Since we first established Expected Buffalo, I have noticed an increasingly popular request from our readers. Our articles, almost always analytics-based, often highlight how underlying data fortifies trends we’ve observed with our own eyes.

Last season in particular, more and more Twitter commentators (enough of them for me to notice, anyway), challenged us to go against the grain and tackle topics where the numbers don’t necessarily jive with what we’ve seen on the ice.

Seldom have I encountered a situation where every metric indicates that a given player is good or bad, and I find myself in complete disagreement. The analysis is nuanced, and stances on a given subject are… well, subject to change.

All of that being said, I believe I’ve found a player who’s baseline analytics appear lackluster relative to what I’ve seen play out on the ice.

Contract Year Hand-Wringing

In the early going of his first full season with the Buffalo Sabres, Bowen Byram’s results have been under constant scrutiny from the fanbase. The most prominent reason for this is his expiring contract status at the end of the 2024-25 campaign.

As a pending RFA, it will be interesting to see how the year plays out for him, relative to what type of commitment Kevyn Adams will be willing to pursue. The range of possibilities is rather vast, given the players’ propensity for posting points versus the amount of long-term money the Sabres have already committed on the blue line.

In light of the circumstances, a lot of folks (myself included) have been a little more intentional about how they view his performance so far this season. To my eye, Byram has played well. He’s contributing in a big way offensively, and his transition game has been solid as well.

As we know, he has limitations in the defensive zone. If you’re a defensive purist, this type of blueliner may irk you to some extent. Based on what I’m seeing, the good he’s provided on offense has offset whatever he’s given back in his own end.

Diving Into the Numbers

The baseline analytics paint something of an ugly picture. The microstats available to us go a certain way toward fortifying my observations, but most of the, what I’ll refer to as “publicly available” metrics don’t seem to view Byram favorably. Let’s take a look under the hood.

We’ll start with the baseline numbers and work our way into the more nuanced stuff. From a flyover view, Byram’s xGF rate of 41.68% (which ranks dead-last among Sabres defensemen this season) might raise some eyebrows. That’s an abysmal number at face value. While positive overall, his Corsi metrics rank second-last among his blue-line contemporaries at 50.08%.

What’s interesting is Byram’s actual GF/60 numbers. His mark of 4.26 is far and away the highest on the Sabres defense. Juxtaposed against his on-ice GA/60 of  3.01, things look a little nicer.

There’s some PDO consideration at play here. His on-ice shot percentage of 17.85% is the highest on the team, while his on-ice save percentage number of 89.49% is below the median (90.7%).

Into the Microstats

Now we have to figure out how much of that 17.85% on-ice shooting rate has to do with his contributions. That’s where the microstats come into play. With 10 points in 16 games so far, you would think he’s a significant part of the positive results there, and to some degree, you would be correct.

Sticking with the trend we’ve set for this exercise, I’ll start with broader strokes and narrow the scope from there. One of the first microstats I was interested in was primary shot assists. Unsurprisingly, Byram ranks second only to Dahlin among Sabres defensemen in that category.

This is the first aspect of his game that has directly matched the eye test for me. What surprised me in All Three Zones’ data was Byram’s low rate of “high danger” shot assists. The entire concept of high danger is a bit vague for my liking and could go a certain way toward explaining his low overall expected goals numbers across the board.

When I watch Byram play, I see an offensive contributor. The data indicates that he’s more of a passenger whose teammates are producing offensive opportunities despite his presence. The sample is still very small after just 16 games, and I expect the GF and xGF numbers to level out at some point (see RAPM chart in the last section for reference to the disparity that currently exists between the two numbers).

One other point to mention here is Byram’s most common pairing-mates, Rasmus Dahlin and Owen Power. Both are players with historical proficiency in their respective offensive contributions. For this reason, the models might be disproportionately crediting them for some of Byram’s contributions.

Defensive Findings

Shifting our focus to what Byram does in his own end, I was a bit surprised at what I found. As I previously mentioned, I seldom notice Byram doing anything overly influential in the defensive zone. Like any young offensively-inclined defenseman, he’s prone to defensive gaffes, but his propensity to commit them never really stands out to me.

The unexpected part of what I found pertains to his entry defense and zone-exit abilities. According to All Three Zones, Byram and Connor Clifton currently hold the lowest rates of entries allowed that lead to opposing scoring chances. That performance to date has served in stark contrast to Corey Sznajder’s data from last season which depicted Byram as a liability in that regard.

Additionally, Byram ranks second among Buffalo blueliners in exits with possession. He also has the lowest rate of zone clearances per 60. So, while he isn’t particularly adept at securing the puck in his zone, when he does do it, he tends to create controlled counters the other way.

That’s a positive sign. If he can be coached up to engage more and improve his puck-retrieval skills, that combination of abilities could prove extremely valuable.

Closing Thoughts

I know that was a lot to digest. In summation, Byram’s microstats do go a certain way toward vindicating my belief that he’s contributing a lot more than the baseline analytics might indicate.

On offense, I think it’s demonstrably clear that the xGF metrics aren’t crediting him proportionally for what he’s helping create on the ice. My feeling is that he’s a better offensive puck distributor than he’s being given credit. It’s almost certain that his expected metrics will gravitate toward his actual GF numbers, but the extent remains to be seen.

As we discussed, I went the other way on defense. I didn’t realize how proficient he has been at controlling opposing entries. The proportion of controlled exits wasn’t as much of a surprise, but his rate needs to improve, which tracks with what I’ve seen.

The plan is to do more articles like this. In Byram’s particular case here, we’re dealing with a tiny sample, so it’s sort of easy to “cherry-pick” when metrics don’t match the eye test this early in the season. Still, challenging my eyes and the metrics in tandem left me with, at minimum, more aspects of his game to which I need to pay closer attention.

Charts and Advanced Metrics courtesy of All Three Zones and Evolving Hockey

Salary Cap Visual courtesy of Spotrac

Photo Credit: USA Today