Tue, Feb 4, 2025·Delta Center, Salt Lake City
Philadelphia Flyers 2, Utah Hockey Club 3 (OT)
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Hockey Club win this game 88% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | OT | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHI | 110 | 14 | 05 | 01 | 220 |
| UTA | 012 | 113 | 112 | 15 | 342 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 2:02PHIRodrigo AbolsAssists: Travis Sanheim · Snap, 0.02 xG1–0
- P2 3:32UTAMikhail SergachevAssists: Dylan Guenther, Barrett Hayton · Slap, 0.01 xG1–1
- P2 4:29PHITyson FoersterAssists: Sean Couturier, Bobby Brink · Tip-in, 0.13 xG2–1
- P3 8:40UTADylan GuentherAssists: Barrett Hayton, Mikhail Sergachev · Snap, 0.11 xG2–2
- OT 4:59UTADylan GuentherGWGAssists: Mikhail Sergachev, Clayton Keller · Snap, 0.15 xG2–3
Penalties (6)
- P1 13:42UTALiam O'Brien: Fighting5 min
- P1 13:42PHINicolas Deslauriers: Fighting5 min
- P2 9:19PHIRodrigo Abols: Delaying game puck over glass2 min
- P2 12:26PHINick Seeler: Holding2 min
- P2 19:38PHISean Couturier: Tripping2 min
- P3 13:29UTALiam O'Brien: Tripping2 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 20:00Hayton won the faceoff against Cates
- 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.
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestLaughton – Hathaway – Richard9:31
xG 0.27–0.19 (59%)attempts 12–10goals 0–0
- Cates – Brink – Foerster11:02
xG 0.35–0.62 (36%)attempts 10–18goals 0–0
- Deslauriers – Abols – Gaucher5:11
xG 0.32–0.59 (35%)attempts 5–9goals 1–1
- Couturier – Konecny – Michkov10:32
xG 0.33–1.10 (23%)attempts 7–18goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- Sanheim – Drysdale2:07
xG 0.02–0.21 (7%)attempts 1–1goals 1–0
- Seeler – Drysdale17:15
xG 0.77–0.97 (44%)attempts 16–24goals 0–0
- Johnson – Andrae10:37
xG 0.30–0.54 (35%)attempts 11–10goals 0–1
Utah Hockey Club
Forward lines
- bestBjugstad – O'Brien – Stenlund8:23
xG 0.97–0.23 (81%)attempts 17–8goals 0–1
- Carcone – Hayton – Guenther10:28
xG 0.76–0.25 (75%)attempts 18–8goals 2–0
- Kerfoot – Schmaltz – Keller10:43
xG 0.53–0.20 (73%)attempts 14–9goals 0–0
- McBain – Maccelli – Doan7:38
xG 0.31–0.33 (49%)attempts 9–7goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestMaatta – DeSimone15:09
xG 1.14–0.39 (74%)attempts 26–10goals 0–1
- Marino – Sergachev16:42
xG 1.30–0.66 (67%)attempts 24–18goals 2–1
- Cole – Kesselring14:14
xG 0.25–0.43 (37%)attempts 13–12goals 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.
UTA's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line UTA is favoured, below it PHI. 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 88% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (UTA − PHI), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).