Mon, Dec 29, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Nashville Predators 4, Utah Mammoth 3
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSH | 17 | 19 | 210 | 426 |
| UTA | 111 | 110 | 110 | 331 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:48UTAJJ PeterkaPPAssists: Dylan Guenther, Clayton Keller · Snap, 0.19 xG0–1
- P1 9:51NSHRoman JosiAssists: Filip Forsberg, Steven Stamkos · Snap, 0.11 xG1–1
- P2 3:41UTAMikhail SergachevAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Sean Durzi · Slap, 0.03 xG1–2
- P2 7:51NSHLuke EvangelistaAssists: Tyson Jost, Nick Blankenburg · Wrist, 0.15 xG2–2
- P3 4:02UTADylan GuentherAssists: Lawson Crouse, Barrett Hayton · Backhand, 0.11 xG2–3
- P3 11:39NSHSteven StamkosPPAssists: Ryan O'Reilly, Luke Evangelista · Snap, 0.20 xG3–3
- P3 13:17NSHSteven StamkosGWGAssists: Ryan O'Reilly, Nick Perbix · Wrist, 0.15 xG4–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 4:56NSHNicolas Hague: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P1 16:59NSHCole Smith: Boarding2 min
- P2 14:34UTAIan Cole: Interference2 min
- P3 10:05UTAKevin Stenlund: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P3 14:05NSHBrady Skjei: Tripping2 min
- P3 15:40NSHNick Perbix: 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 20:00Stamkos won the faceoff against Crouse
- 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.
Nashville Predators
Forward lines
- bestJost – Evangelista – Svechkov3:30
xG 0.20–0.09 (69%)attempts 3–3goals 1–0
- Haula – Bunting – Wood2:57
xG 0.05–0.06 (45%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Jost – Svechkov – Wood4:30
xG 0.09–0.14 (37%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Haula – Bunting – Evangelista3:37
xG 0.10–0.26 (28%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Hague – Blankenburg12:14
xG 0.62–0.57 (52%)attempts 16–11goals 1–0
- Skjei – Wilsby14:02
xG 0.33–0.53 (38%)attempts 15–13goals 0–2
- Josi – Perbix14:32
xG 0.41–0.75 (35%)attempts 7–23goals 2–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestCarcone – McBain – But9:24
xG 0.59–0.20 (74%)attempts 14–7goals 0–1
- Crouse – Hayton – Guenther10:00
xG 0.61–0.25 (71%)attempts 16–7goals 1–1
- Schmaltz – Keller – Peterka13:48
xG 0.63–0.49 (57%)attempts 12–12goals 1–0
- Kerfoot – O'Brien – Stenlund5:00
xG 0.15–0.04 (78%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSergachev – Durzi14:27
xG 0.81–0.32 (71%)attempts 21–12goals 1–1
- Cole – Marino2:24
xG 0.13–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Schmidt – Marino13:46
xG 0.56–0.43 (56%)attempts 17–13goals 1–0
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 NSH. 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 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − NSH), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).