Mon, Nov 24, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Vegas Golden Knights 1, Utah Mammoth 5
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vegas Golden Knights win this game 58% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VGK | 08 | 116 | 010 | 134 |
| UTA | 28 | 04 | 311 | 523 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:54UTADylan GuentherAssists: Logan Cooley, Nate Schmidt · Snap, 0.09 xG0–1
- P1 16:11UTALogan CooleyGWGAssists: Dylan Guenther, Nate Schmidt · Wrist, 0.15 xG0–2
- P2 5:24VGKIvan BarbashevAssists: Jack Eichel, Braeden Bowman · Backhand, 0.11 xG1–2
- P3 4:19UTALogan CooleyUnassisted · Deflected, 0.15 xG1–3
- P3 15:41UTALogan CooleyENAssists: Ian Cole · Snap, 0.44 xG1–4
- P3 17:43UTALogan CooleyENUnassisted · Snap, 0.40 xG1–5
Penalties (5)
- P1 3:15VGKBrandon Saad: Holding2 min
- P2 11:42VGKReilly Smith: Holding2 min
- P2 14:59UTAKevin Stenlund: Hooking2 min
- P3 9:45UTAClayton Keller: Holding2 min
- P3 16:44UTAKevin Stenlund: Holding the stick2 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 20:00Howden won the faceoff against Hayton
- 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.
Vegas Golden Knights
Forward lines
- bestBarbashev – Eichel – Bowman11:34
xG 0.86–0.42 (67%)attempts 13–9goals 1–1
- Hertl – Marner – Dorofeyev7:18
xG 0.47–0.23 (68%)attempts 11–4goals 0–1
- Smith – Saad – Howden7:21
xG 0.19–0.14 (58%)attempts 6–3goals 0–0
- Sissons – Kolesar – Reinhardt9:14
xG 0.42–0.38 (52%)attempts 15–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMcNabb – Theodore16:23
xG 0.70–0.34 (67%)attempts 18–8goals 0–0
- Hanifin – Whitecloud14:10
xG 0.90–0.72 (55%)attempts 20–13goals 0–2
- Hutton – Korczak15:41
xG 0.71–0.60 (54%)attempts 13–16goals 1–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestCrouse – McBain – Peterka9:38
xG 0.44–0.33 (57%)attempts 12–4goals 0–0
- Yamamoto – Guenther – Cooley9:05
xG 0.42–0.46 (47%)attempts 6–13goals 2–1
- Schmaltz – Keller – Hayton9:49
xG 0.35–0.52 (40%)attempts 8–11goals 0–0
- Stenlund – Tanev – Carcone9:04
xG 0.26–0.49 (34%)attempts 6–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino13:11
xG 0.80–0.30 (72%)attempts 13–12goals 2–1
- DeSimone – Simashev3:55
xG 0.29–0.36 (45%)attempts 5–6goals 0–0
- Cole – Simashev5:25
xG 0.22–0.38 (36%)attempts 4–8goals 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 VGK. 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, Vegas Golden Knights win this game 58% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − VGK), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).