Points by season
Career NHL points, ending with the 84-game projection (violet).
Pool value
Projected full-season fantasy worth.
why 37?
Each row is one fantasy category turned into points over a full 84-game season. Add the rows up and that is his total fantasy worth.
- proj goals2 × 3+6
- proj assists26 × 1+26
- PP points0 × 0.5+0
- game-winning goals0 × 0.5+0
- OT goals0 × 0.25+0
- shots124 × 0.1+12.4
- PIM53 × 0.05+2.7
- ice time (min)1378 × 0.01+13.8
- total61 pool points · an elite defenseman season scores 16661 = 37/100
Weights follow what the average fantasy league actually counts: goals at 3× assists (the universal core), power-play points and game-winners at half weight (common extra categories), OT goals, shots and PIM small (many leagues skip them), and ice time as a quiet availability bonus. The scale: add up a whole season of those categories and compare against the best defensemen in the NHL — an elite season scores about 166 points, and that is what 100 means. So 61 points is 37 out of a perfect fantasy season at his position. Defensemen and forwards are graded on separate scales because the D slot can only be filled by a defenseman. Goals and assists come from the backtested season model; the rest ride your own season-to-date pace over 84 games (19 games so far — small sample, secondary lines will move as roles settle). Hits/blocks are excluded: the free NHL feeds don't publish full-season totals, and we don't invent them.
The Situation
- Every night: in the lineup for all of the team's last 10 games.
- Availability: every game this season — 16 of 16 for COL.
- Veteran card: age 41 — minutes and back-to-back load worth watching down the stretch.
Every line is measured from our own boxscore ledger; absence reasons from the NHL Status Report and our transaction wire only — no insider guessing.
Finishing check underperforming O/U ▼ −2.1
- TRADE VALUE: BELOW PACE — mildly. Cheap production relative to the underlying play.
- 0.0% shooting on 28 shots against HIS OWN career baseline of 5.3% (1799 shots before this season) — that's 1.5 goals below what his shot volume normally buys for him (1.5 expected goals). under pace. His shrunk talent rate is 3.6%, worth PD −2.1 goals per 84 over/under his own standard.
Model: goals vs shot volume vs live league position baselines; talent SH% is an empirical-Bayes shrinkage of the season…
His shooting talent is estimated by shrinking his season shooting percentage toward his league position mean in proportion to sample size (kappa pseudo-shots prior), then projecting the gap over 84 games at his current shot volume. Small samples stay near zero — the number only moves when the evidence does.
The method follows published hockey-analytics research: a shooter is judged against his own career shooting percentage, because a player's own career rate predicts his next goals better than any league average (“Expected by Whom? A Skill-Adjusted Expected Goals Model for NHL Shooters and Goaltenders,” arXiv:2511.07703). Thin careers (rookies) shrink toward the league mean for the position, and the season number is shrunk toward the player's own anchor with empirical-Bayes weights — Nandakumar & Jensen (2019), Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-105202. This section is about the gap between luck and his pace, not talent.
Season stats
NHL regular-season totals, season by season. The 84-G proj line extends the current season with our public model — methodology in the caption below the table.
| Season | Team | GP | G | A | P | +/- | PIM | PPG | PPP | SHG | TOI/GP | GWG | OTG | S | S% | FOW% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-04 | Wild | 36 | 1 | 5 | 6 | -10 | 12 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 13:29 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 2.9% | 28.6% |
| 2005-06 | Wild | 72 | 4 | 12 | 16 | -7 | 32 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 14:07 | 1 | 0 | 73 | 5.5% | 54.5% |
| 2006-07 | Wild | 77 | 7 | 18 | 25 | 16 | 26 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 15:48 | 3 | 2 | 108 | 6.5% | 25.0% |
| 2007-08 | Wild | 82 | 15 | 28 | 43 | 12 | 80 | 8 | 19 | 0 | 23:06 | 4 | 1 | 158 | 9.5% | 100.0% |
