What Team has the top future D corp ?

[dgibb10]

If you're going to quote statistics to support your argument you should probably know how those stats are used. I've never seen anyone use on the fly shift starts in a zone deployment discussion, probably because that wouldn't make any sense.

Because people like to vastly overrate the difference in offensive zone starts.

You made the statement

He was -25 with 69 giveaways while starting 70% of his shifts in the OZ.

He did not start "70% of his shifts" in the ozone. That statement makes it seem like luke got HUNDREDS more Ozone starts than Dzone starts, when in reality the gap was less than 40.

He started 11.9% (208) of his shifts (1748) in the ozone.

Or about 2.5 times a game he started a shift in the ozone.

Ignoring on the fly shifts vastly skews the numbers.


Does a player getting 20% ozone starts and 10% dzone starts have the same deployment as a guy who gets 10% ozone starts and 5% dzone starts?

 

[Bounces R Way]

Because people like to vastly overrate the difference in offensive zone starts.

You made the statement

He did not start "70% of his shifts" in the ozone. That statement makes it seem like luke got HUNDREDS more Ozone starts than Dzone starts, when in reality the gap was less than 40.

He started 11.9% (208) of his shifts (1748) in the ozone.

Or about 2.5 times a game he started a shift in the ozone.

Ignoring on the fly shifts vastly skews the numbers.


Does a player getting 20% ozone starts and 10% dzone starts have the same deployment as a guy who gets 10% ozone starts and 5% dzone starts?

When inspecting how a player was deployed you exclusively look at the difference in OZ and DZ because NZ and on the fly starts aren't pertinent information. It's right in the name, neutral zone.

Neutral:

1. Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.

At all situations Luke Hughes was on the ice for 848 OZ faceoffs(15th most in the league) and for only 378 DZ. Faceoffs are where a coach can get the personnel they want on the ice unless there was an icing or some other reason they can't change their lines. Now obviously those aren't all actually going to be shift starts but that's the nomenclature used when looking at the OZ/DZ splits.

If you have a problem with the terminology that's fine and you probably even have a good point but that's how it's used. If you don't think being started for more than double the amount of OZ faceoffs compared to the DZ is relevant info that paints a picture on how a player is deployed, well we'll just have to disagree there.

 

[dgibb10]

When inspecting how a player was deployed you exclusively look at the difference in OZ and DZ because NZ and on the fly starts aren't pertinent information. It's right in the name, neutral zone.

Neutral:

1. Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.

At all situations Luke Hughes was on the ice for 848 OZ faceoffs(15th most in the league) and for only 378 DZ. Faceoffs are where a coach can get the personnel they want on the ice unless there was an icing or some other reason they can't change their lines. Now obviously those aren't all actually going to be shift starts but that's the nomenclature used when looking at the OZ/DZ splits.

If you have a problem with the terminology that's fine and you probably even have a good point but that's how it's used. If you don't think being started for more than double the amount of OZ faceoffs compared to the DZ is relevant info that paints a picture on how a player is deployed, well we'll just have to disagree there.

Holy shit you don't understand statistics at all.

A) you're using on ice faceoffs, not zone STARTS. Which includes 500 faceoffs where luke was already on the ice before the faceoff. Generating ozone faceoffs when you're on the ice is a GOOD thing
B) you're using all situations. Which means stats will be vastly skewed by PP and PK usage. PP guys will have their ozone starts jumped up, PK guys will have them brought down. Luke Hughes was the QB of NJDs PP and did not kill penalties, yes. The only real information you can gain from all situations zone starts is which guys play on the PK, and which guys play on the PP.

I believe in looking at even strength/5v5 numbers yes for where the shifts actually START. That provides insight.

Luke Hughes starts more starts in his defensive zone than Rasmus Andersson did btw

 

[Golden_Jet]

Ignoring on the fly shifts vastly skews the numbers.

No including them does , as you’ve been told by others as well as me.
No-one includes on the fly shifts when looking at ozone starts and dzone starts, I can’t recall any poster including on the fly.

You can’t figure out a coaches deployment strategy by including them.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Holy shit you don't understand statistics at all.

