Recap · NSH at UTA

K. Vejmelka stands tall as the Mammoth edge the Predators

The Mammoth stole one. They lost the expected-goals battle 4.47–3.31 and won anyway.

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:08 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity

Away

NSH

Nashville Predators

Home

UTA

Utah Mammoth

FINAL

Process vs result

The underlying story

4.47Expected goals3.31

57% share for the better side

30Shot attempts (SOG)27

7High-danger chances5

65Corsi (all attempts)56

Score-adjusted: 59% / 41%

Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

K. Vejmelka stole this game. The Predators controlled 58% of expected goals at 5v5 and dominated the shot map, but Utah's goalie saved 3.47 goals above expected in a 4-1 win that violated every advanced metric except the one that matters.

The numbers explain the heist. Utah held 47% of shot attempts (27–30), but the xG split went 3.31–4.47 in Nashville's favor. High-danger chances finished 5–7 for the Predators, yet they scored once. K. Vejmelka posted 29/30 saves and a 0.967 SV%, while J. Saros faced 30 shots, stopped 23, and posted a 0.852 SV%.

Utah's path to victory was clinical precision. The Mammoth were lethal on the rush — 4 goals on 30 chances — and converted 2 of 5 high-danger opportunities (40%). The Predators wasted their dominance. They created 6 rebound chances and converted one. Nashville created and squandered chances as Vejmelka stood tall.

The turning point: Erik Haula's backhander from the doorstep at 10:22 of the third period. C. Keller (UTA) dominated with 3 assists in 17:39. N. Schmaltz posted 1G, 1A in 18:58, and D. Guenther contributed 1G, 1A in 17:58.

Utah converted when it mattered most while Nashville's overwhelming dominance evaporated against elite goaltending and ruthless finishing.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected

High dangerslot & crease

NSH1 / 7 · 1.57 xG

UTA2 / 5 · 1.26 xG

Medium dangermid-range

NSH0 / 17 · 2.04 xG

UTA2 / 10 · 1.25 xG

Low dangerperimeter & point

NSH0 / 41 · 0.86 xG

UTA0 / 41 · 0.80 xG

NSH went 0-for-17 from medium danger on 2.04 expected goals — 2.0 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play

The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual

NSH

1 G · 4.47 xG · -3.5

UTA

4 G · 3.31 xG · +0.7

012345

Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)

J. SarosNSH

-0.7

K. VejmelkaUTA

+3.5

NSH finished -3.5 against expected, UTA +0.7 — K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 3.5 goals above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model

What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots

NSH

SNAP0/19

WRIST0/11

SLAP0/10

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND1/5

WRAP AROUND0/2

OTHER0/13

UTA

SNAP2/25

WRIST2/9

SLAP0/4

TIP IN0/5

BACKHAND0/2

WRAP AROUND0/0

OTHER0/11

NSH

UTA

Off the rush

0 G on 32 · 3.18 xG

4 G on 30 · 2.85 xG

Off rebounds

1 G on 6 · 0.84 xG

0 G on 4 · 0.27 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: NSH went 0-for-19, UTA 2-for-25. UTA scored 4 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types

Three stars · computed, not voted

C. Keller

#9 · R · UTA

0 G · 3 A · 2 SOG · 17:39 TOI · +2

N. Schmaltz

#8 · C · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 2 SOG · 18:58 TOI · +1

D. Guenther

#11 · R · UTA

1 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 17:58 TOI · +2

Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck

What the model flagged

UTA won despite being outplayed by xG (43%). Goaltending or finishing carried them.
K. Vejmelka (UTA) stopped 3.5 goals above expected.
UTA was clinical in the high-danger zone — 2/5 on HD chances (40%).
UTA was lethal off the rush — 4 goals on 30 rush chances.
UTA created 4 rebound opportunities (0 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
NSH created 6 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
NSH underperformed xG by 3.5 — wasted quality chances.
K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 3.5 goals above expected — stole the show.

Preview · NSH at UTA · 9:00 PM ET

The Mammoth are the model's lean over the Predators on the underlying numbers

◆ By the ModelJul 12, 11:07 AMEdited for clarity

Win probability

The model's lean

55%

UTA

Model favorite

45%

55%

NSH50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score NSH 2.4–2.7 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

NSH← edge

edge →UTA

49.0%5v5 xG%52.0%

50.0%Corsi%53.0%

2.48xGF / 602.64

2.58xGA / 602.39

1.84Goals for / gm2.26

2.21Goals against / gm1.99

0.992PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (0.992 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Utah leans to the model's preference. The projection gives the Mammoth 55% win probability, targeting a 2.4–2.7 score for Nashville.

The advantage traces to possession. Utah controls 52.0% of expected goals at 5v5 versus Nashville's 49.0%, and owns 53.0% Corsi to the Predators' 50.0%. Utah's PDO of 1.003 edges Nashville's 0.992—a modest goaltending or puck-luck advantage.

K. Vejmelka and J. Annunen both play back-to-back starts.

Players to Watch

Zachary L'Heureux (0.85 xG/60, 4G, 1 HD goal, 16.0% shooting) and Filip Forsberg (0.80 xG/60, 23G 17A, 4 HD goals, 13.6% shooting) shoulder Nashville's offense. Utah replies with Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28G 15A, 3 HD goals, 16.8% shooting) and Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G 2A, 1 HD goal, 5.6% shooting), though But missed 14 days and likely sits out.

Jonathan Marchessault is Nashville's defensive liability; Maveric Lamoureux serves as Utah's. Both teams register 0% on high-danger and rebound goals. Whoever commands possession forces the other into reactive play. Utah's territorial edge should sustain.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

NSH

Zachary L'Heureux4G 0A

0.85 xG/60 · 1 HD · 16.0% sh

Filip Forsberg23G 17A

0.80 xG/60 · 4 HD · 13.6% 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