Alexander Kerfoot — 2025–26 stats and season rank | IceSheet
Alexander Kerfoot
Nashville Predators·#14·Center · Shoots left
Age 32 · 5′11″ · 185 lb · Vancouver, BC, CAN
Loading season standing…
Games34…
Goals70.21/GP▲0.07…
Assists60.18/GP▼0.03…
Points130.38/GP…
5v5 xG share…
Avg TOI12:47…
/
Loading season standing and profile…
Season comparisons
Loading peer comparisons and model evidence…
Optional recent-history profile
Rolling Radar
Loading recent-history profile…
Loading model evidence…
Loading defensive evidence…
Shot locations
Loading canonical shot events…
Usage by situation
Loading usage…
Loading special teams…
Recent scoring against his own season
Recent scoring against his own season
Loading recent games…
Loading splits…
Loading linemates…
Loading playoff games…
Loading game log…
Loading career ledger…
Every metric name opens its definition; the full list lives in Metrics.
Traditional statistics cover all situations. Supporting five-on-five analyses use completed games, raw adjustment and exposure from xG model v4. The two samples can differ.
An em dash means unavailable, not zero. A partial season remains partial. Where a panel reports evidence coverage, its rates use only the covered games. History never substitutes a different model, and a missing appearance interrupts a rolling model window.
Shot maps use the same shot model as Game Center and show which model version scored recent shots beside the rink. Older seasons can use earlier model versions. High danger means a model scoring probability of at least 0.20 on an unblocked attempt; for goalies, medium danger is 0.08 to 0.20 and low is below 0.08.
Special-team buckets include the wider recorded man-advantage and man-down states, read from the player’s own team; for a goalie, penalty kill means facing a power play. Their ranks need 100 recorded minutes and at least 30 qualified peers; below 100 minutes, penalty-kill percentiles are provisional. Playoff values have no ranks or percentiles. Team share is player ice time divided by team ice time in that situation, over the games the player dressed. Zone starts describe faceoff-started five-on-five shifts and exclude on-the-fly starts.
Penalties count events, including one for a double minor; bench and served-by roles are excluded, and victimless infractions have no drawn role. EPV added sums changes in the probability that the possessing team scores next; it is not standings points or an isolated player grade. Rolling windows never cross seasons or season types, and a missed game is not a zero-performance appearance. Career rates use summed counts and exposure, never an average of season rates; a missing contributing season withholds its career metric, and Performance begins in 2023–24.
Bands show position percentiles; axis labels show current rolling values.
Dashed outline: peer average in the fixed reference. Outside = above average; inside = below average. All axes point outward for stronger results.
Player value: 2.48 Peer range: 1.68 – 4.20 xGF/60
MeanAlexander Kerfoot
Lower Higher (better)
Player 2.48 · mean 2.54. Higher raw values rank higher.
Rolling profile against a fixed reference group
Fixed rolling-profile reference · 430 players. Values use the same history and smoothing as the radar.
History, sample sizes & calculation
Higher radar percentiles mean stronger recorded results against the fixed reference, including older seasons. These are separate from this season’s league percentile. Each player has a different amount of covered history. Weighted minutes and attempts give recent games more influence. “Prior” is the share contributed by a frozen league baseline: it is higher when a player has less evidence, and differs by metric because each uses its own smoothing strength. It is not a confidence score.
On-ice offense · xGF/60
753.8 weighted minutes · 21% prior
On-ice defense · xGA/60
753.8 weighted minutes · 35% prior
Chance generation · ixG/60
753.8 weighted minutes · 21% prior
Shot quality · ixG/attempt
87.5 weighted attempts · 22% prior
Finishing · goals above expected/60
87.5 weighted attempts · 31% prior
History through Oct 17, 2026. Recent games count more than older games. History carries across seasons and stays unchanged while inactive. On-ice results are shared; finishing describes results rather than established talent.
