Returning regular · 2025-26

Joseph Veleno

New York Rangers · C · L shot · age 26 at the dated snapshot.

Team: NYR
Lane: C
Age: 26

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.

Games61

Goals2

Assists3

Points5

Even strength5all even-strength points

Power play0

Short handed0

Empty net0

5v5 points / 600.483

Average TOI12:05

PP TOI0:03

PK TOI1:32

Organizational context

5 C regulars in NYR

The all-team median is 7. NYR’s farm system ranks #15 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 shots80

Expected goals6.48.0% per shot

Goals2

Finishing−4.4goals 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 quality46%3.17 expected goals for and 3.77 against per 60 minutes

Drive (vs own club without him)-5 ptshis share minus the club's share when he is off the ice

Setup (chances his passes produced)—no primary assists on file

Drive, offence-0.24expected goals created per 60 with him on, minus the club without him

Drive, defence-0.46expected goals suppressed per 60 with him on, against the club without him; positive means fewer chances allowed

Offensive-zone starts51%of his faceoffs in either end zone; heavy offensive use lifts the numbers above

Company (linemates / opponents)average / averageteammates -1.8, opponents +0.6 points of relative chance share, weighted by seconds shared

Start +/- (goals begun on his shift)144 of them were scored after he had changed off

On the ice for58 for, 56 againstthe plus/minus view, for comparison

Giveaways that led to a goal0his own turnovers inside the sequence, over 11.6 hours on the ice

Line or pairLine 4his rank by 5-on-5 ice time within the club, most common over 39 games

LinematesBrendan Gallagher, Zachary Bolducshared 41% and 26% of his 5-on-5 time

Matchup46% vs first lines46% against the other club's first line (sheltered)

Shutdown (drive, defence, deployment removed)-0.19offence the same way +0.00; zone starts and opponent quality removed by a league-wide fit

Real points50 empty-net points left out · 2 goals, 0 primary and 3 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 23 to 26

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 seasons3 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 QBAAA 1.33 → age 15 QMAAA 1.27 → age 16 QMJHL 0.69 → age 17 QMJHL 0.89 → age 18 QMJHL 1.00 → age 19 QMJHL 1.76 → age 20 AHL 0.43 → age 21 SHL 0.43 → age 22 NHL 0.23 → age 23 NHL 0.25 → age 24 NHL 0.35 → age 25 NHL 0.18 → age 26 NHL 0.08

All 3 columns shown

Player	Distance (lower is closer)	What he did afterwards
Lucas CondottaL · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.06	age 27 AHL 0.22 → age 28 AHL 0.12
Sam LaffertyC · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.07	age 27 NHL 0.20 → age 28 NHL 0.41 → age 29 NHL 0.30 → age 30 NHL 0.12 → age 31 NHL 0.07
Eduards TralmaksR · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.07	age 27 Czechia 0.28 → age 28 Czechia 0.48 → age 29 AHL 0.30
Kevin StenlundC · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.07	age 27 NHL 0.18 → age 28 NHL 0.34 → age 29 NHL 0.23
Dylan GambrellC · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.08	age 27 AHL 0.25 → age 28 AHL 0.21 → age 29 AHL 0.47
Bryce McConnell-BarkerC · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.08	age 27 Germany3 0.15 → age 28 UHL 0.14
Taylor WardR · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.08	age 27 AHL 0.19 → age 28 NHL 0.19
Brandon DuhaimeR · matched at ages 23, 24, 25, 26	0.08	age 27 NHL 0.26 → age 28 NHL 0.11

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