xJawn NHL expected goals

← Games

Save a card: Summary · Full card · Game flow · UTA skaters · BOS skaters · UTA lines · BOS lines · Matchups

UTA 1 – 6 BOS

Utah Mammoth at Boston Bruins

Final · Oct 8, 2026
2026-27 · regular season
The call
BOS 50.3% ✓
expected 3.05–3.09 · BOS won 1–6
actual xG
4.65–2.09
xG share, predicted → actual
UTA 50% → 69%50% → 31% BOS
Today's puzzle Remember Some Guys — name the skater from the shape of his career. Three clues, one guess a day. Play →
On the ice
Adjusts with rink filters

Strength and score are read from UTA's side, the same minutes at both ends: PP = UTA power play · PK = BOS power play · Leading = UTA ahead · ST = each club's own power play.

UTA attacks◀ all strengths
BOS attacksall strengths ▶
× goal• on net ◦ missed· blocked hover any attempt for the shooter, its xG and everything the model saw
How to read this map

One rink, both teams: UTA attacks the left net, BOS the right. Every attempt is a Gaussian bump of height = its model xG. The controls switch the surface (xG heatmap ↔ vs league) and the markers; vs league compares this game against a typical NHL team-game under the same filter (2026-27 regular season, 283 games), so a 5v5 view is measured against league 5v5.

A strength or score filter is read from UTA's side and mirrored for BOS: “UTA PP” shows UTA's power-play attempts on the left and BOS's shorthanded attempts on the right — the same minutes of the game at both ends. Empty-net attempts are excluded unless you include them. The Player control narrows the map and the rows beneath it to the attempts by either club while one player was on the ice (for a goalie, while he was in net); his own attempts wear a blue ring. vs league switches off while a player is picked — the league baseline is a whole team-game, which one player's slice is not. Hover any attempt for the shooter, the result, its xG, and the inputs behind it: clock, strength, score, shot type, distance, angle, handedness, rush/rebound, what happened just before, and the goalie or the blocker.

What each side produced

all strengths · this game
UTA BOS
bars share a scale within each row · the longer bar is the row's leader
Goalson the map
1 6
Expected goals
4.65 2.09
xG%share of xG
69% 31%
High-dangerattempts ≥ 0.20 xG
5 0
Shots on goal
37 22
Attempts
80 35
xG by period · whole game 1st1.7–0.72nd1.7–0.73rd1.2–0.7

The Bruins beat the Mammoth 6–1 at home despite being out-created 4.6–2.1 in expected goals. That is a finishing-and-goaltending win. BOS scored 6 on 2.1 expected.

Counts come from the shot table behind the map: empty-net attempts and the shootout are excluded, so the goals here can trail the official final by an empty-netter or the shootout's deciding goal. Same numbers as the post-game cards.

As the game went

all situations · this game
cumulative UTA − BOS xG · bands = power plays · lines = goals
1ST2ND3RD+1−1+2−2+3−3UTA AHEAD ▲BOS AHEAD ▼
How to read this

One line: cumulative UTA minus BOS expected goals. Above zero UTA is ahead on chances, below zero BOS is. Shaded bands are power plays in the side's colour; vertical lines are goals.

Goals

this game
xG = the chance, before it went in
TeamScorerPeriodTimexG
UTAJack McBain 3rd9:48 0.31
BOSCasey Mittelstadt 1st10:06 0.05
BOSDavid Pastrnak 1st14:22 PP 0.03
BOSMason Lohrei 1st15:51 0.06
BOSDavid Pastrnak 2nd4:40 PP 0.09
BOSMorgan Geekie 2nd7:57 PP 0.11
BOSMatthew Poitras 2nd14:08 0.07
Who

Skaters

all · whole game · this game
on-ice xG for and against, his own attempts, the net
strength
period
sort
How to read this

Every skater: on-ice xG against to the left of zero, for to the right, his own attempts as the solid bar, a hash at the net. The slim track under the name is ice time. The chart opens sorted by net, best first; pick another key to re-order it, and click the same key again to flip it. A name opens the player's page. Pick a period and every bar re-lays for that period alone on the same scale as the whole game, so the three periods add up to it; a skater who did not play in it fades to the bottom.

