Mon, Feb 2, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Vancouver Canucks 2, Utah Mammoth 6
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 51% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAN | 16 | 18 | 010 | 224 |
| UTA | 28 | 37 | 14 | 619 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 3:34UTANick SchmaltzAssists: John Marino, Barrett Hayton · Wrist, 0.07 xG0–1
- P1 7:04VANLiam OhgrenAssists: Conor Garland, Teddy Blueger · Snap, 0.12 xG1–1
- P1 7:37UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Sean Durzi · Snap, 0.11 xG1–2
- P2 8:45UTAMikhail SergachevPPGWGAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Dylan Guenther · Slap, 0.03 xG1–3
- P2 12:16UTALawson CrouseAssists: John Marino, Clayton Keller · Wrist, 0.22 xG1–4
- P2 16:05UTAJJ PeterkaAssists: Kailer Yamamoto, John Marino · Slap, 0.06 xG1–5
- P2 18:49VANTeddy BluegerAssists: Conor Garland, Marcus Pettersson · Snap, 0.16 xG2–5
- P3 12:22UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Clayton Keller, Lawson Crouse · Wrist, 0.10 xG2–6
Penalties (8)
- P1 1:24UTAJack McBain: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P1 11:12VANDavid Kampf: Tripping2 min
- P2 4:52UTAMikhail Sergachev: Holding2 min
- P2 8:29VANEvander Kane: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P3 9:01UTABarrett Hayton: Cross checking2 min
- P3 15:21UTALiam O'Brien: Roughing2 min
- P3 15:21VANEvander Kane: Misconduct10 min
- P3 15:21UTALiam O'Brien: 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 20:00Blueger won the faceoff against Hayton
- 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.
Vancouver Canucks
Forward lines
- bestBlueger – Garland – Ohgren11:16
xG 0.44–0.08 (85%)attempts 9–3goals 1–0
- DeBrusk – Kampf – Karlsson3:04
xG 0.34–0.00 (100%)attempts 8–0goals 0–0
- O'Connor – Lekkerimäki – Sasson3:39
xG 0.02–0.00 (98%)attempts 1–3goals 0–0
- Kane – Pettersson – O'Connor2:26
xG 0.01–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMyers – Pettersson4:08
xG 0.34–0.11 (75%)attempts 7–2goals 0–0
- Hronek – Pettersson14:48
xG 0.75–0.80 (48%)attempts 12–9goals 0–2
- Pettersson – Willander10:32
xG 0.19–0.32 (38%)attempts 5–9goals 1–1
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestYamamoto – Hayton – Peterka11:36
xG 0.48–0.10 (83%)attempts 10–9goals 1–0
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller11:21
xG 0.81–0.83 (49%)attempts 9–13goals 3–0
- O'Brien – Stenlund – Tanev7:17
xG 0.09–0.22 (30%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
- Carcone – McBain – Guenther9:09
xG 0.18–0.33 (35%)attempts 7–6goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- bestMarino – DeSimone2:07
xG 0.40–0.00 (100%)attempts 7–1goals 1–0
- Schmidt – Marino12:16
xG 0.54–0.23 (70%)attempts 8–12goals 2–0
- Cole – DeSimone10:09
xG 0.21–0.21 (50%)attempts 9–3goals 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 VAN. 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 51% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − VAN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).