| 2008-09 | Wild | 59 | 8 | 19 | 27 | -7 | 45 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 22:25 | 2 | 1 | 147 | 5.4% | 60.0% |
| 2009-10 | Wild | 47 | 3 | 17 | 20 | -15 | 32 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 22:22 | 0 | 0 | 104 | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| 2010-11 | Wild | 80 | 17 | 29 | 46 | -10 | 98 | 8 | 14 | 0 | 25:03 | 3 | 1 | 170 | 10.0% | 50.0% |
| 2011-12 | Sharks | 81 | 11 | 26 | 37 | 8 | 34 | 5 | 16 | 0 | 22:32 | 2 | 1 | 201 | 5.5% | 0.0% |
| 2012-13 | Sharks | 30 | 9 | 11 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 16:17 | 0 | 0 | 81 | 11.1% | 30.8% |
| 2013-14 | Sharks | 69 | 22 | 26 | 48 | 26 | 34 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 16:49 | 3 | 0 | 245 | 9.0% | 46.6% |
| 2014-15 | Sharks | 82 | 17 | 43 | 60 | -9 | 65 | 7 | 24 | 0 | 23:57 | 2 | 1 | 245 | 6.9% | 0.0% |
| 2015-16 | Sharks | 82 | 27 | 48 | 75 | -5 | 53 | 7 | 30 | 1 | 25:52 | 4 | 1 | 353 | 7.6% | 100.0% |
| 2016-17 | Sharks | 82 | 29 | 47 | 76 | 19 | 40 | 8 | 25 | 0 | 24:52 | 6 | 3 | 320 | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| 2017-18 | Sharks | 82 | 12 | 55 | 67 | -16 | 46 | 5 | 27 | 0 | 25:15 | 2 | 1 | 332 | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| 2018-19 | Sharks | 82 | 16 | 67 | 83 | 13 | 34 | 7 | 28 | 1 | 25:06 | 6 | 2 | 300 | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| 2019-20 | Sharks | 70 | 12 | 33 | 45 | -22 | 34 | 5 | 17 | 0 | 25:25 | 1 | 1 | 225 | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| 2020-21 | Sharks | 56 | 7 | 22 | 29 | -13 | 36 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 26:09 | 1 | 0 | 138 | 5.1% | 0.0% |
| 2021-22 | Sharks | 82 | 10 | 44 | 54 | -15 | 42 | 4 | 18 | 0 | 26:09 | 0 | 0 | 203 | 4.9% | 0.0% |
| 2022-23 | Hurricanes | 82 | 18 | 43 | 61 | 19 | 44 | 4 | 23 | 0 | 23:13 | 2 | 1 | 255 | 7.1% | 100.0% |
| 2023-24 | Hurricanes | 82 | 10 | 33 | 43 | 19 | 20 | 4 | 20 | 1 | 21:30 | 0 | 0 | 185 | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| 2024-25 | Hurricanes | 82 | 6 | 23 | 29 | 7 | 28 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 20:57 | 0 | 0 | 174 | 3.4% | 0.0% |
| 2025-26 | Avalanche | 82 | 12 | 23 | 35 | 33 | 32 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 18:53 | 5 | 0 | 172 | 7.0% | 0.0% |
| 2026-27 | Avalanche | 20 | 0 | 6 | 6 | -3 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16:27 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 84-G proj | Avalanche | 84 | 2 | 26 | 29 | — | 52 | — | 1 | — | 17:26 | — | — | 114 | — | — |
84-G proj — current pace blended with the player's own history (recent seasons weighted heaviest), mixed with a similarity projection from historical players with comparable profiles, then adjusted for the aging curve (league-average peak at 27; decline after) — at age 41 that is 0%. Dashes mark stats the model doesn't project.
Comparable player-seasons: Ryan McDonagh (2025-25) · Olli Maatta (2025-25) · Josh Manson (2025-25) · John Marino (2025-25) · Aaron Ekblad (2025-25).
Goals — with the line
| Time | ST | Type | Goal | His line | Opp ice |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2 · @ CHI | |||||
| P1 15:23 | EV | Assist | #? (Landeskog, Burns) → 1-2 | Landeskog · Roy Burns · Malinski | Teravainen · Smith · Greene Mastro · Levshunov Knight (G) |
| Oct 28 · vs NJD | |||||
| P3 02:45 | EV | Assist | Kadri (Roy, Burns) → 2-1 | Roy · MacKinnon · Kadri Malinski · Burns | Glass · Brown · Lombardi Dillon · Chisholm Allen (G) |
| P3 03:47 | EV | Assist | Kelly (Burns, Svechkov) → 3-1 | Svechkov · Kelly · O'Connor Kulak · Burns | Rodrigues · Mantha · Boqvist Hamilton · Siegenthaler Allen (G) |
Line mates
Teammates sharing the most ice time with Brent over the last 10 games — reconstructed shift-by-shift from the NHL's official timing feed (goalies excluded).
| Player | Shared min | GP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brock Nelson COL | 56 | 10 | |
| Parker Kelly COL | 53 | 10 | |
| Fedor Svechkov COL | 44 | 10 | |
| Nazem Kadri COL | 43 | 10 | |
| Gabriel Landeskog COL | 41 | 10 |
Data via the public NHL API · 2026 Pro Hockey Stats