Wed, Jan 29, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Pittsburgh Penguins 3, Utah Hockey Club 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 50% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 04 | 115 | 19 | 11 | 329 |
| UTA | 112 | 17 | 09 | 01 | 229 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:51UTAMikhail SergachevPPAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Logan Cooley · Snap, 0.11 xG0–1
- P2 6:40PITMarcus PetterssonAssists: Sidney Crosby, Matt Grzelcyk · Slap, 0.03 xG1–1
- P2 8:36UTAMichael CarconeAssists: John Marino, Nick Bjugstad · Snap, 0.31 xG1–2
- P3 6:17PITErik KarlssonUnassisted · Snap, 0.05 xG2–2
- OT 3:54PITSidney CrosbyGWGAssists: Cody Glass, Rickard Rakell · Backhand, 0.19 xG3–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 2:04UTALiam O'Brien: Fighting5 min
- P1 2:04PITBokondji Imama: Fighting5 min
- P1 13:47PITBlake Lizotte: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 4:13UTABarrett Hayton: High sticking2 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 20:00Cooley won the faceoff against Crosby
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- Imama – Acciari – Lizotte3:10
xG 0.08–0.04 (65%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Puljujarvi – Glass – O'Connor9:13
xG 0.47–0.48 (50%)attempts 10–12goals 1–0
- Hayes – Bunting – Beauvillier12:30
xG 0.28–0.32 (46%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
- Crosby – Rust – Rakell17:52
xG 0.58–0.70 (45%)attempts 24–19goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestGraves – Joseph13:50
xG 0.70–0.48 (59%)attempts 15–12goals 0–0
- Letang – Grzelcyk18:21
xG 0.23–0.33 (41%)attempts 17–13goals 0–0
- Karlsson – Pettersson20:05
xG 0.77–1.48 (34%)attempts 20–28goals 1–1
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestKerfoot – Hayton – Doan12:50
xG 0.86–0.20 (81%)attempts 20–11goals 0–0
- Crouse – Carcone – McBain7:31
xG 0.14–0.10 (58%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – O'Brien – Stenlund3:57
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley13:31
xG 0.38–0.40 (49%)attempts 11–16goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestMarino – Sergachev20:42
xG 1.46–1.05 (58%)attempts 27–22goals 1–0
- Cole – Kesselring17:35
xG 0.63–0.35 (64%)attempts 16–18goals 0–1
- Maatta – DeSimone14:00
xG 0.22–0.28 (44%)attempts 7–13goals 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 PIT. 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 50% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).