T-639th in NHL
T-376th in NHL
T-575th in NHL
T-517th in NHL
T-627th in NHL
2025–26 playoffs
Official playoff totals · no peer ranks, since playoff samples are too small for a fair comparison
Games
6
17:00 per game
Goals
0
0 on the power play
Assists
1
official
Points
1
0 power-play points
Plus-minus
-3
even strength and shorthanded
Shots
5
0.0% shooting
Playoff games
Official totals; expected-goal columns are five-on-five.
Weak 0.43 individual expected goals per 60 (198th of 220)
Weak 0.43 individual expected goals per 60 (198th of 220)
49.5%97th of 220
Average 49.5% on-ice expected goal share at five-on-five (97th of 220)
Average 49.5% on-ice expected goal share at five-on-five (97th of 220)
Strong 2.21 on-ice expected goals against per 60 (36th of 220)
Strong 2.21 on-ice expected goals against per 60 (36th of 220)
Defensive metrics
Five-on-five on-ice suppression; individual events in all situations.
Suppression
Player
Percentile
Rank
52.27
35 / 22084th
1.07
24 / 20489th
0.062
149 / 22032nd
Puck management
Player
Percentile
Rank
0.83
140 / 22037th
3.59
184 / 22016th
-0.55
216 / 2202nd
Physical style
Player
Percentile
Rank
3.73
15 / 22094th
4.14
107 / 22052nd
Context · not graded
Player value: 52.27 Peer range: 44.90 – 72.11 / 60
MeanAlexander Kerfoot
Lower (better)Higher
Player 52.27 · mean 56.94. Lower raw values are better.
On-ice attempts against per 60, including blocks.
Evidence coverage: high danger 32 of 34 games.
Discipline & puck management
Recorded season event counts · all situations
Penaltiesnet -4
Taken 9Drawn 5
Puck eventsnet -20
Giveaways 26Takeaways 6
Blocks
27
all situations
Hits
30
all situations
0.00 power-play points per 60
0.00 power-play points per 60
Power play
13:25 recorded ice time · peers need 100 minutes
Share of team PP
8.6%
in games dressed
PP points
0
goals + assists
Unit xGF / 60
2.99
team without: 8.49
Power play rates
Player
Percentile
Rank
0.00
—
0.00
—
4.47
—
0.21
—
2.99
—
4.47
—
No rank yet
Player value: 0.00 Peer range: 0.00 – 10.95 / 60
MeanAlexander Kerfoot
Lower Higher (better)
Player 0.00 · mean 4.79. Higher raw values rank higher. Needs 100 minutes in this special-teams scope.
Recorded goals plus assists per 60 in this scope; widened power-play and penalty-kill scopes.
Needs 100 minutes in this special-teams scope.
Penalty kill
51:35 recorded ice time · peers need 100 minutes
Share of team PK
31.4%
in games dressed
SH points
1
goals + assists
Unit xGA / 60
7.85
team without: 9.02
Penalty kill rates
Player
Percentile
Rank
7.85
—
9.63
—
94.22
—
6.02
—
1.04
—
No rank yet
Player value: 7.85 Peer range: 5.65 – 11.51 / 60
MeanAlexander Kerfoot
Lower (better)Higher
Player 7.85 · mean 8.60. Lower raw values are better. Provisional PK percentile: under 100 recorded minutes. Smaller samples are less reliable; official ranks need 100 minutes.
Raw on-ice expected goals against per 60; the Season metrics sample.
Provisional PK percentile: under 100 recorded minutes. Smaller samples are less reliable; official ranks need 100 minutes.
Evidence coverage: goals 29 of 30 games · high danger 29 of 30 games.
12:47 TOI per game (10:30 at five-on-five · 0:24 PP · 1:31 PK)
12:47 TOI per game (10:30 at five-on-five · 0:24 PP · 1:31 PK)
Results vs expected
Five-on-five · what happened beside the chances created and allowed
Chances
Player
Percentile
Rank
2.16
147 / 22033rd
2.21
36 / 22084th
49.5
97 / 22056th
Goals
Player
Percentile
Rank
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Luck & variance
Player
Percentile
Rank
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Context · not graded
Player value: 2.16 Peer range: 1.49 – 3.89 / 60
MeanAlexander Kerfoot
Lower Higher (better)
Player 2.16 · mean 2.41. Higher raw values rank higher.
