The offseason so far - Are the Sabres better?

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I was curious to see what the fancystats said about the team as a whole last year, since those are supposed to paint a better picture of how “true” a team’s record is:

• GF%: 50.14 16th
• xG%: 47.41 27th
• SA% 49.77 17th

The Sabres were pretty much dead average in terms of territorial play, and at putting more pucks in the net than the other team.

They were absolutely terrible at getting the puck into high danger areas and stopping the opponent from doing the same.

To me, Jack Quinn brought down those numbers (high danger ones) dramatically all by himself last year:

Last year with Quinn on the ice, the Sabres were a catostrophic -73 in high danger chances for vs allowed, and -13 in high danger goals for vs allowed in about 890 minutes even strength.  The rest of the team combined without Quinn (including Cozens bad numbers) was a -22 in high danger chances and  only a -2 in high danger goals even strength over almost 3000 minutes.

 

Break that down on a 'per 60' minute basis: (taking into account both offense getting those chances and defense preventing them)

Quinn:  -4.92 high danger chances per 60, (one of the worst in the league for a regular player)  -0.88 high danger goals per 60 (one of worst for regular player)

Rest of team: -0.44 high danger chances/60. (close to league average)  -0.04 high danger goals per 60 (close to league average)

 

Just on the Defensive side of things, the team with Quinn on the ice allowed 12.7 high danger chances per 60.

The rest of the team when he wasn't on the ice allowed 11.2 high danger chances per 60.

Goals allowed:

Quinn on the ice, Sabres allowed 3.02 goals per 60 even strength.

Entire rest of team without Quinn: 2.73 goals allowed per 60 even strength.

 

The going to the net part is an issue. High danger shots (shots taken form in front of the net, basically less than 6 feet out):

Thompson:  15.7%  (number would probably be higher but is brought down by his one timers out of that zone on the PP)

Tuch:  33.3% high danger

Peterka: 21.4% 

Zucker: 39.2%

McCleod:  37.1%

Kulich:  29.1%

And....Quinn?  8.1%.  10 total shots. Basically he went to the front of the net and got a shot off once every 2 weeks or so.

The rest of the team got the puck to the high danger areas, got shots off, and did a decent job of keeping the puck away from that area on defense.  Jack Quinn Single handedly brought all those numbers down from middle of the pack and dropped the averages close to league bottom.

 

38 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Diving deeper into other Sabre high danger rankings:

• Rebound shots for 27th
• Expected rebound shots for 19th
• Rebound shots against 28th
• Expected rebound shots against 21st
• Rebound goals for 22nd
• Rebound goals against 32nd
• High danger shots for 27th
• High danger shots against 21st

I mean, we knew it, but it’s worth seeing spelled out: the Sabres biggest problem is they don’t get to the net, and they don’t stop people from getting to the net.

As per my above post..I wouldn't be surprised if Jack Quinn alone brought down those numbers for the rest of the team in some of those categories.

Remove Jack Quinn, or "fix" his game, and alot of this looks 'better' by doing nothing else other than that.

Edited 16 hours ago by mjd1001

[dudacek]

Another somewhat under-discussed issue with last year’s team was goaltending.

At risk of triggering @PromoTheRobot, Ukko Pekka Luukkonen was bad across the board, even while correcting for the play in front of him

61 goalies played 20 games last year, UPL ranked:

• Goals saved above expected: 51
• Save % above expected: 48
• Wins above replacement: 51
• Rebounds per save: 46
• High danger unblocked save % above expected: 58

Interestingly, UPL’s rankings were better at low- (35th) and medium- (20) danger saves. 

We had a team that allowed too many dangerous attempts combined with a goalie who was bad in high-danger situations.

 

[dudacek]

UPL’s struggles in high danger situations aren’t new.

Going back to the previous season - when he ranked 17th in goals saved above expected - he was still 58th in high-danger situations.

The stats show he can succeed behind a better defence, but he has not shown that he can be counted on for too many big saves.

Interestingly enough, the number 6 and 7 ranked goalies in high danger save % above expected that year were Alex Lyon and Devon Levi.

Lyon was 4th and Levi unranked in that stat this year.

Edited 16 hours ago by dudacek

[dudacek]

Other fancy stats from Lyon last year:

• Goals saved above expected: 32
• Save % above expected: 32
• Wins above replacement: 32
• Rebounds per save: 37

Lyon’s totals with the Wings were exceedingly average and don’t appear to be significantly different from James Reimer’s with the Sabres. But they were clearly better than UPL’s.

