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

UTA

Utah Mammoth

3-2-0

EDM

Edmonton Oilers

4-0-1

Has last change

Thursday, October 15

9:00 PM ET · Rogers Place

The short version

Before the game

The Oilers come in hot

The Oilers have won four straight. The Mammoth are 3-2-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately, Edmonton will be without Hyman, and Edmonton has home ice. Utah’s way back in is pouncing on loose pucks.

The Oilers have won four straight. The Mammoth are 3-2-0. The two have been about even at controlling the play lately, Edmonton will be without Hyman, and Edmonton has home ice. Utah’s best way through is pouncing on loose pucks.

It’s strength against strength: the Mammoth for shot volume, the Oilers at keeping shots away. Don’t read much into Vejmelka’s record against the Oilers.

Who to watch

  • Owns themEvan Bouchard has a point in six straight games against Utah, and 11 points in his last six against them.
  • Hot streakConnor McDavid has a point in every game this season.
  • Hot streakVasily Podkolzin has a point in every game this season.
  • Still outR. Nugent-Hopkins is out and hasn’t played yet this season.

  1. The matchup inside the matchup

    The Mammoth are one of the league’s best for shot volume, and the Oilers are near the top of the league at keeping shots away. Our lean: the Mammoth’s shot volume wins out.

    The call The Mammoth take more than the league-average 56.4 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5 against the Oilers.

    Utah 2nd for shot volume (66.6 shot attempts per 60 at 5-on-5) · Edmonton 7th for keeping shots away

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 5 games this season

  2. Vejmelka’s rough record against the Oilers is a coincidence

    Since 2023-24, Vejmelka has been shaky against the Oilers, well below his usual. Fans love a pattern like this, but we checked three seasons of them and they predicted nothing. Expect the usual Vejmelka.

    The call If Vejmelka starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .903 than to his .854 against the Oilers.

    5 starts against Edmonton: .854 save percentage · .903 against everyone else

    Goalie starts since 2023-24 · 5 against Edmonton, 4,100 shots against everyone else

  3. The Oilers can’t afford to take penalties

    The Oilers’ penalty kill is near the bottom of the league, and the Mammoth’s power play is near the top of the league. Discipline matters more than usual for the Oilers tonight.

    The call The Mammoth’s power play creates at least their usual 7.8 expected goals per 60.

    Utah 9th for power play (7.8 expected goals per 60) · Edmonton 24th for penalty kill

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 5 games this season

  4. Bodies will fly

    The Mammoth and the Oilers 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 110.

    Hit score (100 is league average): Utah 112 (7th), Edmonton 108 (9th)

    Style fingerprint · this season blended with last · 5 and 5 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 Edmonton play, trait by trait, on the same scales.

Utah MammothEdmonton OilersLeague 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 5 and 5 games played so far; traits that take longer to settle lean more on last season.

This season only: 5 games for Utah, 5 for Edmonton. 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: 66.6 shot attempts per 602nd of 32

