Sat, Jan 18, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
St. Louis Blues 2, Utah Hockey Club 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 61% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STL | 16 | 19 | 09 | 224 |
| UTA | 317 | 19 | 07 | 433 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:05STLTyler TuckerAssists: Oskar Sundqvist · Snap, 0.04 xG1–0
- P1 6:06UTAMichael KesselringPPAssists: Logan Cooley, Clayton Keller · Snap, 0.05 xG1–1
- P1 8:25UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Clayton Keller, John Marino · Snap, 0.33 xG1–2
- P1 10:31UTAClayton KellerGWGAssists: Logan Cooley · Snap, 0.15 xG1–3
- P2 1:32STLJake NeighboursPPAssists: Dylan Holloway, Brayden Schenn · Snap, 0.35 xG2–3
- P2 10:42UTALogan CooleyAssists: Clayton Keller, Juuso Välimäki · Snap, 0.21 xG2–4
Penalties (9)
- P1 2:08STLTyler Tucker: Fighting5 min · PPG
- P1 2:08UTALiam O'Brien: Fighting5 min
- P1 5:15STLZachary Bolduc: Tripping2 min
- P1 19:47UTABarrett Hayton: Holding2 min · PPG
- P3 3:14STLOskar Sundqvist: Interference2 min
- P3 5:31UTAKevin Stenlund: Interference2 min
- P3 9:24UTANick Schmaltz: Hooking2 min
- P3 12:33UTAMatias Maccelli: Slashing2 min
- P3 16:41STLRyan Suter: Cross checking2 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 20:00Faksa 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.
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestSchenn – Kyrou – Holloway12:45
xG 0.81–0.51 (61%)attempts 17–14goals 0–0
- Faksa – Walker – Joseph2:12
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 1–0goals 0–0
- Faksa – Joseph – Toropchenko3:50
xG 0.04–0.06 (40%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Faksa – Walker – Toropchenko3:06
xG 0.02–0.05 (25%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSuter – Broberg7:53
xG 0.35–0.02 (94%)attempts 9–2goals 0–0
- Suter – Tucker5:21
xG 0.33–0.04 (90%)attempts 8–1goals 1–0
- Suter – Parayko2:31
xG 0.04–0.02 (70%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestBjugstad – Crouse – McBain9:04
xG 1.09–0.17 (86%)attempts 15–6goals 0–0
- Hayton – Maccelli – Doan8:20
xG 0.37–0.04 (90%)attempts 10–5goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley9:56
xG 0.56–0.49 (53%)attempts 8–15goals 2–0
- Kerfoot – O'Brien – Stenlund5:42
xG 0.07–0.23 (23%)attempts 1–6goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Kesselring15:06
xG 1.17–0.55 (68%)attempts 17–16goals 0–0
- Maatta – Marino13:16
xG 0.95–0.35 (73%)attempts 13–10goals 2–0
- Välimäki – DeSimone11:42
xG 0.27–0.33 (45%)attempts 8–15goals 0–1
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 STL. 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 61% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − STL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).