 

[French Collection]

Just now, dudacek said:

Another somewhat under-discussed issue with last year’s team was goaltending.

At risk of triggering @PromoTheRobot, Ukko Pekka Luukkonen was bad across the board, even while correcting for the play in front of him

61 goalies played 20 games last year, UPL ranked:

• Goals saved above expected: 51
• Save % above expected: 48
• Wins above replacement: 51
• Rebounds per save: 46
• High danger unblocked save % above expected: 58

Interestingly, UPL’s rankings were better at low- (35th) and medium- (20) danger saves. 

We had a team that allowed too many dangerous attempts combined with a goalie who was bad in high-danger situations.

 

Bottom end of backup goalie numbers.

His ceiling may be 2nd half of 23/24 season but his floor needs to be above water, to be considered a starter.

[French Collection]

Just now, dudacek said:

Other fancy stats from Lyon last year:

• Goals saved above expected: 32
• Save % above expected: 32
• Wins above replacement: 32
• Rebounds per save: 37

Lyon’s totals with the Wings were exceedingly average and don’t appear to be significantly different from James Reimer’s with the Sabres. But they were clearly better than UPL’s.

 

Stats of a tandem goalie.

Ride the hot hand is what I hope for and UPL bouncing back to average stats can get the Sabres a few more wins.

[Archie Lee]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

UPL’s struggles in high danger situations aren’t new.

Going back to the previous season - when he ranked 17th in goals saved above expected - he was still 58th in high-danger situations.

The stats show he can succeed behind a better defence, but he has not shown that he can be counted on for too many big saves.

Interestingly enough, the number 6 and 7 ranked goalies in high danger save % above expected that year were Alex Lyon and Devon Levi.

Lyon was 4th and Levi unranked in that stat this year.

Here are a couple of things in defense of Luukkonen.

1.) Per MoneyPuck, Luukkonen's goals save below expected were nearly identical to that of Saros and Swayman. Both have larger track records than Luukkonen, but the connection is that those are both considered to be good goalies who posted bad #'s on bad teams.  Maybe that is what Luukkonen also was last year.

2.) At his best Luukkonen is a blocker; he is a positional goalie who uses his size and lets the puck come to him and who has the athleticism to make some highlight reel saves when needed. At his worst, he is chasing the game; that is when you see him 4 feet out of his crease to the left or the right of, or behind, the net. To me, it was obvious that there was a point last season where he was being shelled night after night and where he lost confidence and over-compensated by reverting to bad habits (chasing the puck). Is that always going to be his issue? Or, can he reset in the off-season and as he matures find a way to simply play the game that he is best at? I don't know. I think he would thrive under certain coaches and in certain structures.  I don't think Ruff is the right coach. Although Ruff spoke at the end of the year of being unable to blame Luukkonen until he could get the team to do a better job with puck management, I am skeptical that Ruff is a coach who can do that.  

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

To me, Jack Quinn brought down those numbers (high danger ones) dramatically all by himself last year:

Last year with Quinn on the ice, the Sabres were a catostrophic -73 in high danger chances for vs allowed, and -13 in high danger goals for vs allowed in about 890 minutes even strength.  The rest of the team combined without Quinn (including Cozens bad numbers) was a -22 in high danger chances and  only a -2 in high danger goals even strength over almost 3000 minutes.

 

Break that down on a 'per 60' minute basis: (taking into account both offense getting those chances and defense preventing them)

Quinn:  -4.92 high danger chances per 60, (one of the worst in the league for a regular player)  -0.88 high danger goals per 60 (one of worst for regular player)

Rest of team: -0.44 high danger chances/60. (close to league average)  -0.04 high danger goals per 60 (close to league average)

 

Just on the Defensive side of things, the team with Quinn on the ice allowed 12.7 high danger chances per 60.

The rest of the team when he wasn't on the ice allowed 11.2 high danger chances per 60.

Goals allowed:

Quinn on the ice, Sabres allowed 3.02 goals per 60 even strength.

Entire rest of team without Quinn: 2.73 goals allowed per 60 even strength.

 

The going to the net part is an issue. High danger shots (shots taken form in front of the net, basically less than 6 feet out):

Thompson:  15.7%  (number would probably be higher but is brought down by his one timers out of that zone on the PP)

Tuch:  33.3% high danger

Peterka: 21.4% 

Zucker: 39.2%

McCleod:  37.1%

Kulich:  29.1%

And....Quinn?  8.1%.  10 total shots. Basically he went to the front of the net and got a shot off once every 2 weeks or so.

