Fri, Jan 10, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
San Jose Sharks 1, Utah Hockey Club 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 75% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SJS | 18 | 03 | 08 | 119 |
| UTA | 011 | 16 | 19 | 226 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:58SJSFabian ZetterlundAssists: Mikael Granlund, Cody Ceci · Wrist, 0.11 xG1–0
- P2 5:57UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Clayton Keller, Nick DeSimone · Snap, 0.10 xG1–1
- P3 18:28UTABarrett HaytonGWGAssists: Nick Bjugstad, Olli Maatta · Snap, 0.05 xG1–2
Penalties (3)
- P1 4:54SJSTimothy Liljegren: Cross checking2 min
- P2 7:21UTABarrett Hayton: Tripping2 min
- P3 19:04UTAKevin Stenlund: High sticking double minor4 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 20:00Dellandrea 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.
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestWennberg – Kunin – Graf2:00
xG 0.08–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Goodrow – Wennberg – Dellandrea2:19
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 0–3goals 0–0
- Toffoli – Granlund – Graf2:42
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 0–4goals 0–0
- Toffoli – Wennberg – Graf4:30
xG 0.12–0.15 (44%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Ceci – Ferraro2:18
xG 0.03–0.00 (86%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Ferraro – Liljegren13:13
xG 0.24–0.32 (43%)attempts 4–11goals 0–1
- Ferraro – Rutta2:43
xG 0.02–0.13 (16%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestBjugstad – O'Brien – Crouse9:13
xG 0.82–0.13 (86%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Hayton – Maccelli – Doan10:07
xG 0.58–0.17 (78%)attempts 19–7goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley13:48
xG 0.65–0.43 (60%)attempts 14–9goals 1–1
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – McBain10:32
xG 0.07–0.14 (32%)attempts 7–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Sergachev2:21
xG 0.82–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 0–0
- Maatta – Sergachev16:26
xG 0.89–0.17 (84%)attempts 20–11goals 1–0
- Välimäki – DeSimone10:33
xG 0.72–0.30 (71%)attempts 17–6goals 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.
UTA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line UTA is favoured, below it SJS. 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 75% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − SJS), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).