A) you're using on ice faceoffs, not zone STARTS. Which includes 500 faceoffs where luke was already on the ice before the faceoff. Generating ozone faceoffs when you're on the ice is a GOOD thing
B) you're using all situations. Which means stats will be vastly skewed by PP and PK usage. PP guys will have their ozone starts jumped up, PK guys will have them brought down. Luke Hughes was the QB of NJDs PP and did not kill penalties, yes. The only real information you can gain from all situations zone starts is which guys play on the PK, and which guys play on the PP.

I believe in looking at even strength/5v5 numbers yes for where the shifts actually START. That provides insight.

Luke Hughes starts more starts in his defensive zone than Rasmus Andersson did btw

Buddy I really can't explain it any more simply than I already have. It's you who does not have a grasp on what these statistics mean and why they're recorded. You've picked an odd hill to die on but I'll leave you to it.

 

[dgibb10]

No including them does , as you’ve been told by others as well as me.
No-one includes on the fly shifts when looking at ozone starts and dzone starts, I can’t recall any poster including on the fly.

You can’t figure out a coaches deployment strategy by including them.

Again.

People throw out stuff like "he starts 60% of his shifts in the ozone".

Seems like a lot until you realize it amounts to 2.5 shifts a game.

Cale Makar and Nikita Zaitsev have virtually identical Ozone vs Dzone ratios (about 67% in ozone).

But if you look deeper and see that Makar's splits are 22%-11% (By far the highest % of ozone starts in the league), and Zaitsev is 12%-6%, you realize the usage is vastly different

 

[dgibb10]

Buddy I really can't explain it any more simply than I already have. It's you who does not have a grasp on what these statistics mean and why they're recorded. You've picked an odd hill to die on but I'll leave you to it.

The stat you are using

All Situations-On Ice Faceoffs

The stat you should be using is:

5v5/Even Strength-Zone Starts

Otherwise everything gets skewed by PP usage. Every single guy playing PP1 will have their numbers skewed up there, unless they also kill a vast amount of penalties to cancel it out

One of these lists is the leaders in Ozone faceoffs this past year, the other is the league leaders in PP ice time last year.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Again.

People throw out stuff like "he starts 60% of his shifts in the ozone".

Seems like a lot until you realize it amounts to 2.5 shifts a game.

lol, that’s because those people are using the stats correctly. Here are some definitions I found, none include, on the fly

You’ve now proven how it skews the numbers, and proven yourself wrong, by saying 2 1/2 shifts per game, when in fact we know said player started more than 2 1/2 shifts , by just looking at the counts number. Your becoming obtuse on this.
Below are 3 definitions. not listing all of them. As they are the same.

Zone Start % - Percentage of starts for the player that were Offensive Zone Starts, excluding Neutral Zone and On The Fly Starts.


naturstattrick definition
the ratio of how many faceoffs a player is on the ice for in the offensive zone relative to the total offensive plus defensive zone faceoffs he is on the ice

Zone Starts: Once again, a rather self-explainatory stat. ZS is a measurement of offensive shift starts compared to defensive shift starts.

Some sites include the above stats, that every site uses,
but also show what it looks like if include neutral zone starts.

Can we move on now.

 

[dgibb10]

lol, that’s because those people are using the stats correctly. Here are some definitions I found, none include, on the fly

You’ve now proven how it skews the numbers, and proven yourself wrong, by saying 2 1/2 shifts per game, when in fact we know said player started more than 2 1/2 shifts , by just looking at the counts number. Your becoming obtuse on this.
Below are 3 definitions. not listing all of them. As they are the same.

Zone Start % - Percentage of starts for the player that were Offensive Zone Starts, excluding Neutral Zone and On The Fly Starts.


naturstattrick definition
the ratio of how many faceoffs a player is on the ice for in the offensive zone relative to the total offensive plus defensive zone faceoffs he is on the ice

Zone Starts: Once again, a rather self-explainatory stat. ZS is a measurement of offensive shift starts compared to defensive shift starts.

Some sites include the above stats, that every site uses,
but also show what it looks like if include neutral zone starts.

Can we move on now.

Luke Hughes started 209 shifts in the ozone in 82 games 5v5. 209/82=2.55

If you go to even strength that becomes 235 in 82 games or sbout 2.83

Evolving Hockey definition:

lol, that’s because those people are using the stats correctly. Here are some definitions I found, none include, on the fly

You’ve now proven how it skews the numbers, and proven yourself wrong, by saying 2 1/2 shifts per game, when in fact we know said player started more than 2 1/2 shifts , by just looking at the counts number. Your becoming obtuse on this.
Below are 3 definitions. not listing all of them. As they are the same.

