generate 52.0% expected goals compared to Chicago's 42.0%—a 10-point gap. Utah's territorial dominance shows in Corsi too: 53.0% to 46.0%. Neither team's PDO is inflated (Utah at 1.003, Chicago at 0.996), so both advantages are earned.

Expect a territorial tilt favoring Utah.

Watch Tyler Bertuzzi for Chicago. He has 0.85 xG/60, 20 goals, 15 assists, and 7 high-danger goals on an 18.0% shooting rate. Connor Bedard sits at 0.82 xG/60 with 17 goals, 27 assists, 5 high-danger goals, and an 11.8% shooting rate.

Dylan Guenther leads Utah at 1.02 xG/60 with 28 goals, 15 assists, and 3 high-danger tallies—elite expected-goal production but low high-danger volume. Daniil But is at 1.01 xG/60 with 2 goals, 2 assists, and 1 high-danger goal on a 5.6% shooting rate—elite underlying metrics with minimal finished output.

The goaltending picture carries noise. Both K. Vejmelka and S. Knight are on back-to-backs, opening the door to backup starts or fatigued starters.

Chicago's defensive weak link is Anton Frondell. Utah's is Maveric Lamoureux. Neither team has solved the rebound or high-danger goal problem yet—both sitting at 0%, which is unsustainable.

Utah's territorial and underlying advantages are reflected in the model's edge. Both are earned, not lucky.