Tue, Nov 4, 2025·KeyBank Center, Buffalo
Utah Mammoth 2, Buffalo Sabres 1 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 84% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 07 | 015 | 112 | 11 | 235 |
| BUF | 09 | 05 | 13 | 01 | 118 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P3 3:58UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Clayton Keller, John Marino · Snap, 0.10 xG1–0
- P3 7:50BUFNoah OstlundAssists: Isak Rosen · Snap, 0.19 xG1–1
- OT 0:47UTAClayton KellerGWGAssists: Mikhail Sergachev, Karel Vejmelka · Wrist, 0.25 xG2–1
Penalties (4)
- P1 12:45UTABrandon Tanev: Cross checking2 min
- P1 17:44UTAMichael Carcone: Tripping2 min
- P2 5:49BUFBowen Byram: Cross checking2 min
- P2 15:09BUFJosh Doan: Hooking2 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 McLeod
- 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 Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Keller – Hayton13:27
xG 1.09–0.34 (76%)attempts 22–5goals 1–0
- Crouse – Carcone – McBain8:45
xG 0.56–0.07 (88%)attempts 14–3goals 0–0
- Stenlund – Tanev – Yamamoto8:10
xG 0.21–0.14 (60%)attempts 5–8goals 0–0
- Peterka – Guenther – Cooley11:11
xG 0.28–0.34 (45%)attempts 12–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino12:15
xG 0.67–0.07 (91%)attempts 18–3goals 1–0
- Cole – Schmidt2:09
xG 0.52–0.21 (71%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Cole – Maatta9:10
xG 0.45–0.23 (66%)attempts 8–10goals 0–0
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestQuinn – Rosen – Ostlund5:41
xG 0.31–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 1–0
- Tuch – McLeod – Doan8:36
xG 0.45–0.31 (60%)attempts 11–7goals 0–1
- Krebs – Rosen – Ostlund3:21
xG 0.06–0.02 (75%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Tuch – Krebs – Doan2:04
xG 0.00–0.00attempts 1–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Dahlin – Byram2:04
xG 0.00–0.05 (0%)attempts 1–1goals 0–0
- Samuelsson – Dahlin16:00
xG 0.45–0.70 (39%)attempts 10–14goals 1–0
- Kesselring – Byram12:52
xG 0.17–0.61 (22%)attempts 7–16goals 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.
BUF's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line BUF 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 Mammoth win this game 84% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (BUF − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).