Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
at

UTA

Utah Mammoth

2-0-0

NYR

New York Rangers

2-1-0

Has last change

Sunday, October 4

6:00 PM ET · Madison Square Garden

The short version

Before the game

Trocheck returns to the Rangers

The Rangers have won two in a row. The Mammoth have won two in a row. Utah has controlled the play far better over recent games, Utah is playing for the second night in a row, and the Rangers have home ice. Utah can still swing it if they keep shots to a minimum.

The Rangers have won two in a row. The Mammoth have won two in a row. Utah has controlled the play far better over recent games, Utah is playing for the second night in a row, and the Rangers have home ice. Utah’s best way to tip it is keeping shots to a minimum.

Expect plenty of hitting. The Mammoth and the Rangers sit at opposite ends for shot volume.

Who to watch

  • Old teamVincent Trocheck faces the Rangers for the first time since leaving.
  • Old teamSean Durzi faces Utah for the first time since leaving.
  • Haunts themClayton Keller has five goals in six games against the Rangers since 2023-24.

  1. This one’s going to leave marks

    The Mammoth and the Rangers are both among the league’s heaviest hitters, even after adjusting for each arena’s scorer. Keep your head up.

    The call The two teams’ combined hit score reaches their usual 116.

    Hit score (100 is league average): Utah 110 (5th), NY Rangers 121 (2nd)

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 3 games this season

  2. The Mammoth will outshoot the Rangers

    The Mammoth are one of the league’s best for shot volume, at the relentless end; the Rangers are near the bottom of the league, at the selective end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Mammoth take more 5-on-5 shot attempts per 60 than the Rangers.

    Shot volume: Utah 3rd, NY Rangers 27th

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 2 and 3 games this season

These calls are written by fixed rules from the numbers below, and saved as they stand at puck drop. After the game, each one will be checked against what happened.

Style fingerprints

How Utah and NY Rangers play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Utah MammothNew York RangersLeague averageLikely range

Each scale runs from the league’s lowest team on the left to its highest on the right. Numbers blend last season with the 2 and 3 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 2 games for Utah, 3 for NY Rangers. Expect these to swing a lot, which is why the likely ranges are so wide.

The biggest differences

Show all 18 traitsHide the full set

Offense

  • Shot volume
    SelectiveRelentless

    • Utah: 64.5 shot attempts per 603rd of 32

      Utah: 72.2 shot attempts per 602nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: 52.4 shot attempts per 6027th of 32

      NY Rangers: 49.9 shot attempts per 6025th of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Utah: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot14th of 32

      Utah: a 5.9% chance of scoring on the average shot22nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: a 6.2% chance of scoring on the average shot22nd of 32

      NY Rangers: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot12th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Utah: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds24th of 32

      Utah: 7.2% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

    • NY Rangers: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds22nd of 32

      NY Rangers: 10.2% of chances come from rebounds16th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Utah: 7.4% of chances come right after a turnover15th of 32

      Utah: 13.1% of chances come right after a turnover7th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover10th of 32

      NY Rangers: 6.8% of chances come right after a turnover16th of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Utah: 32.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen27th of 32

      Utah: 35.7% of shot attempts come from defensemen13th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 35.4% of shot attempts come from defensemen14th of 32

      NY Rangers: 33.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen19th of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Utah: 30.6% of shots come from within 20 feet12th of 32

      Utah: 27.9% of shots come from within 20 feet21st of 32

    • NY Rangers: 31.8% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

      NY Rangers: 39.0% of shots come from within 20 feet3rd of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Utah: 51.8 shot attempts allowed per 603rd of 32

      Utah: 45.4 shot attempts allowed per 606th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 56.4 shot attempts allowed per 6015th of 32

      NY Rangers: 52.5 shot attempts allowed per 6014th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Utah: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

      Utah: a 7.0% chance of scoring on the average shot against26th of 32

    • NY Rangers: a 6.1% chance of scoring on the average shot against11th of 32

      NY Rangers: a 6.3% chance of scoring on the average shot against17th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Utah: 0.37 defensive breakdowns per 604th of 32

      Utah: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

    • NY Rangers: 0.41 defensive breakdowns per 6019th of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.00 defensive breakdowns per 601st of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Utah: +0.13 goals saved above expected per 6010th of 32

      Utah: +1.71 goals saved above expected per 602nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: +0.19 goals saved above expected per 602nd of 32

