Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Utah Mammoth sweater
← Sat, Oct 3 · the slate
Breakdown · UTA at CBJ

Mammoth pull away from the Blue Jackets

FinalSat, Oct 3
UTAUtah Mammoth4CBJColumbus Blue Jackets1
The verdict · earned

The Mammoth earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

UTA 4 · CBJ 1
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:53 PMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Utah defeated Columbus 4-1, with S. Cossa's goaltending and the power play providing the edge. N. Schmaltz scored twice—off the rush in the first, then on a third-period power play—while K. Johnson scored the lone response for the Blue Jackets.

The underlying metrics revealed a tighter contest than the scoreboard suggested. Columbus accumulated 3.20 expected goals to Utah's 3.51, a marginal Mammoth advantage. High-danger chances tied at 5-5, meaning S. Cossa's stellar goaltending—saving 2.20 goals above expected—proved decisive.

Utah capitalized on the power play with ruthless efficiency, scoring three times on 14 attempts. M. Sergachev converted early on the man advantage, then D. Guenther and Schmaltz added one each in the third. The Mammoth's finishing with the extra skater built an insurmountable lead before Columbus could mount a comeback.

Columbus created its own opportunities but finished only one of them. The Blue Jackets underperformed their expected goals by 2.20, despite crashing the net effectively and generating four rebound chances. J. Greaves allowed four on 31 shots, a 0.871 save percentage reflecting Utah's overwhelming finishing advantage.

The goals

  • UTA 1–0, 11:55 of the first on the power play. M. Sergachev, slap shot from 54 feet, a 5% chance by the model, past J. Greaves. Assists: D. Guenther, C. Keller. Win probability moved 17 points.
  • UTA 2–0, 16:31 of the first. N. Schmaltz, snap shot from 28 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Greaves. Assists: C. Keller, J. Marino. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • CBJ 2–1, 01:30 of the second. K. Johnson, snap shot from 25 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past S. Cossa. Assists: M. Knies. 6 seconds after a UTA giveaway by V. Trocheck. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • UTA 3–1, 05:59 of the third on the power play. D. Guenther, slap shot from 31 feet, a 6% chance by the model, past J. Greaves. Assists: L. Cooley, M. Sergachev. 8 seconds after a UTA shot by N. Schmaltz. Win probability moved 16 points.
  • UTA 4–1, 14:13 of the third on the power play. N. Schmaltz, wrist shot from 13 feet, a 16% chance by the model, past J. Greaves. Assists: L. Cooley, D. Guenther. 8 seconds after a UTA missed shot by D. Guenther.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Oct 3
UTA
4
CBJ
1

Mammoth pull away from the Blue Jackets

Chances 3.5 – 3.2Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Mammoth took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
UTA
3.51
CBJ
3.20
52% of the chances48%

The board read UTA 4, CBJ 1. The chances read UTA 3.5, CBJ 3.2.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
UTA
+0.5
goals above expected
UTA3.51 expected · 4 scored
Expected
Scored
CBJ3.20 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Blue Jackets left 2.2 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+17
win-probability points
46% → 63% for UTA
CBJ 100%the game, start to finish
UTA 100%P1 · P2 · P3
UTAP1 11:55 · PP

M. Sergachev makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 11:55UTAM. SergachevPP5%1–0
  2. P1 16:31UTAN. Schmaltz11%2–0
  3. P2 01:30CBJK. Johnson20%2–1
  4. P3 05:59UTAD. GuentherPP6%3–1
  5. P3 14:13UTAN. SchmaltzPP16%4–1
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
UTA
48 shots
4
Final
82 shots
CBJ
34 shots
1
UTA attackCBJ attack
UTA CBJ Goal
48
shots · 4 in
34
shots · 1 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
UTACBJ
0 / 5
1.20 xG
High danger
1 / 5
1.24 xG
3 / 19
2.02 xG
Medium
0 / 15
1.71 xG
1 / 47
0.29 xG
Low
0 / 31
0.25 xG