The rest of the team got the puck to the high danger areas, got shots off, and did a decent job of keeping the puck away from that area on defense.  Jack Quinn Single handedly brought all those numbers down from middle of the pack and dropped the averages close to league bottom.

 

As per my above post..I wouldn't be surprised if Jack Quinn alone brought down those numbers for the rest of the team in some of those categories.

Remove Jack Quinn, or "fix" his game, and alot of this looks 'better' by doing nothing else other than that.

You did a lot of research on cozens last year that was spot on.  Quinn very often looked like a spectator last year.  He is the one they have from the Aquino/Peteka draft unfortunately. 

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

To me, Jack Quinn brought down those numbers (high danger ones) dramatically all by himself last year:

Last year with Quinn on the ice, the Sabres were a catostrophic -73 in high danger chances for vs allowed, and -13 in high danger goals for vs allowed in about 890 minutes even strength.  The rest of the team combined without Quinn (including Cozens bad numbers) was a -22 in high danger chances and  only a -2 in high danger goals even strength over almost 3000 minutes.

 

Break that down on a 'per 60' minute basis: (taking into account both offense getting those chances and defense preventing them)

Quinn:  -4.92 high danger chances per 60, (one of the worst in the league for a regular player)  -0.88 high danger goals per 60 (one of worst for regular player)

Rest of team: -0.44 high danger chances/60. (close to league average)  -0.04 high danger goals per 60 (close to league average)

 

Just on the Defensive side of things, the team with Quinn on the ice allowed 12.7 high danger chances per 60.

The rest of the team when he wasn't on the ice allowed 11.2 high danger chances per 60.

Goals allowed:

Quinn on the ice, Sabres allowed 3.02 goals per 60 even strength.

Entire rest of team without Quinn: 2.73 goals allowed per 60 even strength.

 

The going to the net part is an issue. High danger shots (shots taken form in front of the net, basically less than 6 feet out):

Thompson:  15.7%  (number would probably be higher but is brought down by his one timers out of that zone on the PP)

Tuch:  33.3% high danger

Peterka: 21.4% 

Zucker: 39.2%

McCleod:  37.1%

Kulich:  29.1%

And....Quinn?  8.1%.  10 total shots. Basically he went to the front of the net and got a shot off once every 2 weeks or so.

The rest of the team got the puck to the high danger areas, got shots off, and did a decent job of keeping the puck away from that area on defense.  Jack Quinn Single handedly brought all those numbers down from middle of the pack and dropped the averages close to league bottom.

 

As per my above post..I wouldn't be surprised if Jack Quinn alone brought down those numbers for the rest of the team in some of those categories.

Remove Jack Quinn, or "fix" his game, and alot of this looks 'better' by doing nothing else other than that.

All they’ve done is increase the likelihood they’ll need him to play a larger role 

Edited 15 hours ago by Thorny

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

To me, Jack Quinn brought down those numbers (high danger ones) dramatically all by himself last year:

Last year with Quinn on the ice, the Sabres were a catostrophic -73 in high danger chances for vs allowed, and -13 in high danger goals for vs allowed in about 890 minutes even strength.  The rest of the team combined without Quinn (including Cozens bad numbers) was a -22 in high danger chances and  only a -2 in high danger goals even strength over almost 3000 minutes.

 

Break that down on a 'per 60' minute basis: (taking into account both offense getting those chances and defense preventing them)

Quinn:  -4.92 high danger chances per 60, (one of the worst in the league for a regular player)  -0.88 high danger goals per 60 (one of worst for regular player)

Rest of team: -0.44 high danger chances/60. (close to league average)  -0.04 high danger goals per 60 (close to league average)

 

Just on the Defensive side of things, the team with Quinn on the ice allowed 12.7 high danger chances per 60.

The rest of the team when he wasn't on the ice allowed 11.2 high danger chances per 60.

Goals allowed:

Quinn on the ice, Sabres allowed 3.02 goals per 60 even strength.

Entire rest of team without Quinn: 2.73 goals allowed per 60 even strength.

