Utah Mammoth vs Philadelphia Flyers — November 1, 2026 Game Stats

Game Recap

A wild one ended 6-3 in favor of the Philadelphia Flyers over the Utah Mammoth on Sunday. Dig into the 5-on-5 data, and UTA had the better of it (1.87 xG to 1.53). Sometimes the bounces just don't go your way. UTA had a big edge in high-danger chances, 7-3 over PHI at 5-on-5. Shots on goal: PHI 21, UTA 22.

← Back to Games

xG Gameflow — cumulative expected goals chart tracking each team's xG as Utah Mammoth vs Philadelphia Flyers progressed on Nov 1, 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

UTA3 - 6PHI

Nov 1, 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	%
PHI	P1	17	24	41.5	11	16	40.7	7	9	43.8	8	17	32.0	1	6	14.3	0.52	1.13	31.5	1	1	50.0
	P2	20	14	58.8	14	8	63.6	9	5	64.3	14	9	60.9	0	1	0.0	0.93	0.54	63.2	2	0	100.0
	P3	10	17	37.0	7	14	33.3	5	8	38.5	8	11	42.1	3	2	60.0	0.59	1.06	35.7	3	2	60.0
	Total	47	55	46.1	32	38	45.7	21	22	48.8	30	37	44.8	4	9	30.8	2.03	2.72	42.7	6	3	66.7
UTA	P1	24	17	58.5	16	11	59.3	9	7	56.3	17	8	68.0	6	1	85.7	1.13	0.52	68.5	1	1	50.0
	P2	14	20	41.2	8	14	36.4	5	9	35.7	9	14	39.1	1	0	100.0	0.54	0.93	36.8	0	2	0.0
	P3	17	10	63.0	14	7	66.7	8	5	61.5	11	8	57.9	2	3	40.0	1.06	0.59	64.3	2	3	40.0
	Total	55	47	53.9	38	32	54.3	22	21	51.2	37	30	55.2	9	4	69.2	2.72	2.03	57.3	3	6	33.3

Win Probability

PHI Favored

UTA Favored

Goal

Power Play

Gameflow — Cumulative xG

PHI

UTA

Goal

Shot Density Heatmap

UTA Attempts

PHI Attempts

Individual Event Map

Player:

UTA ShootPHI Shoot

Missed Shot

Hit Taken

Player Matchup Grid

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

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

PHI ↓ / UTA →	Schmaltz	Cooley	Trocheck	Stenlund	Hayton	McBain	O'Brien	Crouse	Lee	Carcone	Guenther	Keller	Sergachev	Weegar	Peeke	Schmidt	Simashev	Duda
Zegras	60	67	75	75	100	100	100	70	100	100	53	53	63	69	80	90	58	54
Dvorak	44	57	57	100	50	100	100	75	50	50	44	44	46	62	83	100	43	38
Barkey	100	50	42	33	33	63	50	33	33	50	20	0	22	22	58	58	57	57
Acciari	43	15	25	33	100	0	0	25	100	100	43	40	17	75	29	33	75	63
Couturier	50	18	43	75	100	50	50	33	100	100	50	50	33	80	43	57	75	88
Cates	56	0	0	67	20	63	70	0	38	33	56	50	44	60	50	70	40	40
Konecny	56	75	88	86	100	100	100	80	100	100	56	56	64	75	71	89	63	63
Michkov	67	—	100	73	25	75	70	—	43	40	56	50	50	67	67	85	40	40
Martone	64	—	100	77	33	77	70	—	38	33	50	43	40	64	69	86	40	40
Tippett	67	40	25	80	36	50	67	38	36	57	38	67	29	33	56	60	43	63
Foerster	50	0	0	60	36	25	50	29	36	57	20	33	13	25	44	55	33	67
Knuble	78	33	29	50	100	0	0	29	100	100	78	78	50	75	33	40	75	75
York	53	15	25	67	17	40	60	22	38	75	44	53	25	45	63	50	71	70
Sanheim	31	40	62	100	40	100	100	64	40	40	32	31	33	60	40	57	50	46
Drysdale	48	64	64	100	33	100	100	67	20	20	41	40	53	60	57	71	47	43
Bonk	100	33	33	75	40	25	50	36	45	71	73	100	38	54	56	64	75	73
Seeler	67	33	20	64	43	64	73	25	44	43	67	50	38	44	54	71	67	80
Benoit	57	0	0	62	40	60	70	0	43	40	57	43	40	50	55	67	50	60