TUCPacific Division · 8th of 10 · Utah Mammoth

TucsonRoadrunners

Tucson Arena, Tucson, AZ

34-28-10
Record: 78
Points: 230
Goals for: 239
Against: -9
Differential

At home16-13-7117–126 (-9)

On the road18-15-3113–113 (0)

Last 105-4-1 · oldest first

The story

By chance quality TUC were a middle club: 14th of 32 in creation, 25th of 32 in suppression.

They finished 28 goals above what the chances were worth (10th of 32 in shooting), and conceded 30 more than the chances against were worth (26th of 32 in save percentage).

Only 37% of their goals came off the rush, 25th of 32 — the offence was built on the cycle and the point.

The penalty kill 31st of 32 at 76.6%.

Where TUC ranks

Expected Goals For % · 19 of 32

49.17%

xGF/60 · 14 of 32

2.73

xGA/60 · 25 of 32

2.82

Scoring Chance % · 22 of 32

47.94%

High Danger Chance % · 24 of 32

47.91%

Shooting % · 10 of 32

11.22%

Save % · 26 of 32

88.5%

PDO · 19 of 32

99.7%

Power Play % · 11 of 32

19.82%

Penalty Kill % · 31 of 32

76.57%

Special Teams Index · 24 of 32

96.39%

Rush Share of Goals · 25 of 32

37.4%

Goals For · 13 of 32

230

Goals Against · 26 of 32

239

Each bar is a percentile against all 32 clubs, with the league median on the tick. Metrics where less is better are flipped, so longer is always better.

Shots for and against

TUC2,049 shots · 202 xG

quiet4.4 xG per 5 ft

Allowed2,074 shots · 209 xG

quiet4.4 xG per 5 ft

Special teams

	Goals	Chances	Rate
Power play	45	227	19.8%
Penalty kill	56	239	76.6%

Special-teams index 96.4 — power play plus penalty kill, the one number that says whether a club wins the nights the referee decides.

How the game unfolds

1st period48.9%of goals scored

Goals: 66–69
xG share: 47.8%

2nd period49.7%of goals scored

Goals: 77–78
xG share: 49.3%

3rd period47.4%of goals scored

Goals: 74–82
xG share: 49.3%

	1st	2nd	3rd
Goals for	66	77	74
Goals against	69	78	82
xG for	62.7	70.6	61.5
xG against	68.4	72.5	63.3
Shots for	662	721	619
Shots against	683	702	649

Share of goals is this club’s goals as a percentage of every goal scored in that period, so 50% is even. xG share is the same sum over chance quality, which says whether the result matched the play. Regulation only — overtime is three skaters a side and a different game.

How the goals came

Goals	For	Share	Against	Share
Off the rush	86	37.4%	108	45.2%
Off the cycle	103	44.8%	98	41.0%
In a scramble	39	17.0%	33	13.8%

Attempts	For	Sh%	Against	Sv%
Off the rush	511	16.8%	554	80.5%
Off the cycle	1404	7.3%	1390	92.9%
In a scramble	134	29.1%	130	74.6%

A rush is the first shot of a possession, taken inside 40 ft up the middle; the cycle is a shot after sustained pressure, or a first shot from distance or the wall; a scramble is a second attempt inside four seconds. League-wide they convert at about 17%, 8% and 23%. Shares are of goals scored in play — shootout winners are not shots.

Volume

	For	Against
Shots	2049	2074
Expected goals	201.8	208.6
Scoring chances	720	—
High-danger chances	310	—

With a lead, level, and from behind

Score state	Share of play	GF–GA	GF%	GF% ex. EN	xGF%	SF%	Sh%ex. EN	Sv%ex. EN
Leading	29%1,270 min	68–82	45.3%lg 52.7%	40.6%lg 47.9%	47.2%lg 48.0%	46.3%lg 46.5%	10.5%lg 10.4%	87.1%lg 90.4%
Tied	35%1,507 min	69–79	46.6%lg 50.0%	46.6%lg 50.0%	48.2%lg 50.0%	49.9%lg 50.0%	10.0%lg 9.6%	88.6%lg 90.4%
Trailing	36%1,544 min	80–68	54.1%lg 47.3%	61.1%lg 52.1%	50.6%lg 52.1%	52.0%lg 53.4%	10.4%lg 9.6%	92.6%lg 89.6%