 

The going to the net part is an issue. High danger shots (shots taken form in front of the net, basically less than 6 feet out):

Thompson:  15.7%  (number would probably be higher but is brought down by his one timers out of that zone on the PP)

Tuch:  33.3% high danger

Peterka: 21.4% 

Zucker: 39.2%

McCleod:  37.1%

Kulich:  29.1%

And....Quinn?  8.1%.  10 total shots. Basically he went to the front of the net and got a shot off once every 2 weeks or so.

The rest of the team got the puck to the high danger areas, got shots off, and did a decent job of keeping the puck away from that area on defense.  Jack Quinn Single handedly brought all those numbers down from middle of the pack and dropped the averages close to league bottom.

 

As per my above post..I wouldn't be surprised if Jack Quinn alone brought down those numbers for the rest of the team in some of those categories.

Remove Jack Quinn, or "fix" his game, and alot of this looks 'better' by doing nothing else other than that.

Excellent analysis, especially as it is directed toward Quinn. Is Quinn going to elevate his game enough to not only not being a drag but rising it enough where he is an asset. A couple years ago, I thought he was going to be a real good winger. He not only didn't even plateau as a player but disappointingly, he declined as a player. Were injuries a factor in his sputtering? Probably so. 

When you look at the young group comprised of Power, Samuelsson, Benson and Quinn most of us expect improvement.  The more critical issue is will each of them and as a group improve enough to be an elevating factor for the team. It seems that the GM is counting on that. For me, I just don't know. TBD.

[mjd1001]

22 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Excellent analysis, especially as it is directed toward Quinn. Is Quinn going to elevate his game enough to not only not being a drag but rising it enough where he is an asset. A couple years ago, I thought he was going to be a real good winger. He not only didn't even plateau as a player but disappointingly, he declined as a player. Were injuries a factor in his sputtering? Probably so. 

When you look at the young group comprised of Power, Samuelsson, Benson and Quinn most of us expect improvement.  The more critical issue is will each of them and as a group improve enough to be an elevating factor for the team. It seems that the GM is counting on that. For me, I just don't know. TBD.

People have mentioned maybe he plays differently because of his injury/injuries. That might be it, but the question is did it change him as a player?

As mentioned above, he is one of the most "perimeter" players in the NHL, but he wasn't his first year:

2022-23:  33% of his shots from in front of the net/high danger areas (or 66% from the perimeter)

2023-24: 21.4%  (or 78.6% from the perimeter)

2024-25: 8.1%  (or 91.9% from the perimeter).

So, as far as his shot selection/shots on goal, he has steady become more of a perimeter player as his 3 years have progressed.

I didn't do a deep dive into his defensive metrics, but when I glanced at them, they aren't all that different from year 1, year 2, or year 3.  I'll admit they are at best below average all 3 years (he's NOT a good defensive player by his metrics, or my personal 'eye' test), but his game that way hasn't changed. Hasn't gotten better, hasn't gotten worse. But when I look at the above numbers, what happened?  Thats not a statistical anomaly, that is a totally, 100% different player in the offensive zone.

Can another offseason to heal, another offseason to have his coaches look at the numbers we all see and the tape and talk to him about it...get him to change his 'style' back to what he did is first year or when he was in the AHL?  I'll take that player.

 

[Dr. Who]

54 minutes ago, Thorny said:

All they’ve done is increase the likelihood they’ll need him to play a larger role 

So smart. We are such bright fellas. Why is the board so negative?

[French Collection]

Just now, mjd1001 said:

Can another offseason to heal, another offseason to have his coaches look at the numbers we all see and the tape and talk to him about it...get him to change his 'style' back to what he did is first year or when he was in the AHL?  I'll take that player.

He needs to get stronger in order to stand up in traffic. He looks to me like an easy 6’1 185 player to push around.

KA is hoping on a big improvement from him and Quinn is capable, but he needs to toughen up. Maybe a guy like Doan on his line makes him grow a bit.

[PromoTheRobot]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Another somewhat under-discussed issue with last year’s team was goaltending.

At risk of triggering @PromoTheRobot, Ukko Pekka Luukkonen was bad across the board, even while correcting for the play in front of him

61 goalies played 20 games last year, UPL ranked:

• Goals saved above expected: 51
• Save % above expected: 48
• Wins above replacement: 51
• Rebounds per save: 46
• High danger unblocked save % above expected: 58

Interestingly, UPL’s rankings were better at low- (35th) and medium- (20) danger saves. 

We had a team that allowed too many dangerous attempts combined with a goalie who was bad in high-danger situations.

