Sat, Nov 9, 2024·Bridgestone Arena, Nashville
Utah Hockey Club 0, Nashville Predators 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Nashville Predators win this game 67% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 04 | 010 | 013 | 027 |
| NSH | 212 | 15 | 14 | 421 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:37NSHFilip ForsbergPPGWGAssists: Roman Josi, Juuso Parssinen · Snap, 0.07 xG0–1
- P1 11:58NSHJonathan MarchessaultPPAssists: Roman Josi, Steven Stamkos · Tip-in, 0.11 xG0–2
- P2 11:05NSHFilip ForsbergUnassisted · Snap, 0.16 xG0–3
- P3 18:15NSHGustav NyquistENAssists: Jonathan Marchessault · Tip-in, 0.37 xG0–4
Penalties (7)
- P1 1:11UTAAlexander Kerfoot: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P1 8:48UTALogan Cooley: Hooking2 min
- P1 8:48UTAOlli Maatta: High sticking double minor4 min · PPG
- P2 18:43NSHMichael McCarron: Hooking2 min
- P3 3:58NSHFilip Forsberg: High sticking2 min
- P3 19:35NSHMichael McCarron: Fighting5 min
- P3 19:35UTALawson Crouse: Fighting5 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 20:00Hayton won the faceoff against O'Reilly
- 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.
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestMaccelli – Guenther – Cooley11:17
xG 0.40–0.14 (73%)attempts 15–3goals 0–0
- Stenlund – Carcone – McBain8:35
xG 0.31–0.15 (68%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Kerfoot – Crouse6:04
xG 0.15–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Schmaltz – Keller3:13
xG 0.13–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSergachev – Kesselring11:08
xG 0.45–0.23 (66%)attempts 13–6goals 0–0
- Cole – Lamoureux10:53
xG 0.24–0.09 (71%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Sergachev – Lamoureux3:44
xG 0.15–0.03 (83%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestTomasino – Parssinen – Evangelista8:56
xG 0.31–0.26 (54%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
- Stamkos – O'Reilly – Forsberg8:42
xG 0.22–0.34 (40%)attempts 4–8goals 1–0
- McCarron – Smith – L'Heureux7:11
xG 0.03–0.21 (14%)attempts 3–4goals 0–0
- Nyquist – Marchessault – Sissons7:50
xG 0.11–0.50 (18%)attempts 5–16goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Josi – Skjei15:08
xG 0.24–0.28 (46%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Schenn – Del Gaizo13:50
xG 0.41–0.63 (39%)attempts 11–21goals 0–0
- Lauzon – Carrier14:06
xG 0.29–0.59 (33%)attempts 8–11goals 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.
NSH's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line NSH is favoured, below it UTA. 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, Nashville Predators win this game 67% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (NSH − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).