Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-12 04:31:30 EDT

Explore

PostsPeople
LatestRanked
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 11, 2026, 3:10 AM

Mammoth vs. Sabres 5-on-5 matchups (NHL · Oct 10, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020074
#UtahHockey #Sabres #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 4, Buffalo Sabres 1, Oct 10, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, BUF the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 4.58, BUF 2.73; shots on goal 30–24; attempts 75–62. The Mammoth beat the Sabres 4–1 on the road, and the chances agreed: UTA out-created BUF 4.6–2.7 in expected goals. The Sabres power play made 1.1 xG on 16 attempts.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 11, 2026, 3:10 AM

Mammoth vs. Sabres player stats (NHL · Oct 10, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.
Best on-ice xG: Mammoth, John Marino +2.26 · Sabres, Noah Ostlund +0.92

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020074
#UtahHockey #Sabres #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 4–1 BUF: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: John Marino +2.26 net xG (2.81 for, 0.55 against). Toughest: Jack McBain −0.57 (0.17 for, 0.75 against).Buffalo Sabres skaters, BUF 1–4 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Noah Ostlund +0.92 net xG (1.94 for, 1.02 against). Toughest: Owen Power −1.40 (0.94 for, 2.34 against).Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Trocheck – Guenther – Cooley 11 min together, +0.10 net xG; D1 Weegar – Sergachev 14 min together, −0.46 net xG.Buffalo Sabres lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Thompson – Norris – Quinn 10 min together, −0.26 net xG; D1 Samuelsson – Dahlin 10 min together, −0.63 net xG.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 11, 2026, 2:33 AM

Utah Mammoth 4, Buffalo Sabres 1
NHL · Oct 10, 2026
Expected goals (xG): Mammoth 4.58, Sabres 2.73

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020074
#UtahHockey #Sabres #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 4, Buffalo Sabres 1, Oct 10, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, BUF the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 4.58, BUF 2.73; shots on goal 30–24; attempts 75–62. The Mammoth beat the Sabres 4–1 on the road, and the chances agreed: UTA out-created BUF 4.6–2.7 in expected goals. The Sabres power play made 1.1 xG on 16 attempts.Net expected goals over the game: one line of cumulative UTA minus BUF xG, above zero when UTA is ahead on chances, below when BUF is, each goal a vertical line at its time and power-play time shaded in the side's colour. Final xG UTA 4.58, BUF 2.73; score 4–1.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 9, 2026, 3:08 AM

Mammoth vs. Bruins 5-on-5 matchups (NHL · Oct 8, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020056
#UtahHockey #NHLBruins #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 1, Boston Bruins 6, Oct 8, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, BOS the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 4.65, BOS 2.09; shots on goal 37–22; attempts 80–35. The Bruins beat the Mammoth 6–1 at home despite being out-created 4.6–2.1 in expected goals. That is a finishing-and-goaltending win. BOS scored 6 on 2.1 expected.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 9, 2026, 3:08 AM

Mammoth vs. Bruins player stats (NHL · Oct 8, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.
Best on-ice xG: Mammoth, Vincent Trocheck +1.67 · Bruins, Elias Lindholm −0.03

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020056
#UtahHockey #NHLBruins #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 1–6 BOS: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Vincent Trocheck +1.67 net xG (2.23 for, 0.56 against). Toughest: Kevin Stenlund −0.29 (0.41 for, 0.70 against).Boston Bruins skaters, BOS 6–1 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Elias Lindholm −0.02 net xG (0.80 for, 0.83 against). Toughest: Marat Khusnutdinov −1.47 (0.64 for, 2.11 against).Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Trocheck – Schmaltz – Keller 9 min together, +0.36 net xG; D1 Schmidt – Marino 13 min together, −0.11 net xG.Boston Bruins lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Pastrnak – Zacha – Geekie 11 min together, −0.30 net xG; D1 Clifton – Zadorov 18 min together, −0.98 net xG.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 9, 2026, 2:35 AM

Utah Mammoth 1, Boston Bruins 6
NHL · Oct 8, 2026
Expected goals (xG): Mammoth 5.19, Bruins 2.02