Regulation only — overtime is three-on-three and always starts level, so pooling it here would contaminate every rate. The small figure under each percentage is the league in the same score state; TUC being above it is the claim, not the percentage itself. GF% ex. EN drops empty-net goals from both sides, and across the league it reverses the headline: clubs are outscored at even play while protecting a lead, and outscore while chasing. The empty net is what settles it.

2025-26 skaters · 31

Player	GP	G	A	P	SOG	ixG
Austin PoganskiRW	70	23	33	56	119	17.41
Cameron HebigC	68	25	29	54	174	21.65
Ben McCartneyF	59	21	30	51	134	19.61
Scott PerunovichD	64	9	40	49	90	6.23
Andrew AgozzinoC	56	19	20	39	116	12.90
Daniil ButF	41	19	20	39	126	14.74
Dmitri SimashevD	40	8	27	35	93	6.88
Sammy WalkerF	57	12	16	28	124	17.57
Max SzuberD	65	11	16	27	107	4.74
Kevin RooneyC	44	12	12	24	77	10.80
Juuso VälimäkiD	27	7	16	23	47	2.44
Ty TullioRW	50	9	14	23	81	6.80
Noel NordhF	60	6	15	21	46	5.06
Maveric LamoureuxD	65	5	15	20	105	4.44
Owen AllardF	69	8	11	19	79	8.85
Robbie RussoD	59	5	12	17	95	3.12
Michal KuncF	43	8	8	16	52	4.86
Artem DudaD	27	2	11	13	51	3.06
Julian LutzF	55	5	7	12	38	3.88
Miko MatikkaF	51	5	7	12	63	7.53
Lleyton MooreD	31	1	10	11	36	1.69
Ryan McGregorC	35	2	9	11	36	4.41
Jack RickettsF	31	5	5	10	36	4.14
Montana OnyebuchiD	44	1	9	10	55	2.40
Sam LipkinF	44	1	7	8	33	3.45
Jalen LuypenC	24	5	2	7	35	3.87
Kevin ConnautonD	30	0	5	5	31	1.44
Brandon HoltD	5	1	1	2	11	0.60
Max PšeničkaD	2	0	1	1	5	0.15
Maxim BarbashevF	3	0	0	0	0	—
Terrell GoldsmithD	3	0	0	0	1	0.03

2025-26 goaltending

Goalie	GP	W	SV%	GAA	GSAx
Jaxson Stauber	36	15	88.9%	3.07	-10.8
Matthew Villalta	33	16	89.5%	3.10	-2.8
Michael Hrabal	5	3	89.7%	2.96	0.2