Raw on-ice expected goals for per 60; the Season metrics sample.
5v5 goals
—
28 of 34 games
5v5 expected
12.9–13.1
xG for–against
EPV added
+1.72
34 attributed games · all situations
On ice vs off ice
Utah's share with Alexander Kerfoot on the ice against the same team without him.
Share
On ice and off ice
On-minus-off gap in percentage points
xGF%
On ice 49.5%; off ice 53.5%.
53.549.5
-4.0
CF%
On ice 52.5%; off ice 53.6%.
53.652.5
-1.1
GF%
On ice unavailable · Off ice unavailable
—
On iceOff ice
Scale 40–65% · marker at 50% · right column is the on-minus-off gap in points
Hot 6 points in the last 10 games (0.60 per game vs 0.38 this season)
Hot 6 points in the last 10 games (0.60 per game vs 0.38 this season)
0.42 points per game at home · 0.33 away
0.42 points per game at home · 0.33 away
34 games · most recent vs STL, L 3–5: 0 G, 0 A
34 games · most recent vs STL, L 3–5: 0 G, 0 A
Alexander Kerfoot
46 attempts3.63 xG7 G
Goal7Shot on goal21Missed shot18Blocked shot0Larger dot = higher xG
Shooting by zone
Zone
Att
G
xG
Goal rate / exp.
G−xG
Inner slot
13
3
1.3
23.1% / 10.2%
+1.7
Left circle
3
1
0.0
33.3% / 1.6%
+1.0
High slot
11
2
1.1
18.2% / 10.2%
+0.9
Point
10
1
0.2
10.0% / 1.7%
+0.8
Below goal line
2
0
0.1
0.0% / 4.5%
−0.1
Outer slot
2
0
0.1
0.0% / 4.6%
−0.1
Right circle
5
0
0.8
0.0% / 15.8%
−0.8
All zones
46
7
3.6
15.2% / 7.9%
+3.4
Sorted by goals minus expected goals. Goal rate is goals per unblocked attempt against the expected rate. Hover a row to light up those attempts on the rink.
Finishing evidence. Scoring 15.2% on chances vs 7.9% expected (+7.3 points), led by inner slot volume and wrist finishing.
Shot types46 attempts
Type
Share
Sh%
G−xG
Tip-in
26.1%
22.2%
+1.0
Wrist
26.1%
33.3%
+1.4
Snap
23.9%
25.0%
+0.6
Slap
15.2%
50.0%
+0.5
Deflected
4.3%
0.0%
−0.1
Backhand
2.2%
0.0%
0.0
Other
2.2%
—
0.0
Share is context, not a grade. Sh% counts shots on goal only.
High-danger chancesmodel probability ≥ 0.20
Attempts2.2% of the selected attempts
1
Goals
0
Expected goals
0.7
Conversion
0.0%67.6% expected
Shot profilecontext · not graded
On-net rate28 of 46 attempts on goal
60.9%
Slot share24 of 46 from the inner or high slot
52.2%
Average distancefrom the centre of the net
30.1 ft
Rebound attempts / 601 this season · all situations
0.14
Usage by situation
Ice time, share of team ice time, scoring and scoring rate, with where shifts start.
Scope
TOI/GP
Team share
G
A
P
P/60
Five-on-five
10:30
21.5%
6
5
11
1.85
Power play
0:24
8.6%
0
0
0
0.00
Penalty kill
1:31
31.4%
0
1
1
1.16
Other
0:22
—
1
0
1
4.72
All situations
12:47
21.2%
7
6
13
1.79
Where the 13 points come from · All situations
Goals7 · 0.97/60
Primary assists3 · 0.41/60
Secondary assists3 · 0.41/60
23.1% of points are secondary assists. Peer average 25.1%. Primary points per 60 (1.38).
