UTA
2–1
CHI
Final · W
Utah Mammoth
UTA · 26-24-9
2–1
FinalW
Chicago Blackhawks
CHI · 17-34-7
1ST2ND3RDT
UTA
08114115237
CHI
1501106122
goals · shots on goal
Meeting 2 this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 2–0
UTA 26-24-9 · CHI 17-34-7 · Meeting 2 this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 2–0
Mammoth beat the Blackhawks
The Mammoth earned it: 3.9 expected goals to 2.0, and a 2–1 win to show for it. Arvid Soderblom stopped 1.9 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: 3.9 expected goals to 2.0, on 37 and 22 shots on goal.
UTA 3.9 xG · 37 shots
CHI 2.0 xG · 22 shots
0
1
2
3
4
1st · the swing
1.3 · 0.2
2nd
1.5 · 1.0
3rd
1.2 · 0.7
Tap a numbered goal to see how it happened.
1
Seth Jones · 1st 13:34 · 0–1 · snap shot, a low-percentage shot (10%) that found a way in
2
Clayton Keller · 2nd 19:16 · 1–1 · snap shot, a good chance (24%)
3
Lawson Crouse · 3rd 12:12 · 2–1 · backhand shot, a low-percentage shot (2%) that found a way in
Deserve to winReplay this game 100 times with average goalies and the Mammoth win 79.
UTA 79%CHI 21%
Goals and penalties
3 goals · 0 penalties← Mammoth shoot this way
Blackhawks shoot this way →
On net
Missed
Bigger = better chance
1Goal, numbered to the list
1
Seth Jones · 1st 13:34 · PP · 0–1
Snap shot, a low-percentage shot (10%) that found a way in
2
Clayton Keller · 2nd 19:16 · 1–1
Snap shot, a good chance (24%)
3
Lawson Crouse · 3rd 12:12 · GWG · 2–1
Backhand shot, a low-percentage shot (2%) that found a way in
1st period
2nd period
3rd period
No penalties
Goaltending
21/22 saves · 1 GA · 2.0 xGA
Stopped 1.0 more goals than an average goalie would have.
35/37 saves · 2 GA · 3.9 xGA
Stopped 1.9 more goals than an average goalie would have.