Full schedule · 72 regular

Recent Full schedule

Date	Opp	Result	Goals	xG
2025-10-10	@ ONT	W	5–4	3.9–2.1
2025-10-12	@ ONT	L	2–4	2.4–2.5
2025-10-18	vs CGY	W	5–4	4.4–4.2
2025-10-19	vs CGY	OTL	3–4	2.8–3.6
2025-10-24	vs BAK	W	5–1	3.1–2.8
2025-10-25	vs BAK	L	1–3	2.9–3.2
2025-10-28	vs MB	L	0–2	2.1–5.0
2025-10-29	vs MB	L	3–4	3.0–2.0
2025-11-01	@ IA	W	3–0	1.5–1.9
2025-11-02	@ IA	OTL	4–5	3.7–2.2
2025-11-07	vs CV	L	2–4	2.5–2.6
2025-11-08	vs CV	W	4–3	3.4–2.1
2025-11-14	@ COL	L	2–6	2.6–4.0
2025-11-15	@ COL	W	3–0	1.6–2.8
2025-11-22	vs COL	W	3–1	2.7–1.7
2025-11-23	vs COL	L	2–5	3.3–3.3
2025-11-26	vs SD	L	3–5	3.3–2.7
2025-11-28	vs ABB	W	4–1	2.5–3.2
2025-11-29	vs ABB	L	2–5	1.8–3.7
2025-12-03	@ BAK	L	1–5	1.8–3.6
2025-12-05	@ SJ	OTL	3–4	3.0–2.9
2025-12-06	@ SJ	W	6–2	2.5–2.6
2025-12-12	vs BAK	W	5–4	5.2–3.2
2025-12-13	vs BAK	OTL	7–8	3.1–3.2
2025-12-19	@ ABB	L	2–4	3.8–2.7
2025-12-20	@ ABB	L	1–2	1.9–1.4
2025-12-27	vs CGY	W	5–2	2.5–2.4
2025-12-28	vs CGY	W	3–2	3.5–1.5
2025-12-31	vs SD	OTL	3–4	2.8–4.0
2026-01-02	@ CGY	W	5–2	4.9–1.7
2026-01-04	@ CGY	W	4–0	4.4–1.9
2026-01-09	vs IA	W	2–1	2.6–1.9
2026-01-10	vs IA	W	5–4	2.5–3.4
2026-01-16	vs SJ	W	4–2	3.1–2.4
2026-01-17	vs SJ	OTL	3–4	1.8–3.7
2026-01-20	vs SD	OTL	2–3	2.3–3.8
2026-01-21	vs SD	L	3–5	2.6–4.9
2026-01-24	@ HSK	L	3–4	2.0–4.6
2026-01-25	@ HSK	W	3–2	2.1–2.8
2026-01-28	@ SD	W	4–3	1.8–2.5
2026-01-30	vs COL	L	1–3	2.8–3.6
2026-01-31	vs COL	OTL	2–3	1.8–1.9
2026-02-04	@ ONT	L	1–5	1.6–2.4
2026-02-06	@ CGY	W	7–3	3.1–2.5
2026-02-07	@ CGY	W	6–5	4.2–2.8
2026-02-13	@ CV	L	1–6	1.8–2.8
2026-02-15	@ CV	W	3–2	1.9–2.4
2026-02-21	vs ONT	L	2–4	1.9–3.3
2026-02-22	vs ONT	L	3–5	3.0–2.7
2026-02-25	@ SD	W	2–1	2.3–1.9
2026-02-28	@ SJ	L	3–5	3.1–3.9
2026-03-01	@ SJ	W	6–4	3.0–3.7
2026-03-04	@ ONT	L	1–4	1.6–3.0
2026-03-06	@ BAK	W	3–2	3.4–2.2
2026-03-07	@ BAK	L	0–2	3.2–2.0
2026-03-10	vs HSK	L	0–5	2.6–2.9
2026-03-11	vs HSK	OTL	6–7	4.1–3.1
2026-03-14	vs SJ	W	6–4	4.6–3.6
2026-03-15	vs SJ	W	5–4	3.6–5.7
2026-03-21	@ MB	W	4–3	3.3–2.2
2026-03-23	@ MB	W	4–1	2.6–1.8
2026-03-27	vs ONT	L	2–3	2.3–1.9
2026-03-28	vs ONT	W	4–2	3.8–2.2
2026-04-01	@ SD	L	0–3	2.2–3.0
2026-04-03	@ HSK	L	3–4	2.1–1.6
2026-04-04	@ HSK	L	4–5	3.5–2.0
2026-04-08	@ BAK	L	2–5	2.4–3.6
2026-04-10	@ COL	W	5–2	2.7–3.1
2026-04-11	@ COL	OTL	2–3	2.0–5.7
2026-04-15	@ SD	W	5–1	1.8–2.5
2026-04-17	vs HSK	W	2–1	3.1–3.2
2026-04-18	vs HSK	W	5–4	3.0–2.9