Zone starts 44.5% offensive of OZ + DZ · 31th percentile
Offensive 26.8%Neutral 39.9%Defensive 33.3%
Shifts
19.6 a game · 0:39 average
Zone starts: five-on-five · Shifts: all situations
Faceoffs
All situations · zones are read from his side of the draw · values only; no peer ranks yet
Win %
51.1%
115 of 225 draws
Draws per game
6.62
34 games
Offensive zone
58.3%
48 draws
Defensive zone
43.9%
98 draws
Power play
50.0%
10 draws
Every game · rest counts days off before the game; the playoff field is the standings' top three per division plus two wild cards
Split
GP
G
A
P
P/GP
5v5 xG share
Team record
Venue
Home
19
4
4
8
0.42
53.6%
8–10–1
Away
15
3
2
5
0.33
43.9%
10–4–1
Rest
Back-to-back
3
0
0
0
0.00
55.7%
0–3–0
1 day of rest
24
6
5
11
0.46
50.7%
14–8–2
2+ days of rest
6
1
1
2
0.33
41.5%
4–2–0
Opponent
vs Eastern
11
1
3
4
0.36
49.8%
6–5–0
vs Western
23
6
3
9
0.39
49.4%
12–9–2
vs playoff teams
15
4
4
8
0.53
42.9%
8–7–0
vs non-playoff teams
19
3
2
5
0.26
55.3%
10–7–2
Recent
Last 10
10
4
2
6
0.60
62.1%
6–4–0
By period and score state
Split
G
A
P
5v5 xG share
5v5 CF%
5v5 GF–GA
Period
1st period
2
2
4
—
—
—
2nd period
2
1
3
—
—
—
3rd period
3
3
6
—
—
—
Overtime
0
0
0
—
—
—
Score state · 5v5 on ice
Leading
—
—
—
50.9%
47.9%
5–8
Tied
—
—
—
41.2%
52.1%
5–4
Trailing
—
—
—
56.1%
60.1%
4–6
From play-by-play; shootouts excluded. Score state is his team's, before each event.
Official totals; expected-goal columns are five-on-five.
Elite90+Strong70–89Average30–69Weak10–29Poor<10No rank yetBar length is the peer percentile, so longer is always better · tick at the 50th
Player value: 1.85 Peer range: 0.47 – 3.42 / 60
MeanAlexander Kerfoot
Lower Higher (better)
Player 1.85 · mean 1.55. Higher raw values rank higher.
Recorded five-on-five goals plus assists per 60 minutes.
How to read these comparisons
Player values are recorded season results. Peer averages are arithmetic means of qualified players in the selected group; each row uses the same peers for its average and rank. Ranks use unrounded values, with tied players sharing a rank and the next rank skipped. Lower xG against ranks better. Bar colours are the five performance tiers; context rows are blue and not graded. Differences from the average describe the season, not isolated player impact.
Goals above expected is the raw goals-minus-xG rate, without the shrinkage used in the older finishing comparison. On-ice measures include teammates, opponents and deployment. These recorded metrics describe different quantities from the adjusted Season score components beside them.
Skaters need 20 appearances and 300 five-on-five minutes; quality and finishing also need 75 unblocked attempts. Early in a season these minimums scale down with games played so far. At least 30 peers must qualify. Playoff ranks are withheld. A reviewed axis whose own evidence fails is withheld and shown with its reason rather than ranked. These workload rules do not express statistical confidence.
Position uses the NHL listed primary position available now; it does not establish historical position or actual deployment. Broad groups are forwards, defence and goalies. This version uses the current model’s covered games only.
Season vs reference
Per game · all situations
Metric2025–26ReferenceDiff
0.210.14+0.07
0.180.21-0.03
0.380.35+0.04
0.821.25-0.42
Reference: 2024–25 · 81 games.
Each game against his own season
Points in each game, coloured by how good the game wasTrailing 10 games, per gameSeason 0.38
Points
6
4 G · 2 A
Team record
6–4–0
in his games
5v5 xG share
62.1%
on ice
5v5 ixG
1.1
individual expected goals
Avg TOI
15:36
all situations
Tiles cover the last 10 games.
