Tue, Mar 10, 2026·Grand Casino Arena, St. Paul
Utah Mammoth 0, Minnesota Wild 5
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Minnesota Wild win this game 63% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 07 | 010 | 08 | 025 |
| MIN | 17 | 112 | 311 | 530 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 14:10MINKirill KaprizovGWGAssists: Vladimir Tarasenko · Wrist, 0.08 xG0–1
- P2 8:43MINMatt BoldyAssists: Marcus Johansson, Joel Eriksson Ek · Snap, 0.08 xG0–2
- P3 2:09MINBobby BrinkUnassisted · Wrist, 0.09 xG0–3
- P3 6:09MINDanila YurovAssists: Vladimir Tarasenko, Quinn Hughes · Wrist, 0.09 xG0–4
- P3 18:39MINRyan HartmanAssists: Nick Foligno, Kirill Kaprizov · Backhand, 0.20 xG0–5
Penalties (9)
- P1 7:57UTAMacKenzie Weegar: Fighting5 min
- P1 7:57MINRyan Hartman: Fighting5 min
- P1 9:19UTALawson Crouse: High sticking2 min
- P1 10:19UTAAlexander Kerfoot: Tripping2 min
- P1 16:55MINDanila Yurov: Slashing2 min
- P1 19:09UTAMacKenzie Weegar: Slashing2 min
- P2 8:57MINBrock Faber: Holding2 min
- P3 13:41UTAClayton Keller: Tripping2 min
- P3 16:16MINKirill Kaprizov: 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 20:00Cooley won the faceoff against Hartman
- 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
- bestSchmaltz – Crouse – Keller4:37
xG 0.16–0.02 (87%)attempts 6–4goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone6:22
xG 0.12–0.06 (65%)attempts 4–3goals 0–0
- Crouse – McBain – Cooley4:43
xG 0.14–0.09 (60%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – McBain2:25
xG 0.14–0.11 (56%)attempts 3–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – DeSimone4:59
xG 0.30–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Weegar – Durzi3:45
xG 0.03–0.10 (23%)attempts 3–3goals 0–1
- Cole – Durzi8:19
xG 0.40–0.49 (45%)attempts 10–12goals 0–2
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestTarasenko – Kaprizov – Yurov2:13
xG 0.19–0.07 (74%)attempts 7–2goals 1–0
- Zuccarello – Hartman – Kaprizov9:03
xG 0.25–0.16 (62%)attempts 7–7goals 0–0
- Tarasenko – Brink – Yurov6:26
xG 0.28–0.21 (57%)attempts 7–6goals 2–0
- Johansson – Eriksson Ek – Boldy8:59
xG 0.31–0.24 (56%)attempts 14–8goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestHughes – Faber13:38
xG 0.66–0.23 (74%)attempts 16–6goals 2–0
- Bogosian – Middleton10:23
xG 0.64–0.50 (56%)attempts 12–9goals 2–0
- Brodin – Faber2:27
xG 0.06–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 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.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN 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, Minnesota Wild win this game 63% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).