Game Recap
The Tampa Bay Lightning blanked the Utah Mammoth 2-0 on January 26, 2026. The underlying numbers told a different story — UTA actually held the xG edge (9.69 to 6.42) at 5-on-5, but it didn't matter on the scoreboard. High-danger chances favored UTA by a wide margin: 14 to 6. Michael Carcone generated the most offense at even strength with 2.27 ixG on 4 shots. Shots on goal: TBL 29, UTA 28.
← Back to Games

- xG Gameflow — cumulative expected goals chart tracking each team's xG as Utah Mammoth vs Tampa Bay Lightning progressed on Jan 26, 2026
- Shot heatmap — where shots were taken on the ice, color-coded by scoring probability
- Event timeline — every goal, penalty, and key play mapped chronologically
- Player matchup grid — head-to-head on-ice performance in Corsi and expected goals
- Strength filter — 5v5 by default, with options for power play, penalty kill, and all situations
UTA0 - 2TBL
Jan 26, 2026 · Regular Season
Overview
| Period | Corsi | Fenwick | Shots | SC | HDSC | xG | Goals | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | F | A | % | ||
| TBL | P1 | 17 | 27 | 38.6 | 14 | 19 | 42.4 | 11 | 12 | 47.8 | 11 | 20 | 35.5 | 3 | 6 | 33.3 | 2.61 | 5.29 | 33.0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| P2 | 13 | 23 | 36.1 | 12 | 14 | 46.2 | 6 | 8 | 42.9 | 11 | 17 | 39.3 | 1 | 9 | 10.0 | 2.65 | 4.91 | 35.0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0 | |
| P3 | 23 | 15 | 60.5 | 18 | 11 | 62.1 | 12 | 8 | 60.0 | 17 | 9 | 65.4 | 7 | 3 | 70.0 | 4.93 | 2.18 | 69.3 | 1 | 0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 53 | 65 | 44.9 | 44 | 44 | 50.0 | 29 | 28 | 50.9 | 39 | 46 | 45.9 | 11 | 18 | 37.9 | 10.18 | 12.38 | 45.1 | 2 | 0 | 100.0 | |
| UTA | P1 | 27 | 17 | 61.4 | 19 | 14 | 57.6 | 12 | 11 | 52.2 | 20 | 11 | 64.5 | 6 | 3 | 66.7 | 5.29 | 2.61 | 67.0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| P2 | 23 | 13 | 63.9 | 14 | 12 | 53.8 | 8 | 6 | 57.1 | 17 | 11 | 60.7 | 9 | 1 | 90.0 | 4.91 | 2.65 | 65.0 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | |
| P3 | 15 | 23 | 39.5 | 11 | 18 | 37.9 | 8 | 12 | 40.0 | 9 | 17 | 34.6 | 3 | 7 | 30.0 | 2.18 | 4.93 | 30.7 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 | |
| Total | 65 | 53 | 55.1 | 44 | 44 | 50.0 | 28 | 29 | 49.1 | 46 | 39 | 54.1 | 18 | 11 | 62.1 | 12.38 | 10.18 | 54.9 | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | |
Win Probability
TBL Favored
UTA Favored
Goal
Power Play
Gameflow — Cumulative xG
TBL
UTA
Goal
Shot Density Heatmap
UTA Attempts
TBL Attempts
Individual Event Map
UTA ShootTBL Shoot
Save
Missed Shot Against
Player Matchup Grid
This grid shows how every skater on the home team (TBL) performed against every skater on the away team (UTA) when they were on the ice at the same time.
- Rows = TBL players, Columns = UTA players. Forwards are listed first, then defensemen.
- Green = the TBL player had a favorable matchup (above 50%). Red = unfavorable (below 50%).
- Values shown from the home team's perspective. Toggle between CF% (shot attempt share) and xGF% (expected goal share).
- Cells with fewer than 3 shared events are grayed out (insufficient sample). Hover over any cell for full details.
| TBL ↓ / UTA → | Schmaltz | McBain | Hayton | Stenlund | Carcone | Crouse | But | Tanev | Guenther | Keller | Peterka | Yamamoto | Sergachev | Schmidt | Durzi | Marino | Cole | DeSimone |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cirelli | 33 | 63 | 21 | 82 | 50 | 70 | 33 | 0 | 37 | 33 | 36 | 0 | 33 | 65 | 60 | 50 | 67 | 50 |
| Guentzel | 69 | 67 | 17 | 92 | 29 | 100 | 17 | 50 | 47 | 50 | 18 | 100 | 47 | 90 | 38 | 92 | 40 | 44 |
| Gourde | 52 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 33 | 50 | 0 | 100 | 44 | 52 | 25 | 67 | 50 | 67 | 40 | 75 | 67 | 100 |
| Girgensons | 54 | 100 | 50 | 100 | 29 | 45 | 0 | — | 50 | 50 | 17 | 0 | 44 | 67 | 31 | 83 | 67 | 100 |
| James | 0 | 40 | 21 | 100 | 33 | 100 | 15 | 50 | 43 | 0 | 21 | 100 | 14 | 100 | 0 | 67 | 47 | 25 |
| Goncalves | 0 | 33 | 17 | 100 | 29 | 100 | 17 | 50 | 29 | 50 | 17 | 100 | 17 | 86 | 0 | 60 | 44 | 25 |
| Finley | — | 0 | — | 33 | 0 | — | — | 43 | 0 | — | — | 43 | — | 43 | — | 38 | 0 | 0 |
| Hagel | 86 | 70 | 36 | 78 | 46 | 43 | 27 | 0 | 63 | 67 | 36 | 0 | 62 | 63 | 50 | 72 | 53 | 50 |
| Paul | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 100 | — | 50 | 0 | 0 | — | 50 | 20 | 56 | 100 | 38 | 29 | 0 |
| Kucherov | 100 | 70 | 36 | 78 | 60 | 100 | 29 | 0 | 65 | 100 | 40 | 0 | 60 | 67 | 58 | 72 | 62 | 67 |
| Bjorkstrand | 90 | 40 | 100 | 50 | 0 | 100 | — | 50 | 54 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 89 | 64 | 100 | 67 | 38 | 0 |
| Holmberg | 54 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 67 | 56 | — | — | 57 | 52 | 100 | 0 | 54 | 67 | 45 | 71 | 40 | 50 |
| Raddysh | 66 | 53 | 38 | 77 | 0 | 62 | 40 | 67 | 45 | 57 | 60 | 75 | 60 | 82 | 46 | 87 | 33 | 42 |
| Moser | 38 | 17 | 24 | 80 | 0 | 69 | 50 | 67 | 18 | 41 | 67 | 75 | 36 | 75 | 41 | 56 | 46 | 29 |
| Cernak | 27 | 57 | 0 | 33 | 42 | 43 | 0 | 20 | 25 | 13 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 60 | 13 | 50 | 17 | 20 |
| Carlile | 25 | 46 | 60 | 50 | 33 | 13 | 30 | 50 | 43 | 25 | 30 | 50 | 25 | 44 | 36 | 50 | 50 | 29 |
| Crozier | 43 | 42 | 29 | 67 | 38 | 25 | 31 | 67 | 41 | 43 | 33 | 67 | 36 | 42 | 45 | 50 | 43 | 25 |
| Groshev | 67 | 50 | 7 | 0 | 67 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 50 | — | 7 | 0 | 14 | 75 | 0 | 60 | 18 | 8 |
