PuckVision Market Value Model (PVE)
Market Cap Analysis & Valuation
Market Cap Model Overview
Performance-Based Value Assessment
The PuckVision Market Value Model (PVE) assigns a percentage of the salary cap to players based on their Performance Value Per Index (PVPI). It reflects each player's contribution relative to league norms and converts their statistical impact into a market-equivalent cap percentage. This allows teams to estimate the value of production as if it were available on the open market, normalized to the current $88M NHL salary cap.
The model is built by reverse-engineering historical contracts and cross-referencing with prior-season PVPI values to identify salary norms across different player tiers. It is not a contract prediction model—instead, it estimates how much a player's statistical output would cost in a vacuum if bought today.
Model Applications
Strategic Value Analysis
Per-Game Player Contribution
PVPI quantifies individual performance on a game-by-game basis, allowing teams to measure player contribution and calibrate usage based on output.
Projected Production Lost
When a player is injured, teams can estimate the production lost using their average PVPI, improving contingency planning and replacement strategies.
Optimal Roster Rankings
Combining PVPI values and market-based cap equivalents allows teams to simulate ideal rosters that optimize both talent and cap efficiency.
Roster Efficiency
By comparing a team's actual cap usage to the market value of their production, teams can measure how efficiently they're spending. A ratio greater than 1.0 means the team is getting more value than it's paying for.
Positional Market Tables
Performance-Based Salary Tiers
The following tables show how PVPI ratings translate to market value across different positions, normalized to the current $88M NHL salary cap.
Centers (Forwards – C)
Tier | PVPI Range | Cap % Range | Salary Range ($) | Example Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Franchise Player | 91.0 – 100.0 | 13.19% – 17.00% | $11,607,000 – $14,960,000 | Connor McDavid, Nathan MacKinnon |
Elite NHL Player | 89.0 – 90.9 | 11.01% – 13.18% | $9,689,000 – $11,598,400 | Jack Eichel, Jack Hughes |
First Line Forward | 87.0 – 88.9 | 9.50% – 11.00% | $8,360,000 – $9,680,000 | Aho, Larkin, Suzuki, Hischier, Thomas |
Top 6 Forward | 80.9 – 86.9 | 5.33% – 9.49% | $4,690,000 – $8,351,000 | Kadri, Karlsson, Nelson, Schenn |
3rd Line Forward | 77.3 – 80.8 | 2.63% – 5.32% | $2,314,000 – $4,681,600 | Roy, Kerfoot, Laughton, Roslovic |
Bottom of Lineup | 72.1 – 77.2 | 0.88% – 2.62% | $775,000 – $2,305,600 | Domi, Steel, Newhook, Dowd |
Below Replacement | < 72.1 | 0.88% | $775,000 |
Wingers (Forwards – LW/RW)
Tier | PVPI Range | Cap % Range | Salary Range ($) | Example Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Franchise Winger | 91.0 – 100.0 | 13.00% – 16.00% | $11,440,000 – $14,080,000 | Kucherov, Panarin, Marner, Pastrnak, Rantanen |
Elite NHL Winger | 89.0 – 90.9 | 10.55% – 12.99% | $9,284,000 – $11,431,200 | M. Tkachuk, Reinhart, Keller, Bratt |
First Line Winger | 87.0 – 88.9 | 8.06% – 10.54% | $7,092,800 – $9,275,200 | Kyrou, Barzal, B. Tkachuk, Fiala |
Top 6 Winger | 80.9 – 86.9 | 4.55% – 8.05% | $4,004,000 – $7,084,400 | Rust, Lee, Verhaeghe, Wilson, Boeser |
3rd Line Winger | 77.3 – 80.8 | 2.63% – 4.54% | $2,314,000 – $3,995,200 | Mangiapane, Killorn, Duclair |
Bottom of Lineup | 72.1 – 77.2 | 0.88% – 2.62% | $775,000 – $2,305,600 | Lafferty, Tatar |
Below Replacement | < 72.1 | 0.88% | $775,000 |
Defensemen
Tier | PVPI Range | Cap % Range | Salary Range ($) | Example Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Franchise Defenseman | 91.0 – 100.0 | 12.51% – 16.00% | $11,010,000 – $14,080,000 | Karlsson, Makar, Doughty, Dahlin |
Elite NHL Defenseman | 88.5 – 90.99 | 10.80% – 12.50% | $9,504,000 – $11,000,000 | Josi, Fox, McAvoy, Werenski |
Number One Defenseman | 87.0 – 88.49 | 9.00% – 10.79% | $7,920,000 – $9,495,000 | Seider, Heiskanen, Theodore |
Number Two Defenseman | 85.5 – 86.99 | 7.00% – 8.99% | $6,160,000 – $7,919,000 | Spurgeon, Lindholm, Montour |
Number Three Defenseman | 82.5 – 85.49 | 5.25% – 6.99% | $4,620,000 – $6,159,000 | Pulock, Tanev, Brodin |
Number Four Defenseman | 78.0 – 82.49 | 4.00% – 5.24% | $3,520,000 – $4,619,000 | Zadorov, Borgen |
Number Five Defenseman | 74.5 – 77.99 | 2.63% – 3.99% | $2,314,000 – $3,511,000 | Kulak, Staal, Jensen |