Zone Start % - Percentage of starts for the player that were Offensive Zone Starts, excluding Neutral Zone and On The Fly Starts.


naturstattrick definition
the ratio of how many faceoffs a player is on the ice for in the offensive zone relative to the total offensive plus defensive zone faceoffs he is on the ice

Zone Starts: Once again, a rather self-explainatory stat. ZS is a measurement of offensive shift starts compared to defensive shift starts.

Some sites include the above stats, that every site uses,
but also show what it looks like if include neutral zone starts.

Can we move on now.

If you want to use dogshit stats that don't provide good info, go ahead.

Makar has 22% ozone, 11% dzone. That tells me that his coach loves to send him over the boards in the ozone, and trusts him defensively

Nikita Zaitsev gets 11% ozone, 6% dzone. That tells me that his coach trusts him offensively, but really does NOT trust him defensively.

Now, with these other, (dogshit) ways of reading it, you would think these two players are deployed the same way. But they aren't.

You'd also want to look at overall faceoff numbers. NJD did not take a lot of faceoffs (below average in both total Ozone and dzone draws), so luke getting 12% and 10% would equate to more on a more faceoff heavy team.

Whereas with bad teams like SJS, it becomes less about trust for guys who are out there, and more about just always being in your own zone.

Also a statement like "he starts 60% of his shifts in the ozone" is simply FALSE. He starts 11.9% of his shifts in the ozone. Now, if you want to say "60% of his shifts that start in either the ozone or dzone are in the ozone", that would be true, but is a completely different statement.

 

[Golden_Jet]

If you want to use dogshit stats that don't provide good info, go ahead.

We’re done, I provided a few stat sites definitions, ie. natural stattrick, you’re obviously new, and have a hard time comprehending stats. This is not the first time you’ve screwed up stats, and won’t be your last. Keep on with including “on the fly” stats. Several posters and hockey stats sites disagree with you.
Enjoy your day, I’m done wasting my time.

 

[dgibb10]

We’re done, I provided a few stat sites definitions, ie. natural stattrick, you’re obviously new, and have a hard time comprehending stats. This is not the first time you’ve screwed up stats, and won’t be your last. Keep on with including “on the fly” stats. Several posters and hockey stats sites disagree with you.
Enjoy your day, I’m done wasting my time.

I understand the stat perfectly.

The stat he is trying to refer to is % of ozone or dzone starts that occur in the ozone. It's a shit stat all situations, and mediocre at best 5v5, but I digress.

But when he says "70% of luke hughes shifts start in the ozone" that is simply, objectively wrong.

If he said "Luke Hughes gets 1.93 ozone starts for every Dzone start" he would be right (now, his point would still be stupid because all situations numbers are skewed by PP time).

But that is not what he said. And those are 2 very different things

The stat that represents what % of your shifts you start in the ozone = shifts starting in ozone/total shifts
The ratio of Ozone vs dzone starts (or you can view it as a % if you want it means the same thing) is a completely different stat

 

[Chainshot]

Luke Hughes projects to being very good defensively. He is an elite skater in all directions, has an extremely long reach and can skate the puck out of trouble unlike many in the NHL. Awareness generally comes with experience and 1 on 1 defending (which improved drastically throughout the year) is improved with coaching and experience. People forget how poor Scott Niedermayer was defensively to start his career. When you have the size and ability to skate like L Hughes, as long as you don't have marbles in your head, you will be at least average defensively.

People simply don't understand the concept of projection.

And there is certainly something to comparing players who have arrived and are performing at the NHL level than say, junior or collegiate levels or even in other pro leagues. It's way riskier to assume that lower tier guys are slam dunks at the pro level.

 

[My3Sons]

And there is certainly something to comparing players who have arrived and are performing at the NHL level than say, junior or collegiate levels or even in other pro leagues. It's way riskier to assume that lower tier guys are slam dunks at the pro level.

There are also multiple ways to skin the cat. If a defender is great in his own zone with positioning and ending a play when he can pin a guy to the boards and has a good stick he will appear to be good defensively. However, if he cannot move the puck well and just throws it around the boards because his passing is off is he really better at defense than a guy that can retrieve pucks and transition them well even if the second guy doesn't overpower guys down low? Maybe yes maybe no but there are very few old school players anymore on defense. Skating and passing and transition seem to be valued more than physical play in recent draft years.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

If we’re counting Dahlin and Samuelsson, the Sabres. If not, the Devils.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I understand the stat perfectly.