 

No trigger here. UPL's decline, in my opinion, way caused by him trying too hard stop scoring chances off turnovers. He went back to overplaying the puck and getting himself out of position. Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers! Which makes me happy that the Sabres made moves to address this issue with d-men who are strong with the puck.

[dudacek]

I already gave my feelings about the Sabres off-season as a whole - that at best they’ve maintained themselves as a 79-point team.

These are my opinions individually on their moves so far:

Signing Jones: I guess I like it on some Intellectual level - you can’t have too many defencemen - but honestly I don’t care much who the stopgap 8 is. Maybe he still has some untapped upside, but really I don’t see this player ever being more than a tweener. Especially as an offensive puckmover on a team that doesn’t really need any right now.

Signing Lyon: This was a solid move. In a market bereft of goalie talent, adding a guy capable of hot streaks and of being a tandem starter for back-up money felt like a bit of a coup. He’s nothing special, but he’s competition that is capable of actually being competition and better than what I thought would happen.

Re-signing McLeod: I expect some regression from McLeod, but this is a good contract for a good 40-point 3C, especially with the rising cap, and he could give you more. Glad they’ve locked him up for his best years.

Signing Danforth: I like the player and I also like that we added the type of player in terms of both his work ethic on the ice and his underdog mentality off it. He’s a go-to-the-net forechecker on a team that needs more of that. Maybe we’ll get the 4th line right this time.

Trading Lafferty for a late pick: I think he’s a better player than we saw, but he was completely useless last year and clearly wasn’t Ruff’s kinda guy. Just clearing the salary and the roster spot was a win.

Signing Geertsen: guy sounds like a total plug on the ice and I don’t care. Glad that he’s available the next time we need someone with that specific set of skills.

Re-signing Johnson and Kozak: good, no-risk moves as far as I can see. Great value if they make the NHL, no damage if they don’t. 

Not qualifying Bernard-Docker: He’s probably not as good as he played down the stretch and I understand the logic in how Adams explained it. I’d shrug my shoulders if I thought they were going to spend to the cap. But they won’t and you can’t have enough defencemen. Pennywise and pound-foolish.

Re-signing Quinn: The dollar value was a little high for 2 years and I might have pushed for a 1-year prove-it deal, but there’s a chance this could be a home run if Jack plays to his potential. With Cozens and Peterka already out the door, he’s the last best hope for a skilled scorer in the system. He’s got a lot to prove.

Trading Clifton and a 2nd for Conor Timmins: I almost drove off the road when the friend I was with read it to me off his phone. My immediate reaction was “we traded one ***** defenceman for another ***** defenceman and we gave them our 2nd pick? WTF?” I now understand the cap and analytic reasons why this trade was made. I still won’t like it until I see Timmons play significantly better than Clifton did and I see the Sabres put the cap savings to good use. If somebody took Lafferty for free, why not Clifton? Why not use the 2nd to trade for someone better than Timmons? I still hate this trade.

Trading Peterka for Kesselring and Doan: I’ve warmed to this one after an immediate reaction of “that’s it?” Trading skill with the puck for effectiveness without it was my goal for the summer. Using Peterka as the best way to make it impactful was my strategy. I’m willing to gamble on the concept of what we got over the concept of what we gave up because it was the type of trade we needed. It becomes a clear win if they use the reality of the extra cap space, but I’m not confident they will.

What they haven’t done: I wanted them to move skill for will and add a goalie, which they’ve done in some form. I also wanted them to reshape the D-core by moving on from Clifton and Samuelsson and keeping Byram. One yes, one no, one work in progress. Instead, they moved on from Clifton and JBD, kept Mule and got their shutdown RHD at an unexpectedly cheap salary. And finally I wanted them to move some futures for some immediate help. They’re still set up to do exactly that once the Byram situation plays out. It will be incredibly frustrating if they don’t use all the resources at their disposal to make that happen. But it’s what they’ve taught us to expect.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by dudacek

[Thorny]

My personal, oft-stated goals for what I deemed the “no stone unturned” offseason our fanbase deserved:

1) management overhaul

2) assistant coaches/special teams coaches overhaul 

3) a clear upgrade to the F unit

4) a clear upgrade to the D unit

5) a clear upgrade up the G tandem 

 

1) negatory

2) negatory

3) negatory (as of now, downgraded)

4) affirmative (Kesselring)

