All 776 players Pittsburgh Penguins desk

Returning regular · 2025-26

Trevor van Riemsdyk

Pittsburgh Penguins · RD · R shot · age 35 at the dated snapshot.

Team: PIT
Lane: RD
Age: 35

Production and deployment

How the points were built

Official NHL 2025–26 regular-season reports. A missing split stays “—”; it is never converted to zero.

Games68

Goals3

Assists11

Points14

Even strength14all even-strength points

Power play0

Short handed0

Empty net0

5v5 points / 600.87

Average TOI16:14

PP TOI0:04

PK TOI1:43

Organizational context

4 RD regulars in PIT

The all-team median is 4. PIT’s farm system ranks #20 in the maintained two-board consensus.

Thin lane

Questions a GM still has to answer

How much of the scoring comes at five-on-five, on special teams, or into an empty net?
Is the player creating the play, finishing it, or receiving a secondary point?
Does deployment reveal trust, scarcity, underuse, or a role the roster cannot offer?
What contract, acquisition cost, development alternative and Cup-window effect complete the argument?

Shot quality · 2025-26

Expected goals

CapOrCup's shot model (distance, angle, shot type, strength, rebounds, rushes), trained on 2023-24 and 2024-25 and tested on unseen games (AUC 0.757). Finishing is goals minus expected goals; it is noisy in one season.

Unblocked shots66

Expected goals3.04.5% per shot

Goals3

Finishing+0.0goals above expected

CapOrCup measures · 2025-26

What happens while he plays

Measured from the league's play-by-play and shift charts, not from the scoresheet. Expected goals are counted for every player on the ice, and a goal is credited to whoever was on the ice when the sequence began, including players who had changed off before it was scored.

Share of chance quality48%3.52 expected goals for and 3.84 against per 60 minutes

Drive (vs own club without him)-4 ptshis share minus the club's share when he is off the ice

Setup (chances his passes produced)0.31 xG3 primary assists; 0.102 expected goals per pass on average, 0.018 per 60. A pass to a tap-in counts more than a pass to a point shot.

Drive, offence+0.11expected goals created per 60 with him on, minus the club without him

Drive, defence-0.60expected goals suppressed per 60 with him on, against the club without him; positive means fewer chances allowed

Offensive-zone starts44%of his faceoffs in either end zone; heavy offensive use lifts the numbers above

Company (linemates / opponents)average / averageteammates -0.1, opponents +1.0 points of relative chance share, weighted by seconds shared

Start +/- (goals begun on his shift)356 of them were scored after he had changed off

On the ice for76 for, 96 againstthe plus/minus view, for comparison

Giveaways that led to a goal1his own turnovers inside the sequence, over 17.4 hours on the ice

Line or pairPair 3his rank by 5-on-5 ice time within the club, most common over 45 games

PartnerJakob Chychrunshared 33% of his 5-on-5 time

Matchup55% vs first lines55% against the other club's first line (usual)

Shutdown (drive, defence, deployment removed)-0.25offence the same way +0.31; zone starts and opponent quality removed by a league-wide fit

Real points140 empty-net points left out · 3 goals, 3 primary and 8 secondary assists · 0 on the power play

How these measures are defined, and where they stop.

Comparables at the same age

Who looked like this at 31 to 34

Careers are compared as league-adjusted points per game by age, over the same ages. The comparables below are the closest lines, and what matters is the spread of what they did next, not any single name.

Comparables found8

Went on to two or more NHL seasons7 of 8

Their later peak (adjusted pts/game)0.34median across the comparables; this player's own line is below

This player so far: age 14 AYHL 14U 0.68 → age 16 USHS-Prep 1.78 → age 17 High-NJ 2.00 → age 18 EJHL 1.13 → age 19 EJHL 0.97 → age 20 NCAA 0.51 → age 21 NCAA 0.85 → age 22 NCAA 0.89 → age 23 NHL 0.06 → age 24 NHL 0.17 → age 25 NHL 0.28 → age 26 NHL 0.20 → age 27 NHL 0.18 → age 28 NHL 0.16 → age 29 NHL 0.15 → age 30 NHL 0.24 → age 31 NHL 0.31 → age 32 NHL 0.20 → age 33 NHL 0.26 → age 34 NHL 0.21

All 3 columns shown

Player	Distance (lower is closer)	What he did afterwards
Ian ColeD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.05	age 35 NHL 0.14 → age 36 NHL 0.21 → age 37 NHL 0.28
Vladimir DraveckyD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.08	age 35 Czechia 0.06 → age 36 Czechia 0.12 → age 37 Czechia 0.09 → age 38 Czechia 0.07 → age 39 Czechia 0.05
Chris TanevD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.09	age 35 NHL 0.24 → age 36 NHL 0.18
Tyler MyersD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.10	age 35 NHL 0.34 → age 36 NHL 0.14
Luke SchennD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.13	age 35 NHL 0.08 → age 36 NHL 0.15
Ryan McDonaghD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.14	age 35 NHL 0.38 → age 36 NHL 0.44
Jared SpurgeonD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.24	age 35 NHL 0.48 → age 36 NHL 0.28
Drew DoughtyD · matched at ages 31, 32, 33, 34	0.43	age 35 NHL 0.57 → age 36 NHL 0.32

Reading it

If most comparables became NHL regulars and their later peak sits well above this player's current line, the numbers say there is room to grow. If most did not, the numbers say the odds are against it. Either way it is what the data shows, not a name chosen to flatter.

Atlantic

Metropolitan

Central

Pacific