Mon, Jan 26, 2026·Benchmark International Arena, Tampa
Utah Mammoth 0, Tampa Bay Lightning 2
Three stars
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 012 | 08 | 08 | 028 |
| TBL | 011 | 16 | 112 | 229 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 17:38TBLDarren RaddyshPPGWGAssists: Nikita Kucherov, Jake Guentzel · Slap, 0.06 xG0–1
- P3 19:14TBLAnthony CirelliPPAssists: J.J. Moser, Nikita Kucherov · Wrist, 0.06 xG0–2
Penalties (15)
- P1 17:16UTAMikhail Sergachev: Slashing2 min
- P2 4:45TBLBrandon Hagel: Holding2 min
- P2 6:59TBLDeclan Carlile: Roughing2 min
- P2 6:59UTASean Durzi: Roughing2 min
- P2 6:59TBLDeclan Carlile: Roughing2 min
- P2 14:05UTAIan Cole: Interference2 min
- P2 14:05UTAIan Cole: Fighting5 min · PPG
- P2 14:05TBLNick Paul: Fighting5 min
- P2 16:21UTAJohn Marino: Tripping2 min
- P3 13:16TBLZemgus Girgensons: Holding2 min
- P3 17:29UTALawson Crouse: Roughing2 min · PPG
- P3 19:44TBLZemgus Girgensons: Cross checking2 min
- P3 19:44UTAMikhail Sergachev: Roughing2 min
- P3 19:44UTAMikhail Sergachev: Roughing2 min
- P3 19:44TBLZemgus Girgensons: Roughing2 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 20:00Gourde 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
- bestHayton – Peterka – But8:19
xG 0.82–0.33 (71%)attempts 14–4goals 0–0
- Carcone – McBain – Guenther9:19
xG 0.51–0.47 (52%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Stenlund – Tanev – Yamamoto6:55
xG 0.06–0.26 (20%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller11:13
xG 0.14–0.46 (24%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – DeSimone8:35
xG 1.24–0.49 (72%)attempts 15–4goals 0–0
- Sergachev – Durzi13:22
xG 0.43–0.29 (59%)attempts 12–7goals 0–0
- Schmidt – Marino13:06
xG 0.21–0.57 (27%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestGourde – Girgensons – Holmberg13:21
xG 0.72–0.36 (67%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Kucherov – Cirelli – Hagel10:06
xG 0.53–0.24 (69%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
- Bjorkstrand – Paul – Finley6:30
xG 0.11–0.35 (24%)attempts 3–10goals 0–0
- Guentzel – Goncalves – James8:06
xG 0.33–1.21 (21%)attempts 5–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCrozier – Carlile13:08
xG 0.85–0.46 (65%)attempts 11–11goals 0–0
- Raddysh – Moser15:55
xG 0.58–0.58 (50%)attempts 12–14goals 0–0
- Cernak – Moser2:29
xG 0.00–0.01 (0%)attempts 0–2goals 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.
TBL's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line TBL 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, Utah Mammoth win this game 57% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (TBL − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).