Backcheck
Recap · STL at UTA

Blues run the Mammoth off the ice on the underlying numbers

The Blues earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

By the ModelJul 12, 11:57 AMxG: xgboost-0.758Edited for clarity
Away
STL
St. Louis Blues
5
Home
UTA
Utah Mammoth
3
FINAL
Process vs result

The underlying story

4.98Expected goals2.53
66% share for the better side
29Shot attempts (SOG)23
7High-danger chances2
52Corsi (all attempts)58
Score-adjusted: 46% / 54%
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG

St. Louis overwhelmed Utah on shot quality despite a closer battle in volume. The Mammoth held 44% of shot attempts, a respectable near-split. Expected goals told a different story: 4.98–2.53 (66–34%) in the Blues' favor.

Utah generated 0.044 expected goals per shot. St. Louis generated 0.096. The Blues nearly doubled Utah's shot quality. High-danger chances finished 7–2 for STL. The rush-attack gulf was stark: 5 Blues goals on 21 chances versus 2 Mammoth goals on 23 chances.

Utah's goalies fought hard. V. Vanecek saved 4.0 goals above expected. K. Vejmelka saved 2.0 goals above expected. It wasn't enough. Utah scored twice from low-danger spots—shots opposing goaltenders are supposed to stop. The Mammoth crashed effectively for 3 rebound opportunities and converted 1, but couldn't overcome the gap in chance quality.

The turning point: Robert Thomas's wrist shot from the high slot (P3, 19:22), crystallizing where the Blues found their advantage.

J. Hofer (STL) needed only competence, posting 20 saves on 23 shots (0.870 SV%). He was. St. Louis converted its quality into goals. Utah didn't.

How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
STL2 / 7 · 3.22 xG
UTA0 / 2 · 0.40 xG
Medium dangermid-range
STL2 / 9 · 1.13 xG
UTA1 / 14 · 1.50 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
STL1 / 36 · 0.63 xG
UTA2 / 42 · 0.63 xG

UTA went 2-for-42 from low danger on 0.63 expected goals — 1.4 above expected.

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

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
STL
5 G · 4.98 xG · +0.0
UTA
3 G · 2.53 xG · +0.5
0123456
Goalies · GSAx (goals saved above expected)
J. HoferSTL
-0.5
V. VanecekUTA
+0.8
K. VejmelkaUTA
+0.2

STL finished +0.0 against expected, UTA +0.5 — V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 0.8 goals above expected.

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

Shot diet

goalsshots
STL
SNAP0/17
WRIST3/8
SLAP0/8
TIP IN1/4
BACKHAND1/3
OTHER0/12
UTA
SNAP1/15
WRIST1/13
SLAP0/6
TIP IN1/6
BACKHAND0/2
OTHER0/16
STL
UTA
Off the rush
5 G on 21 · 2.78 xG
2 G on 23 · 1.77 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 2 · 0.17 xG
1 G on 3 · 0.41 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: STL went 0-for-17, UTA 1-for-15. STL scored 5 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
Three stars · computed, not voted
R. Thomas
#18 · C · STL
3 G · 0 A · 3 SOG · 16:54 TOI · +2
C. Keller
#9 · R · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 20:14 TOI · -1
M. Weegar
#52 · D · UTA
0 G · 2 A · 1 SOG · 17:29 TOI
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model flagged
  • UTA had the shot volume but the chances weren't dangerous.
  • STL had the higher quality looks — 0.096 xG/shot vs 0.044.
  • UTA scored 2 goals from low-danger spots — the opposing goalie needs to have those.
  • UTA was lethal off the rush — 2 goals on 23 rush chances.
  • STL was lethal off the rush — 5 goals on 21 rush chances.
  • UTA created 3 rebound opportunities (1 converted) — crashing the net effectively.
  • V. Vanecek (UTA) saved 4.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
  • K. Vejmelka (UTA) saved 2.0 goals above expected — stole the show.
Before the game — the model's pre-game read
Preview · STL at UTA · 7:30 PM ET

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

By the ModelJul 12, 11:55 AMEdited for clarity
Win probability

The model's lean

55%
UTA
Model favorite
45%
55%
STL50UTA

UTA by 10 points of win probability — a modest lean. Projected score STL 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

STL← edge
edge →UTA
49.0%5v5 xG%52.0%
48.0%Corsi%53.0%
2.34xGF / 602.64
2.40xGA / 602.39
2.00Goals for / gm2.26
2.12Goals against / gm1.99
1.000PDO — luck, not skill1.003

UTA holds 6 of 6 process categories — and PDO (1.000 vs 1.003) says UTA has run hotter.

Source · MoneyPuck season tables · 5v5

Utah owns this matchup on the underlying numbers. The model projects 2.4–2.6 goals for the Blues but assigns Utah 55% win probability—a gap that reflects the Mammoth's possession control.

The Mammoth dictate where play happens. Utah's 52.0% 5v5 expected goals and 53.0% Corsi% represent a territorial edge wide enough to expect consistent advantage. St. Louis sits at 49.0% xG and 48.0% Corsi—they will chase all night. When one team controls the puck at this margin, possession tends to correlate with shot volume and goals.

Both goaltenders arrive on their second straight game. K. Vejmelka and J. Binnington are fatigue risks; either could start compromised or yield to a backup.

Players to Watch

St. Louis: Jimmy Snuggerud (0.86 xG/60, 15G, 22A, 11.9% shooting, 2 hard-chance goals) is the offensive engine. Dylan Holloway (0.82 xG/60, 13G, 24A, 10.8% shooting) provides secondary scoring. Snuggerud is also a defensive liability—Utah will hunt his gaps.

Utah: Dylan Guenther (1.02 xG/60, 28G, 15A, 16.8% shooting, 3 hard-chance goals) is the class of the ice—his finishing efficiency stands apart. Daniil But (1.01 xG/60, 2G, 2A, 1 hard-chance goal) is sidelined; he hasn't played in 21 days.

St. Louis must contain Guenther and limit Snuggerud's defensive exposure. Utah's path is simpler: build on possession, attack Snuggerud's gaps, and target Maveric Lamoureux, whose defense is the structural weak point.

Possession this wide does not typically lie. Utah should control the game.

Computed danger · scouting

Players to watch

STL
Jimmy Snuggerud15G 22A
0.86 xG/60 · 2 HD · 11.9% sh
Dylan Holloway13G 24A
0.82 xG/60 · 1 HD · 10.8% 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