Sat, Nov 29, 2025·Enterprise Center, St. Louis
Utah Mammoth 0, St. Louis Blues 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, St. Louis Blues win this game 52% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 04 | 04 | 010 | 018 |
| STL | 08 | 18 | 03 | 119 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 18:10STLDylan HollowayGWGAssists: Philip Broberg, Robert Thomas · Wrist, 0.03 xG0–1
Penalties (5)
- P1 6:42UTASean Durzi: Hooking2 min
- P2 7:22STLJustin Faulk: Interference2 min
- P2 18:58UTAJack McBain: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P3 6:17STLAlexey Toropchenko: Kneeing5 min
- P3 6:17STLAlexey Toropchenko: Game 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 20:00Thomas won the faceoff against Schmaltz
- 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
- bestYamamoto – Guenther – Cooley7:51
xG 0.49–0.04 (92%)attempts 11–3goals 0–0
- Keller – Hayton – Peterka3:00
xG 0.42–0.06 (88%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Yamamoto – Guenther2:48
xG 0.16–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Crouse – Carcone – McBain8:51
xG 0.39–0.46 (46%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – DeSimone15:19
xG 0.79–0.44 (64%)attempts 18–7goals 0–1
- Sergachev – Durzi13:22
xG 0.70–0.62 (53%)attempts 15–9goals 0–0
- Schmidt – Marino14:06
xG 0.15–0.54 (22%)attempts 10–12goals 0–0
St. Louis Blues
Forward lines
- bestKyrou – Thomas – Neighbours9:02
xG 0.37–0.02 (95%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Sundqvist – Joseph – Toropchenko7:36
xG 0.41–0.24 (63%)attempts 6–7goals 0–0
- Sundqvist – Joseph – Holloway2:25
xG 0.15–0.17 (48%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Bjugstad – Holloway – Snuggerud6:27
xG 0.12–0.15 (45%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestParayko – Broberg15:32
xG 0.60–0.29 (67%)attempts 11–15goals 1–0
- Faulk – Kessel12:27
xG 0.52–0.41 (56%)attempts 7–12goals 0–0
- Faulk – Fowler2:41
xG 0.00–0.02 (0%)attempts 1–2goals 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.
STL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line STL 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, St. Louis Blues win this game 52% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (STL − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).