UTA
1–2
STL
Final · L
Utah Mammoth
UTA · 21-22-9
1–2
FinalL
St. Louis Blues
STL · 24-25-4
1ST2ND3RDT
UTA
0609110125
STL
1150717229
goals · shots on goal
Meeting 3 this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 2–1
UTA 21-22-9 · STL 24-25-4 · Meeting 3 this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 2–1
Mammoth fell to the Blues
The Mammoth were outchanced (3.3 to 2.2 expected goals) and lost 1–2. Connor Ingram stopped 1.3 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 Blues created the better chances: 3.3 expected goals to 2.2, on 29 and 25 shots on goal.
UTA 2.2 xG · 25 shots
STL 3.3 xG · 29 shots
0
1
2
3
1st · the swing
0.5 · 1.8
2nd
0.5 · 0.8
3rd
1.2 · 0.8
Tap a numbered goal to see how it happened.
1
Alexandre Texier · 1st 17:41 · 0–1 · wrist shot, a good chance (12%)
2
Michael Kesselring · 3rd 03:27 · 1–1 · slap shot, a low-percentage shot (1%) that found a way in
3
Jordan Kyrou · 3rd 07:13 · 1–2 · slap shot, a good chance (12%)
Deserve to winReplay this game 100 times with average goalies and the Mammoth win 32.
UTA 32%STL 68%
Goals and penalties
3 goals · 0 penalties← Mammoth shoot this way
Blues shoot this way →
On net
Missed
Bigger = better chance
1Goal, numbered to the list
1
Alexandre Texier · 1st 17:41 · 0–1
Wrist shot, a good chance (12%)
2
Michael Kesselring · 3rd 03:27 · 1–1
Slap shot, a low-percentage shot (1%) that found a way in
3
Jordan Kyrou · 3rd 07:13 · GWG · 1–2
Slap shot, a good chance (12%)
1st period
2nd period
No goals or penalties.
3rd period
No penalties
Goaltending
27/29 saves · 2 GA · 3.3 xGA
Stopped 1.3 more goals than an average goalie would have.
24/25 saves · 1 GA · 2.2 xGA
Stopped 1.2 more goals than an average goalie would have.
