Tampa Bay Lightning at Utah Mammoth, NHL forecast
Win probability
Starts from the pregame forecast, then moves with every score and the time left. Above the line favors UTA; hover for each play.
Game center
From the ESPN box score.
Top performers
Lightning- Pontus HolmbergGoals1
- Erik CernakAssists1
- Jake GuentzelPoints1
Mammoth- Dmitri SimashevGoals2
- Vincent TrocheckAssists2
- Dmitri SimashevPoints2
Scoring summary
- OT1:44Dmitri Simashev Goal (2) Wrist Shot, assists: Barrett Hayton (7), Karel Vejmelka (1)4–5
- P217:02Dmitri Simashev Goal (1) Snap Shot, assists: Andrew Peeke (3), Vincent Trocheck (4)4–4
- P214:39Anders Lee Goal (3) Tip-In, assists: MacKenzie Weegar (2), Vincent Trocheck (3)4–3
- P25:32Conor Geekie Goal (2) Wrist Shot, assists: Scott Sabourin (1)4–2
- P117:39Dylan Guenther Goal (5) Slap Shot, assists: Mikhail Sergachev (11), Clayton Keller (11)3–2
- P112:42Brayden Point Goal (2) Backhand, assists: Nikita Kucherov (10), Charle-Edouard D'Astous (4)3–1
- P110:06Pontus Holmberg Goal (3) Snap Shot, assists: Erik Cernak (2), Ryan McDonagh (2)2–1
- P17:02Kailer Yamamoto Goal (3) Wrist Shot, assists: none1–1
- P15:10Jake Guentzel Goal (7), assists: none1–0
Turning points
The 5 plays that swung the win chance most, each judged at its own moment: the chance with the score just before it against just after.
- P110:06Pontus Holmberg Goal (3) Snap Shot, assists: Erik Cernak (2), Ryan McDonagh (2)TB 2 – 1 UTA · TB 44% → 60% +16TB 44% → 60%+16 pts
- P25:32Conor Geekie Goal (2) Wrist Shot, assists: Scott Sabourin (1)TB 4 – 2 UTA · TB 64% → 80% +16TB 64% → 80%+16 pts
- P214:39Anders Lee Goal (3) Tip-In, assists: MacKenzie Weegar (2), Vincent Trocheck (3)TB 4 – 3 UTA · UTA 15% → 32% +17UTA 15% → 32%+17 pts
- P217:02Dmitri Simashev Goal (1) Snap Shot, assists: Andrew Peeke (3), Vincent Trocheck (4)TB 4 – 4 UTA · UTA 31% → 54% +23UTA 31% → 54%+23 pts
- OT1:44Dmitri Simashev Goal (2) Wrist Shot, assists: Barrett Hayton (7), Karel Vejmelka (1)TB 4 – 5 UTA · UTA 51% → 95% +43UTA 51% → 95%+43 pts
The pick
Locked forecast: logged before the game started and graded as-is. Anchored on the betting line, which beat every rating model in testing.
Mammoth 56%
Forecast Elo ratings alone
How often that comes true: NHL favorites the forecast gave 55–60% have won 56.4% of 1,035 graded games.
- Market
- UTA 56%
- ML TB +120 / UTA -142
- Pre-line forecast
- UTA 60%
- Elo + market-implied
- Elo ratings
- UTA 56%
- Ratings vs. market
- −0.5 pts
- UTA: Elo 55.9%, market 56.3%
- Fair odds
- UTA -129
- TB +129 · the forecast as odds, no margin
- Pregame projection
- TB 3.1 – 3.4 UTA
- Margin from the forecast, posted total 6.5
How the number is built
Elo inputs in rating points (higher favors that team; 25–28 Elo is about a point of spread in football and basketball), then how the pieces combine.
| Factor | TB | UTA | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team rating | 1552 | 1513 | Elo entering the game; 1500 is league average |
| Home field | — | +35 | Worth 35 Elo in the NHL |
| Rest | −30 | — | TB on the second night of a back-to-back |
| Starting goalies | −20 | −2 | TB: Dennis Hildeby: team allows 0.50 more goals than with its usual starter (≈18 weighted starts) · UTA: Karel Vejmelka: team allows 0.06 more goals than with its usual starter (≈47 weighted starts) |
| Injuries | — | −3 | Key absences: John Marino |
| Elo ratings | UTA +41 Elo | UTA 55.9% | |
| Market-implied ratings | UTA 60.7% | Team strength as past closing lines priced it, same game context | |
| Pre-line forecast | UTA 59.7% | 20% Elo, 80% market-implied (log-odds blend) | |
| Forecast | UTA 56.3% | Follows the market (vig removed): in testing, adding the ratings made it less accurate | |
Tale of the tape
This season coming into the game, regular season, each number with its league rank (the longer the bar, the higher). Home and road: the host's record at home against the visitor's on the road. Overtime and shootout losses count as losses in these records. Opponent Elo: how strong the teams each has played are, 1st the toughest. Shot share is a team's share of the shots on goal in its games. PDO adds shooting and save percentages: far from 100 tends to even out.
| TB | Stat | UTA |
|---|---|---|
| 9th of 323.4 | Goals scored | 3.77th of 32 |
| 8th of 322.9 | Goals allowed | 3.319th of 32 |
| 10th of 32+0.5 | Margin | +0.512th of 32 |
| 4th of 3255.6% | Shot share | 57.4%3rd of 32 |
| 18th of 3289.1% | Save percentage | 86.3%31st of 32 |
| 13th of 322–3 | Road vs home | 3–16th of 32 |
| 20th of 321499 | Opponent Elo | 149722nd of 32 |
| 3rd of 321552 | Elo rating | 151313th of 32 |
Rating history
Each team's Elo over the last two seasons. Hover or drag to compare on any date.
Recent form
Last five results, and whether the forecast hit.
Against the line
How each team has done against the closing spread and total, coming into this game.
| This season |  TB |  UTA |
|---|---|---|
| Puck line | 5–5 | 5–6 |
| Last 10 | 5–5 | 4–6 |
| Favorite | 4–4 | 4–5 |
| Underdog | 1–1 | 1–1 |
| Overs–unders | 5–5 | 7–4 |
| Overs–unders, last 10 | 5–5 | 7–3 |
Against each game's closing line. Books set every line knowing these records: across 3,901 past games, the team with the better record against the spread so far that season covered 51.2%, short of the 52.4% a standard −110 bet needs, and over/under streaks held 48.0% of the time. They describe the past.
Head to head
TB 3–1 UTA in their last 4 meetings; the forecast called 3 of 4.
