UticaComets
Adirondack Bank Center, Utica, NY
- 30-31-11
- Record
- 71
- Points
- 199
- Goals for
- 220
- Against
- -21
- Differential
The story
UTC were a suppression team: 7th of 32 in chances allowed, but only 22nd of 32 in chances created.
They finished 11 goals above what the chances were worth (26th of 32 in shooting), and conceded 35 more than the chances against were worth (27th of 32 in save percentage).
Where UTC ranks
Each bar is a percentile against all 32 clubs, with the league median on the tick. Metrics where less is better are flipped, so longer is always better.
Shots for and against
Special teams
| Goals | Chances | Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power play | 42 | 244 | 17.2% |
| Penalty kill | 40 | 230 | 82.6% |
Special-teams index 99.8 — power play plus penalty kill, the one number that says whether a club wins the nights the referee decides.
How the game unfolds
- Goals
- 53–64
- xG share
- 47.5%
- Goals
- 76–76
- xG share
- 52.5%
- Goals
- 66–69
- xG share
- 51.7%
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goals for | 53 | 76 | 66 |
| Goals against | 64 | 76 | 69 |
| xG for | 55.7 | 70.1 | 59.4 |
| xG against | 61.6 | 63.5 | 55.5 |
| Shots for | 623 | 710 | 614 |
| Shots against | 637 | 645 | 580 |
Share of goals is this club’s goals as a percentage of every goal scored in that period, so 50% is even. xG share is the same sum over chance quality, which says whether the result matched the play. Regulation only — overtime is three skaters a side and a different game.
How the goals came
| Goals | For | Share | Against | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Off the rush | 79 | 39.7% | 78 | 35.5% |
| Off the cycle | 98 | 49.2% | 104 | 47.3% |
| In a scramble | 19 | 9.5% | 33 | 15.0% |
| Attempts | For | Sh% | Against | Sv% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Off the rush | 498 | 15.9% | 475 | 83.6% |
| Off the cycle | 1363 | 7.2% | 1304 | 92.0% |
| In a scramble | 114 | 16.7% | 120 | 72.5% |
A rush is the first shot of a possession, taken inside 40 ft up the middle; the cycle is a shot after sustained pressure, or a first shot from distance or the wall; a scramble is a second attempt inside four seconds. League-wide they convert at about 17%, 8% and 23%. Shares are of goals scored in play — shootout winners are not shots.
Volume
| For | Against | |
|---|---|---|
| Shots | 1975 | 1899 |
| Expected goals | 187.8 | 184.5 |
| Scoring chances | 688 | — |
| High-danger chances | 276 | — |
With a lead, level, and from behind
| Score state | Share of play | GF–GA | GF% | GF% ex. EN | xGF% | SF% | Sh%ex. EN | Sv%ex. EN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leading | 29%1,249 min | 71–56 | 55.9%lg 52.6% | 51.3%lg 47.9% | 51.6%lg 48.2% | 49.5%lg 46.3% | 11.3%lg 10.4% | 89.7%lg 90.4% |
| Tied | 33%1,440 min | 55–67 | 45.1%lg 50.0% | 45.1%lg 50.0% | 47.1%lg 50.0% | 48.7%lg 50.0% | 9.0%lg 9.6% | 89.5%lg 90.4% |
| Trailing | 38%1,632 min | 69–86 | 44.5%lg 47.5% | 49.3%lg 52.1% | 52.8%lg 51.9% | 54.2%lg 53.6% | 8.6%lg 9.6% | 89.3%lg 89.6% |
Regulation only — overtime is three-on-three and always starts level, so pooling it here would contaminate every rate. The small figure under each percentage is the league in the same score state; UTC being above it is the claim, not the percentage itself. GF% ex. EN drops empty-net goals from both sides, and across the league it reverses the headline: clubs are outscored at even play while protecting a lead, and outscore while chasing. The empty net is what settles it.
2025-26 skaters · 28
| Player | GP | G | A | P | SOG | ixG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier ParentF | 63 | 20 | 19 | 39 | 147 | 17.88 |
| Angus CrookshankLW | 60 | 24 | 12 | 36 | 160 | 20.26 |
| Kyle CriscuoloC | 62 | 14 | 21 | 35 | 114 | 13.80 |
| Brian HalonenF | 51 | 20 | 14 | 34 | 141 | 14.74 |
| Calen AddisonD | 65 | 6 | 25 | 31 | 106 | 5.62 |
| Ryan SchmelzerC | 66 | 4 | 23 | 27 | 89 | 11.02 |
| Topias VilenD | 61 | 4 | 23 | 27 | 62 | 2.63 |
| Jonathan GrudenC | 67 | 12 | 14 | 26 | 80 | 8.24 |
| Lenni HämeenahoF | 37 | 10 | 16 | 26 | 77 | 7.56 |
| Matyas MelovskyF | 55 | 10 | 16 | 26 | 65 | 6.95 |
| Shane LachanceF | 62 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 99 | 12.64 |
| Ethan EdwardsD | 69 | 10 | 13 | 23 | 92 | 5.02 |
| Mike HardmanLW | 58 | 10 | 11 | 21 | 117 | 13.93 |
| Thomas BordeleauF | 60 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 85 | 10.81 |
| Nathan LégaréRW | 65 | 13 | 7 | 20 | 119 | 11.98 |
| Seamus CaseyD | 29 | 1 | 18 | 19 | 49 | 4.21 |
| Austin StrandD | 49 | 4 | 12 | 16 | 68 | 2.89 |
| Cam SquiresF | 47 | 5 | 11 | 16 | 54 | 5.33 |
| Marc McLaughlinF | 23 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 27 | 2.94 |
| Jack MaloneF | 45 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 39 | 3.48 |
| Mikaël DiotteD | 53 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 55 | 1.96 |
| Colton WhiteD | 30 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 37 | 1.68 |
| Dmitry OsipovD | 49 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 62 | 2.33 |
| Josh FilmonF | 31 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 20 | 2.25 |
| Dennis CholowskiD | 13 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 24 | 1.14 |
| Jackson van de LeestD | 18 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 20 | 0.57 |
| Dylan WendtF | 19 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0.84 |
| Tag BertuzziF | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0.58 |
2025-26 goaltending
| Goalie | GP | W | SV% | GAA | GSAx |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nico Daws | 44 | 17 | 89.2% | 2.78 | -11.9 |
| Jakub Málek | 31 | 13 | 89.5% | 2.75 | -3.9 |
| Jeremy Brodeur | 1 | 0 | 91.4% | 3.08 | 0.2 |
Last 10 games
| Date | Opp | Result | Goals | xG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-18 | @ PRO | W | 4–2 | 2.6–2.2 |
| 2026-04-17 | vs PRO | W | 4–1 | 3.4–1.1 |
| 2026-04-15 | @ BEL | W | 3–0 | 2.1–2.1 |
| 2026-04-11 | @ SYR | L | 1–5 | 3.0–3.9 |
| 2026-04-10 | vs TOR | W | 6–3 | 2.5–1.9 |
| 2026-04-08 | @ TOR | OTL | 3–4 | 1.7–2.5 |
| 2026-04-04 | vs BEL | W | 4–0 | 1.8–1.3 |
| 2026-04-01 | vs PRO | OTL | 2–3 | 2.6–2.5 |
| 2026-03-29 | @ CLE | W | 4–1 | 3.0–2.4 |
| 2026-03-28 | @ CLE | W | 5–3 | 2.9–3.0 |