      NY Rangers: +1.21 goals saved above expected per 605th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Utah: 81.3 shots per 60, both teams combined21st of 32

      Utah: 84.3 shots per 60, both teams combined13th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 78.2 shots per 60, both teams combined30th of 32

      NY Rangers: 69.3 shots per 60, both teams combined30th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Utah: forecheck score 111 (100 is league average)5th of 32Utah: 24.1 forecheck plays recorded per 608th of 32

      Utah: forecheck score 135 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Utah: 32.7 forecheck plays recorded per 605th of 32

    • NY Rangers: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)3rd of 32NY Rangers: 26.8 forecheck plays recorded per 604th of 32

      NY Rangers: forecheck score 115 (100 is league average)9th of 32NY Rangers: 29.4 forecheck plays recorded per 609th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Utah: hit score 110 (100 is league average)5th of 32Utah: 27.6 hits recorded per 6012th of 32

      Utah: hit score 137 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Utah: 39.1 hits recorded per 605th of 32

    • NY Rangers: hit score 121 (100 is league average)2nd of 32NY Rangers: 31.7 hits recorded per 602nd of 32

      NY Rangers: hit score 111 (100 is league average)9th of 32NY Rangers: 34.2 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Utah: 43.9% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six1st of 32

      Utah: 45.8% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: 42.4% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six16th of 32

      NY Rangers: 44.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six9th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Utah: 7.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play10th of 32

      Utah: 11.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play4th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 7.7 expected goals per 60 on the power play12th of 32

      NY Rangers: 5.4 expected goals per 60 on the power play20th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Utah: 7.4 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded13th of 32

      Utah: 2.8 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded2nd of 32

    • NY Rangers: 7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded20th of 32

      NY Rangers: 2.6 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded1st of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Utah: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded25th of 32

      Utah: 2.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded4th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

      NY Rangers: 0.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Utah: 0.04 more penalties taken than drawn per 6021st of 32

      Utah: 1.00 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

    • NY Rangers: 0.25 more penalties taken than drawn per 6032nd of 32

      NY Rangers: 1.33 more penalties taken than drawn per 6026th of 32

Forecheck pressure and physicality are arena-adjusted scores; switch “Hits and takeaways” to Raw in the settings to see the numbers as recorded. How the arena adjustment works.

Lines and deployment

NY Rangers is at home, so their coach changes last and chooses who plays against whom.

How good, against the same line or pair on other teamsHow much, low to high (not good or bad)

Lines and pairs are numbered by 5-on-5 ice time together over each team’s last 10 games (2 and 3 so far), with each older game counting half as much as the one after it, so the latest combinations come first. With so few games, each group’s results are pulled toward the average for its line number.

Utah Mammoth

New York Rangers

Worth knowing

  • Utah K. Yamamoto has been a scratch all season. He is one of their most valuable skaters. A. Lee has taken his spot beside D. Guenther and L. Cooley.
  • NY Rangers S. Durzi has started killing penalties: on the ice for 46% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, up from 7% last season.
  • NY Rangers J. Miller is no longer killing penalties: 5% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, down from 35% last season.

Who NY Rangers is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one NY Rangers group’s 5-on-5 time at home has been split across opponents’ four forward lines. Tonight those lines are Utah’s, named in each box.

Utah’s lines tonightL1 Trocheck · Schmaltz · KellerL2 Crouse · Hayton · McBainL3 Lee · Guenther · CooleyL4 Stenlund · Carcone · But

NY Rangers forward lines against Utah forward lines

  • L1Zibanejad · Lafrenière · PerreaultUTA L151%UTA L219%UTA L330%UTA L40%
  • L2Miller · Bjorkstrand · DorofeyevUTA L156%UTA L222%UTA L322%UTA L40%
  • L3Tolvanen · Cuylle · LabaUTA L114%UTA L268%UTA L317%UTA L40%
  • L4Veleno · Kartye · ChmelarUTA L144%UTA L22%UTA L355%UTA L40%

NY Rangers defense pairs against Utah forward lines

  • P1Pettersson · DurziUTA L140%UTA L235%UTA L325%UTA L40%
  • P2Gavrikov · FoxUTA L142%UTA L239%UTA L319%UTA L40%
  • P3Schneider · SmitsUTA L144%UTA L212%UTA L344%UTA L40%

Based on 1 NY Rangers home game this season, so treat it as a habit forming, not a certainty. Faded rows have under ten minutes. With no line matching, each group would face an opposing line about as often as that line is on the ice; a number well above that means the coach is sending that group out against it on purpose.

