Wed, Dec 18, 2024·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Vancouver Canucks 2, Utah Hockey Club 3 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 59% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 04 | 110 | 110 | 02 | 226 |
| UTA | 09 | 09 | 210 | 13 | 331 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 12:39VANDanton HeinenPPAssists: Quinn Hughes · Snap, 0.07 xG1–0
- P3 2:45VANDakota JoshuaAssists: Teddy Blueger, Quinn Hughes · Wrist, 0.15 xG2–0
- P3 9:02UTAClayton KellerAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Barrett Hayton · Wrist, 0.20 xG2–1
- P3 15:30UTADylan GuentherPPAssists: Clayton Keller, Logan Cooley · Deflected, 0.06 xG2–2
- OT 4:48UTAMikhail SergachevGWGAssists: Logan Cooley · Backhand, 0.16 xG2–3
Penalties (6)
- P2 8:41VANErik Brannstrom: Holding2 min
- P2 10:44UTAMichael Kesselring: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 16:04VANDanton Heinen: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:39UTAJack McBain: Tripping2 min
- P3 9:15UTAIan Cole: High sticking2 min
- P3 15:08VANTyler Myers: Cross checking2 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 20:00Bjugstad won the faceoff against Miller
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestMiller – Boeser – Garland9:53
xG 0.71–0.29 (71%)attempts 10–12goals 0–0
- Blueger – Joshua – Hoglander8:25
xG 0.31–0.41 (43%)attempts 6–11goals 1–1
- Heinen – Suter – Sherwood8:21
xG 0.22–0.35 (39%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- DeBrusk – Pettersson – Sasson9:21
xG 0.15–0.39 (27%)attempts 4–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMyers – Hughes10:06
xG 0.85–0.21 (80%)attempts 10–12goals 1–0
- Soucy – Juulsen14:31
xG 0.77–0.25 (75%)attempts 15–8goals 0–0
- Myers – Desharnais3:36
xG 0.07–0.12 (35%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestKerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone7:41
xG 1.04–0.44 (70%)attempts 14–5goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Hayton11:08
xG 0.48–0.18 (73%)attempts 13–4goals 1–0
- Bjugstad – Crouse – Maccelli8:58
xG 0.30–0.28 (52%)attempts 9–8goals 0–0
- McBain – Guenther – Cooley9:31
xG 0.29–0.34 (46%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVälimäki – Kolyachonok7:15
xG 1.13–0.13 (90%)attempts 13–5goals 0–0
- Sergachev – Välimäki4:51
xG 0.41–0.10 (80%)attempts 8–2goals 1–0
- Maatta – Välimäki3:03
xG 0.11–0.00 (100%)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 VAN. 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 59% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).