Thu, Jan 15, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Dallas Stars 1, Utah Mammoth 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 57% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAL | 05 | 012 | 110 | 127 |
| UTA | 010 | 110 | 17 | 227 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 19:53UTANick SchmaltzAssists: John Marino, Clayton Keller · Tip-in, 0.08 xG0–1
- P3 2:04DALMikko RantanenPPAssists: Wyatt Johnston, Jason Robertson · Wrist, 0.19 xG1–1
- P3 4:03UTAJohn MarinoGWGAssists: Nick Schmaltz · Snap, 0.01 xG1–2
Penalties (6)
- P1 7:33DALRoope Hintz: Slashing2 min
- P2 0:55UTADaniil But: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P2 15:45UTAJJ Peterka: Holding2 min
- P2 15:45DALKyle Capobianco: Roughing2 min
- P3 1:39UTABarrett Hayton: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P3 5:43DALMatt Duchene: Tripping2 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 Johnston
- 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.
Dallas Stars
Forward lines
- bestDuchene – Hintz – Robertson11:22
xG 0.47–0.21 (69%)attempts 9–11goals 0–0
- Benn – Faksa – Erne3:42
xG 0.08–0.08 (50%)attempts 3–2goals 0–1
- Rantanen – Steel – Johnston11:10
xG 0.41–0.68 (37%)attempts 12–17goals 0–0
- Bäck – Bourque – Hryckowian7:19
xG 0.08–0.40 (16%)attempts 2–9goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestCapobianco – Lyubushkin3:15
xG 0.16–0.00 (98%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
- Petrovic – Capobianco3:52
xG 0.07–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Lindell – Lundkvist10:19
xG 0.54–0.52 (51%)attempts 9–20goals 0–1
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Crouse – Keller11:00
xG 0.66–0.24 (73%)attempts 21–4goals 2–0
- Hayton – Peterka – But10:27
xG 0.49–0.11 (82%)attempts 12–6goals 0–0
- Carcone – McBain – Guenther9:49
xG 0.31–0.28 (52%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- O'Brien – Stenlund – Tanev6:09
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 1–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino13:16
xG 0.50–0.16 (76%)attempts 18–4goals 2–0
- Cole – DeSimone9:08
xG 0.47–0.19 (71%)attempts 10–7goals 0–0
- Sergachev – Durzi13:55
xG 0.60–0.50 (54%)attempts 18–11goals 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 DAL. 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 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − DAL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).