Mon, Dec 8, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Los Angeles Kings 4, Utah Mammoth 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Los Angeles Kings win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAK | 212 | 07 | 28 | 427 |
| UTA | 07 | 16 | 18 | 221 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 7:50LAKAdrian KempeAssists: Kevin Fiala · Backhand, 0.17 xG1–0
- P1 10:08LAKJoel ArmiaAssists: Kevin Fiala · Snap, 0.16 xG2–0
- P2 0:34UTADylan GuentherPPAssists: Clayton Keller, Mikhail Sergachev · Slap, 0.06 xG2–1
- P3 3:27LAKAnze KopitarGWGAssists: Adrian Kempe, Joel Edmundson · Backhand, 0.16 xG3–1
- P3 12:15UTAClayton KellerAssists: Nick Schmaltz, JJ Peterka · Backhand, 0.07 xG3–2
- P3 18:22LAKJoel ArmiaENUnassisted · Snap, 0.31 xG4–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 2:08UTADaniil But: Hooking2 min
- P1 5:11LAKWarren Foegele: Hooking2 min
- P1 18:43LAKAndrei Kuzmenko: Interference2 min · PPG
- P2 1:35LAKAdrian Kempe: Tripping2 min
- P3 19:31LAKDrew Doughty: Cross checking2 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 20:00Schmaltz won the faceoff against Kopitar
- 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.
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestArmia – Fiala – Byfield9:55
xG 0.85–0.15 (85%)attempts 11–6goals 1–0
- Kopitar – Kempe – Laferriere10:48
xG 0.56–0.27 (68%)attempts 14–6goals 1–0
- Danault – Foegele – Moore12:00
xG 0.41–0.21 (66%)attempts 18–13goals 0–1
- Kopitar – Fiala – Kempe2:21
xG 0.19–0.10 (65%)attempts 2–1goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestEdmundson – Clarke14:58
xG 0.98–0.29 (77%)attempts 20–11goals 1–1
- Dumoulin – Ceci13:17
xG 0.75–0.41 (64%)attempts 19–11goals 0–0
- Doughty – Anderson17:15
xG 0.43–0.70 (38%)attempts 12–17goals 1–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestO'Brien – Stenlund – Tanev7:45
xG 0.17–0.11 (60%)attempts 10–4goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Peterka12:07
xG 0.42–0.41 (51%)attempts 9–16goals 1–0
- Hayton – Guenther – But8:14
xG 0.14–0.30 (33%)attempts 9–6goals 0–1
- Crouse – Carcone – McBain9:45
xG 0.19–0.80 (19%)attempts 8–7goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Schmidt – Durzi4:35
xG 0.16–0.21 (43%)attempts 4–4goals 0–1
- Sergachev – Durzi12:37
xG 0.38–0.44 (46%)attempts 15–14goals 0–0
- Marino – Sergachev3:20
xG 0.04–0.23 (15%)attempts 3–3goals 0–1
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 LAK. 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, Los Angeles Kings win this game 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − LAK), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).