Philadelphia Flyers at Utah Mammoth, NHL forecast
Win probability
Starts from the pregame forecast, then moves with every score and the time left. Above the line favors UTA; hover for each play.
Game center
From the ESPN box score.
Top performers
Flyers- Christian DvorakGoals2
- Trevor ZegrasAssists2
- Christian DvorakPoints3
Mammoth- Clayton KellerGoals2
- Nick SchmaltzAssists2
- Clayton KellerPoints3
Scoring summary
- OT2:01Clayton Keller Goal (15) Snap Shot, assists: Dylan Guenther (19)4–5
- P319:25Clayton Keller Goal (14) Backhand, assists: none4–4
- P312:47Dylan Guenther Goal (24) Tip-In, assists: Nick Schmaltz (28), Mikhail Sergachev (26)4–3
- P210:28Christian Dvorak Goal (12) Wrist Shot, assists: Trevor Zegras (27), Jamie Drysdale (17)4–2
- P26:11Lawson Crouse Goal (13) Slap Shot, assists: Nick Schmaltz (27), Clayton Keller (34)3–2
- P25:35JJ Peterka Goal (17) Wrist Shot, assists: Daniil But (4)3–1
- P20:58Bobby Brink Goal (12) Wrist Shot, assists: Trevor Zegras (26), Jamie Drysdale (16)3–0
- P14:36Christian Dvorak Goal (11) Wrist Shot, assists: Travis Konecny (27), Noah Juulsen (7)2–0
- P10:30Cam York Goal (4) Snap Shot, assists: Christian Dvorak (20), Travis Sanheim (16)1–0
Turning points
The 5 plays that swung the win chance most, each judged at its own moment: the chance with the score just before it against just after.
- P26:11Lawson Crouse Goal (13) Slap Shot, assists: Nick Schmaltz (27), Clayton Keller (34)PHI 3 – 2 UTA · UTA 23% → 40% +17UTA 23% → 40%+17 pts
- P210:28Christian Dvorak Goal (12) Wrist Shot, assists: Trevor Zegras (27), Jamie Drysdale (17)PHI 4 – 2 UTA · PHI 62% → 80% +17PHI 62% → 80%+17 pts
- P312:47Dylan Guenther Goal (24) Tip-In, assists: Nick Schmaltz (28), Mikhail Sergachev (26)PHI 4 – 3 UTA · UTA 2% → 17% +15UTA 2% → 17%+15 pts
- P319:25Clayton Keller Goal (14) Backhand, assists: nonePHI 4 – 4 UTA · UTA <1% → 51% +51UTA <1% → 51%+51 pts
- OT2:01Clayton Keller Goal (15) Snap Shot, assists: Dylan Guenther (19)PHI 4 – 5 UTA · UTA 53% → 96% +43UTA 53% → 96%+43 pts
The pick
Reconstructed from what was known before the game: the ratings at that point and the closing line.
Mammoth 62%
Forecast Elo ratings alone
How often that comes true: NHL favorites the forecast gave 60–65% have won 62.4% of 599 graded games.
- Market
- UTA 62%
- ML PHI +150 / UTA -180
- Pre-line forecast
- UTA 62%
- Elo + market-implied
- Elo ratings
- UTA 64%
- Ratings vs. market
- +2.1 pts
- UTA: Elo 63.7%, market 61.6%
- Fair odds
- UTA -161
- PHI +161 · the forecast as odds, no margin
- Pregame projection
- PHI 2.4 – 3.1 UTA
- Margin from the forecast, posted total 5.5
How the number is built
Elo inputs in rating points (higher favors that team; 25–28 Elo is about a point of spread in football and basketball), then how the pieces combine.
| Factor | PHI | UTA | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team rating | 1466 | 1511 | Elo entering the game; 1500 is league average |
| Home field | — | +35 | Worth 35 Elo in the NHL |
| Starting goalies | −10 | +9 | PHI: Samuel Ersson: team allows 0.24 more goals than with its usual starter (≈45 weighted starts) · UTA: Karel Vejmelka: team allows 0.22 fewer goals than with its usual starter (≈42 weighted starts) |
| Elo ratings | UTA +98 Elo | UTA 63.7% | |
| Market-implied ratings | UTA 61.4% | Team strength as past closing lines priced it, same game context | |
| Pre-line forecast | UTA 61.9% | 20% Elo, 80% market-implied (log-odds blend) | |
| Forecast | UTA 61.6% | Follows the market (vig removed): in testing, adding the ratings made it less accurate | |
Tale of the tape
This season coming into the game, regular season, each number with its league rank (the longer the bar, the higher). Home and road: the host's record at home against the visitor's on the road. Overtime and shootout losses count as losses in these records. Opponent Elo: how strong the teams each has played are, 1st the toughest. Shot share is a team's share of the shots on goal in its games. PDO adds shooting and save percentages: far from 100 tends to even out.
| PHI | Stat | UTA |
|---|---|---|
| 22nd of 323.0 | Goals scored | 3.116th of 32 |
| 20th of 323.1 | Goals allowed | 2.83rd of 32 |
| 19th of 32−0.1 | Margin | +0.45th of 32 |
| 14th of 3250.5% | Shot share | 52.8%5th of 32 |
| 28th of 3288.5% | Save percentage | 89.6%19th of 32 |
| 28th of 323–7 | Last 10 | 7–33rd of 32 |
| 17th of 3211–12 | Road vs home | 14–97th of 32 |
| 6th of 321504 | Opponent Elo | 149821st of 32 |
| 28th of 321466 | Elo rating | 151113th of 32 |
Rating history
Each team's Elo over the last two seasons. Hover or drag to compare on any date.
Recent form
Last five results, and whether the forecast hit.
Against the line
How each team has done against the closing spread and total, coming into this game.
| This season |  PHI |  UTA |
|---|---|---|
| Puck line | 29–19 | 22–27 |
| Last 10 | 3–7 | 5–5 |
| Favorite | 7–9 | 11–21 |
| Underdog | 22–10 | 11–6 |
| Overs–unders | 28–20 | 24–25 |
| Overs–unders, last 10 | 8–2 | 5–5 |
Against each game's closing line. Books set every line knowing these records: across 3,901 past games, the team with the better record against the spread so far that season covered 51.2%, short of the 52.4% a standard −110 bet needs, and over/under streaks held 48.0% of the time. They describe the past.
Head to head
PHI 0–2 UTA in their last 2 meetings; the forecast called 1 of 2.
