All 776 players Pittsburgh Penguins desk

Returning regular · 2025-26

Hendrix Lapierre

Pittsburgh Penguins · C · L shot · age 24 at the dated snapshot.

Team: PIT
Lane: C
Age: 24

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.

Games74

Goals4

Assists12

Points16

Even strength16all even-strength points

Power play0

Short handed0

Empty net1

5v5 points / 601.411

Average TOI8:50

PP TOI0:08

PK TOI0:00

Organizational context

7 C regulars in PIT

The all-team median is 7. 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 shots84

Expected goals7.59.0% per shot

Goals4

Finishing−3.5goals 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 quality55%4 expected goals for and 3.23 against per 60 minutes

Drive (vs own club without him)+7 ptshis share minus the club's share when he is off the ice

Setup (chances his passes produced)0.51 xG5 primary assists; 0.103 expected goals per pass on average, 0.05 per 60. A pass to a tap-in counts more than a pass to a point shot.

Drive, offence+0.74expected goals created per 60 with him on, minus the club without him

Drive, defence+0.26expected goals suppressed per 60 with him on, against the club without him; positive means fewer chances allowed

Offensive-zone starts50%of his faceoffs in either end zone; heavy offensive use lifts the numbers above

Company (linemates / opponents)average / averageteammates -1.5, opponents -0.0 points of relative chance share, weighted by seconds shared

Start +/- (goals begun on his shift)173 of them were scored after he had changed off

On the ice for61 for, 58 againstthe plus/minus view, for comparison

Giveaways that led to a goal0his own turnovers inside the sequence, over 10.3 hours on the ice

Line or pairLine 4his rank by 5-on-5 ice time within the club, most common over 52 games

LinematesBrandon Duhaime, Ethen Frankshared 37% and 31% of his 5-on-5 time

Matchup52% vs first lines52% against the other club's first line (usual)

Shutdown (drive, defence, deployment removed)+0.25offence the same way +0.73; zone starts and opponent quality removed by a league-wide fit

Real points151 empty-net point left out · 4 goals, 5 primary and 7 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 21 to 24

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 seasons6 of 8

Their later peak (adjusted pts/game)0.45median across the comparables; this player's own line is below

This player so far: age 14 QBAA 1.19 → age 15 QM15AAA 1.58 → age 16 QMAAA 1.63 → age 17 QMJHL 0.94 → age 18 QMJHL 0.90 → age 19 QMJHL 1.48 → age 20 QMJHL 1.27 → age 21 AHL 0.50 → age 22 NHL 0.43 → age 23 NHL 0.30 → age 24 NHL 0.22

All 3 columns shown

Player	Distance (lower is closer)	What he did afterwards
Owen SillingerC · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.04	age 25 AHL 0.23 → age 26 AHL 0.26 → age 27 AHL 0.30 → age 28 AHL 0.22
Isac LundeströmC · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.05	age 25 NHL 0.19 → age 26 NHL 0.18
Blake ColemanL · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.05	age 25 NHL 0.09 → age 26 NHL 0.32 → age 27 NHL 0.46 → age 28 NHL 0.54 → age 29 NHL 0.56
Carson MeyerR · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.05	age 25 NHL 0.07 → age 26 NHL 0.14 → age 27 AHL 0.33 → age 28 AHL 0.26
Alex BelzileR · matched at ages 21, 23, 24	0.06	age 25 AHL 0.12 → age 26 AHL 0.25 → age 27 AHL 0.33 → age 28 AHL 0.32 → age 29 AHL 0.38
Mason AppletonC · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.06	age 25 NHL 0.45 → age 26 NHL 0.35 → age 27 NHL 0.39 → age 28 NHL 0.44 → age 29 NHL 0.31
Wilmer SkoogC · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.06	age 25 AHL 0.15 → age 26 AHL 0.28
Vinni LettieriC · matched at ages 21, 22, 23, 24	0.07	age 25 AHL 0.35 → age 26 AHL 0.54 → age 27 NHL 0.32 → age 28 AHL 0.46 → age 29 NHL 0.20

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