The stat he is trying to refer to is % of ozone or dzone starts that occur in the ozone. It's a shit stat all situations, and mediocre at best 5v5, but I digress.

But when he says "70% of luke hughes shifts start in the ozone" that is simply, objectively wrong.

If he said "Luke Hughes gets 1.93 ozone starts for every Dzone start" he would be right (now, his point would still be stupid because all situations numbers are skewed by PP time).

But that is not what he said. And those are 2 very different things

The stat that represents what % of your shifts you start in the ozone = shifts starting in ozone/total shifts
The ratio of Ozone vs dzone starts (or you can view it as a % if you want it means the same thing) is a completely different stat

I think the OP misstated the wrong Hughes brother.

• NJD 2023-24 Zone Starts (EV), Hockey-Reference (scroll down)
  • Jack Hughes
    • OZ starts = 67.4%
    • DZ starts = 32.6%
  • Luke Hughes
    • OZ starts = 60.8%
    • DZ Starts = 39.2%

* OZ starts = OZ starts/ (OZ starts + DZ starts)
* DZ starts = DZ starts/ (OZ starts + DZ starts)

IMO, on the fly starts is a very ambiguous stat because you have no idea if the "on the fly" deployment is in the OZ, NZ, or DZ. The deployment of personnel after a whistle is blown in the OZ or DZ is far more descriptive of the usage of a player. NZ starts doesn't describe much aside from FO wins.

 

[dgibb10]

I think the OP misstated the wrong Hughes brother.

• NJD 2023-24 Zone Starts (EV), Hockey-Reference (scroll down)
  • Jack Hughes
    • OZ starts = 67.4%
    • DZ starts = 32.6%
  • Luke Hughes
    • OZ starts = 60.8%
    • DZ Starts = 39.2%

* OZ starts = OZ starts/ (OZ starts + DZ starts)
* DZ starts = DZ starts/ (OZ starts + DZ starts)

IMO, on the fly starts is a very ambiguous stat because you have no idea if the "on the fly" deployment is in the OZ, NZ, or DZ. The deployment of personnel after a whistle is blown in the OZ or DZ is far more descriptive of the usage of a player. NZ starts doesn't describe much aside from FO wins.

Again, he'd still be wrong, because Jack Hughes also doesn't "start 60% of his shifts in the ozone"

Jack has a 2:1 ratio of Ozonezone starts, but again, that amounts to about 3 ozone starts per game, nowhere close to 60% of his shifts.

They are different stats. 1 answers the question "what % of a players shifts start in each zone", the other answers "what ratio of ozone to dzone starts does a player have"

The ratio is not nearly as valuable as the actual zone numbers, from which you can see the ratio from quite easily if you want, but also provides a differentiation between the usage of a Cale Makar (22%-11%) and a Nikita Zaitsev (12%-6%) that you would not otherwise see

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Again, he'd still be wrong, because Jack Hughes also doesn't "start 60% of his shifts in the ozone"

Jack has a 2:1 ratio of Ozonezone starts, but again, that amounts to about 3 ozone starts per game, nowhere close to 60% of his shifts.

They are different stats. 1 answers the question "what % of a players shifts start in each zone", the other answers "what ratio of ozone to dzone starts does a player have"

The ratio is not nearly as valuable as the actual zone numbers, from which you can see the ratio from quite easily if you want, but also provides a differentiation between the usage of a Cale Makar (22%-11%) and a Nikita Zaitsev (12%-6%) that you would not otherwise see

You probably want to take it up with Hockey-Reference and tell them how stats work. Maybe Hockey-Reference doesn't know a thing about hockey stats. Or maybe you might develop some humility and not tell Hockey-Reference they don't know how how to do stats.

As for % and ratios, my basic math say they're the same thing. Ratio = a:b, which can also be written as a fraction as a/b. Take that result of the fractional form and multiply it by 100; then you get a percentage representation. Here's proof from a simple google search.