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020056
#UtahHockey #NHLBruins #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 1, Boston Bruins 6, Oct 8, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, BOS the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 5.19, BOS 2.02; shots on goal 37–22; attempts 80–34. The Bruins beat the Mammoth 6–1 at home despite being out-created 5.2–2.0 in expected goals. That is a finishing-and-goaltending win. BOS scored 6 on 2.0 expected.Net expected goals over the game: one line of cumulative UTA minus BOS xG, above zero when UTA is ahead on chances, below when BOS is, each goal a vertical line at its time and power-play time shaded in the side's colour. Final xG UTA 5.19, BOS 2.02; score 1–6.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 7, 2026, 3:16 AM

Mammoth vs. Devils 5-on-5 matchups (NHL · Oct 6, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020047
#UtahHockey #NJDevils #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 5, New Jersey Devils 3, Oct 6, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, NJD the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 4.27, NJD 2.84; shots on goal 31–33; attempts 61–66. The Mammoth beat the Devils 5–3 on the road, and the chances agreed: UTA out-created NJD 4.3–2.8 in expected goals. The Mammoth power play made 2.0 xG on 19 attempts.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 7, 2026, 3:16 AM

Mammoth vs. Devils player stats (NHL · Oct 6, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.
Best on-ice xG: Mammoth, Clayton Keller +2.10 · Devils, Luke Evangelista +0.76

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020047
#UtahHockey #NJDevils #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 5–3 NJD: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Clayton Keller +2.10 net xG (2.39 for, 0.29 against). Toughest: Jack McBain −0.93 (0.13 for, 1.06 against).New Jersey Devils skaters, NJD 3–5 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Luke Evangelista +0.76 net xG (1.13 for, 0.37 against). Toughest: Jonas Siegenthaler −1.34 (0.23 for, 1.57 against).Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Crouse – Hayton – McBain 8 min together, −0.54 net xG; D1 Schmidt – Marino 11 min together, −0.09 net xG.New Jersey Devils lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Meier – Hischier – Evangelista 12 min together, +0.48 net xG; D1 Pesce – Hughes 17 min together, −0.34 net xG.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 7, 2026, 2:45 AM

Utah Mammoth 5, New Jersey Devils 3
NHL · Oct 6, 2026
Expected goals (xG): Mammoth 4.27, Devils 3.86

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020047
#UtahHockey #NJDevils #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 5, New Jersey Devils 3, Oct 6, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, NJD the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 4.27, NJD 3.86; shots on goal 32–33; attempts 61–68. The Mammoth beat the Devils 5–3 on the road in a game the chances called about even, UTA 4.3 to NJD 3.9 in expected goals. The Devils power play made 2.2 xG on 23 attempts.Net expected goals over the game: one line of cumulative UTA minus NJD xG, above zero when UTA is ahead on chances, below when NJD is, each goal a vertical line at its time and power-play time shaded in the side's colour. Final xG UTA 4.27, NJD 3.86; score 5–3.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 5, 2026, 1:18 AM

Mammoth vs. Rangers 5-on-5 matchups (NHL · Oct 4, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020036
#UtahHockey #NYR #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 2, New York Rangers 4, Oct 4, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, NYR the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 3.33, NYR 3.25; shots on goal 30–21; attempts 68–52. The Rangers beat the Mammoth 4–2 at home in a game the chances called about even, UTA 3.3 to NYR 3.2 in expected goals. At 5v5: UTA 2.5, NYR 2.5.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 5, 2026, 1:18 AM

Mammoth vs. Rangers player stats (NHL · Oct 4, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.
Best on-ice xG: Mammoth, Clayton Keller +1.02 · Rangers, Adam Fox +1.27

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020036
#UtahHockey #NYR #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 2–4 NYR: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Clayton Keller +1.02 net xG (1.54 for, 0.52 against). Toughest: Kevin Stenlund −1.12 (0.35 for, 1.48 against).New York Rangers skaters, NYR 4–2 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Adam Fox +1.27 net xG (1.87 for, 0.60 against). Toughest: Sean Durzi −1.57 (0.45 for, 2.02 against).Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Trocheck – Schmaltz – Keller 11 min together, +0.27 net xG; D1 Weegar – Sergachev 14 min together, +0.26 net xG.New York Rangers lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Zibanejad – Lafrenière – Perreault 14 min together, +0.30 net xG; D1 Pettersson – Durzi 14 min together, −1.42 net xG.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 5, 2026, 1:05 AM

