Fri, Feb 27, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Minnesota Wild 2, Utah Mammoth 5
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 70% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 06 | 18 | 19 | 223 |
| UTA | 115 | 210 | 212 | 537 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 13:23UTALogan CooleySHAssists: Jack McBain, Mikhail Sergachev · Snap, 0.10 xG0–1
- P2 4:26UTAClayton KellerAssists: Nick Schmaltz · Wrist, 0.19 xG0–2
- P2 7:49UTALawson CrouseGWGAssists: Clayton Keller, Nick Schmaltz · Backhand, 0.12 xG0–3
- P2 14:03MINKirill KaprizovPPAssists: Matt Boldy, Mats Zuccarello · Wrist, 0.20 xG1–3
- P3 1:19UTABarrett HaytonPPAssists: Mikhail Sergachev, Clayton Keller · Slap, 0.26 xG1–4
- P3 12:48UTALawson CrouseAssists: Sean Durzi, Jack McBain · Tip-in, 0.08 xG1–5
- P3 14:05MINMatt BoldyAssists: Vladimir Tarasenko, Marcus Johansson · Wrist, 0.16 xG2–5
Penalties (7)
- P1 6:08MINMarcus Foligno: Cross checking2 min
- P1 11:38UTAAlexander Kerfoot: Hooking2 min
- P2 12:53UTAKailer Yamamoto: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 17:06UTANick Schmaltz: High sticking2 min
- P2 19:31MINZach Bogosian: Interference2 min · PPG
- P3 3:50MINMarcus Foligno: Interference goalkeeper2 min
- P3 0:00MINVinnie Hinostroza: Slashing2 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 20:00Cooley won the faceoff against Eriksson Ek
- 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.
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- Foligno – Hinostroza – Sturm5:39
xG 0.11–0.20 (35%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Zuccarello – Hartman – Kaprizov11:00
xG 0.60–0.76 (44%)attempts 12–17goals 0–1
- Tarasenko – Trenin – Yurov4:22
xG 0.05–0.31 (14%)attempts 2–5goals 0–0
- Johansson – Eriksson Ek – Boldy5:50
xG 0.13–0.69 (16%)attempts 3–13goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestHughes – Faber15:18
xG 1.24–0.57 (69%)attempts 18–16goals 1–1
- Spurgeon – Faber2:24
xG 0.00–0.19 (0%)attempts 0–5goals 0–0
- Bogosian – Hunt10:00
xG 0.06–0.32 (16%)attempts 5–9goals 0–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestMcBain – Guenther – Cooley9:00
xG 0.89–0.18 (83%)attempts 17–6goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone7:37
xG 0.35–0.03 (92%)attempts 7–3goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller9:23
xG 0.92–0.76 (55%)attempts 14–8goals 2–1
- Yamamoto – Hayton – Peterka10:30
xG 0.25–0.75 (25%)attempts 10–14goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino12:32
xG 0.67–0.25 (73%)attempts 14–9goals 1–0
- Cole – Marino3:26
xG 0.60–0.25 (71%)attempts 8–4goals 0–0
- Cole – Sergachev3:10
xG 0.21–0.00 (100%)attempts 6–0goals 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 MIN. 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 70% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − MIN), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).