Utah Mammoth vs Los Angeles Kings — March 28, 2026 Game Stats

Game Recap

A lopsided 6-2 result saw the Utah Mammoth blow by the Los Angeles Kings on Saturday. Kerfoot put up 2 goals. Cooley put up 2 goals. LAK won't like the result, but they can take something from the 5-on-5 numbers: 3.21 expected goals to UTA's 2.81. Shots on goal: LAK 31, UTA 28.

← Back to Games

xG Gameflow — cumulative expected goals chart tracking each team's xG as Utah Mammoth vs Los Angeles Kings progressed on Mar 28, 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

UTA6 - 2LAK

Mar 28, 2026 · Regular Season

Strength:

Overview

	Period	Corsi			Fenwick			Shots			SC			HDSC			xG			Goals
		F	A	%	F	A	%	F	A	%	F	A	%	F	A	%	F	A	%	F	A	%
LAK	P1	15	30	33.3	13	18	41.9	9	12	42.9	5	21	19.2	2	6	25.0	0.76	1.74	30.3	1	3	25.0
	P2	21	19	52.5	16	9	64.0	8	4	66.7	14	14	50.0	3	3	50.0	1.23	0.81	60.4	0	2	0.0
	P3	24	16	60.0	18	13	58.1	14	12	53.8	16	11	59.3	7	3	70.0	1.43	1.13	55.9	1	1	50.0
	Total	60	65	48.0	47	40	54.0	31	28	52.5	35	46	43.2	12	12	50.0	3.42	3.68	48.2	2	6	25.0
UTA	P1	30	15	66.7	18	13	58.1	12	9	57.1	21	5	80.8	6	2	75.0	1.74	0.76	69.7	3	1	75.0
	P2	19	21	47.5	9	16	36.0	4	8	33.3	14	14	50.0	3	3	50.0	0.81	1.23	39.6	2	0	100.0
	P3	16	24	40.0	13	18	41.9	12	14	46.2	11	16	40.7	3	7	30.0	1.13	1.43	44.1	1	1	50.0
	Total	65	60	52.0	40	47	46.0	28	31	47.5	46	35	56.8	12	12	50.0	3.68	3.42	51.8	6	2	75.0

Win Probability

LAK Favored

UTA Favored

Goal

Power Play

Gameflow — Cumulative xG

LAK

UTA

Goal

Shot Density Heatmap

UTA Attempts

LAK Attempts

Individual Event Map

Player:

UTA ShootLAK Shoot

Goal

Missed Shot

Attempt Blocked

Hit

Hit Taken

Giveaway

Player Matchup Grid

This grid shows how every skater on the home team (LAK) performed against every skater on the away team (UTA) when they were on the ice at the same time.

Rows = LAK players, Columns = UTA players. Forwards are listed first, then defensemen.
Green = the LAK 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.

Stat:

LAK ↓ / UTA →	Schmaltz	Cooley	McBain	Stenlund	Kerfoot	Crouse	Carcone	Tanev	Keller	Guenther	Peterka	Yamamoto	Sergachev	Weegar	Schmidt	Marino	Durzi	Cole
Kopitar	67	45	33	80	60	100	40	67	50	45	33	44	50	57	60	56	33	43
Laughton	83	17	14	57	71	100	14	67	71	14	14	0	25	38	57	50	54	50
Helenius	0	50	0	17	14	0	0	25	25	50	0	100	11	0	0	0	60	50
Moore	41	20	33	67	50	44	36	33	33	17	30	40	57	54	46	38	13	14
Panarin	80	42	33	55	50	80	33	60	50	42	22	38	50	55	58	50	33	45
Malott	0	50	14	20	20	0	14	20	0	50	14	100	0	0	0	0	50	50
Laferriere	40	0	57	67	50	50	57	40	31	0	50	67	47	53	46	38	50	100
Byfield	42	0	33	75	60	50	36	33	33	0	30	25	53	57	50	42	0	14
Kempe	75	45	17	57	40	100	18	100	67	42	14	30	44	50	60	56	15	21
Armia	100	17	0	67	50	83	0	67	71	14	0	0	17	29	43	40	55	44
Joseph	100	29	0	100	67	83	0	100	75	25	0	0	33	33	43	40	67	50
Wright	0	50	17	25	25	0	17	25	0	50	17	100	0	0	0	0	60	60
Doughty	42	22	20	45	44	53	25	50	39	22	14	67	39	47	42	27	60	67
Clarke	64	33	44	86	50	64	44	50	45	33	44	17	45	44	56	50	50	43
Edmundson	58	33	44	83	33	64	44	50	45	33	44	29	30	38	56	53	57	50
Anderson	31	25	0	38	36	45	0	45	33	25	0	67	35	43	14	13	45	50
Ceci	0	43	16	50	67	100	17	75	67	33	12	33	25	27	40	50	31	21
Dumoulin	—	20	18	33	33	100	20	50	50	14	14	25	20	27	40	50	17	9