Wed, Feb 25, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Colorado Avalanche 4, Utah Mammoth 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 59% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COL | 09 | 414 | 03 | 426 |
| UTA | 08 | 29 | 013 | 230 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 3:26COLParker KellyAssists: Brent Burns, Josh Manson · Snap, 0.10 xG1–0
- P2 9:13COLVictor OlofssonAssists: Sam Malinski, Parker Kelly · Snap, 0.20 xG2–0
- P2 10:49UTADylan GuentherPPAssists: Mikhail Sergachev, Clayton Keller · Slap, 0.04 xG2–1
- P2 12:20COLBrock NelsonGWGAssists: Gabriel Landeskog, Martin Necas · Slap, 0.14 xG3–1
- P2 13:20UTADylan GuentherAssists: Jack McBain, Logan Cooley · Slap, 0.13 xG3–2
- P2 17:17COLMartin NecasPPAssists: Cale Makar, Valeri Nichushkin · Slap, 0.05 xG4–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 18:54COLDevon Toews: Tripping2 min
- P2 10:23COLGabriel Landeskog: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 16:14UTAJack McBain: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 19:24COLMartin Necas: Hooking2 min
- P3 0:18COLJosh Manson: Tripping2 min
- P3 3:43UTANick DeSimone: Slashing2 min
- P3 14:20COLRoss Colton: Too many men on the ice2 min
- P3 15:15UTANick Schmaltz: 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 20:00Nelson 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.
Colorado Avalanche
Forward lines
- bestOlofsson – Colton – Kelly7:56
xG 0.80–0.26 (76%)attempts 15–10goals 1–0
- Nelson – Landeskog – Necas12:55
xG 0.77–0.61 (56%)attempts 15–10goals 1–0
- Kiviranta – Bardakov – Brindley5:35
xG 0.22–0.11 (67%)attempts 5–3goals 0–0
- Lehkonen – Nichushkin – Drury8:52
xG 0.18–0.36 (34%)attempts 6–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBurns – Manson10:25
xG 1.29–0.39 (77%)attempts 20–10goals 2–0
- Kulak – Malinski11:51
xG 0.70–0.30 (70%)attempts 13–8goals 1–0
- Burns – Makar2:04
xG 0.21–0.06 (78%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Crouse – Keller11:45
xG 0.73–0.45 (62%)attempts 14–12goals 0–1
- Kerfoot – Guenther – Cooley2:09
xG 0.06–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Yamamoto – Hayton – Peterka8:47
xG 0.33–0.29 (53%)attempts 9–9goals 0–1
- McBain – Guenther – Cooley6:58
xG 0.20–0.67 (23%)attempts 5–11goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- Schmidt – Marino14:09
xG 0.64–0.79 (45%)attempts 11–14goals 0–2
- Sergachev – Durzi14:24
xG 0.38–0.73 (34%)attempts 13–12goals 0–1
- Cole – DeSimone10:42
xG 0.22–0.60 (27%)attempts 9–12goals 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 COL. 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 59% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − COL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).