Thu, Oct 1, 2026·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Chicago Blackhawks 0, Utah Mammoth 6
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 83% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | 07 | 02 | 06 | 015 |
| UTA | 213 | 313 | 16 | 632 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 16:41UTADylan GuentherPPGWGAssists: Logan Cooley, Clayton Keller · Snap, 0.12 xG0–1
- P1 17:21UTAMichael CarconeAssists: Kevin Stenlund · Wrist, 0.07 xG0–2
- P2 9:47UTANick SchmaltzAssists: Vincent Trocheck, Mikhail Sergachev · Snap, 0.08 xG0–3
- P2 13:06UTAAnders LeeAssists: Andrew Peeke, Dmitri Simashev · Tip-in, 0.10 xG0–4
- P2 15:28UTADylan GuentherPPAssists: Clayton Keller, Lawson Crouse · Tip-in, 0.10 xG0–5
- P3 12:50UTADaniil ButAssists: Michael Carcone, Nate Schmidt · Tip-in, 0.06 xG0–6
Penalties (10)
- P1 15:53CHIArtyom Levshunov: Holding2 min · PPG
- P2 9:47CHIPatrick Kane: High sticking2 min
- P2 13:22UTAClayton Keller: Cross checking2 min
- P2 14:54UTAJack McBain: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min
- P2 14:54CHIOliver Moore: Unsportsmanlike conduct2 min · PPG
- P2 14:54CHIFrank Nazar: Cross checking2 min
- P2 19:53UTABarrett Hayton: High sticking2 min
- P3 6:08UTAMacKenzie Weegar: Fighting5 min
- P3 6:08CHIRyan Donato: Fighting5 min
- P3 6:46UTAAndrew Peeke: 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 Greene
- 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
- bestTeravainen – Bertuzzi – Frondell3:29
xG 0.16–0.05 (78%)attempts 3–2goals 0–0
- Kane – Nazar – Kantserov4:16
xG 0.10–0.02 (82%)attempts 4–2goals 0–0
- Greenway – Smith – Greene10:23
xG 0.26–0.21 (55%)attempts 9–6goals 0–0
- Teravainen – Nazar – Kantserov4:35
xG 0.14–0.14 (51%)attempts 5–2goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestKaiser – Rinzel4:08
xG 0.23–0.07 (76%)attempts 4–1goals 0–1
- Byram – Levshunov6:36
xG 0.28–0.15 (65%)attempts 5–5goals 0–0
- Cole – Vlasic2:41
xG 0.02–0.00 (100%)attempts 1–0goals 0–0
Utah Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestCrouse – Hayton – McBain8:28
xG 0.75–0.01 (99%)attempts 13–2goals 0–0
- Trocheck – Schmaltz – Keller11:26
xG 0.84–0.12 (88%)attempts 15–5goals 1–0
- Lee – Guenther – Cooley8:55
xG 0.85–0.35 (71%)attempts 13–9goals 1–0
- Stenlund – Carcone – But7:52
xG 0.57–0.16 (78%)attempts 10–5goals 1–0
Defence pairs
- bestWeegar – Sergachev15:49
xG 1.06–0.32 (77%)attempts 20–14goals 0–0
- Schmidt – Marino14:04
xG 0.83–0.33 (71%)attempts 13–9goals 1–0
- Peeke – Simashev12:28
xG 0.64–0.31 (67%)attempts 13–8goals 2–0
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 83% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − CHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).