UTA
against for own net ice time
0.50.5111.51.5220Vincent TrocheckF17:02+1.67Mikhail SergachevD23:16+1.35Barrett HaytonF14:41+1.28Jack McBainF13:50+1.10Michael CarconeF13:10+1.08Anders LeeF15:19+0.84MacKenzie WeegarD17:31+0.82Clayton KellerF19:41+0.81Daniil ButF10:01+0.81John MarinoD19:33+0.73Dmitri SimashevD14:36+0.71Nick SchmaltzF19:52+0.68Andrew PeekeD12:56+0.50Logan CooleyF20:30+0.39Dylan GuentherF18:32+0.38Lawson CrouseF14:42+0.37Nate SchmidtD18:48-0.10Kevin StenlundF12:27-0.29
0.50.5111.51.50Jack McBainF13:05+1.10MacKenzie WeegarD14:52+1.06Mikhail SergachevD14:08+1.04Barrett HaytonF11:32+0.99Vincent TrocheckF11:47+0.92Dmitri SimashevD13:10+0.71Lawson CrouseF12:44+0.59Andrew PeekeD11:12+0.59Clayton KellerF10:43+0.36Nick SchmaltzF10:35+0.36Daniil ButF7:34+0.35Michael CarconeF8:32+0.34Anders LeeF11:01+0.15Nate SchmidtD16:10+0.10John MarinoD14:54-0.01Logan CooleyF10:28-0.02Kevin StenlundF9:34-0.04Dylan GuentherF9:41-0.06
0.250.250.50.50.750.750Vincent TrocheckF4:50+0.74John MarinoD4:39+0.74Michael CarconeF4:38+0.74Anders LeeF4:18+0.68Logan CooleyF9:14+0.51Daniil ButF2:27+0.45Clayton KellerF8:55+0.44Dylan GuentherF8:51+0.44Nick SchmaltzF8:35+0.44Mikhail SergachevD8:30+0.44Barrett HaytonF2:17+0.29MacKenzie WeegarD0:24+0.00Nate SchmidtD0:17+0.00Lawson CrouseF0:15+0.00Andrew PeekeD0:15+0.00Jack McBainF0:15+0.00Dmitri SimashevD0:15+0.00
0.250.250Dmitri SimashevD1:11+0.00Barrett HaytonF0:52+0.00Jack McBainF0:27+0.00Vincent TrocheckF0:25+0.00Andrew PeekeD1:16-0.09Logan CooleyF0:48-0.09Nick SchmaltzF0:42-0.12Mikhail SergachevD0:38-0.14Nate SchmidtD2:05-0.20Lawson CrouseF1:27-0.21Kevin StenlundF2:37-0.25MacKenzie WeegarD2:12-0.25
BOS
against for own net ice time
0.50.5111.51.5220Elias LindholmF18:15-0.02Casey MittelstadtF11:19-0.02Matthew PoitrasF9:51-0.17James HagensF11:37-0.20Frederic BrunetD18:42-0.21David PastrnakF16:25-0.22Morgan GeekieF12:45-0.30Tanner JeannotF13:58-0.42Mark KastelicF14:05-0.51JJ PeterkaF12:28-0.60Mason LohreiD15:43-0.62Pavel ZachaF16:25-0.94Fraser MintenF15:22-1.07Hampus LindholmD19:09-1.10Connor CliftonD21:37-1.14Nikita ZadorovD22:09-1.29William BorgenD20:47-1.29Marat KhusnutdinovF15:23-1.47
0.50.5111.51.50Elias LindholmF11:35-0.02Casey MittelstadtF10:35-0.02Frederic BrunetD14:13-0.16Matthew PoitrasF8:59-0.17Tanner JeannotF10:09-0.19James HagensF10:01-0.20Mark KastelicF9:10-0.20Connor CliftonD14:03-0.42Nikita ZadorovD12:38-0.52David PastrnakF12:52-0.56Fraser MintenF10:44-0.57JJ PeterkaF11:09-0.60Mason LohreiD14:15-0.62Morgan GeekieF10:49-0.64Hampus LindholmD13:29-0.77Marat KhusnutdinovF9:21-0.77Pavel ZachaF10:52-0.98William BorgenD16:31-1.12
0.250.250.50.50David PastrnakF3:20+0.34Elias LindholmF1:53+0.34Pavel ZachaF1:53+0.34Morgan GeekieF1:53+0.34Frederic BrunetD2:27+0.25Hampus LindholmD0:23+0.09James HagensF1:23+0.00JJ PeterkaF1:06+0.00Nikita ZadorovD0:50+0.00Casey MittelstadtF0:44+0.00Connor CliftonD0:42+0.00Matthew PoitrasF0:41+0.00Tanner JeannotF0:24+0.00Mason LohreiD0:21+0.00Mark KastelicF0:20+0.00
0.250.250.50.50.750.75110Mason LohreiD0:51+0.00David PastrnakF0:10+0.00Matthew PoitrasF0:08+0.00William BorgenD4:13-0.17Tanner JeannotF3:25-0.23Pavel ZachaF3:40-0.29Frederic BrunetD1:49-0.29Mark KastelicF4:35-0.31Elias LindholmF4:47-0.34Hampus LindholmD5:17-0.42Fraser MintenF4:38-0.51Marat KhusnutdinovF6:02-0.70Connor CliftonD6:52-0.72Nikita ZadorovD8:41-0.76

Lines & pairs

all · whole game · this game
most-used units · when they played · on-ice xG lines are by strength · 5v5 shown
strength
period
sort
How to read this

The units that actually played together most at the chosen strength — forward lines and defence pairs at 5v5, the whole group on the ice on the power play or the kill — each with when it was on the ice at that strength across the game clock (period and power-play bands behind the strip) and on-ice xG against / for while the whole unit was out, at that strength only. Sorted by time together; pick another key to re-order, and a name opens the player's page. Pick a period and the strip veils the rest of the game while the bars re-lay for that period alone, on the whole game's scale.