5) negatory

..still time, but 1,2, and 5 are a lost cause

Can we accomplish 3 while maintaining 4? Time will tell 

3,4 5 are the roster components and with a backwards, forwards, and no significant change, respectively, currently, I see the current roster in about the same place, and in about the same place as dudacek does above: same old same old 79

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[GASabresIUFAN]

I'm a little confused by all the love being thrown toward Kesselring.  Solid player? Sure, but he isn't exactly a proven top 4 D nor is he a shutdown defender.  The guy had his best season last year, but only averaged 17:41 (16:24 at ES) a night.  For his career he has averaged less than 17 minutes a game.  Power, who Kesselring is penciled in to play with averaged 21:19 (18:13 at ES) last season and is a 22:39 a game for his career.  Kesselring also doesn't kill penalties.  He also has started most shifts in the Ozone (55%).  He also isn't overly physical.  Frankly he looks on paper like Power from the right side but maybe better in the D zone.   Then again, who can be worse in the D zone than Power? 

 

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'm a little confused by all the love being thrown toward Kesselring.  Solid player? Sure, but he isn't exactly a proven top 4 D nor is he a shutdown defender.  The guy had his best season last year, but only averaged 17:41 (16:24 at ES) a night.  For his career he has averaged less than 17 minutes a game.  Power, who Kesselring is penciled in to play with averaged 21:19 (18:13 at ES) last season and is a 22:39 a game for his career.  Kesselring also doesn't kill penalties.  He also has started most shifts in the Ozone (55%).  He also isn't overly physical.  Frankly he looks on paper like Power from the right side but maybe better in the D zone.   Then again, who can be worse in the D zone than Power? 

 

I am a biased sabres fan. All I wanted was one upgrade at F one at D and one at G to be satisfied. A real college try. Kesselring is an upgrade on the guy who’ll come out of the lineup, notably Bryson 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[dudacek]

44 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'm a little confused by all the love being thrown toward Kesselring.  Solid player? Sure, but he isn't exactly a proven top 4 D nor is he a shutdown defender.  The guy had his best season last year, but only averaged 17:41 (16:24 at ES) a night.  For his career he has averaged less than 17 minutes a game.  Power, who Kesselring is penciled in to play with averaged 21:19 (18:13 at ES) last season and is a 22:39 a game for his career.  Kesselring also doesn't kill penalties.  He also has started most shifts in the Ozone (55%).  He also isn't overly physical.  Frankly he looks on paper like Power from the right side but maybe better in the D zone.   Then again, who can be worse in the D zone than Power? 

 

I think you are wise to point out that Kesselring isn't exactly a shutdown D; I've fallen into that trap myself as recently as a few posts up.

I think he's better described as a very large, competitive, mobile late-blooming defenceman who is better than average on both sides of the puck and just coming into his own as an NHL player. 

Speaking strictly for myself, I noticed him without looking for him when he played: he was assertive and effective and enormous. He looked pretty physical to me, not running around looking to kill guys physical, but winning battles physical, clearing the crease physical and smartly finishing checks physical. And I think he fought 5 times last year. That aspect of his game looks nothing like Power. He covers a lot of ground and has a huge wingspan.

Scouting reports from those who have watched him more often – fans and pros — seem to match my eye test, and the analytics numbers and counting stats are both solid.

Not entirely part of my point, but as an aside, I'm not as sold as everyone else seems to be that he's going to be Power's partner.

Edited 4 hours ago by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think you are wise to point out that Kesselring isn't exactly a shutdown D; I've fallen into that trap myself as recently as a few posts up.

I think he's better described as a very large, competitive, mobile late-blooming defenceman who is better than average on both sides of the puck and just coming into his own as an NHL player. 

Speaking strictly for myself, I noticed him without looking for him when he played: he was assertive and effective and enormous. He looked pretty physical to me, not running around looking to kill guys physical, but winning battles physical, clearing the crease physical and smartly finishing checks physical. And I think he fought 5 times last year. That aspect of his game looks nothing like Power. He covers a lot of ground and has a huge wingspan.

Scouting reports from those who have watched him more often – fans and pros — seem to match my eye test, and the analytics numbers and counting stats are both solid.

Not entirely part of my point, but as an aside, I'm not as sold as everyone else seems to be that he's going to be Power's partner.

You think he'll be Dahlin's partner? I suppose that's possible for Kesselring but I thought he'd go with Power and Samuelsson would go with Dahlin. Timmins is there if Samuelsson fails and Byram gets traded. Guess that leaves Ryan Johnson to make the roster. We feel 1 nhl D short.