38-31-13, 89
points (6th Central, 19th overall)
2.93 GF/GP, 21st; 3.01 GA/GP, 17th
24.2 PP%, 10th; 79.3 PK%, 15th
Key losses: RW Josh Doan, LW Mattias Maccelli, D Michael Kesselring
Key additions: LW/RW JJ Peterka, LW/RW Brandon Tanev, D Nate Schmidt, G Vitek Vanecek
Expected lineup:
Clayton
Keller – Barrett Hayton – Nick Schmaltz
JJ Peterka – Logan Cooley – Dylan Guenther
Lawson Crouse – Jamie McBain – Brandon Tanev
Alex Kerfoot – Kevin Stenlund – Michael Carcone
Mikhail
Sergachev – John Marino
Ian Cole – Sean Durzi
Olli Maatta – Nate Schmidt
Karel Vejmelka – Vitek Vanecek
PP1: Keller
– Hayton – Schmaltz – Guenther – Sergachev
PP2: McBain – Cooley – Crouse – Peterka – Durzi
5-on-5:
If you’re wondering why Utah looked so good on paper but ranked just 21st in goals for per game, simply just dig into the underlying metrics. At 5-on-5, they ranked sixth in percentage share of shot attempts and fourth in total expected goals, but ranked just 24th in shooting percentage.
Puck luck is a thing, and five of their top scorers from 2023-24 – Clayton Keller, Nick Schmaltz, Mattias Maccelli, Nick Bjugstad and Alex Kerfoot – all saw their shooting percentages dip. Based on PDO, a combined measure of both shooting percentage and save percentage with the median being 1.000, Utah ranked 20th at 0.996, dropping from 1.010 from the previous season.
In other words, the goaltending held up – Connor Ingram’s disappointing season offset by Karel Vejmelka’s emergence as their No. 1 goalie – but their ability to turn scoring chances into goals did not. This is a team that should’ve ranked in the top 10, if not close, in goals scored rather in the lower third of the league.
Keller is definitely the star of this offense, posting his third straight 30-goal season and setting a career high with 90 points. He’s a playmaker first, but for someone who’s such an efficient shooter – at least 13.8 S% in each of the past four seasons – you do wish he was more willing to shoot the puck. He is not, however, their best shooter because Dylan Guenther holds that title. He’s a sharpshooter who cracked 200 shots for the first time last season and ranked second on the team in goals (27) and first in power-play goals (12). Logan Cooley, the third overall pick in 2022, took a huge step and set career highs in every single category. If Utah’s offense was disappointing last season based on total output, there were still clear signs that they were on an uptrend and that it was merely an anomalously unlucky season.
The one curious development in their 5-on-5 play is that Keller and Cooley, seemingly natural fits with their preternatural playmaking talents, weren’t really good fits with one another, and it’s been on-going for two seasons now. Keller produced much better results with Barrett Hayton, who’s more of a two-way center with a 60-point offensive ceiling, than with Cooley. On paper, a line of Keller-Cooley-Guenther with two premier playmakers and their best shooter seems obvious like it would be a successful combo, but that’s not the case.
It’s not without a lack of trying; Keller (and Nick Schmaltz, his usual right winger) played 367 minutes with Hayton and 272 minutes with Cooley. In each case, with or without Schmaltz, a Hayton-Keller combo was far better at puck possession, generating chances and scoring goals than a Cooley-Keller combo. The results really weren’t that close.
This is not necessarily a problem; this allows Utah to spread out their talent with two potentially equally dangerous scoring lines, which causes matchup problems, but in clutch situations, do you go with Hayton or Cooley? THN Yearbook & Fantasy Guide has Cooley projected to score 74 points to Hayton’s 54, but I think those totals will totally change depending on who plays with Keller at even strength, and if Keller and Cooley can establish better chemistry.
Power Play:
If Utah’s 5-on-5 play suffered from poor puck luck, their power play was the complete opposite. Their power play ranked 28th in shot attempts and 25th in expected goals per 60 minutes. Yet, they finished eighth in power-play goals for and 10th in efficiency, and also seventh in penalties drawn.
Utah’s power play actually should’ve been even better than they actually were, and they have all the pieces to have a top-five unit. Again, the question of whether their center on the top unit should be Cooley or Hayton comes into play; as it stands, Cooley is projected to center the second unit.
Being more consistent will also help. Their power play was extremely streaky with 11 games in which they scored at least two power-play goals and six games in which they scored on every opportunity. On the flip side, they went 40 games without a power-play goal and another four games where they went 1-for-5 or worse. It’s not a bad result overall, but considering how few chances they generate, you wonder if they could score even more goals. A stronger power play could’ve offset the poor luck at even strength.
This might be a question of quality vs. quantity, but Utah’s power play wasn’t very good at generating shots from the slot, and not for a lack of time. Utah ranked in the 74th percentile in offensive zone time on the power play, per NHL EDGE. They were worse than the league average in generating expected goals overall, and instead generated most of their chances from the half-wall. This makes sense, as their best players tend to be perimeter shooters and playmakers than net drivers.
Having a better net-front presence should help, but Utah doesn’t have many options in that regard save for perhaps Lawson Crouse, who plays very few minutes on the power play and unfortunately isn’t skilled or talented enough offensively to be reliable or displace Keller, Guenther, Schmaltz, Cooley or Hayton.
All stats courtesy of naturalstattrick.com, moneypuck.com, hockeyviz.com, allthreezones.com, hockey-reference.com, eliteprospects.com unless otherwise noted.