Fri, Jan 31, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Columbus Blue Jackets 3, Utah Hockey Club 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 77% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBJ | 09 | 06 | 27 | 11 | 323 |
| UTA | 013 | 110 | 110 | 01 | 234 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 0:41UTANick SchmaltzPPAssists: Barrett Hayton, Clayton Keller · Tip-in, 0.14 xG0–1
- P3 0:29UTAAlexander KerfootAssists: John Marino, Clayton Keller · Wrist, 0.14 xG0–2
- P3 6:25CBJKirill MarchenkoAssists: Adam Fantilli, Zach Werenski · Snap, 0.26 xG1–2
- P3 11:42CBJKent JohnsonAssists: James van Riemsdyk, Dante Fabbro · Snap, 0.05 xG2–2
- OT 1:01CBJZach WerenskiGWGAssists: Cole Sillinger · Snap, 0.24 xG3–2
Penalties (4)
- P1 4:56CBJDamon Severson: Tripping2 min
- P1 8:10UTAIan Cole: High sticking double minor4 min
- P1 18:55CBJKent Johnson: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 2:19CBJCole Sillinger: 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 20:00Kerfoot won the faceoff against Fantilli
- 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.
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forward lines
- Olivier – Aston-Reese – Del Bel Belluz5:59
xG 0.12–0.11 (52%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
- Olivier – Danforth – Aston-Reese4:20
xG 0.03–0.03 (48%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
- Johnson – Sillinger – Del Bel Belluz5:02
xG 0.10–0.21 (32%)attempts 2–12goals 0–0
- Kuraly – Danforth – Pyyhtia4:27
xG 0.03–0.21 (13%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Werenski – Fabbro14:41
xG 0.40–0.44 (48%)attempts 17–19goals 1–0
- Severson – Werenski4:21
xG 0.17–0.26 (39%)attempts 4–7goals 0–0
- Provorov – Mateychuk11:35
xG 0.06–0.52 (11%)attempts 9–19goals 0–1
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestHayton – Maccelli – Doan10:07
xG 1.19–0.12 (91%)attempts 26–5goals 0–1
- Kerfoot – Schmaltz – Keller11:36
xG 0.49–0.14 (78%)attempts 13–12goals 1–0
- Crouse – Carcone – McBain11:01
xG 0.74–0.42 (64%)attempts 21–8goals 0–1
- Bjugstad – O'Brien – Stenlund6:04
xG 0.15–0.13 (55%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Kesselring14:57
xG 1.41–0.31 (82%)attempts 28–5goals 0–1
- Marino – Sergachev14:12
xG 0.72–0.17 (81%)attempts 27–11goals 1–0
- Maatta – DeSimone13:22
xG 0.27–0.29 (48%)attempts 10–14goals 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 CBJ. 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 77% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − CBJ), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).