Thu, Jan 23, 2025·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Utah Hockey Club 4, Minnesota Wild 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 53% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 215 | 13 | 111 | 429 |
| MIN | 05 | 012 | 09 | 026 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:46UTABarrett HaytonGWGAssists: Nick DeSimone · Wrist, 0.17 xG1–0
- P1 15:55UTAClayton KellerPPAssists: Matias Maccelli, Nick Schmaltz · Wrist, 0.07 xG2–0
- P2 14:14UTALawson CrouseAssists: Olli Maatta · Bat, 0.15 xG3–0
- P3 1:48UTABarrett HaytonAssists: Nick DeSimone · Backhand, 0.13 xG4–0
Penalties (5)
- P1 14:31MINRyan Hartman: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 9:31UTAIan Cole: Slashing2 min
- P2 14:53UTAKevin Stenlund: Tripping2 min
- P2 18:42MINMarco Rossi: High sticking2 min
- P3 16:36UTAMichael Kesselring: Tripping2 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 20:00Hartman won the faceoff against McBain
- 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.
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestKerfoot – O'Brien – Stenlund7:58
xG 0.54–0.05 (91%)attempts 10–4goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley9:51
xG 0.62–0.20 (75%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Crouse – McBain9:46
xG 0.46–0.23 (66%)attempts 9–9goals 0–0
- Hayton – Maccelli – Doan9:28
xG 0.10–0.20 (32%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVälimäki – DeSimone12:45
xG 0.91–0.45 (67%)attempts 11–10goals 1–0
- Maatta – Marino15:19
xG 0.78–0.38 (67%)attempts 15–8goals 1–0
- Cole – Kesselring15:42
xG 0.29–0.47 (38%)attempts 12–18goals 0–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestFoligno – Gaudreau – Ohgren6:29
xG 0.18–0.05 (80%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Eriksson Ek – Kaprizov – Ohgren2:53
xG 0.07–0.02 (78%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Trenin – Lauko – Khusnutdinov7:39
xG 0.02–0.01 (69%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Hartman – Eriksson Ek – Boldy4:09
xG 0.04–0.06 (43%)attempts 1–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMiddleton – Faber16:11
xG 0.41–0.34 (54%)attempts 17–8goals 0–0
- Merrill – Faber2:52
xG 0.00–0.05 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 0–0
- Spurgeon – Chisholm15:11
xG 0.49–0.57 (46%)attempts 12–11goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it UTA. 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 53% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).