PHI
0–3
UTA
Final · L
Philadelphia Flyers
PHI · 28-22-11
0–3
FinalL
Utah Mammoth
UTA · 33-25-4
1ST2ND3RDT
PHI
040705016
UTA
0421415323
goals · shots on goal
Meeting 2 this season — the Flyers trail the season series 0–2
PHI 28-22-11 · UTA 33-25-4 · Meeting 2 this season — the Flyers trail the season series 0–2
Flyers fell to the Mammoth
Chances were even (2.3 to 2.3 expected goals); the Flyers lost 0–3. Vitek Vanecek stopped 1.9 more goals than an average goalie would have.
Who had the better chances
Expected goals (xG) score every shot by how often shots like it go in: distance, angle, type, rebound, rush. Adding them up shows who created the better chances, whatever the scoreboard says.
Chances were close: 2.3 expected goals to 2.3, on 16 and 23 shots on goal.
PHI 2.3 xG · 16 shots
UTA 2.3 xG · 23 shots
0
1
2
1st
0.3 · 0.3
2nd
1.4 · 1.4
3rd
0.6 · 0.5
Tap a numbered goal to see how it happened.
1
Nick Schmaltz · 2nd 01:38 · 0–1 · snap shot, a good chance (20%)
2
Clayton Keller · 2nd 08:03 · 0–2 · backhand shot, a good chance (19%)
3
Michael Carcone · 3rd 18:12 · 0–3 · wrist shot, into an empty net
Deserve to winReplay this game 100 times with average goalies and the Flyers win 52.
PHI 52%UTA 48%
Goals and penalties
3 goals · 0 penalties← Flyers shoot this way
Mammoth shoot this way →
On net
Missed
Bigger = better chance
1Goal, numbered to the list
1
Nick Schmaltz · 2nd 01:38 · PP · GWG · 0–1
Snap shot, a good chance (20%)
2
Clayton Keller · 2nd 08:03 · 0–2
Backhand shot, a good chance (19%)
3
Michael Carcone · 3rd 18:12 · EN · 0–3
Wrist shot, into an empty net
1st period
No goals or penalties.
2nd period
3rd period
No penalties
Goaltending
20/22 saves · 2 GA · 2.0 xGA
Gave up about what the shots he faced would predict.
16/16 saves · 0 GA · 1.9 xGA
Stopped 1.9 more goals than an average goalie would have.
