Thu, Mar 12, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Chicago Blackhawks 3, Utah Mammoth 2 (OT)
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 87% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 04 | 08 | 28 | 13 | 323 |
| UTA | 06 | 17 | 113 | 05 | 231 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 5:47UTADylan GuentherAssists: Logan Cooley, Mikhail Sergachev · Snap, 0.15 xG0–1
- P3 2:18CHITyler BertuzziPPAssists: Connor Bedard, Frank Nazar · Snap, 0.31 xG1–1
- P3 9:17CHIFrank NazarAssists: Teuvo Teravainen, Tyler Bertuzzi · Snap, 0.18 xG2–1
- P3 13:45UTAJJ PeterkaAssists: Michael Carcone · Snap, 0.12 xG2–2
- OT 3:57CHIConnor BedardGWGAssists: Alex Vlasic, Nick Lardis · Snap, 0.22 xG3–2
Penalties (4)
- P3 0:19UTAJack McBain: Roughing2 min · PPG
- P3 0:19CHIIlya Mikheyev: Roughing2 min
- P3 1:34UTAClayton Keller: High sticking2 min
- P3 11:18CHIArtyom Levshunov: High sticking2 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 20:00Hayton won the faceoff against Donato
- 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.
Chicago Blackhawks
Forward lines
- Slaggert – Bedard – Lardis2:59
xG 0.00–0.05 (0%)attempts 1–2goals 0–0
- Teravainen – Bertuzzi – Nazar11:49
xG 0.39–0.45 (46%)attempts 8–10goals 1–0
- Donato – Mangiapane – Mikheyev12:19
xG 0.22–0.42 (34%)attempts 9–14goals 0–0
- Lafferty – Slaggert – Lardis5:27
xG 0.00–0.21 (0%)attempts 1–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestVlasic – Crevier13:52
xG 0.35–0.27 (56%)attempts 8–14goals 1–0
- Crevier – Kaiser3:15
xG 0.08–0.04 (68%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
- Grzelcyk – Levshunov15:06
xG 0.42–1.14 (27%)attempts 11–16goals 0–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Crouse – Keller12:11
xG 0.65–0.18 (78%)attempts 14–7goals 0–0
- Peterka – Guenther – Cooley10:24
xG 0.48–0.21 (69%)attempts 11–9goals 1–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Yamamoto10:00
xG 0.40–0.17 (70%)attempts 9–5goals 0–0
- Carcone – Hayton – McBain9:00
xG 0.39–0.29 (57%)attempts 11–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSchmidt – Marino16:17
xG 0.91–0.35 (72%)attempts 19–10goals 0–0
- Weegar – Sergachev19:25
xG 0.74–0.28 (73%)attempts 20–8goals 0–0
- Cole – Sergachev2:18
xG 0.22–0.07 (75%)attempts 2–3goals 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 CHI. 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 87% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).