UTA
2–1
SJS
Final · W
Utah Mammoth
UTA · 18-16-7
2–1
FinalW
San Jose Sharks
SJS · 13-25-6
1ST2ND3RDT
UTA
0111619226
SJS
180308119
goals · shots on goal
Meeting 3 this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 2–1
UTA 18-16-7 · SJS 13-25-6 · Meeting 3 this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 2–1
Mammoth beat the Sharks
The Mammoth earned it: 2.8 expected goals to 2.1, and a 2–1 win to show for it. Hayton's winner came with 1:32 left. Karel Vejmelka stopped 1.1 more goals than an average goalie would have.
Who had the better chances
Expected goals (xG) score every shot by how often shots like it go in: distance, angle, type, rebound, rush. Adding them up shows who created the better chances, whatever the scoreboard says.
The Mammoth created the better chances: 2.8 expected goals to 2.1, on 26 and 19 shots on goal.
UTA 2.8 xG · 26 shots
SJS 2.1 xG · 19 shots
0
1
2
3
1st
1.2 · 0.8
2nd
0.4 · 0.7
3rd
1.2 · 0.5
Tap a numbered goal to see how it happened.
1
Fabian Zetterlund · 1st 00:58 · 0–1 · wrist shot on a rebound, a good chance (19%)
2
Nick Schmaltz · 2nd 05:57 · 1–1 · snap shot, a good chance (12%)
3
Barrett Hayton · 3rd 18:28 · 2–1 · snap shot, a low-percentage shot (4%) that found a way in
Deserve to winReplay this game 100 times with average goalies and the Mammoth win 62.
UTA 62%SJS 38%
Goals and penalties
3 goals · 0 penalties← Mammoth shoot this way
Sharks shoot this way →
On net
Missed
Bigger = better chance
1Goal, numbered to the list
1
Fabian Zetterlund · 1st 00:58 · 0–1
Wrist shot on a rebound, a good chance (19%)
2
Nick Schmaltz · 2nd 05:57 · 1–1
Snap shot, a good chance (12%)
3
Barrett Hayton · 3rd 18:28 · GWG · 2–1
Snap shot, a low-percentage shot (4%) that found a way in
1st period
2nd period
3rd period
No penalties
Goaltending
18/19 saves · 1 GA · 2.1 xGA
Stopped 1.1 more goals than an average goalie would have.
24/26 saves · 2 GA · 2.8 xGA
Stopped 0.8 more goals than an average goalie would have.
