Sun, Mar 16, 2025·Rogers Arena, Vancouver
Utah Hockey Club 3, Vancouver Canucks 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 72% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 010 | 17 | 26 | 323 |
| VAN | 04 | 16 | 09 | 119 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 2:37VANQuinn HughesPPAssists: Elias Pettersson, Jake DeBrusk · Wrist, 0.01 xG0–1
- P2 12:04UTAKevin StenlundAssists: Nick Bjugstad, Michael Carcone · Snap, 0.25 xG1–1
- P3 5:08UTALogan CooleyGWGAssists: Sean Durzi, Nick Schmaltz · Wrist, 0.04 xG2–1
- P3 19:29UTAClayton KellerENAssists: Nick Schmaltz · Wrist, 0.60 xG3–1
Penalties (10)
- P1 4:45VANTyler Myers: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P1 6:30UTALawson Crouse: Roughing2 min
- P1 6:30VANTeddy Blueger: Roughing2 min
- P1 11:56UTADylan Guenther: Cross checking2 min
- P1 11:56VANDerek Forbort: Slashing2 min
- P1 19:15UTAMichael Carcone: Roughing2 min
- P1 19:15VANDakota Joshua: Interference2 min
- P2 1:59UTALawson Crouse: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P3 1:16UTALogan Cooley: Holding2 min
- P3 10:43UTAClayton Keller: High sticking double minor4 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 Suter
- 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
- bestBjugstad – Stenlund – Carcone5:30
xG 0.36–0.06 (86%)attempts 9–4goals 1–0
- Kerfoot – Schmaltz – Keller11:33
xG 0.51–0.22 (70%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- Crouse – McBain – Doan8:03
xG 0.01–0.06 (10%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Hayton – Guenther – Cooley9:45
xG 0.31–0.47 (40%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMaatta – Durzi12:58
xG 0.59–0.29 (67%)attempts 14–8goals 1–0
- Cole – Kesselring9:30
xG 0.48–0.23 (67%)attempts 12–7goals 1–0
- Marino – Sergachev13:13
xG 0.33–0.22 (60%)attempts 10–10goals 0–0
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestJoshua – Garland – Suter10:43
xG 0.49–0.21 (70%)attempts 11–9goals 0–0
- O'Connor – Aman – Lekkerimäki5:58
xG 0.14–0.01 (91%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Blueger – Boeser – Sherwood7:00
xG 0.06–0.26 (19%)attempts 5–6goals 0–0
- DeBrusk – Pettersson – Hoglander9:06
xG 0.06–0.41 (13%)attempts 5–13goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Forbort – Mancini9:15
xG 0.04–0.04 (50%)attempts 2–10goals 0–0
- Hronek – Hughes16:16
xG 0.46–0.48 (48%)attempts 12–7goals 0–1
- Myers – Pettersson13:03
xG 0.12–0.96 (11%)attempts 7–20goals 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.
VAN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VAN 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, Utah Hockey Club win this game 72% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VAN − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).