Utah Mammoth 2, New York Rangers 4
NHL · Oct 4, 2026
Expected goals (xG): Mammoth 4.42, Rangers 3.22

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020036
#UtahHockey #NYR #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 2, New York Rangers 4, Oct 4, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, NYR the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 4.42, NYR 3.22; shots on goal 29–21; attempts 66–52. The Rangers beat the Mammoth 4–2 at home despite being out-created 4.4–3.2 in expected goals. That is a finishing-and-goaltending win. The Mammoth power play made 1.6 xG on 7 attempts.Net expected goals over the game: one line of cumulative UTA minus NYR xG, above zero when UTA is ahead on chances, below when NYR is, each goal a vertical line at its time and power-play time shaded in the side's colour. Final xG UTA 4.42, NYR 3.22; score 2–4.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 4, 2026, 3:16 AM

Mammoth vs. Blue Jackets 5-on-5 matchups (NHL · Oct 3, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020027
#UtahHockey #CBJ #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 4, Columbus Blue Jackets 1, Oct 3, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, CBJ the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 2.98, CBJ 2.52; shots on goal 31–18; attempts 72–51. The Mammoth beat the Blue Jackets 4–1 on the road in a game the chances called about even, UTA 3.0 to CBJ 2.5 in expected goals. The Mammoth power play made 1.1 xG on 14 attempts.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 4, 2026, 3:16 AM

Mammoth vs. Blue Jackets player stats (NHL · Oct 3, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.
Best on-ice xG: Mammoth, Dylan Guenther +1.19 · Blue Jackets, Denton Mateychuk +0.53

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020027
#UtahHockey #CBJ #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 4–1 CBJ: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Dylan Guenther +1.19 net xG (1.67 for, 0.48 against). Toughest: Vincent Trocheck −0.70 (0.55 for, 1.25 against).Columbus Blue Jackets skaters, CBJ 1–4 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Denton Mateychuk +0.53 net xG (1.09 for, 0.55 against). Toughest: Erik Gudbranson −1.18 (0.27 for, 1.45 against).Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Trocheck – Schmaltz – Keller 10 min together, −0.56 net xG; D1 Schmidt – Marino 14 min together, −0.26 net xG.Columbus Blue Jackets lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Johnson – Knies – Fantilli 15 min together, +0.29 net xG; D1 Werenski – Mateychuk 20 min together, +0.69 net xG.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 4, 2026, 2:43 AM

Utah Mammoth 4, Columbus Blue Jackets 1
NHL · Oct 3, 2026
Expected goals (xG): Mammoth 3.18, Blue Jackets 2.52

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020027
#UtahHockey #CBJ #NHL #hockey

Utah Mammoth 4, Columbus Blue Jackets 1, Oct 3, 2026. Full-rink shot map: UTA attacks the left net, CBJ the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals UTA 3.18, CBJ 2.52; shots on goal 31–18; attempts 71–52. The Mammoth beat the Blue Jackets 4–1 on the road in a game the chances called about even, UTA 3.2 to CBJ 2.5 in expected goals. The Mammoth power play made 1.3 xG on 14 attempts.Net expected goals over the game: one line of cumulative UTA minus CBJ xG, above zero when UTA is ahead on chances, below when CBJ is, each goal a vertical line at its time and power-play time shaded in the side's colour. Final xG UTA 3.18, CBJ 2.52; score 4–1.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 2, 2026, 5:20 AM

Blackhawks vs. Mammoth 5-on-5 matchups (NHL · Oct 1, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020013
#Blackhawks #UtahHockey #NHL #hockey

Chicago Blackhawks 0, Utah Mammoth 6, Oct 1, 2026. Full-rink shot map: CHI attacks the left net, UTA the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals CHI 1.56, UTA 3.77; shots on goal 15–32; attempts 42–65. The Mammoth beat the Blackhawks 6–0 at home, and the chances agreed: UTA out-created CHI 3.8–1.6 in expected goals. UTA scored 6 on 3.8 expected.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 2, 2026, 5:20 AM

