Mon, Dec 2, 2024·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Dallas Stars 2, Utah Hockey Club 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAL | 08 | 26 | 07 | 221 |
| UTA | 013 | 011 | 113 | 137 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:07DALEvgenii DadonovPPAssists: Matt Duchene, Miro Heiskanen · Snap, 0.08 xG1–0
- P2 19:17DALJamie BennGWGAssists: Sam Steel · Snap, 0.06 xG2–0
- P3 6:57UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Matias Maccelli, Nick Bjugstad · Snap, 0.12 xG2–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 16:25UTAMikhail Sergachev: Slashing2 min
- P1 16:59DALMason Marchment: Tripping2 min
- P2 2:04DALNils Lundkvist: Hooking2 min
- P2 2:35UTAMikhail Sergachev: Interference2 min
- P2 5:46UTAClayton Keller: Holding2 min · PPG
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 20:00Johnston won the faceoff against Bjugstad
- 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.
Dallas Stars
Forward lines
- bestHintz – Robertson – Johnston12:43
xG 0.61–0.31 (67%)attempts 15–14goals 0–0
- Blackwell – Bäck – Bourque7:08
xG 0.03–0.04 (43%)attempts 6–5goals 0–0
- Duchene – Marchment – Stankoven9:38
xG 0.70–0.83 (46%)attempts 14–14goals 0–0
- Benn – Dadonov – Steel9:37
xG 0.43–0.92 (32%)attempts 10–11goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestDumba – Harley11:01
xG 0.48–0.26 (65%)attempts 15–11goals 0–0
- Lindell – Lyubushkin4:21
xG 0.28–0.13 (69%)attempts 5–2goals 1–0
- Heiskanen – Lundkvist2:31
xG 0.16–0.12 (57%)attempts 2–6goals 0–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestMcBain – Guenther – Cooley9:38
xG 0.95–0.54 (64%)attempts 12–10goals 0–1
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone8:27
xG 0.39–0.16 (71%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Hayton10:40
xG 0.43–0.36 (54%)attempts 14–6goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Crouse – Maccelli11:10
xG 0.32–0.36 (47%)attempts 10–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Kesselring10:56
xG 0.92–0.17 (84%)attempts 18–9goals 0–0
- Bortuzzo – Välimäki7:21
xG 0.93–0.21 (81%)attempts 13–7goals 0–0
- Sergachev – Välimäki3:30
xG 0.13–0.06 (69%)attempts 3–2goals 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 DAL. 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 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − DAL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).