Skip to content
Ice Lab

Thu, Jan 2, 2025·Scotiabank Saddledome, Calgary

Utah Hockey Club 5, Calgary Flames 3

Expected result

Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 92% of the time.

CGY winsUTA wins

By period

Goals and shots on goal in each period.

TeamP1P2P3Total
UTA1619311526
CGY11021006326

Goals, with shots on goal in grey.

Scoring

Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.

  1. P1 8:51UTALawson CrouseAssists: Ian Cole · Wrist, 0.07 xG1–0
  2. P1 19:12CGYBlake ColemanPPAssists: Nazem Kadri, Rasmus Andersson · Wrist, 0.15 xG1–1
  3. P2 6:19UTALogan CooleyPPAssists: Dylan Guenther, Clayton Keller · Tip-in, 0.09 xG2–1
  4. P2 7:26CGYConnor ZaryAssists: Yegor Sharangovich, MacKenzie Weegar · Deflected, 0.09 xG2–2
  5. P2 15:14CGYBrayden PachalAssists: Matt Coronato, Blake Coleman · Snap, 0.12 xG2–3
  6. P3 0:37UTAClayton KellerAssists: Olli Maatta, Barrett Hayton · Tip-in, 0.10 xG3–3
  7. P3 2:35UTALawson CrouseGWGAssists: Nick Bjugstad, Olli Maatta · Wrist, 0.10 xG4–3
  8. P3 19:00UTAKevin StenlundENAssists: Alexander Kerfoot, Mikhail Sergachev · Wrist, 0.76 xG5–3
Penalties (12)
  1. P1 16:17CGYMatt Coronato: Tripping2 min
  2. P1 18:36UTALiam O'Brien: Too many men on the ice2 min · PPG
  3. P2 0:59UTAMichael Kesselring: Interference2 min
  4. P2 5:24CGYNazem Kadri: Interference2 min · PPG
  5. P2 12:41UTAJuuso Välimäki: Tripping2 min
  6. P2 12:41CGYKevin Rooney: Slashing2 min
  7. P2 12:41CGYNazem Kadri: Misconduct10 min
  8. P2 12:41UTALiam O'Brien: Misconduct10 min
  9. P2 15:55UTANick Bjugstad: Hooking2 min
  10. P3 4:32CGYBrayden Pachal: Tripping2 min
  11. P3 10:15CGYJoel Hanley: Penalty shot hooking on breakaway0 min
  12. P3 10:51UTAClayton Keller: Roughing2 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.

UTA00 SOG · 0.0 xG

20:00

P1

0.0 xG · 0 SOG0CGY
43% to win57% to win
← UTA attackCGY attack →
  1. P1 20:00Hayton won the faceoff against Backlund
  • Goal
  • Shot
  • Miss
  • Block
  • Hit
  • Takeaway
  • Giveaway
  • Faceoff
  • Penalty

The numbers

Team totals, side by side.

UTACGY
26Shots on goal26
4.5Expected goals1.6
49Shot attempts48
32Faceoffs won27
3Power plays4
20Penalty minutes18
21Hits36
16Blocked shots11
22Giveaways12
5Takeaways7

Line combinations that worked

Model-based

Each 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

  1. bestSchmaltz – Keller – Hayton10:58

    xG 0.57–0.24 (70%)attempts 11–6goals 1–0

  2. Bjugstad – O'Brien – Crouse5:18

    xG 0.07–0.01 (89%)attempts 3–1goals 1–0

  3. Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone6:16

    xG 0.08–0.15 (36%)attempts 4–6goals 0–1

  4. McBain – Guenther – Cooley9:12

    xG 0.04–0.22 (17%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. bestMaatta – Sergachev12:56

    xG 0.38–0.14 (73%)attempts 13–8goals 1–0

  2. Sergachev – Välimäki2:53

    xG 0.21–0.10 (67%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0

  3. Bortuzzo – Välimäki7:05

    xG 0.16–0.12 (56%)attempts 4–4goals 0–0

Calgary Flames

Forward lines

  1. bestSharangovich – Pelletier – Zary9:21

    xG 0.18–0.09 (68%)attempts 8–5goals 1–0

  2. Backlund – Coleman – Coronato11:50

    xG 0.49–0.44 (52%)attempts 9–10goals 1–1

  3. Lomberg – Rooney – Duehr5:21

    xG 0.11–0.23 (33%)attempts 2–4goals 0–2

  4. Kadri – Huberdeau – Pospisil8:57

    xG 0.15–0.37 (29%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0

Defence pairs

  1. Andersson – Bahl15:54

    xG 0.48–0.48 (50%)attempts 11–11goals 0–1

  2. Bean – Pachal9:42

    xG 0.33–0.37 (47%)attempts 11–8goals 1–0

  3. Weegar – Hanley11:39

    xG 0.05–0.20 (19%)attempts 5–9goals 0–1

How the game flowed

Model-based

Chance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.

Expected goals flow

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.

CGY 1.6 xGUTA 4.5 xG
012345P1P2P3EndxG

Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute

CGYUTA

Win probability

Model-based

How each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.

Win probability

CGY's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line CGY is favoured, below it UTA. Dots are goals.

Excitement 85/100 · #192 of 1312 this seasonSwing 2.11 · 8 goals in reachComeback index 21% (winner's lowest chance)
UTA 100%5050%50CGY 100%P1P2P3EndBiggest swing +30 pts

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 92% of the time.

CGY winsUTA wins

Simulated goal difference (CGY − UTA), 10,000 replays

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7

The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).