Wed, Nov 12, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Buffalo Sabres 2, Utah Mammoth 5
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 76% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 18 | 18 | 03 | 219 |
| UTA | 012 | 111 | 414 | 537 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:33BUFIsak RosenAssists: Jack Quinn, Bowen Byram · Deflected, 0.12 xG1–0
- P2 6:42BUFIsak RosenAssists: Noah Ostlund · Slap, 0.12 xG2–0
- P2 10:42UTANick DeSimoneAssists: Michael Carcone, Nate Schmidt · Slap, 0.03 xG2–1
- P3 0:52UTAJJ PeterkaAssists: John Marino, Mikhail Sergachev · Snap, 0.10 xG2–2
- P3 3:22UTALawson CrouseGWGAssists: JJ Peterka, Jack McBain · Snap, 0.09 xG2–3
- P3 10:09UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Clayton Keller · Snap, 0.17 xG2–4
- P3 19:33UTAClayton KellerENAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Logan Cooley · Snap, 0.60 xG2–5
Penalties (7)
- P1 9:05BUFPeyton Krebs: Tripping2 min
- P1 15:26UTALawson Crouse: Roughing2 min
- P1 17:19UTAKevin Stenlund: High sticking2 min
- P3 19:37BUFJosh Dunne: Cross checking2 min
- P3 19:37BUFJosh Dunne: Misconduct10 min
- P3 19:37UTABarrett Hayton: Misconduct10 min
- P3 19:37BUFPeyton Krebs: Misconduct10 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 20:00Kozak won the faceoff against Cooley
- 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.
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestQuinn – Rosen – Ostlund10:22
xG 0.58–0.33 (64%)attempts 7–9goals 2–0
- Greenway – Doan – Kozak8:18
xG 0.23–0.21 (52%)attempts 11–10goals 0–0
- Tuch – Thompson – McLeod7:18
xG 0.01–0.04 (16%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Tuch – Thompson – Kozak3:21
xG 0.00–0.03 (6%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSamuelsson – Byram2:59
xG 0.29–0.08 (78%)attempts 4–3goals 1–0
- Timmins – Byram15:06
xG 0.65–0.74 (47%)attempts 13–19goals 1–1
- Bryson – Kesselring11:03
xG 0.23–0.79 (23%)attempts 5–15goals 0–2
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestCrouse – Carcone – McBain7:12
xG 0.87–0.01 (99%)attempts 11–1goals 1–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Cooley14:33
xG 0.92–0.37 (71%)attempts 17–13goals 1–1
- Crouse – McBain – Peterka4:15
xG 0.33–0.09 (77%)attempts 8–7goals 2–0
- Carcone – Hayton – Guenther2:52
xG 0.19–0.02 (89%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino12:09
xG 1.38–0.83 (62%)attempts 18–9goals 2–0
- Marino – Sergachev2:43
xG 0.27–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–0goals 1–0
- Sergachev – Simashev6:11
xG 0.28–0.04 (88%)attempts 7–5goals 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 BUF. 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 76% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).