Sun, Dec 8, 2024·Wells Fargo Center, Philadelphia
Utah Hockey Club 4, Philadelphia Flyers 2
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 012 | 38 | 15 | 425 |
| PHI | 07 | 29 | 08 | 224 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 7:01UTAMichael CarconeAssists: Robert Bortuzzo · Backhand, 0.01 xG1–0
- P2 7:20PHIJoel FarabeeAssists: Nick Seeler, Travis Konecny · Wrist, 0.12 xG1–1
- P2 9:42UTAJuuso VälimäkiAssists: Mikhail Sergachev, Jack McBain · Tip-in, 0.09 xG2–1
- P2 13:34PHIOwen TippettAssists: Nick Seeler, Matvei Michkov · Snap, 0.05 xG2–2
- P2 15:30UTALogan CooleyPPGWGAssists: Dylan Guenther, Clayton Keller · Backhand, 0.22 xG3–2
- P3 15:43UTAKevin StenlundSHUnassisted · Wrist, 0.15 xG4–2
Penalties (8)
- P1 2:13UTARobert Bortuzzo: Interference2 min
- P1 11:30PHITravis Sanheim: Holding2 min
- P1 15:43PHISean Couturier: Hooking2 min
- P2 14:21PHITyson Foerster: Delaying game puck over glass2 min · PPG
- P3 14:01UTAIan Cole: High sticking2 min
- P3 19:43UTABarrett Hayton: Roughing2 min
- P3 19:43PHIMatvei Michkov: Roughing2 min
- P3 19:43PHIMatvei Michkov: Misconduct10 min
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Cates won the faceoff against Bjugstad
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestSchmaltz – Keller – Hayton13:27
xG 0.83–0.51 (62%)attempts 17–13goals 0–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone5:40
xG 0.02–0.04 (36%)attempts 2–3goals 1–0
- McBain – Guenther – Cooley9:24
xG 0.27–0.40 (40%)attempts 6–9goals 1–0
- Bjugstad – Crouse – Maccelli9:06
xG 0.04–0.77 (5%)attempts 9–12goals 0–2
Defence pairs
- bestMaatta – Kesselring2:21
xG 0.10–0.03 (77%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Bortuzzo – Välimäki8:15
xG 0.27–0.26 (52%)attempts 4–10goals 1–0
- Cole – Kesselring12:42
xG 0.45–0.49 (48%)attempts 13–10goals 0–1
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestTippett – Frost – Michkov11:06
xG 0.71–0.10 (88%)attempts 15–5goals 1–0
- Cates – Brink – Foerster6:05
xG 0.61–0.12 (84%)attempts 10–3goals 0–1
- Cates – Farabee – Brink2:02
xG 0.00–0.08 (0%)attempts 2–1goals 0–0
- Laughton – Hathaway – Poehling6:23
xG 0.13–0.22 (36%)attempts 4–8goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestSeeler – Drysdale10:01
xG 0.60–0.15 (80%)attempts 11–6goals 2–0
- Ristolainen – Andrae11:20
xG 0.59–0.37 (62%)attempts 15–10goals 0–1
- Sanheim – Drysdale3:30
xG 0.03–0.12 (22%)attempts 1–5goals 0–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
PHI's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line PHI is favoured, below it UTA. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).