Special teams

Each power play set against the penalty killers it will face.

Show

Utah power play against NY Rangers penalty kill

  • Utah power play

    7.7 expected goals per 60 · 10th of 32

  • NY Rangers penalty kill

    7.7 expected goals allowed per 60 · 20th of 32

Utah power play

PP178% of the time

Creates 8.3 expected goals per 60

  • M. SergachevQuarterback
  • D. GuentherTrigger
  • L. CooleyNet-front
  • N. SchmaltzNet-front
  • C. KellerDistributor

PP222% of the time

Creates 6.5 expected goals per 60

  • J. MarinoQuarterback
  • M. CarconeTrigger
  • V. Trocheck
  • A. Lee
  • D. But

 

Where Utah’s last 140 power-play shots came from. Bigger dots are more dangerous.

NY Rangers penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Units and penalty-kill roles use each team’s last 10 games; power-play role tags use this season and last, counting only games with the player’s current team; the map shows the last 140 power-play shots. Point at a power-play name to see his shots on the map.

Goaltending

Is each goalie stopping more than he should, and what is his team asking him to face?

Showagainst

K. Vejmelka63 starts · 1642 shots, this season and last

+13.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 822 shots
Medium-danger save %
.897 571 shots
High-danger save %
.663 249 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.3
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.24
Quality starts
54%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesK. VejmelkaS. CossaI. ShesterkinD. Garand

I. Shesterkin52 starts · 1471 shots, this season and last

+25.3 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.976 751 shots
Medium-danger save %
.888 518 shots
High-danger save %
.738 202 shots
Shots faced per 60
28.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.34
Quality starts
65%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +13.5 goals saved above expected in 63 starts
    • I. Shesterkin: +25.3 goals saved above expected in 52 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 26.3 shots faced per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 28.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • I. Shesterkin: the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.24 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • I. Shesterkin: 0.34 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 73 seconds between shots
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 71 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 54% of the time
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 65% of the time

K. Vejmelka, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

I. Shesterkin, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Vejmelka1 start · 15 shots, this season

+1.6 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
1.000 9 shots
Medium-danger save %
1.000 6 shots
High-danger save %
– 0 shots
Shots faced per 60
15
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%

Helping, or hung out to dry?

System and goalie both goodGoalie bailing them outGoalie giving back what the system earnsTrouble everywhereTeam allows fewer chances ← → more chancesK. VejmelkaS. CossaI. ShesterkinD. Garand

I. Shesterkin2 starts · 46 shots, this season

+2.0 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
1.000 19 shots
Medium-danger save %
.917 24 shots
High-danger save %
.667 3 shots
Shots faced per 60
23.1
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
100%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +1.6 goals saved above expected in 1 start (too few starts to place)
    • I. Shesterkin: +2.0 goals saved above expected in 2 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 15 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • I. Shesterkin: 23.1 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 5.2% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
    • I. Shesterkin: the average shot he faces has a 6.5% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
    • I. Shesterkin: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 171 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
    • I. Shesterkin: a typical wait of 82 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 100% of the time (too few starts to place)
    • I. Shesterkin: a quality start 100% of the time

K. Vejmelka, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

I. Shesterkin, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

The menus list every goalie on each team, busiest this season first; the site does not yet know who will start. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie whose team gives up many cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really is.

Where the goals come from

How each team’s goals are scored, or allowed, against the league average.

Show goals
UtahNY RangersLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play61.1%56%
  • Power play17.9%22.8%
  • Rebound5.1%6.6%
  • Empty net6.4%5.8%
  • Off a turnover6.8%2.9%
  • Goalie pulled0.3%2.5%
  • Shorthanded2%2.1%
  • Off a faceoff win0.3%1.2%

296 Utah goals and 241 NY Rangers goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play50%42.9%
  • Power play50%28.6%
  • Rebound0%0%
  • Empty net0%28.6%
  • Off a turnover0%0%
  • Goalie pulled0%0%
  • Shorthanded0%0%
  • Off a faceoff win0%0%

10 Utah goals and 7 NY Rangers goals scored this season. Each row has its own scale.

These mixes are mostly luck: over three seasons, teams’ goals came from much the same places, and most of the differences here didn’t last. Each team page shows how much luck alone can move each row.

Data notes

Team pages: Utah Mammoth · New York Rangers