Number Six Defenseman | 70.4 – 74.49 | 0.88% – 2.62% | $775,000 – $2,305,600 | Nick Perbix, Colin Miller |
Below Replacement | < 70.4 | 0.88% | $775,000 |
Goaltenders
Tier | PVPI Range | Cap % Range | Salary Range ($) | Example Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Franchise Goalie | 91.0 – 97.0 | 10.72% – 13.30% | $9,433,600 – $11,704,000 | Shesterkin, Vasilevskiy, Hellebuyck |
Elite Starter | 88.0 – 90.99 | 7.61% – 10.71% | $6,696,800 – $9,423,000 | Sorokin, Swayman, Saros, Ullmark |
Starter | 81.0 – 87.99 | 5.50% – 7.60% | $4,840,000 – $6,688,000 | Markstrom, Jarry, Kuemper, Gustavsson, Daccord |
1B / Fringe Starter | 78.0 – 80.99 | 3.01% – 5.49% | $2,648,800 – $4,831,200 | Georgiev, Woll, Forsberg, Montembeault, Broissoit |
Backup Caliber | 72.2 – 77.99 | 1.86% – 3.00% | $1,636,800 – $2,640,000 | Marc-André Fleury, Eric Comrie, Jonathan Quick |
Replacement Level | < 72.1 | 0.88% | $775,000 | League minimum contract |
Market Value Considerations
Tier sizes are constrained based on how many players can realistically fill those roles across 32 NHL teams. The model accounts for position scarcity, with centers and top defensemen commanding premium values due to their strategic importance and relative rarity.
Special Handling for Elite Players
For exceptional players with PVPI ratings above 94, the model uses a steeper scaling to reach higher cap percentages at PVPI 100:
- Centers: Up to 17% of cap at PVPI 100 (up to $14.96M)
- Wingers: Up to 16% of cap at PVPI 100 (up to $14.08M)
- Defensemen: Up to 16% of cap at PVPI 100 (up to $14.08M)
This ensures that truly generational talents receive market values that better reflect their exceptional contributions.
Model Validation
Proven Performance
Contract Alignment
91% of players who signed contract extensions fell within the appropriate PVPI-based market tier based on their prior-season PVPI. This high level of alignment suggests the model accurately reflects real-world contract behavior and valuation tiers across the league.
Team-Level Validation
Optimized Market Cap vs Points
Accrued Market Cap vs Points
These results demonstrate that teams with higher aggregate PVPI-based market value tend to finish higher in the standings, with the accrued model showing an even stronger predictive relationship.
Model Comparison & Insights
The PVE model offers two complementary approaches to team valuation:
- Optimized Market Value provides a projection of value from a fully healthy 23-man lineup, showing a strong correlation with standings (r = 0.903).
- Accrued Market Value accounts for injuries by normalizing player production to a per-game basis and calculating the accrued values of all players who have suited up for games. This approach increases the correlation to an exceptional r = 0.922.
The extremely high correlation in the accrued model demonstrates the predictive power of the PVPI model and its derivative market values. Teams with higher quality players (as measured by PVPI) are demonstrably more likely to succeed, highlighting the critical importance of cap efficiency in team building.
Market Value Analysis
Explore the relationship between team market value and performance through our interactive charts and analysis.
Optimized Market Value Analysis
The optimized market value model provides a projection of value from a fully healthy 23-man lineup, showing a very strong correlation with standings (r = 0.903). This model evaluates team potential based on their complete roster quality.
NHL Team Points vs Optimized Market Value
Each point represents an NHL team's performance in the season.
Hover over data points to see team details. Use the zoom button to focus on specific areas.
Team Name↕ | Optimized Market Value↕ | Points↓ |
|---|---|---|
| Winnipeg Jets | $117.2M | 116 |
| Washington Capitals | $107.7M | 111 |
| Vegas Golden Knights | $111.2M | 110 |
| Toronto Maple Leafs | $102.4M | 108 |
| Dallas Stars | $118.6M | 106 |
| Los Angeles Kings | $109.1M | 105 |
| Tampa Bay Lightning | $113.5M | 102 |
| Colorado Avalanche | $120.6M | 102 |
| Edmonton Oilers | $107.1M | 101 |
| Carolina Hurricanes | $95.2M | 99 |
| Florida Panthers | $112.9M | 98 |
| Ottawa Senators | $95.8M | 97 |
| Minnesota Wild | $107.4M | 97 |
| Calgary Flames | $85.6M | 96 |
| St. Louis Blues | $98.5M | 96 |
Key Insight: Teams with higher quality players (as measured by PVPI) are demonstrably more likely to succeed in the standings, highlighting the critical importance of cap efficiency in team building.