High-danger looks: UTA 0 of 5, CBJ 1 of 5.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
S. Cossa
+2.2
UTA · 17/18 · 60:00
Best save · a 32% chance, wrist from 5 ft · P2 13:39
D
J. Greaves
−0.5
CBJ · 27/31 · 60:00
Best save · a 32% chance, wrist from 19 ft · P3 02:07
Best skater on the ice
A+
UTA
D. Guenther
R · impact 2.75
16:51
Ice time
1–2
G – A
0.74
Own xG
58%
xG share
Impact · top 4
D. Guenther2.7A+
N. Schmaltz2.7A+
C. Keller1.7A+
L. Cooley1.6A
Report card
UTACBJ
OffenseA-B
DefenseDD-
TransitionC+C
Special teamsA+F
GoaltendingA+C-
DisciplineBD
LuckA+F
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why UTA won
  1. 01S. Cossa stole it
  2. 02Power play cashed in
  3. 03Dangerous off the rush
Why CBJ lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Mammoth pull away from the Blue Jackets

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 13–4
  1. 11:55UTAM. Sergachevpower play(D. Guenther, C. Keller)1–0

    Slap shot from 54 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Greaves. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: N. Schmidt, M. Weegar, L. Crouse, B. Hayton, J. McBain · against Z. Werenski, K. Johnson, M. Knies, D. Mateychuk, A. Fantilli

  2. 16:31UTAN. Schmaltz(C. Keller, J. Marino)2–0

    Snap shot from 28 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past J. Greaves. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: M. Weegar, K. Stenlund, M. Sergachev, M. Carcone, D. But · against Z. Werenski, K. Johnson, M. Knies, D. Mateychuk, A. Fantilli

2ndshots 7–7
  1. 01:30CBJK. Johnson(M. Knies)2–1

    Snap shot from 25 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past S. Cossa. 6s after a UTA giveaway by V. Trocheck. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: S. Monahan, V. Nichushkin, Z. Werenski, C. Garland, D. Mateychuk · against A. Lee, A. Peeke, D. Guenther, L. Cooley, D. Simashev

3rdshots 11–7
  1. 05:59UTAD. Guentherpower play(L. Cooley, M. Sergachev)3–1

    Slap shot from 31 feet, a 6% chance, a shot that rarely goes in, past J. Greaves. 8s after a UTA shot by N. Schmaltz. Win probability moved 16 points.On the ice: M. Weegar, L. Crouse, M. Sergachev, B. Hayton, J. McBain · against E. Gudbranson, D. Heinen, C. Garland, R. Lomberg, J. Christiansen

  2. 14:13UTAN. Schmaltzpower play(L. Cooley, D. Guenther)4–1

    Wrist shot from 13 feet, a 16% chance, past J. Greaves. 8s after a UTA miss by D. Guenther.

score reads UTA–CBJ

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
3.51
UTA chances
Goals their shots were worth
+0.5
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.037
UTA puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
58.2%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

3.51Expected goals3.20
UTA 52% of the chance quality
31Shots on goal18
5High-danger chances5
71All attempts (Corsi)51
Adjusted for score: UTA 54% · CBJ 46%
Faceoffs · CBJ won58%off50%neu59%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
UTA0 / 5 · 1.20 xG
CBJ1 / 5 · 1.24 xG
Medium dangermid-range
UTA3 / 19 · 2.02 xG
CBJ0 / 15 · 1.71 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
UTA1 / 47 · 0.29 xG
CBJ0 / 31 · 0.25 xG

CBJ went 0-for-15 from medium danger on 1.71 expected goals — 1.7 left on the table.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
UTA
4 G · 3.51 xG · +0.5
CBJ
1 G · 3.20 xG · -2.2
012345

UTA finished +0.5 against expected, CBJ -2.2.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
UTA
WRIST1/18
SNAP1/16
BACKHAND0/6
SLAP2/7
TIP IN0/0
BAT0/0
OTHER0/24
CBJ
WRIST0/15
SNAP1/11
BACKHAND0/4
SLAP0/1
TIP IN0/2
BAT0/1
OTHER0/17
UTA
CBJ
Off the rush
1 G on 23
2.23 xG
1 G on 23
2.01 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 3
0.48 xG
0 G on 4
0.61 xG

Wrist shots carried the volume: UTA went 1-for-18, CBJ 0-for-15.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
S. Cossa
UTA · 17/18 · .944
started · 60:00 · win
+2.2
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
34
Avg chance faced
9.4%
Stopped vs expected
0.971 vs 0.906
Rebounds allowed
4
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/51.2+0.2
Medium0/151.7+1.7
Low0/140.3+0.3
Shorthanded0/50.2+0.2
Tips & deflections0/20.1+0.1
The save
32% chance stopped, a wrist from 5 ft · P2 13:39
The one to have back
20% chance went in, a snap from 25 ft · P2 01:30

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

J. Greaves
CBJ · 27/31 · .871
started · 60:00 · loss
-0.5
saved above expected
D
the night
Attempts faced
45
Avg chance faced
7.8%
Stopped vs expected
0.911 vs 0.922
Rebounds allowed
3
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/51.2+1.2
Medium3/192.0-1.0
Low1/210.3-0.7
Shorthanded3/111.3-1.7
The save
32% chance stopped, a wrist from 19 ft · P3 02:07
The one to have back
5% chance went in, a slap from 54 ft · P1 11:55

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: D. Guenther (UTA), 16:51 of ice, 1-2, 58% of the expected goals while he was out.

