Fri, Nov 29, 2024·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Edmonton Oilers 4, Utah Hockey Club 3 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 55% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDM | 05 | 37 | 017 | 13 | 432 |
| UTA | 212 | 010 | 19 | 00 | 331 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 6:17UTAAlexander KerfootAssists: Kevin Stenlund · Snap, 0.11 xG0–1
- P1 17:15UTALogan CooleyAssists: Juuso Välimäki, Robert Bortuzzo · Snap, 0.10 xG0–2
- P2 9:44EDMVasily PodkolzinAssists: Leon Draisaitl, Troy Stecher · Snap, 0.09 xG1–2
- P2 14:01EDMLeon DraisaitlPPAssists: Connor McDavid, Evan Bouchard · Snap, 0.11 xG2–2
- P2 16:22EDMConnor McDavidPPAssists: Evan Bouchard, Corey Perry · Snap, 0.13 xG3–2
- P3 3:42UTALawson CrouseAssists: Nick Bjugstad, Olli Maatta · Snap, 0.19 xG3–3
- OT 1:18EDMRyan Nugent-HopkinsGWGUnassisted · Snap, 0.18 xG4–3
Penalties (4)
- P2 10:28EDMTy Emberson: Hooking2 min
- P2 12:59UTAOlli Maatta: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 14:29UTARobert Bortuzzo: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P3 16:35UTAMikhail Sergachev: Interference2 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 20:00Bjugstad won the faceoff against McDavid
- 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.
Edmonton Oilers
Forward lines
- Perry – Ryan – Caggiula4:01
xG 0.12–0.10 (53%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0
- Nugent-Hopkins – Kapanen – McDavid12:13
xG 0.47–0.48 (49%)attempts 10–8goals 0–2
- Brown – Draisaitl – Podkolzin11:10
xG 0.36–0.68 (34%)attempts 11–13goals 1–0
- Henrique – Skinner – Janmark9:06
xG 0.28–0.93 (23%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestNurse – Stecher12:36
xG 0.99–0.19 (84%)attempts 17–7goals 1–0
- Kulak – Nurse6:25
xG 0.11–0.32 (25%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Ekholm – Bouchard16:03
xG 0.50–0.74 (41%)attempts 15–8goals 0–2
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Keller – Hayton14:28
xG 1.26–0.07 (95%)attempts 21–5goals 0–0
- McBain – Guenther – Cooley9:45
xG 0.81–0.23 (78%)attempts 12–6goals 1–0
- Bjugstad – Crouse – Maccelli10:53
xG 0.39–0.52 (43%)attempts 6–9goals 1–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone9:05
xG 0.41–0.61 (40%)attempts 8–15goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Kesselring13:41
xG 1.12–0.42 (73%)attempts 21–16goals 0–0
- Bortuzzo – Välimäki7:34
xG 0.48–0.07 (88%)attempts 7–5goals 1–0
- Sergachev – Kesselring2:41
xG 0.20–0.03 (88%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
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 EDM. 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 55% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − EDM), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).