Tue, Oct 21, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Colorado Avalanche 3, Utah Mammoth 4 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COL | 113 | 07 | 213 | 00 | 333 |
| UTA | 010 | 215 | 17 | 11 | 433 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:29COLCale MakarAssists: Parker Kelly, Zakhar Bardakov · Snap, 0.06 xG1–0
- P2 9:17UTANick SchmaltzPPAssists: Clayton Keller, Mikhail Sergachev · Snap, 0.24 xG1–1
- P2 12:30UTALawson CrouseAssists: Kevin Stenlund, Michael Carcone · Slap, 0.13 xG1–2
- P3 1:10COLJack DruryAssists: Ross Colton · Snap, 0.17 xG2–2
- P3 5:20UTAMikhail SergachevUnassisted · Snap, 0.04 xG2–3
- P3 17:44COLMartin NecasUnassisted · Snap, 0.02 xG3–3
- OT 0:33UTADylan GuentherGWGAssists: Clayton Keller, Mikhail Sergachev · Backhand, 0.13 xG3–4
Penalties (3)
- P1 7:38COLJack Drury: Hooking2 min
- P2 8:49COLGavin Brindley: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 18:47UTADmitri Simashev: 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 20:00Cooley won the faceoff against MacKinnon
- 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.
Colorado Avalanche
Forward lines
- bestLehkonen – MacKinnon – Necas14:22
xG 1.03–0.58 (64%)attempts 16–14goals 0–1
- Olofsson – Colton – Drury9:01
xG 0.34–0.00 (100%)attempts 15–1goals 0–0
- Nelson – Landeskog – Nichushkin12:10
xG 0.40–0.40 (50%)attempts 12–9goals 0–0
- Kelly – Bardakov – Brindley4:51
xG 0.06–0.62 (9%)attempts 1–9goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestToews – Malinski2:25
xG 0.53–0.09 (85%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Burns – Makar3:18
xG 0.18–0.04 (82%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Burns – Manson14:25
xG 0.71–0.57 (55%)attempts 13–14goals 0–1
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Keller – Hayton11:43
xG 0.74–0.22 (77%)attempts 12–12goals 1–2
- Crouse – Stenlund – Carcone5:46
xG 0.29–0.02 (94%)attempts 7–1goals 1–0
- Crouse – Carcone – McBain3:28
xG 0.14–0.03 (83%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
- O'Brien – Stenlund – Tanev7:41
xG 0.24–0.35 (41%)attempts 3–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Marino6:54
xG 0.49–0.30 (62%)attempts 7–7goals 1–0
- Cole – Maatta3:50
xG 0.17–0.11 (61%)attempts 4–6goals 0–1
- Maatta – Marino2:21
xG 0.03–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–1goals 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 COL. 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 Mammoth win this game 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − COL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).