UTA18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
D. GuentherR16:511-258A+
N. SchmaltzC17:392-062A+
C. KellerR17:040-245A+
L. CooleyC16:480-257A
M. SergachevD22:001-154A
M. CarconeL13:030-083A
A. PeekeD15:030-061B
K. StenlundC14:070-076B
D. ButL11:110-087B
M. WeegarD20:210-062B
J. McBainC14:340-059B
J. MarinoD20:280-124C
A. LeeL13:470-037C
L. CrouseL13:370-038C
B. HaytonC13:470-041D
N. SchmidtD21:330-040F
D. SimashevD16:400-042F
V. TrocheckC17:270-030F
CBJ18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
K. JohnsonC17:141-045A
M. KniesL17:440-149A
C. SillingerC13:210-063B
M. OlivierR15:230-083B
V. NichushkinR16:470-048C
S. MonahanC16:530-066C
Z. WerenskiD31:430-047C
D. MateychukD28:070-063C
C. SoucyD16:280-056C
R. LombergL9:060-033D
C. CoyleC15:240-041D
C. GarlandR12:430-053D
A. FantilliC20:310-035D
J. ChristiansenD9:470-035D
D. VoronkovL12:500-046D
E. AndraeD13:430-045D
D. HeinenL11:250-020F
E. GudbransonD16:350-019F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, UTA: L. O'Brien, K. Yamamoto, N. DeSimone. Scratched, CBJ: L. Del Bel Belluz. Referees Kelly Sutherland and Brandon Schrader; linesmen CJ Murray and Kilian McNamara.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionUTACBJ
Offense
▸Basis

UTA Created 3.51 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.20 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.23 xG).

CBJ Created 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 5 high-danger shots (1.24 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.01 xG).

A-
90
B
86
Defense
▸Basis

UTA Allowed 3.20 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.24 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.01 xG).

CBJ Allowed 3.51 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 5 high-danger shots (1.20 xG) and 23 rush shots (2.23 xG).

D
64
D-
60
Transition
▸Basis

UTA Rush shots 23–23, rush xG 2.23–2.01 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

CBJ Rush shots 23–23, rush xG 2.01–2.23 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

C+
77
C
73
Special teams
▸Basis

UTA 3-for-4 on the power play (75%; league ≈21%) with 1.34 PP xG.

CBJ 0-for-2 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.24 PP xG.

A+
100
F
53
Goaltending
▸Basis

UTA +2.20 goals saved above expected on 18 shots against.

CBJ -0.49 goals saved above expected on 31 shots against.

A+
97
C-
70
Discipline
▸Basis

UTA Took 2 penalties for 4 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

CBJ Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 2 for 4 on the other side.

B
85
D
65
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

UTA Finishing +0.49 goals vs xG plus +2.20 GSAx of save luck = +2.69 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

CBJ Finishing -2.20 goals vs xG plus -0.49 GSAx of save luck = -2.69 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

A+
97
F
53
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHUTA

S. Cossa stole it

S. Cossa stopped 17 of 18 (0.944) — +2.20 goals saved above expected in a 3-goal game.

WARNINGCBJ

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 2.23 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

LUCKCBJ

Cold finishing night

Scored 1 on 3.20 xG — -2.20 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

STRENGTHUTA

Power play cashed in

3-for-4 on the power play (75%) on 1.34 PP xG.

WARNINGUTA

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 23 rush shots worth 2.01 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

STRENGTHUTA

Dangerous off the rush

1 goals on 23 rush shots worth 2.23 xG.

82 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
UTA
48 shots
4
Final
82 shots
CBJ
34 shots
1
UTA attackCBJ attack
UTA CBJ Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — UTA left, CBJ right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
D. Guenther
#11 · R · UTA
1 G · 2 A · 5 SOG · 16:51 on ice
M. Sergachev
#98 · D · UTA
1 G · 1 A · 4 SOG · 22:00 on ice · -1
N. Schmaltz
#8 · C · UTA
2 G · 0 A · 8 SOG · 17:39 on ice
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Sat, Oct 3
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:05 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The model sees no edge here. Utah and Columbus project to 3.2 goals apiece, with the Blue Jackets at exactly 50% win probability—a pick'em that your gut should trust.

