As a key piece of the trade that sent Jack Eichel to the Vegas Golden Knights, Peyton Krebs has fared well with his new club. Following an excellent start with the Rochester Americans, Krebs has earned his promotion as a full-time member of the Buffalo Sabres’ forward group.

With 22 points in 44 games as a member of the blue-and-gold, the box score production is encouraging. Fans continue to be enamored with his precision passing on the rush, and his natural playmaking ability has created some exciting hockey, especially on the man-advantage.

With this in mind, there is a portion of the fan base that remains concerned with Krebs’ abysmal (on the surface) underlying metrics. Despite his aforementioned counting stat production, he outranks only Cody Eakin and Drake Caggiula with an xGF rate of 39.36% as a Sabre.

As this topic has become a larger talking point in recent days, I decided to dive beyond the surface metrics and add context to perhaps quell some concerns. While the underlyings are ugly at first blush, the context behind them is important.

Is Improvement Taking Place?

This is the first question I wanted to answer in this exercise. Sure, the xGF numbers are lackluster, but for a 21-year-old player, we should be more concerned with the development than baseline statistical values (or at least as concerned). What I found inspired some confidence that his impacts are trending upward as he plays more NHL minutes.

Pooling in-game, five-on-five xG/60 data from Evolving Hockey, I was able to create the +/- xG Timeline above. As you can see, Krebs posted negative impacts (dramatically so) for his first 25-30 games with Buffalo. Then, in late February, his on-ice impacts started to climb upward, but why?

For starters, he was skating alongside a consistent set of linemates for the first time since arriving in Buffalo. The forward trio of Krebs, Dylan Cozens, and Vinnie Hinostroza played 11-consecutive games as a unit from mid-March to early April. As they continued to build chemistry, their impacts as a group improved.

It is worth noting that this line received some favorable deployments (OZS rate over 65%), but the QoT versus QoC weighting was about even. What’s curious is that, despite starting the majority of their shifts in the offensive zone, they have failed to produce much of anything offensively at five-on-five (which we’ll expand on later).

So, we’ve nailed down which linemates were working (to a certain degree) for Krebs, but we must now identify which specific facet(s) of the game in which this group excelled to the point of pushing Kreb’s +/- xG numbers into a positive space.

Where is the Improvement Taking Place?

Here’s where it gets interesting. The modest success of the Krebs-Cozens-Hinostroza trio wasn’t predicated on increased offensive production. It was their xGA metrics as a group that helped boost their overall expected-goal share as a line.

Since the beginning of March (i.e. the Sabres’ last 17 games), only Rasmus Asplund holds a better even-strength xGA/60 among Sabres forwards rate than Krebs’ mark of 2.11. This isn’t to suggest that he’s transformed into a defensive dynamo, but it encouraging to see from a player whose defensive shortcomings have been frequently cited.

A similar trend occurred in the brief stretch (before the formation of the Krebs-Cozens-Hinostroza line) where Krebs centered Victor Olofsson and Rasmus Asplund. Last week, I wrote about how Asplund essentially makes every one of his linemates better, so that isn’t too surprising.

With Cozens and Hinostroza however, there isn’t a high-end “two-way” forward in the group. Cozens has struggled defensively as a first-year player serving as the de facto second-line center. Historically, Hinostroza is a positive impact player on defense, but probably not to the extent where his presence would single-handedly elevate his rookie counterparts.

The easy (and partially true) answer would be to simply take this xGA improvement as continued development from Cozens and Krebs. But easy answers don’t tell the whole story. To get a better gauge of how this trio became so defensively competent (according to the metrics, that is), I went back to the past broadcasts to truly hone in on them as a line.

What Do the Eyeballs Tell Us?

Defensive Play

Before re-watching their shifts, I didn’t remember seeing anything markedly improved in Krebs’ defensive approach. That said, spectating live-action is different than specifically honing in on a player later on. I was ready to be proven wrong.

Unsurprisingly, I was left uninspired by Krebs’ individual defensive play. That said, I did come away with an improved understanding of how he’s been able to post such strong xGA numbers over the past month or so.

Krebs is something of a floater in the defensive zone. While he is pretty good at pestering puck-carriers who come into his space, he mostly stays on the periphery. It’s part of the reason why he’s such an outstanding zone-exit entity.

I chose the above clip because there is a clear recognition of the outlet gap being narrowed, leading to a smart positional adjustment by Krebs. I also saw similar iterations of this play a half-dozen times when perusing recent game playbacks. While this video is coming off a defensive zone face-off win, Krebs tends to move well and find space, making himself an effective outlet option once puck possession is recovered.

In this particular instance, he moves back just enough to open up a path for Mattias Samuelsson to avoid the forechecker (Patric Hornqvist) and send a crisp outlet pass to Krebs in space. It’s not fancy, and it’s easy to overlook in the moment, but it’s critical for exiting the defensive zone with control (instead of the “whip it up the boards” technique the Sabres employed from 2014-2019).

Opposing offenses can rack up their xGF numbers by maintaining pressure. Forwards who can’t get into space to receive outlet passes can hurt otherwise competent zone-exit defensemen who simply can’t find an open man, thus leading to a higher rate of failed exits. Krebs mitigates this issue when he’s on the ice because of his adept spatial awareness.

Krebs isn’t alone here. All three forwards on the Krebs-Cozens-Hinostroza line are strong transition players but remain complimentary. Krebs is a good zone-exit facilitator, while Cozens and Hinostroza are competent puck-carriers through the neutral zone.

