Wed, Feb 4, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Detroit Red Wings 1, Utah Mammoth 4
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 66% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DET | 06 | 011 | 113 | 130 |
| UTA | 29 | 09 | 27 | 425 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 0:57UTASean DurziUnassisted · Snap, 0.02 xG0–1
- P1 8:11UTANick SchmaltzPPGWGAssists: Barrett Hayton, Clayton Keller · Snap, 0.31 xG0–2
- P3 4:40UTADylan GuentherUnassisted · Wrist, 0.12 xG0–3
- P3 15:52DETDylan LarkinPPAssists: James van Riemsdyk, Moritz Seider · Wrist, 0.13 xG1–3
- P3 17:42UTAClayton KellerENAssists: Nick Schmaltz, Lawson Crouse · Snap, 0.55 xG1–4
Penalties (9)
- P1 6:32DETBen Chiarot: Delaying game puck over glass2 min · PPG
- P1 7:50DETDylan Larkin: Slashing2 min
- P1 15:09UTABarrett Hayton: Hooking2 min
- P2 2:33DETTravis Hamonic: Tripping2 min
- P2 5:54UTABrandon Tanev: Fighting5 min
- P2 5:54DETTravis Hamonic: Fighting5 min
- P2 14:51UTADylan Guenther: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:02UTANate Schmidt: Hooking2 min
- P3 14:21UTANick DeSimone: Delaying game puck over glass2 min · PPG
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 20:00Larkin 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.
Detroit Red Wings
Forward lines
- bestKane – Copp – DeBrincat9:44
xG 0.75–0.54 (58%)attempts 14–9goals 0–1
- Larkin – Raymond – Kasper9:34
xG 0.38–0.38 (50%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
- Compher – Appleton – Finnie8:54
xG 0.19–0.22 (46%)attempts 13–5goals 0–0
- van Riemsdyk – Rasmussen – Soderblom7:16
xG 0.11–0.27 (29%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestBernard-Docker – Seider11:31
xG 0.72–0.29 (72%)attempts 14–5goals 0–0
- Hamonic – Johansson6:24
xG 0.34–0.32 (52%)attempts 7–5goals 0–0
- Seider – Johansson5:30
xG 0.05–0.13 (28%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestYamamoto – Hayton – Peterka9:56
xG 0.44–0.10 (82%)attempts 6–9goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller10:11
xG 0.59–0.32 (65%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Carcone – McBain – Guenther8:36
xG 0.60–0.33 (65%)attempts 9–9goals 2–0
- O'Brien – Stenlund – Tanev5:36
xG 0.05–0.10 (33%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino12:55
xG 0.60–0.31 (66%)attempts 7–9goals 0–0
- Cole – DeSimone9:51
xG 0.49–0.32 (60%)attempts 8–10goals 1–0
- Sergachev – Durzi12:38
xG 0.57–0.41 (58%)attempts 13–12goals 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 DET. 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 66% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − DET), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).