UTA
3–1
CGY
Final · W
Utah Mammoth
UTA · 2-2-0
3–1
FinalW
Calgary Flames
CGY · 1-4-0
1ST2ND3RDT
UTA
01021814332
CGY
1503012120
goals · shots on goal
First meeting this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 1–0
UTA 2-2-0 · CGY 1-4-0 · First meeting this season — the Mammoth lead the season series 1–0
Mammoth beat the Flames
Chances were even (3.7 to 3.3 expected goals); the Mammoth won 3–1. Karel Vejmelka stopped 2.3 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: 3.7 expected goals to 3.3, on 32 and 20 shots on goal.
UTA 3.7 xG · 32 shots
CGY 3.3 xG · 20 shots
0
1
2
3
4
1st
0.8 · 1.2
2nd · the swing
2.6 · 0.4
3rd
0.3 · 1.7
Tap a numbered goal to see how it happened.
1
Rasmus Andersson · 1st 08:37 · 0–1 · slap shot on a rebound, a great chance (34%)
2
Barrett Hayton · 2nd 01:16 · 1–1 · snap shot, a good chance (15%)
3
JJ Peterka · 2nd 04:24 · 2–1 · snap shot, a great chance (49%)
4
Kevin Stenlund · 3rd 19:37 · 3–1 · snap shot, into an empty net
Deserve to winReplay this game 100 times with average goalies and the Mammoth win 55.
UTA 55%CGY 45%
Goals and penalties
4 goals · 0 penalties← Mammoth shoot this way
Flames shoot this way →
On net
Missed
Bigger = better chance
1Goal, numbered to the list
1
Rasmus Andersson · 1st 08:37 · PP · 0–1
Slap shot on a rebound, a great chance (34%)
2
Barrett Hayton · 2nd 01:16 · 1–1
Snap shot, a good chance (15%)
3
JJ Peterka · 2nd 04:24 · GWG · 2–1
Snap shot, a great chance (49%)
4
Kevin Stenlund · 3rd 19:37 · EN · 3–1
Snap shot, into an empty net
1st period
2nd period
3rd period
No penalties
Goaltending
19/20 saves · 1 GA · 3.3 xGA
Stopped 2.3 more goals than an average goalie would have.
29/31 saves · 2 GA · 3.7 xGA
Stopped 1.7 more goals than an average goalie would have.
