Thu, Mar 19, 2026·T-Mobile Arena, Paradise
Utah Mammoth 4, Vegas Golden Knights 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Vegas Golden Knights win this game 72% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 37 | 09 | 12 | 418 |
| VGK | 07 | 011 | 010 | 028 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:52UTAClayton KellerGWGAssists: John Marino, Nate Schmidt · Wrist, 0.14 xG1–0
- P1 6:05UTAClayton KellerAssists: Lawson Crouse, Nick Schmaltz · Snap, 0.12 xG2–0
- P1 8:12UTAJack McBainAssists: Barrett Hayton, Mikhail Sergachev · Wrist, 0.16 xG3–0
- P3 19:12UTABarrett HaytonENAssists: Kevin Stenlund · Wrist, 0.29 xG4–0
Penalties (6)
- P1 15:46VGKRasmus Andersson: Holding2 min
- P2 15:17UTALawson Crouse: Fighting5 min
- P2 15:17VGKJeremy Lauzon: Fighting5 min
- P3 5:25VGKNic Dowd: Tripping2 min
- P3 8:17UTAKevin Stenlund: Interference2 min
- P3 15:54UTAAlexander Kerfoot: Roughing2 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 20:00Dowd 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.
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestCarcone – Hayton – McBain9:11
xG 0.61–0.12 (84%)attempts 10–6goals 1–0
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller7:45
xG 0.46–0.19 (70%)attempts 8–4goals 2–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Yamamoto8:35
xG 0.10–0.12 (46%)attempts 3–7goals 0–0
- Stenlund – Guenther – Cooley2:00
xG 0.12–0.39 (23%)attempts 1–6goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Cole – Durzi10:33
xG 0.24–0.20 (54%)attempts 5–9goals 0–0
- Schmidt – Marino15:43
xG 0.77–0.85 (47%)attempts 15–18goals 2–0
- Weegar – Sergachev16:01
xG 0.37–1.15 (24%)attempts 8–23goals 1–0
Vegas Golden Knights
Forward lines
- bestStone – Barbashev – Eichel12:00
xG 1.10–0.51 (68%)attempts 17–10goals 0–1
- Sissons – Howden – Bowman7:19
xG 0.36–0.33 (53%)attempts 7–10goals 0–1
- Dowd – Kolesar – Smith9:05
xG 0.11–0.23 (33%)attempts 3–5goals 0–0
- Hertl – Marner – Dorofeyev11:24
xG 0.38–0.59 (39%)attempts 14–8goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestMcNabb – Theodore14:29
xG 1.40–0.47 (75%)attempts 28–7goals 0–1
- Lauzon – Korczak11:19
xG 0.42–0.43 (50%)attempts 10–7goals 0–1
- Hanifin – Andersson15:17
xG 0.26–0.40 (39%)attempts 9–11goals 0–1
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.
VGK's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line VGK 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, Vegas Golden Knights win this game 72% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (VGK − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).