      Utah: 71.2 shot attempts per 601st of 32

    • Edmonton: 54.8 shot attempts per 6020th of 32

      Edmonton: 53.5 shot attempts per 6022nd of 32

  • Shot quality
    HopefulDangerous

    • Utah: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot5th of 32

      Utah: a 7.1% chance of scoring on the average shot8th of 32

    • Edmonton: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot11th of 32

      Edmonton: a 6.6% chance of scoring on the average shot18th of 32

  • Second chances
    One-and-doneCrashers

    • Utah: 10.1% of chances come from rebounds21st of 32

      Utah: 12.0% of chances come from rebounds12th of 32

    • Edmonton: 9.8% of chances come from rebounds32nd of 32

      Edmonton: 5.5% of chances come from rebounds28th of 32

  • Off-turnover offense
    PatientOpportunist

    • Utah: 7.5% of chances come right after a turnover11th of 32

      Utah: 12.1% of chances come right after a turnover8th of 32

    • Edmonton: 6.7% of chances come right after a turnover28th of 32

      Edmonton: 6.3% of chances come right after a turnover21st of 32

  • Shots from defensemen
    Forward-ledActive D

    • Utah: 34.3% of shot attempts come from defensemen18th of 32

      Utah: 38.0% of shot attempts come from defensemen2nd of 32

    • Edmonton: 35.1% of shot attempts come from defensemen14th of 32

      Edmonton: 32.2% of shot attempts come from defensemen22nd of 32

  • Shots from in close
    From distanceIn close

    • Utah: 31.9% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

      Utah: 36.5% of shots come from within 20 feet4th of 32

    • Edmonton: 31.1% of shots come from within 20 feet10th of 32

      Edmonton: 30.6% of shots come from within 20 feet22nd of 32

Defense

  • Shot suppression
    PorousStingy

    • Utah: 51.5 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

      Utah: 48.4 shot attempts allowed per 607th of 32

    • Edmonton: 52.5 shot attempts allowed per 607th of 32

      Edmonton: 47.1 shot attempts allowed per 604th of 32

  • Quality allowed
    ExposedSheltered

    • Utah: a 6.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

      Utah: a 7.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against30th of 32

    • Edmonton: a 6.4% chance of scoring on the average shot against20th of 32

      Edmonton: a 5.7% chance of scoring on the average shot against5th of 32

  • Breakdowns avoided
    Fire drillComposed

    • Utah: 0.38 defensive breakdowns per 607th of 32

      Utah: 0.50 defensive breakdowns per 6019th of 32

    • Edmonton: 0.44 defensive breakdowns per 6028th of 32

      Edmonton: 0.26 defensive breakdowns per 6010th of 32

  • Goaltending
    SieveWall

    • Utah: +0.11 goals saved above expected per 6016th of 32

      Utah: +0.03 goals saved above expected per 6018th of 32

    • Edmonton: +0.04 goals saved above expected per 6027th of 32

      Edmonton: −1.07 goals saved above expected per 6027th of 32

Tempo and edge

  • Pace
    SlogTrack meet

    • Utah: 81.5 shots per 60, both teams combined18th of 32

      Utah: 83.3 shots per 60, both teams combined10th of 32

    • Edmonton: 79.2 shots per 60, both teams combined25th of 32

      Edmonton: 72.0 shots per 60, both teams combined28th of 32

  • Forecheck pressure
    PassiveHounding

    • Utah: forecheck score 119 (100 is league average)4th of 32Utah: 26.4 forecheck plays recorded per 606th of 32

      Utah: forecheck score 135 (100 is league average)2nd of 32Utah: 32.0 forecheck plays recorded per 603rd of 32

    • Edmonton: forecheck score 110 (100 is league average)8th of 32Edmonton: 26.0 forecheck plays recorded per 607th of 32

      Edmonton: forecheck score 123 (100 is league average)6th of 32Edmonton: 31.2 forecheck plays recorded per 605th of 32

  • Physicality
    FinesseBruising

    • Utah: hit score 112 (100 is league average)7th of 32Utah: 28.4 hits recorded per 6010th of 32

      Utah: hit score 123 (100 is league average)6th of 32Utah: 33.8 hits recorded per 608th of 32

    • Edmonton: hit score 108 (100 is league average)9th of 32Edmonton: 29.4 hits recorded per 607th of 32

      Edmonton: hit score 122 (100 is league average)7th of 32Edmonton: 36.6 hits recorded per 603rd of 32

  • Depth
    Top-heavyDeep

    • Utah: 44.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

      Utah: 45.7% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six2nd of 32

    • Edmonton: 40.2% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six31st of 32

      Edmonton: 40.5% of forward ice time at 5-on-5 goes to the bottom six25th of 32

Special teams

  • Power play
    HarmlessLethal

    • Utah: 7.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play9th of 32

      Utah: 9.8 expected goals per 60 on the power play4th of 32

    • Edmonton: 9.6 expected goals per 60 on the power play1st of 32

      Edmonton: 9.5 expected goals per 60 on the power play6th of 32

  • Penalty kill
    LeakyAirtight

    • Utah: 7.3 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

      Utah: 5.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded6th of 32

    • Edmonton: 8.0 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded24th of 32

      Edmonton: 6.2 expected goals allowed per 60 shorthanded10th of 32

  • Power kill
    BunkeredPredatory

    • Utah: 0.7 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded27th of 32

      Utah: 0.8 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded16th of 32

    • Edmonton: 1.1 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded5th of 32

      Edmonton: 1.0 expected goals created per 60 shorthanded12th of 32

  • Discipline
    RecklessClean

    • Utah: 0.01 more penalties taken than drawn per 6018th of 32

      Utah: 0.80 more penalties drawn than taken per 606th of 32

    • Edmonton: 0.05 more penalties drawn than taken per 6012th of 32

      Edmonton: 0.99 more penalties drawn than taken per 604th 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

Edmonton 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 (5 and 5 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

Edmonton Oilers

Worth knowing

  • Edmonton Z. Hyman has been a scratch for the last 4 games. He is a top-six forward.
  • Edmonton R. Nugent-Hopkins is out and has not played this season. He is a top-six forward.
  • Edmonton M. Savoie is out another eight weeks (lower body injury) and has not played this season. L. Draisaitl has taken his spot beside C. McDavid and V. Podkolzin.
  • Edmonton F. Hallander joined from PIT on Oct 7 and has played beside J. Dickinson and K. Kapanen.
  • Edmonton K. Kapanen has started playing on the power play: on the ice for 57% of the team’s power-play time in 5 games, up from 6% last season.
  • Edmonton T. Emberson is no longer killing penalties: 2% of the team’s shorthanded time in 3 games, down from 30% last season.

