Thu, Apr 3, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Los Angeles Kings 4, Utah Hockey Club 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 73% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAK | 03 | 17 | 310 | 420 |
| UTA | 016 | 19 | 15 | 230 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 6:56LAKAdrian KempeAssists: Andrei Kuzmenko, Drew Doughty · Deflected, 0.14 xG1–0
- P2 12:21UTALawson CrouseAssists: Josh Doan, Jack McBain · Snap, 0.06 xG1–1
- P3 4:06LAKKevin FialaUnassisted · Snap, 0.16 xG2–1
- P3 4:50LAKTrevor MooreGWGAssists: Phillip Danault · Backhand, 0.14 xG3–1
- P3 18:10LAKDrew DoughtyENAssists: Quinton Byfield · Wrist, 0.25 xG4–1
- P3 19:40UTAJack McBainPPAssists: Kailer Yamamoto, Sean Durzi · Backhand, 0.04 xG4–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 19:48LAKVladislav Gavrikov: Hooking2 min
- P2 7:12LAKAdrian Kempe: High sticking2 min
- P3 3:47LAKAnze Kopitar: Cross checking2 min
- P3 3:47UTAKevin Stenlund: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P3 9:08UTAMichael Kesselring: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 19:33LAKBrandt Clarke: Tripping2 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 20:00Danault won the faceoff against Stenlund
- 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.
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestLewis – Malott – Helenius5:56
xG 0.14–0.09 (61%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
- Kopitar – Kempe – Kuzmenko12:18
xG 0.45–0.48 (48%)attempts 14–13goals 1–1
- Fiala – Byfield – Laferriere13:27
xG 0.28–0.62 (31%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- Danault – Foegele – Moore10:18
xG 0.28–0.96 (22%)attempts 8–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestEdmundson – Gavrikov17:12
xG 0.81–0.52 (61%)attempts 26–12goals 0–0
- Edmundson – Clarke2:58
xG 0.05–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Doughty – Anderson18:25
xG 0.44–0.91 (33%)attempts 13–15goals 1–0
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Yamamoto – Hayton7:57
xG 0.62–0.10 (86%)attempts 14–5goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Kerfoot – Stenlund11:32
xG 0.47–0.10 (82%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Crouse – McBain – Doan10:58
xG 0.41–0.24 (63%)attempts 9–10goals 1–0
- Keller – Guenther – Cooley11:15
xG 0.37–0.65 (36%)attempts 9–15goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Durzi12:13
xG 0.80–0.17 (82%)attempts 11–12goals 0–0
- Maatta – Kesselring10:27
xG 0.45–0.30 (60%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- Cole – Maatta2:26
xG 0.16–0.05 (77%)attempts 5–1goals 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 LAK. 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 73% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − LAK), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).