UTA
on ice power play penalty kill xGA xGF
BOS
on ice power play penalty kill xGA xGF

Matchups

5v5 · this game
every skater against every skater, goalies first · hover a cell
order
UTA won the chances BOS won them full colour = a margin of 0.75 xG or more taller = more time together (full height at 12:00) on together, dead even never on together G = goalie: his row or column is each skater against the whole other team
SwaymanPastrnakZachaGeekieLindholmMittelstadtHagensPeterkaKhusnutdinovMintenJeannotKastelicPoitrasLindholmBorgenCliftonZadorovLohreiBrunetGL1L2L3L4D1D2D3GL1L2L3L4D1D2D3VejmelkaCossaTrocheckSchmaltzKellerCrouseHaytonMcBainLeeGuentherCooleyStenlundCarconeButSchmidtMarinoWeegarSergachevPeekeSimashev
How to read this

Rows are UTA's skaters, columns BOS's, grouped the way they played: forward lines (L1 = the line that played together most), then defence pairs. Each cell covers the five-on-five time those two players shared the ice. Its colour is the club that out-chanced the other in that time — expected goals for minus against — and the stronger the colour, the bigger the margin. Each cell is also raised: the taller the block, the longer the two shared the ice, up to full height at 12:00 of five-on-five time. A grey cell means they met and it came out even; an open, flat one means they never met at five-on-five.

The first row and column are the goalies. A goalie is in net for every five-on-five second, so a skater's cell against the other side's goalie is all of that skater's five-on-five time against that team — the rest of his row or column added up — and the corner where the two goalies meet is the game's five-on-five. Those cells cover far more time than any pair, so they reach full colour sooner and stand at full height, a wall along each edge of the grid. A goalie change adds a second goalie row or column, each covering his own time.

Linemates share the ice, so a line against a line reads as a block. The margin is a total, not a rate: a long matchup has room to build a big gap and a thirty-second one does not — which is what the height is there to show: a tall, strong cell is the game's story; a short, strong one is a moment. Hover (or tap) any cell for the exact time together, the xG each way, attempts and goals. One game — a strong cell is what happened, not what would happen again.

The model

The prediction, scored

🔒 pregame · this game

Before puck drop the engine made BOS a 50.3% favorite, expecting a 3.05–3.09 game — BOS won 1–6, so the call landed. Every number in this section was issued before the game and is never re-graded.

pred. xGactual xG pred. 5v5actual 5v5 pred. STactual PP
UTA 3.054.65 2.053.46 0.741.19
BOS 3.092.09 2.261.76 0.710.34

Predicted 5v5 / special-teams portions come from the predicted map's strength splits (one shared scale per team pins the all-strengths total to its expected goals), so they don't sum exactly — the remainder is 4v4, 3v3, and other mixed states. The actual columns are the card's own counts (empty-net attempts excluded); the actual PP column is power-play xG only, the same bucket the predicted map's special-teams view draws.

The pregame score grid

🔒 pregame · this game

The likeliest finals the engine saw before the game, with what actually happened marked — ■ UTA · ■ BOS.

Likeliest finals (UTA–BOS)probability
3–3 7.1% tied after regulation — OT/SO decides
2–2 6.8% tied after regulation — OT/SO decides
4–4 4.2% tied after regulation — OT/SO decides
2–4 4.0%
4–2 3.9%
1–6 0.8% what happened
4.8%4.6%014.5%14.2%121.9%21.7%222.2%22.1%317.0%17.1%410.5%10.7%55.4%5.6%62.4%2.5%71.3%1.4%8+

Scoreline odds are the engine's own grid: each team's goals as a Poisson count, with the fitted adjustment for how often games end tied after regulation (ρ = 0.35), so these odds and the headline win probability come from the same numbers. The OT/SO layer is a separate fitted model and is already inside the headline win probability.

The pregame read

🔒 pregame · this game

The engine made BOS a 50.3% favorite — BOS controls 50.3% of the predicted xG. Of UTA's 3.05 expected goals, 2.05 should come at 5v5 and 0.74 on the power play; BOS projects 2.26 at 5v5 and 0.71 on the power play. The logistic challenger put the home side at 48.1%, Elo at 55.7%.

Where the engine expected the goals

🔒 pregame · this game

The predicted surface, issued before puck drop — not this game's shots (those are the card's map above). UTA attacks the left net, BOS the right; each end multiplies where the attacking team generates xG this season by where its opponent concedes it, scaled so each end totals the engine's expected goals. Actual shots lays the game's unblocked attempts on top: × goals, • on net, ◦ missed.

Context

Tale of the tape

season to date

How each team fares on its own, season to date: per-game xG rates with league rank (of 32). Rank 1 is best on every row — orange ranks sit in the top third of the league, gray in the bottom third.

UTABOS
3.49 (2nd) Offense
xG for / game
3.01 (15th)
2.54 (3rd) Defense
xG against / game
2.93 (15th)
0.91 (5th) Power play
PP xG / game
0.63 (26th)
0.71 (15th) Penalty kill
PP xG conceded / game
0.70 (12th)

Season-to-date form as of the site's latest build, shown for context — the ratings the engine actually used were its own as-of-game-day state. Replay this matchup in the lab →