Most often with Kevin Stenlund: 201 five-on-five minutes, 42.6% xG share together
Most often with Kevin Stenlund: 201 five-on-five minutes, 42.6% xG share together
Five-on-five · time together from shift charts (360:08 of his 5v5 ice time) · xG share together and apart
Teammate
Pos
TOI together
xG share together
GF–GA
CF%
Him without
Teammate without
Kevin Stenlund
C
200:38
42.6%
6–12
47.5%
57.6%
43.0%
Michael Carcone
L
141:49
55.4%
5–7
62.1%
44.9%
54.5%
John Marino
D
125:18
47.8%
5–3
52.4%
50.4%
54.4%
Ian Cole
D
119:01
53.4%
5–7
53.0%
47.5%
52.9%
Nate Schmidt
D
117:50
43.7%
4–5
51.3%
52.7%
56.0%
Sean Durzi
D
113:50
49.4%
7–7
51.7%
49.4%
53.5%
Mikhail Sergachev
D
110:23
49.3%
3–6
53.1%
49.4%
50.8%
JJ Peterka
R
84:06
65.7%
5–2
66.1%
43.8%
51.6%
Kailer Yamamoto
R
72:32
53.6%
4–2
50.4%
48.6%
55.7%
MacKenzie Weegar
D
71:20
58.8%
4–5
60.0%
47.1%
47.6%
Brandon Tanev
L
54:41
36.7%
2–5
43.4%
52.0%
43.5%
Nick DeSimone
D
43:14
47.8%
0–2
48.7%
49.6%
54.0%
Without columns are five-on-five xG share apart: him on the ice without that teammate, and the teammate without him (with this club). Bars are centred on an even 50%.
Season grade
Withheld
Small sample
Performance / 60−0.1234/34 GP
10 NHL seasons: 647 games, 309 points
10 NHL seasons: 647 games, 309 points
Totals cover all situations; rates are five-on-five.
Shading: peer percentile that season. Bold: career high.
Not qualified · 2025–26 forwards
Needs 65.6 more rated minutes.
vs 400 qualified forwards
Percentiles appear once this player qualifies for season standings. The score breakdown is under How this is calculated.
How this is calculated
Score breakdown
Component
Weight
Scaled
Contribution
Offense
25%
−0.382
−0.095
Defense
25%
0.208
+0.052
Chance creation
20%
−0.472
−0.094
Finishing
10%
0.324
+0.032
Assisting
20%
−0.055
−0.011
Performance rate
−0.116
Per 60 rated minutes, over the scored appearances. Each component is scaled separately, then weighted; the contributions add to the performance rate at full precision, so rounded figures may differ.
Scoring
Season grade is the qualified peer percentile on the same letter bands as Game Grade — A+ ≥88, A ≥78, A− ≥68, B+ ≥58, B ≥50, B− ≥42, C+ ≥35, C ≥28, C− ≥22, D ≥15, F below 15 — and needs qualification plus at least 30 eligible peers. The letter describes this season’s performance, not permanent ability.
Comparisons
Rank and component percentiles compare this season’s qualified forwards on unrounded rates over every checked appearance; Game Grade compares one appearance with frozen historical games.
Component percentiles are never averaged into the score. Recent history is optional, from up to three completed prior seasons; small samples are provisional.
Coverage
Qualification: 29 covered appearances, 492.0 rated minutes, and 90% appearance and workload coverage. Minimums advance with league progress; valid low-sample results stay visible.
Rated minutes exclude play with a goalie pulled: 8.3 min excluded; official TOI 434.7 min.
Coverage: complete. Updated .
Method
Five weighted components add to the performance rate. Five-on-five offense and defense account for recorded teammates, opponents and game state, so shared on-ice results are not isolated individual ability. Finishing is scored against the shot model’s historical-shooter expectation and assisting counts primary assists plus half of secondary assists; both use the strength baseline, chance creation its positional baseline.
Legacy rating
Legacy season score: 21.3 / 100. The fixed exposure baseline is 50; this is separate from the season peer grade.
