All 776 players Philadelphia Flyers desk

Returning regular · 2025-26

Nikita Grebenkin

Philadelphia Flyers · RW · L shot · age 23 at the dated snapshot.

Team: PHI
Lane: RW
Age: 23

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.

Games55

Goals4

Assists10

Points14

Even strength14all even-strength points

Power play0

Short handed0

Empty net1

5v5 points / 601.297

Average TOI11:17

PP TOI0:12

PK TOI0:00

Organizational context

6 RW regulars in PHI

The all-team median is 3.5. PHI’s farm system ranks #17 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 shots45

Expected goals3.88.4% per shot

Goals4

Finishing+0.2goals 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%2.99 expected goals for and 3.29 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)0.78 xG6 primary assists; 0.129 expected goals per pass on average, 0.075 per 60. A pass to a tap-in counts more than a pass to a point shot.

Drive, offence-0.20expected goals created per 60 with him on, minus the club without him

Drive, defence-0.42expected goals suppressed per 60 with him on, against the club without him; positive means fewer chances allowed

Offensive-zone starts52%of his faceoffs in either end zone; heavy offensive use lifts the numbers above

Company (linemates / opponents)weak / averageteammates -2.3, opponents +0.4 points of relative chance share, weighted by seconds shared

Start +/- (goals begun on his shift)197 of them were scored after he had changed off

On the ice for51 for, 65 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 3his rank by 5-on-5 ice time within the club, most common over 20 games

LinematesGarnet Hathaway, Noah Catesshared 26% and 20% of his 5-on-5 time

Matchup50% vs first lines50% against the other club's first line (usual)

Shutdown (drive, defence, deployment removed)-0.24offence the same way -0.05; zone starts and opponent quality removed by a league-wide fit

Real points131 empty-net point left out · 4 goals, 6 primary and 4 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 19 to 22

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 seasons5 of 8

Their later peak (adjusted pts/game)0.49median across the comparables; this player's own line is below

This player so far: age 15 Russia U16 1.57 → age 16 Russia U17 1.53 → age 17 MHL 0.63 → age 18 MHL 1.10 → age 19 KHL 0.58 → age 20 KHL 0.61 → age 21 AHL 0.54 → age 22 NHL 0.26

All 3 columns shown

Player	Distance (lower is closer)	What he did afterwards
Jason ZuckerL · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.01	age 23 NHL 0.51 → age 24 NHL 0.32 → age 25 NHL 0.59 → age 26 NHL 0.78 → age 27 NHL 0.52
Nicolas RoyC · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.05	age 23 NHL 0.36 → age 24 NHL 0.30 → age 25 NHL 0.50 → age 26 NHL 0.46 → age 27 NHL 0.59
Xavier SimoneauC · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.05	age 23 AHL 0.17 → age 24 AHL 0.13
Justin SourdifC · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.06	age 23 AHL 0.36 → age 24 NHL 0.45
Taylor RaddyshR · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.06	age 23 AHL 0.49 → age 24 NHL 0.23 → age 25 NHL 0.47 → age 26 NHL 0.19 → age 27 NHL 0.34
Akil ThomasC · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.06	age 23 AHL 0.28 → age 24 AHL 0.33 → age 25 NHL 0.12 → age 26 AHL 0.31
Brett HowdenC · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.06	age 23 NHL 0.17 → age 24 NHL 0.43 → age 25 NHL 0.24 → age 26 NHL 0.26 → age 27 NHL 0.50
Cody GlassC · matched at ages 19, 20, 21, 22	0.07	age 23 AHL 0.43 → age 24 NHL 0.49 → age 25 NHL 0.32 → age 26 NHL 0.29 → age 27 NHL 0.37

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