Thu, Mar 5, 2026·Xfinity Mobile Arena, Philadelphia
Utah Mammoth 3, Philadelphia Flyers 0
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Utah Mammoth win this game 83% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | 04 | 214 | 15 | 323 |
| PHI | 04 | 07 | 05 | 016 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P2 1:38UTANick SchmaltzPPGWGAssists: Dylan Guenther, Sean Durzi · Snap, 0.08 xG1–0
- P2 8:03UTAClayton KellerAssists: Dylan Guenther, Nick Schmaltz · Backhand, 0.11 xG2–0
- P3 18:12UTAMichael CarconeENAssists: Kevin Stenlund, John Marino · Wrist, 0.80 xG3–0
Penalties (5)
- P1 14:33UTAJohn Marino: Slashing2 min
- P2 1:30PHINoah Cates: Holding the stick2 min · PPG
- P3 4:02UTASean Durzi: Holding2 min
- P3 6:38UTAClayton Keller: High sticking2 min
- P3 7:25PHITrevor Zegras: Hooking2 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 20:00Schmaltz won the faceoff against Dvorak
- 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 Mammoth
Forward lines
- bestYamamoto – Hayton – McBain9:43
xG 0.44–0.11 (80%)attempts 15–4goals 0–0
- Schmaltz – Keller – Guenther12:27
xG 0.48–0.16 (74%)attempts 12–8goals 1–0
- Kerfoot – Stenlund – Carcone8:33
xG 0.26–0.22 (54%)attempts 6–8goals 0–0
- Crouse – Peterka – Cooley10:52
xG 0.33–0.36 (47%)attempts 9–10goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestCole – Durzi14:12
xG 0.65–0.18 (78%)attempts 17–7goals 0–0
- Schmidt – Marino15:21
xG 0.50–0.41 (55%)attempts 14–12goals 1–0
- DeSimone – Simashev11:18
xG 0.33–0.38 (46%)attempts 11–10goals 0–0
Philadelphia Flyers
Forward lines
- bestCouturier – Hathaway – Grundstrom2:30
xG 0.18–0.00 (100%)attempts 4–0goals 0–0
- Dvorak – Tippett – Zegras10:50
xG 0.32–0.15 (67%)attempts 11–8goals 0–0
- Tippett – Cates – Zegras2:08
xG 0.20–0.04 (83%)attempts 2–3goals 0–0
- Couturier – Grebenkin – Barkey6:09
xG 0.26–0.28 (48%)attempts 8–9goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- York – Drysdale15:41
xG 0.35–0.30 (54%)attempts 12–12goals 0–0
- Ristolainen – Sanheim17:40
xG 0.23–0.59 (28%)attempts 14–15goals 0–1
- Juulsen – Andrae10:11
xG 0.25–0.62 (29%)attempts 6–13goals 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 Mammoth win this game 83% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (PHI − UTA), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).