I think you are overcomplicating stats to compensate for a desired outcome. OZone and DZone stats are very basic stats that helps fans see how coaches utilize their players in those two static situations. Is a player a dependable all around player (50%/50% start), a defensive-minded player (DZstart > 55%), or offensive-minded/sheltered player (DZstart < 55%). The 55% is just arbitrary to be used in this example; nothing for you to overcomplicate things. It's truly that simple.

Anyhow, I just wanted to share that the OP probably used the wrong OZ/DZ start stats since it was an easy mistake to identify because Jack Hughes and Luke Hughes are next to each other on every alphabetically listed table. Figured that would sate all parties as the stats align and we'd all move on. Maybe it's time to be like Rose from the movie Titanic and let Jack go.

 

[dgibb10]

You probably want to take it up with Hockey-Reference and tell them how stats work. Maybe Hockey-Reference doesn't know a thing about hockey stats. Or maybe you might develop some humility and not tell Hockey-Reference they don't know how how to do stats.

As for % and ratios, my basic math say they're the same thing. Ratio = a:b, which can also be written as a fraction as a/b. Take that result of the fractional form and multiply it by 100; then you get a percentage representation. Here's proof from a simple google search.

I think you are overcomplicating stats to compensate for a desired outcome. OZone and DZone stats are very basic stats that helps fans see how coaches utilize their players in those two static situations. Is a player a dependable all around player (50%/50% start), a defensive-minded player (DZstart > 55%), or offensive-minded/sheltered player (DZstart < 55%). The 55% is just arbitrary to be used in this example; nothing for you to overcomplicate things. It's truly that simple.

Anyhow, I just wanted to share that the OP probably used the wrong OZ/DZ start stats since it was an easy mistake to identify because Jack Hughes and Luke Hughes are next to each other on every alphabetically listed table. Figured that would sate all parties as the stats align and we'd all move on. Maybe it's time to be like Rose from the movie Titanic and let Jack go.

Yes. But shifts that start in the ozone or dzone are not the only shifts.

In fact, they are often only 20% of a players shifts.

So the claim that "70% of *insert player* shifts start in the ozone" is simply false, and misrepresents the impact of zone starts, when the difference ends up being less than 1 extra ozone start per game (excluding PP)

I am aware ratios and %s are equivalent.

However, saying "Jack hughes has a 2:1 ratio of ozone to dzone starts" is much clearer and easier than saying "70% of jack hughes shifts which start in either the ozone or dzone start in the ozone".

I am aware of the stat hockey reference uses. And once again, that stat does not describe what % of a players shifts start in each zone. It describes the ratio of ozone to dzone starts only.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Yes. But shifts that start in the ozone or dzone are not the only shifts.

In fact, they are often only 20% of a players shifts.

So the claim that "70% of *insert player* shifts start in the ozone" is simply false, and misrepresents the impact of zone starts, when the difference ends up being less than 1 extra ozone start per game (excluding PP)

I am aware ratios and %s are equivalent.

However, saying "Jack hughes has a 2:1 ratio of ozone to dzone starts" is much clearer and easier than saying "70% of jack hughes shifts which start in either the ozone or dzone start in the ozone".

I am aware of the stat hockey reference uses. And once again, that stat does not describe what % of a players shifts start in each zone. It describes the ratio of ozone to dzone starts only.

Again, you want to complicate stat to compensate for a particular outcome.

For the purposes of identifying players that be trusted at both ends, mostly on the defensive side, or mostly on the offensive side, player deployment from a static position matters. A Neutral zone start doesn't describe anything. On-the-fly starts is far too ambiguous because it is not identifying where the player is starting, but also doesn't identify who possesses the puck when the on-the-fly switching occurs.

By your standards, you have no clue how to differentiate "on-the-fly" position starts along with the context of who is in control of the puck. So it's clearly useless to incorporate this shift stat because it doesn't describe anything because it is not a well defined stat such as on-the-fly OZ start, on-the-fly NZ start, and on-the-fly DZ start. That is where your logic falters.

DZone and OZone starts occur when the sport is static and the coaches deploy specific players for specific situations. Again, you overcomplicate things just so you can see your own stats. Feel free to contact Hockey-Reference and tell them they are wrong.

BTW 2:1 ratio does not = 70%. 2:1 is 200%.

 

[dgibb10]

Again, you want to complicate stat to compensate for a particular outcome.