Utah's advantage lives in the underlying play. The Mammoth own 65.9% of expected goals at 5-on-5, well ahead of Columbus at 51.7%. They also drive shot attempts at 60.8% to the Blue Jackets' 43.5%. That's a workload tilt in Utah's favor—they'll spend this game in Columbus's end.

The catch is regression. Both teams are running hotter than their chances suggest—Utah's performance ratio sits at 1.143, Columbus's at 1.109. That kind of outscoring doesn't last. The Mammoth's territorial edge remains an asset, but don't expect their recent scoring pace to hold.

Goaltending introduces uncertainty with tiny sample sizes. K. Vejmelka has posted a 100.0% save percentage in 1 game. He's also allowed 2.0 fewer goals than expected for his workload. J. Greaves, in 1 game, has an 88.5% save percentage. He's allowed 0.4 more goals than expected for his workload. One game is noise—either could revert to baseline.

Both teams have found their scoring lane in the slot. Utah has buried 10 goals on 58 slot shots, a 17% conversion rate. Columbus is even sharper at 22%, with 7 goals on 32 shots. Deny those lanes, and you deny their best path to offense.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

CBJ 50%
50%
CBJ
Model favorite
50%
50%
UTA50CBJ

CBJ by 0 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score UTA 3.2–3.2 CBJ; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
UTA← edge
edge →CBJ
65.9%51.7%
60.8%43.5%
4.132.96
2.142.77
6.006.00
0.003.00
1.1431.109

UTA holds 5 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.143 vs 1.109) says UTA has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · Last 1
UTA
1-0-0
+6 GD · 1d rest
CBJ
1-0-0
+3 GD · 1d rest
1.143
UTA PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
1.109
CBJ PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Mammoth own the underlying play

The Mammoth own the underlying play — 65.9% 5v5 xG vs 51.7%.

TACTICAL

The Mammoth drive Corsi at 60.8%

The Mammoth drive Corsi at 60.8% — expect territorial tilt.

WARNINGCBJ

Regression watch: Blue Jackets

The Blue Jackets' PDO is 1.109 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

WARNINGUTA

Regression watch: Mammoth

The Mammoth's PDO is 1.143 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

Where the edges live
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 65.9% 5v5 xG vs 51.7%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 60.8% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Blue Jackets' PDO is 1.109 — running hot, expect some regression.
  • The Mammoth's PDO is 1.143 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Mammoth own the underlying play — 65.9% 5v5 xG vs 51.7%.
  • The Mammoth drive Corsi at 60.8% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: K. Vejmelka (+2.0 GSAx in 1 GP, 100.0% SV) vs J. Greaves (-0.4 GSAx in 1 GP, 88.5% SV).
  • The Blue Jackets' PDO is 1.109 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
UTA
vs CHI · Thu, Oct 1
Expected in goal
K. Vejmelka
1 day rest1.000 last start60:00 played
Forwards · 12
  • N. Schmaltz18:12
  • C. Keller17:43
  • D. Guenther14:33
  • V. Trocheck17:29
  • J. McBain13:26
  • B. Hayton13:49
  • D. But12:08
  • M. Carcone12:40
  • L. Crouse15:15
  • A. Lee12:07
  • K. Stenlund12:58
  • L. Cooley16:07
Defence · 6
  • J. Marino21:22
  • A. Peeke17:05
  • D. Simashev16:34
  • M. Weegar20:39
  • N. Schmidt18:56
  • M. Sergachev22:57
CBJ
vs BUF · Thu, Oct 1
Expected in goal
J. Greaves
1 day rest.885 last start60:00 played
Forwards · 12
  • C. Coyle19:04
  • C. Sillinger15:21
  • D. Voronkov10:44
  • A. Fantilli17:28
  • S. Monahan15:31
  • M. Olivier14:32
  • V. Nichushkin15:45
  • D. Heinen12:11
  • C. Garland12:09
  • M. Knies16:06
  • K. Johnson14:53
  • R. Lomberg09:21
Defence · 6
  • J. Christiansen07:05
  • D. Mateychuk27:28
  • C. Soucy20:15
  • Z. Werenski28:46
  • E. Andrae15:37
  • E. Gudbranson17:44

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page