Who Edmonton is likely to send against whom

Each strip shows how one Edmonton 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

Edmonton forward lines against Utah forward lines

  • L1Draisaitl · McDavid · PodkolzinUTA L162%UTA L215%UTA L310%UTA L412%
  • L2Joseph · Formenton · MichaelsUTA L137%UTA L226%UTA L330%UTA L47%
  • L3Dickinson · Kapanen · HallanderUTA L1–UTA L2–UTA L3–UTA L4–
  • L4Frederic · Howard · SamanskiUTA L116%UTA L21%UTA L334%UTA L449%

Edmonton defense pairs against Utah forward lines

  • P1Murphy · SheaUTA L141%UTA L212%UTA L333%UTA L415%
  • P2Ekholm · BouchardUTA L136%UTA L222%UTA L314%UTA L428%
  • P3Emberson · MukhamadullinUTA L110%UTA L27%UTA L345%UTA L438%

Based on 2 Edmonton home games 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 Edmonton penalty kill

  • Utah power play

    7.8 expected goals per 60 · 9th of 32

  • Edmonton penalty kill

    8.0 expected goals allowed per 60 · 24th of 32

Utah power play

PP165% of the time

Creates 7.8 expected goals per 60

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

PP234% of the time

Creates 9.2 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.

Edmonton penalty kill

Starts the kill

Second wave

Spot duty

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. Vejmelka66 starts · 1710 shots, this season and last

+12.5 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.968 847 shots
Medium-danger save %
.891 599 shots
High-danger save %
.674 264 shots
Shots faced per 60
26.2
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.26
Quality starts
53%

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. CossaD. LeviT. Jarry

D. Levi3 starts · 73 shots, this season and last

−2.2 goals saved above expected too few starts to rate

Low-danger save %
.974 38 shots
Medium-danger save %
.750 24 shots
High-danger save %
.727 11 shots
Shots faced per 60
24.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +12.5 goals saved above expected in 66 starts
    • D. Levi: −2.2 goals saved above expected in 3 starts (too few starts to place)
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 26.2 shots faced per 60
    • D. Levi: 24.4 shots faced per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.2% chance of going in
    • D. Levi: the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going in (too few starts to place)
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.26 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • D. Levi: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60 (too few starts to place)
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 74 seconds between shots
    • D. Levi: a typical wait of 90 seconds between shots (too few starts to place)
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 53% of the time
    • D. Levi: a quality start 67% of the time (too few starts to place)

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

D. Levi, night to night: goals saved above expected in each start

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

K. Vejmelka4 starts · 83 shots, this season

+0.6 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.971 34 shots
Medium-danger save %
.824 34 shots
High-danger save %
.867 15 shots
Shots faced per 60
22.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0.54
Quality starts
50%

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. CossaD. LeviT. Jarry

D. Levi3 starts · 73 shots, this season

−2.2 goals saved above expected

Low-danger save %
.974 38 shots
Medium-danger save %
.750 24 shots
High-danger save %
.727 11 shots
Shots faced per 60
24.4
Defensive breakdowns per 60
0
Quality starts
67%
Show the full goalie comparisonHide the full goalie comparison
  • Stopping more than expected
    SieveWall
    • K. Vejmelka: +0.6 goals saved above expected in 4 starts
    • D. Levi: −2.2 goals saved above expected in 3 starts
  • How busy he is
    QuietUnder siege
    • K. Vejmelka: 22.4 shots faced per 60
    • D. Levi: 24.4 shots faced per 60
  • How dangerous the shots are
    ShelteredExposed
    • K. Vejmelka: the average shot he faces has a 7.5% chance of going in
    • D. Levi: the average shot he faces has a 6.9% chance of going in
  • Breakdowns in front of him
    RareConstant
    • K. Vejmelka: 0.54 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
    • D. Levi: 0 defensive breakdowns in front of him per 60
  • Waiting between shots
    Steady workLong waits
    • K. Vejmelka: a typical wait of 116 seconds between shots
    • D. Levi: a typical wait of 90 seconds between shots
  • Night-to-night steadiness
    StreakySteady
    • K. Vejmelka: a quality start 50% of the time
    • D. Levi: a quality start 67% of the time

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

−3 (bad night)0+3 (stole it)

D. Levi, 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
UtahEdmontonLeague average
  • Everyday even-strength play61.2%54.4%
  • Power play18.4%22.9%
  • Rebound4.9%5.8%
  • Empty net6.2%5.5%
  • Off a turnover6.6%3.4%
  • Goalie pulled0.3%2.4%
  • Shorthanded2%2.1%
  • Off a faceoff win0.3%3.4%

304 Utah goals and 327 Edmonton goals scored this season and last. Each row has its own scale.

  • Everyday even-strength play55.6%56%
  • Power play44.4%12%
  • Rebound0%4%
  • Empty net0%4%
  • Off a turnover0%4%
  • Goalie pulled0%4%
  • Shorthanded0%8%
  • Off a faceoff win0%8%

18 Utah goals and 25 Edmonton 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 · Edmonton Oilers