Tue, Apr 1, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Calgary Flames 1, Utah Hockey Club 3
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY | 012 | 110 | 012 | 134 |
| UTA | 112 | 19 | 17 | 328 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 17:46UTAKevin StenlundAssists: Alexander Kerfoot, Ian Cole · Snap, 0.16 xG0–1
- P2 2:25UTABarrett HaytonGWGAssists: Sean Durzi, Nick Schmaltz · Backhand, 0.13 xG0–2
- P2 13:00CGYRasmus AnderssonUnassisted · Slap, 0.00 xG1–2
- P3 19:42UTAClayton KellerENAssists: Dylan Guenther, Logan Cooley · Snap, 0.81 xG1–3
Penalties (7)
- P2 9:24CGYMatt Coronato: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 9:24UTAMikhail Sergachev: Slashing2 min
- P2 10:04CGYJoel Hanley: Roughing2 min
- P2 10:04UTABarrett Hayton: Slashing2 min
- P2 18:07UTANick Schmaltz: Tripping2 min
- P3 8:31CGYMatt Coronato: High sticking2 min
- P3 11:29UTASean Durzi: 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 20:00Stenlund won the faceoff against Frost
- 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.
Calgary Flames
Forward lines
- bestFrost – Farabee – Sharangovich2:09
xG 0.28–0.13 (68%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Kadri – Huberdeau – Pospisil4:32
xG 0.11–0.00 (99%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Backlund – Coleman – Sharangovich7:23
xG 0.24–0.28 (47%)attempts 4–5goals 0–0
- Backlund – Coleman – Farabee2:32
xG 0.00–0.04 (0%)attempts 0–1goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestAndersson – Bahl15:56
xG 1.08–0.49 (69%)attempts 19–9goals 0–1
- Bean – Pachal10:55
xG 0.18–0.57 (24%)attempts 3–13goals 0–1
- Weegar – Hanley16:39
xG 0.28–1.74 (14%)attempts 17–19goals 0–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestBjugstad – Kerfoot – Stenlund10:00
xG 0.65–0.13 (83%)attempts 7–8goals 1–0
- Schmaltz – Yamamoto – Hayton10:43
xG 1.31–0.85 (61%)attempts 15–12goals 1–0
- Keller – Guenther – Cooley10:30
xG 0.61–0.25 (71%)attempts 13–11goals 0–0
- Crouse – McBain – Doan9:03
xG 0.05–0.33 (14%)attempts 5–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Durzi15:42
xG 1.78–0.90 (66%)attempts 17–16goals 2–1
- Marino – Sergachev17:18
xG 0.44–0.15 (75%)attempts 15–13goals 0–0
- DeSimone – Kesselring11:08
xG 0.54–0.40 (58%)attempts 8–10goals 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 CGY. 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 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − CGY), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).