Sat, Mar 14, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Pittsburgh Penguins 4, Utah Mammoth 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 08 | 25 | 210 | 423 |
| UTA | 212 | 06 | 111 | 329 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 5:06UTADylan GuentherUnassisted · Snap, 0.05 xG0–1
- P1 6:37UTADylan GuentherPPUnassisted · Deflected, 0.19 xG0–2
- P2 14:48PITAnthony ManthaPPAssists: Erik Karlsson, Egor Chinakhov · Snap, 0.15 xG1–2
- P2 17:26PITTommy NovakAssists: Parker Wotherspoon, Anthony Mantha · Wrist, 0.08 xG2–2
- P3 1:24PITBryan RustPPAssists: Rickard Rakell, Egor Chinakhov · Snap, 0.15 xG3–2
- P3 4:17UTAIan ColeAssists: Alexander Kerfoot, Kevin Stenlund · Wrist, 0.09 xG3–3
- P3 8:03PITNoel AcciariGWGAssists: Parker Wotherspoon, Erik Karlsson · Snap, 0.25 xG4–3
Penalties (9)
- P1 5:54PITAnthony Mantha: Cross checking2 min · PPG
- P1 16:44UTAClayton Keller: Slashing2 min
- P2 4:05PITIlya Solovyov: Slashing2 min
- P2 5:17UTABarrett Hayton: Slashing2 min
- P2 9:22UTAJJ Peterka: Hooking2 min
- P2 13:39UTALawson Crouse: High sticking2 min · PPG
- P2 14:12UTAAlexander Kerfoot: Interference2 min
- P2 19:44UTAIan Cole: Hooking2 min · PPG
- P3 11:19PITConnor Dewar: 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 20:00Rakell won the faceoff against Hayton
- 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.
Pittsburgh Penguins
Forward lines
- bestMantha – Novak – Koivunen8:32
xG 1.07–0.23 (82%)attempts 16–4goals 1–0
- Rust – Rakell – Chinakhov8:12
xG 0.13–0.25 (34%)attempts 4–7goals 0–1
- Soderblom – Hayes – Kindel7:56
xG 0.06–0.18 (25%)attempts 2–11goals 0–0
- Acciari – Dewar – Lizotte10:14
xG 0.38–0.69 (35%)attempts 6–13goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestClifton – Solovyov9:51
xG 0.69–0.15 (82%)attempts 8–10goals 0–1
- Letang – Shea14:15
xG 0.27–0.73 (27%)attempts 9–11goals 0–1
- Karlsson – Wotherspoon16:08
xG 0.75–1.33 (36%)attempts 12–26goals 2–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestKerfoot – Stenlund – Yamamoto5:33
xG 0.27–0.03 (89%)attempts 5–1goals 1–0
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller9:56
xG 0.52–0.29 (64%)attempts 12–4goals 0–1
- Carcone – Hayton – McBain6:34
xG 0.29–0.13 (69%)attempts 9–3goals 0–0
- Peterka – Guenther – Cooley10:10
xG 0.52–1.11 (32%)attempts 10–15goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestWeegar – Sergachev12:31
xG 0.62–0.09 (87%)attempts 17–4goals 0–0
- Cole – Durzi10:49
xG 0.64–0.20 (77%)attempts 9–6goals 2–0
- Schmidt – Weegar2:42
xG 0.04–0.06 (39%)attempts 6–2goals 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 PIT. 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 − PIT), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).