Sun, Feb 23, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Vancouver Canucks 1, Utah Hockey Club 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 04 | 15 | 07 | 116 |
| UTA | 011 | 111 | 110 | 232 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 1:43VANJake DeBruskPPAssists: Elias Pettersson, Pius Suter · Snap, 0.33 xG1–0
- P2 3:51UTALogan CooleyAssists: John Marino, Clayton Keller · Tip-in, 0.04 xG1–1
- P3 14:07UTADylan GuentherPPGWGAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Clayton Keller · Tip-in, 0.13 xG1–2
Penalties (10)
- P1 1:36VANTyler Myers: Interference2 min
- P1 11:12UTAAlexander Kerfoot: Tripping2 min
- P1 14:10VANMarcus Pettersson: Holding2 min
- P1 17:01VANMarcus Pettersson: Broken stick2 min
- P2 1:07UTALogan Cooley: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P2 12:38UTALogan Cooley: Interference2 min
- P3 1:53UTALawson Crouse: Tripping2 min
- P3 4:10VANJake DeBrusk: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 4:10UTALawson Crouse: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 13:01VANDerek Forbort: Holding2 min · PPG
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 Chytil
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestDeBrusk – Pettersson – Sherwood8:49
xG 0.30–0.19 (61%)attempts 7–8goals 0–0
- Boeser – Chytil – O'Connor9:11
xG 0.23–0.23 (50%)attempts 7–7goals 0–1
- Blueger – Hoglander – Bains4:58
xG 0.05–0.20 (19%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Joshua – Garland – Suter6:52
xG 0.05–0.41 (10%)attempts 7–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestForbort – Hronek2:03
xG 0.15–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–0goals 0–0
- Pettersson – Mancini4:18
xG 0.43–0.30 (59%)attempts 4–6goals 0–0
- Myers – Pettersson10:08
xG 0.21–0.25 (46%)attempts 11–8goals 0–1
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestCarcone – Hayton – Guenther8:13
xG 0.26–0.12 (68%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Crouse – McBain – Doan9:25
xG 0.36–0.28 (57%)attempts 7–10goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley7:09
xG 0.18–0.21 (46%)attempts 4–8goals 1–0
- Bjugstad – Kerfoot – Stenlund5:44
xG 0.24–0.35 (40%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Kesselring10:07
xG 0.16–0.09 (64%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
- Maatta – Durzi12:09
xG 0.54–0.53 (50%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
- Marino – Sergachev11:12
xG 0.32–0.41 (43%)attempts 10–11goals 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 VAN. 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 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).