Sat, Mar 28, 2026·Crypto.com Arena, Los Angeles
Utah Mammoth 6, Los Angeles Kings 2
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 69% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 312 | 24 | 112 | 628 |
| LAK | 19 | 08 | 114 | 231 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:31UTAAlexander KerfootAssists: John Marino · Tip-in, 0.06 xG1–0
- P1 16:33UTALogan CooleyAssists: Mikhail Sergachev, Dylan Guenther · Snap, 0.12 xG2–0
- P1 17:51LAKAnze KopitarAssists: Adrian Kempe, Joel Edmundson · Tip-in, 0.08 xG2–1
- P1 19:51UTALogan CooleyPPGWGAssists: Clayton Keller, Mikhail Sergachev · Wrist, 0.22 xG3–1
- P2 12:37UTAAlexander KerfootAssists: Ian Cole · Wrist, 0.14 xG4–1
- P2 16:17UTANick SchmaltzPPAssists: Clayton Keller, Mikhail Sergachev · Wrist, 0.20 xG5–1
- P3 4:34LAKAdrian KempeUnassisted · Wrist, 0.04 xG5–2
- P3 13:53UTAJack McBainENAssists: JJ Peterka, Mikhail Sergachev · Wrist, 0.46 xG6–2
Penalties (5)
- P1 18:50LAKAnze Kopitar: Tripping2 min · PPG
- P2 7:40UTAJack McBain: Hooking2 min
- P2 10:21UTADylan Guenther: Tripping2 min
- P2 16:04LAKScott Laughton: Slashing2 min · PPG
- P3 8:27LAKJoel Edmundson: Broken stick2 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 20:00Schmaltz won the faceoff against Byfield
- 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
- bestYamamoto – Guenther – Cooley10:03
xG 0.52–0.18 (74%)attempts 11–10goals 1–0
- Carcone – McBain – Peterka9:45
xG 0.59–0.36 (62%)attempts 20–9goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Tanev8:16
xG 0.09–0.50 (15%)attempts 7–13goals 1–2
- Schmaltz – Crouse – Keller11:00
xG 0.33–0.84 (28%)attempts 7–11goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Weegar – Sergachev17:32
xG 0.64–0.63 (50%)attempts 22–18goals 1–1
- Cole – Durzi12:39
xG 0.67–0.73 (48%)attempts 17–14goals 0–1
- Schmidt – Marino16:37
xG 0.52–0.72 (42%)attempts 11–19goals 2–0
Los Angeles Kings
Forward lines
- bestMoore – Byfield – Laferriere11:57
xG 0.78–0.42 (65%)attempts 17–10goals 0–0
- Armia – Laughton – Wright4:52
xG 0.31–0.07 (81%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Joseph – Malott – Helenius2:19
xG 0.20–0.00 (100%)attempts 3–1goals 0–0
- Kopitar – Kempe – Panarin14:27
xG 0.46–0.50 (48%)attempts 17–10goals 2–0
Defence pairs
- bestDoughty – Anderson16:58
xG 0.73–0.50 (60%)attempts 19–12goals 0–1
- Edmundson – Clarke17:32
xG 0.87–0.75 (54%)attempts 20–18goals 2–0
- Dumoulin – Ceci12:47
xG 0.44–0.54 (45%)attempts 11–19goals 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.
LAK's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line LAK 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, Utah Mammoth win this game 69% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (LAK − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).