Blackhawks vs. Mammoth player stats (NHL · Oct 1, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.
Best on-ice xG: Blackhawks, Roman Kantserov +0.01 · Mammoth, MacKenzie Weegar +1.25

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020013
#Blackhawks #UtahHockey #NHL #hockey

Chicago Blackhawks skaters, CHI 0–6 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Roman Kantserov +0.01 net xG (0.61 for, 0.60 against). Toughest: Alex Vlasic −1.62 (0.11 for, 1.74 against).Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 6–0 CHI: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: MacKenzie Weegar +1.25 net xG (1.56 for, 0.31 against). Toughest: Daniil But −0.23 (0.42 for, 0.64 against).Chicago Blackhawks lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Greenway – Smith – Greene 10 min together, +0.04 net xG; D1 Kaiser – Levshunov 12 min together, −0.50 net xG.Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Trocheck – Schmaltz – Keller 11 min together, +0.59 net xG; D1 Weegar – Sergachev 17 min together, +0.67 net xG.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialOct 2, 2026, 4:42 AM

Chicago Blackhawks 0, Utah Mammoth 6
NHL · Oct 1, 2026
Expected goals (xG): Blackhawks 1.56, Mammoth 3.88

https://xjawn.com/games/2026020013
#Blackhawks #UtahHockey #NHL #hockey

Chicago Blackhawks 0, Utah Mammoth 6, Oct 1, 2026. Full-rink shot map: CHI attacks the left net, UTA the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals CHI 1.56, UTA 3.88; shots on goal 15–32; attempts 43–66. The Mammoth beat the Blackhawks 6–0 at home, and the chances agreed: UTA out-created CHI 3.9–1.6 in expected goals. UTA scored 6 on 3.9 expected.Net expected goals over the game: one line of cumulative CHI minus UTA xG, above zero when CHI is ahead on chances, below when UTA is, each goal a vertical line at its time and power-play time shaded in the side's colour. Final xG CHI 1.56, UTA 3.88; score 0–6.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialSep 27, 2026, 12:22 AM

Avalanche vs. Mammoth 5-on-5 matchups (NHL preseason · Sep 26, 2026)
Every head-to-head skater pairing: who won the xG while they shared the ice, and for how long.

https://xjawn.com/preseason/games/2026010054
#GoAvsGo #Avalanche #UtahHockey #NHL #hockey

Colorado Avalanche 0, Utah Mammoth 2, Sep 26, 2026 (preseason). Full-rink shot map: COL attacks the left net, UTA the right; every attempt marked, goals as crosses, over a heat map of expected-goal rate versus a typical team per 60 (orange above, blue below). Expected goals COL 2.11, UTA 4.92; shots on goal 25–35; attempts 48–75. The Mammoth beat the Avalanche 2–0 at home, and the chances agreed: UTA out-created COL 4.9–2.1 in expected goals. The Mammoth power play made 2.4 xG on 23 attempts.
@xjawn-gamer.bsky.socialSep 27, 2026, 12:21 AM

Avalanche vs. Mammoth player stats (NHL preseason · Sep 26, 2026)
Every skater's on-ice xG, plus forward lines and defense pairs.

https://xjawn.com/preseason/games/2026010054
#GoAvsGo #Avalanche #UtahHockey #NHL #hockey

Colorado Avalanche skaters, COL 0–2 UTA: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Matthew DiMarsico +0.69 net xG (1.09 for, 0.40 against). Toughest: Keaton Middleton −2.18 (0.23 for, 2.42 against).Utah Mammoth skaters, UTA 2–0 COL: every skater's on-ice expected goals for (right of zero) and against (left), best net first, ice time under each name. Best: Clayton Keller +2.27 net xG (2.68 for, 0.41 against). Toughest: MacKenzie Weegar −0.27 (0.85 for, 1.12 against).Colorado Avalanche lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Roy – Lysell – Nielsen 2 min together, −0.16 net xG; D1 Burns – Manson 11 min together, −0.96 net xG.Utah Mammoth lines and defence pairs, detected from 5-on-5 shifts: when each unit was on the ice across the game clock, and its on-ice expected goals for and against. L1 Crouse – Hayton – McBain 7 min together, −0.03 net xG; D1 Weegar – Sergachev 10 min together, −0.19 net xG.
Load more