UTA
0–4
CHI
Final · L
Utah Mammoth
UTA · 31-25-4
0–4
FinalL
Chicago Blackhawks
CHI · 23-28-9
1ST2ND3RDT
UTA
0801004022
CHI
1132916428
goals · shots on goal
Meeting 2 this season — the Mammoth trail the season series 0–2
UTA 31-25-4 · CHI 23-28-9 · Meeting 2 this season — the Mammoth trail the season series 0–2
Mammoth fell to the Blackhawks
Chances were even (2.9 to 2.4 expected goals); the Mammoth lost 0–4. Arvid Soderblom stopped 2.3 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.
Chances were close: 2.9 expected goals to 2.4, on 22 and 28 shots on goal.
UTA 2.9 xG · 22 shots
CHI 2.4 xG · 28 shots
0
1
2
3
1st
1.2 · 1.0
2nd
0.9 · 0.6
3rd
0.7 · 0.7
Tap a numbered goal to see how it happened.
1
Teuvo Teravainen · 1st 19:05 · 0–1 · snap shot, a great chance (37%)
2
Nick Foligno · 2nd 11:38 · 0–2 · backhand shot, a great chance (41%)
3
Landon Slaggert · 2nd 13:07 · 0–3 · snap shot, a low-percentage shot (3%) that found a way in
4
Teuvo Teravainen · 3rd 01:25 · 0–4 · snap shot, a great chance (30%)
Deserve to winReplay this game 100 times with average goalies and the Mammoth win 58.
UTA 58%CHI 42%
Goals and penalties
4 goals · 0 penalties← Mammoth shoot this way
Blackhawks shoot this way →
On net
Missed
Bigger = better chance
1Goal, numbered to the list
1
Teuvo Teravainen · 1st 19:05 · PP · GWG · 0–1
Snap shot, a great chance (37%)
2
Nick Foligno · 2nd 11:38 · 0–2
Backhand shot, a great chance (41%)
3
Landon Slaggert · 2nd 13:07 · 0–3
Snap shot, a low-percentage shot (3%) that found a way in
4
Teuvo Teravainen · 3rd 01:25 · SH · 0–4
Snap shot, a great chance (30%)
1st period
2nd period
3rd period
No penalties
Goaltending
24/28 saves · 4 GA · 3.0 xGA
Allowed 1.0 more goals than expected from the shots he faced.
22/22 saves · 0 GA · 2.3 xGA
Stopped 2.3 more goals than an average goalie would have.
