Sat, Oct 19, 2024·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Boston Bruins 1, Utah Hockey Club 2 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 53% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOS | 06 | 19 | 07 | 00 | 122 |
| UTA | 010 | 011 | 18 | 13 | 232 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 12:49BOSCole KoepkeAssists: Brad Marchand · Snap, 0.04 xG1–0
- P3 14:51UTAVladislav KolyachonokAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Clayton Keller · Backhand, 0.14 xG1–1
- OT 2:46UTAMichael KesselringGWGAssists: Logan Cooley, Matias Maccelli · Snap, 0.11 xG1–2
Penalties (9)
- P1 6:19UTAKevin Stenlund: Tripping2 min
- P1 18:50BOSCharlie McAvoy: High sticking2 min
- P2 3:03UTARobert Bortuzzo: Roughing2 min
- P2 3:03BOSMark Kastelic: Roughing2 min
- P2 7:44BOSNikita Zadorov: Hooking2 min
- P2 13:13UTAVladislav Kolyachonok: Interference2 min
- P2 19:11BOSHampus Lindholm: Tripping2 min
- P3 3:17UTAClayton Keller: Hooking2 min
- OT 0:42BOSDavid Pastrnak: Tripping2 min
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Coyle won the faceoff against Hayton
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.
Boston Bruins
Forward lines
- bestKastelic – Koepke – Beecher7:26
xG 0.29–0.15 (66%)attempts 5–10goals 0–0
- Marchand – Coyle – Brazeau5:57
xG 0.01–0.03 (34%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Frederic – Geekie – Poitras5:52
xG 0.08–0.17 (31%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Lindholm – Pastrnak – Zacha8:00
xG 0.35–0.51 (41%)attempts 5–12goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Zadorov – Peeke12:44
xG 0.24–0.23 (52%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Lindholm – Carlo11:13
xG 0.23–0.33 (41%)attempts 7–12goals 1–1
- McAvoy – Lohrei13:49
xG 0.37–0.54 (40%)attempts 8–18goals 0–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Keller – Hayton10:18
xG 0.41–0.25 (62%)attempts 11–5goals 1–0
- McBain – Guenther – Cooley9:40
xG 0.32–0.19 (62%)attempts 10–6goals 0–0
- Stenlund – Yamamoto – Maccelli7:12
xG 0.24–0.13 (64%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – Crouse – Doan8:55
xG 0.30–0.38 (44%)attempts 17–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestVälimäki – Kolyachonok5:12
xG 0.40–0.16 (71%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Bortuzzo – Kolyachonok3:28
xG 0.26–0.07 (79%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Cole – Kolyachonok3:56
xG 0.15–0.02 (90%)attempts 3–1goals 1–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
UTA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line UTA is favoured, below it BOS. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 53% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − BOS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).