As you can see, the initial xGA numbers I mentioned are a little deceiving. There are still warts to speak of in Krebs’ defensive game (and Cozens’ for that matter). As you can see in the clip above, the Winnipeg Jets start a breakout following a failed scoring chance in front of their net. Initially, it looked like Krebs could catch up and help thwart the opposing offensive.

Instead, he appears to slow up as he crosses center ice. Both he and Cozens get caught watching the play and they lose sight of Zach Sanford streaking toward the slot behind them.

Sanford was Cozens’ man to defend, however, Krebs’ failure to continue the pursuit and try to get in the way of a centering pass didn’t help matters. Had he not slowed down to watch the puck carrier, he’d have easily been able to get into a better position to defend a slot pass. It’s a small detail, but it makes an impact.

Offensive Play

So, the Krebs-Cozens-Hinostroza line exits the defensive zone and proceeds to cut through the neutral zone like butter. It’s a consistent trend, giving them the appearance of an exciting, high-event line. Sadly, that’s when the wheels tend to fall off.

Individually, Krebs has one of the lower xGF/60 rates on the team at 1.91. That issue has existed since the beginning of his call-up. Even with the linemate consistency, he was afforded with Cozens and Hinostroza, the problem persisted (though it did experience a modest improvement over his previous average).

As we’ve mentioned in previous articles, the Sabres are more of a counter-rush team than a forechecking/cycling team. That’s fine in principle, but when a line fails to generate consistent chances off the rush and struggles to establish the cycle following a controlled entry, you have a problem.

Here you have a perfect example of a botched counter-rush. Hinostroza does a nice job of entering the offensive zone with control. Both trailing forwards (Cozens and Krebs) keep gliding in a straight line and end up behind the net.

If one of them decided to cover the back of the net in case Hinostroza decided to send the puck in deep, I would understand the choice. Krebs’ choice to skate directly in the path of the opposing defender, limited Hinostroza’s ability to hit him with a pass. With two of the three forwards stuck behind the net, Florida turns a potentially dangerous rush into a squeaky clean zone exit.

Here we have another example of poor positioning on a rush opportunity. Cozens does a nice job of getting through center ice and entering the offensive zone with control. With two men already in his vicinity, he needs to find a way to get rid of the puck.  

Krebs joins the rush and continues to meander closer to Cozens, presumably in anticipation of a puck battle along the boards. Instead, it draws another Panthers defenseman into the mix, leaving the Sabres outnumbered in a tight space. All Robert Hagg has to do is take Cozens’ body while Petteri Lindbom retrieves the loose puck with relative ease.

As I alluded to in the last section, this group doesn’t just struggle on the rush. They have a really hard time setting up the cycle as well. Remember the clip I showed you where Krebs did a great job positioning himself for Samuelsson’s outlet pass? Well, here’s the rest of the sequence.

As we often see from this trio, Krebs makes a clean zone entry. He sends the puck to Hinostroza along the wall. Though a defender is pressuring, Hinostroza isn’t under immediate duress. Despite this, he sends an ill-advised pass back toward the middle of the zone, which is easily intercepted.

These types of forced passes (primarily from Hinostroza) were common in the shifts I re-watched. To their credit, this group does some nice things when they can establish the cycle, but their success rate in that regard is very low. Again, Don Granato’s club seems to pride themselves on a rush offensive approach, hence the lack of teamwide cycle and/or “dump and chase” sequences in general.

There is a reason why Krebs is such an effective power-play entity. Cycle plays allow him to work along the wall and find passing options in a confined space. It’s the one area of the game where his greatest talent can be maximized.

Despite the poor underlying numbers at five-on-five, Krebs does provide offensive value beyond his elite passing ability. He stands alone among Sabres forwards in terms of offensive puck pressures per-60. That’s a good thing. The only issue is that his contested puck win rate is staggeringly low, given how often he serves as a forechecking entity.

A lot of this circles back to body positioning, but it also has a lot to do with overall strength. Krebs is a smaller, more slender forward and can be brushed away with relative ease. If he can match his speed and willingness to forecheck in deep with the ability to win puck battles more consistently, it adds another facet to his game beyond “guy who can pass”.

The Next Steps

The Sabres coaching staff should assign two specific priorities to Krebs’ offseason plan. For starters, he needs to put on some muscle. As previously noted, he’s got the makings of an excellent “pest” at the NHL level. His speed and pursuit in that regard are outstanding, but he is too easily brushed off by stronger opponents. Some strength training should help optimize his existing skillset in that regard.

Second, he needs to develop his understanding of positional hockey, particularly in the offensive zone. He understands what he’s supposed to do on the cycle, but his positioning on rush opportunities is suspect.

We know he has the mental faculties to develop his positioning, as evidenced by how well he sets himself up to receive outlet passes in the defensive zone. As mentioned, he’s also an effective weapon with the man-advantage. If he can do a better job of finding space on the offensive counter-rush at even-strength, it will help optimize his existing offensive talents.

The “raw tools” are all there. Krebs is gifted and skilled enough to be a positive impact player at the NHL level. It’s important to remember that before the 2019 NHL Draft, he lost an entire year of development when he missed his D+1 season due to an Achilles injury. I don’t think a demotion to Rochester would make much sense at this point, it will be interesting to see if some fine-tuning in the offseason leads to a significant developmental leap in 2022-23.

Advanced Stats courtesy of Evolving Hockey, and Natural Stat Trick

Charts courtesy of Evolving Hockey, Hockeyviz, JFresh Hockey, and All Three Zones

Photo Credit: Jean-Yves Ahern-USA TODAY Sports