For the purposes of identifying players that be trusted at both ends, mostly on the defensive side, or mostly on the offensive side, player deployment from a static position matters. A Neutral zone start doesn't describe anything. On-the-fly starts is far too ambiguous because it is not identifying where the player is starting, but also doesn't identify who possesses the puck when the on-the-fly switching occurs.

By your standards, you have no clue how to differentiate "on-the-fly" position starts along with the context of who is in control of the puck. So it's clearly useless to incorporate this shift stat because it doesn't describe anything because it is not a well defined stat such as on-the-fly OZ start, on-the-fly NZ start, and on-the-fly DZ start. That is where your logic falters.

DZone and OZone starts occur when the sport is static and the coaches deploy specific players for specific situations. Again, you overcomplicate things just so you can see your own stats. Feel free to contact Hockey-Reference and tell them they are wrong.

BTW 2:1 ratio does not = 70%. 2:1 is 200%.

2:1 ratio is 66.6667% (2 parts ozone, 1 part dzone=3 parts total. 2/3=0.667 or 66.7%).

for the 40th time, I am aware of what the stat is. And what it tells you. What it does not tell you is "what % of a players shifts start in the ozone".

Do you believe Cale Makar, who starts 22% of his shifts in the ozone (1st in the league by a large margin among dmen), and 11% of his shifts in the dzone.

Gets the same deployment as Nikita Zaitsev, who starts 12% of his shifts in the ozone and 6% in the dzone?

Cale Makar gets DOUBLE the ozone starts as Zaitsev. But hey, if you just looked at Ozone and Dzone starts, you'd think it was the same.

Again, you want to complicate stat to compensate for a particular outcome.

For the purposes of identifying players that be trusted at both ends, mostly on the defensive side, or mostly on the offensive side, player deployment from a static position matters. A Neutral zone start doesn't describe anything. On-the-fly starts is far too ambiguous because it is not identifying where the player is starting, but also doesn't identify who possesses the puck when the on-the-fly switching occurs.

By your standards, you have no clue how to differentiate "on-the-fly" position starts along with the context of who is in control of the puck. So it's clearly useless to incorporate this shift stat because it doesn't describe anything because it is not a well defined stat such as on-the-fly OZ start, on-the-fly NZ start, and on-the-fly DZ start. That is where your logic falters.

DZone and OZone starts occur when the sport is static and the coaches deploy specific players for specific situations. Again, you overcomplicate things just so you can see your own stats. Feel free to contact Hockey-Reference and tell them they are wrong.

BTW 2:1 ratio does not = 70%. 2:1 is 200%.

FYI, unless you struggle with basic math, there is 0 reason to not use the Evolving Hockey stat.

It gives you the exact same information (by simply comparing ozone and dzone starts using basic math), while adding much more valuable information such as the actual quantity of starts.

It's not complicated in the slighest either.

Shifts that start in the ozone/shifts=ozone%
Shifts that start in the dzone/shifts=dzone%

If that's complicated for you, I don't know what to see

 

[Chainshot]

If we’re counting Dahlin and Samuelsson, the Sabres. If not, the Devils.

I wasn't even counting Byram. *shrug* It sort of depends on the demarcation point for age of who is or is not future I suppose.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I wasn't even counting Byram. *shrug* It sort of depends on the demarcation point for age of who is or is not future I suppose.

You see, I was definitely counting Byram, but I feel like if we're not then Buffalo isn't even in the discussion.

I like Power and a few of the other pieces, but it's no comparison to New Jersey and I don't even think Buffalo would be one of the next few.

Certainly a fair point though that this is a topic that is very broad and open to interpretation.

 

[Chainshot]

You see, I was definitely counting Byram, but I feel like if we're not then Buffalo isn't even in the discussion.

I like Power and a few of the other pieces, but it's no comparison to New Jersey and I don't even think Buffalo would be one of the next few.

Certainly a fair point though that this is a topic that is very broad and open to interpretation.

Jersey was my choice. If the 24-year olds are in it, then it certainly makes a case for Buffalo in the equation.

 

[MartyOwns]

not sure what you nerds are debating but it's jersey all day every day.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I wasn't even counting Byram. *shrug* It sort of depends on the demarcation point for age of who is or is not future I suppose.

Even if we count Byram, Samuelsson, Dahlin, and Power, I think I still give the edge to New Jersey. Byram is eerily similar to Chychrun in that the Sabres on power have a strong D, but too many similar pieces that the fit may not be there.