The KZB Line: Analyzing Player Traits to Understand the Line’s Chemistry

[text_output]By now practically everyone reading this article should be well aware of the KZB line—Chris Kreider-Mika Zibanejad-Pavel Buchnevich—and how successful it has been at times when utilized over the prior two seasons. Each player on the line at least belongs in the conversation of the top-tier of Rangers forwards, and according to Corsica’s Line Stats page the line is one of a very select few Rangers forward lines that has put up positive shot share (Corsi for percentage = 56.56%) and expected goal share (expected goals for percentage = 59.29%) totals while also at least maintaining an equal goal share (goals for percentage = 50%) among lines that have received at least 100 minutes of 5v5 play over the prior two seasons. Further, when you look at the chart below, courtesy of the great Micah Blake McCurdy’s HockeyViz website, which depicts the performance as measured by 5v5 shot attempts per-60 of various forward combinations on the Rangers over the course of the 2017-2018 season, it is clear just how much better this line was last year than any other Rangers’ forward combination.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”3088″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]For those unfamiliar with this chart, the x-axis depicts 5v5 shot attempts for per-60 (increasing as you move to the right) while the y-axis shows 5v5 shot attempts against per-60 (inverted, so decreasing as you move up). Micah conveniently labels the chart quadrants to make it easier to understand: top-right = good (many shots for and few against), top-left = dull (few shots for and against), bottom-right = fun (many shots for and against) and the bottom-left = bad (few shots for and many against). The red arrow that I’ve inserted, pointing to the box furthest to the top-right, “20+89+93,” depicts the KZB line, which as you can see was clearly more effective at winning the shot share battle at 5v5 play last year than any other Rangers’ forward combination (minimum 200 minutes together). For comparison’s sake, the blue arrow points to the “20+93” box, which depicts how just Kreider and Zibanejad performed when paired together, the green arrow points to Kreider + Buchnevich and the purple arrow points to Buchnevich + Zibanejad.

Now, I’m not sitting here making the argument that shot share is the end-all be-all in line performance analysis, but this chart does do a good job of highlighting something that many Rangers fans have noticed over the prior two seasons: the line of Chris Kreider—Mika Zibanejad—Pavel Buchnevich not only works, but has been one of the more effective lines for the Rangers. Further, this chart helps to demonstrate that while the individual pairing combinations that comprise the line are all positive, none of them are as effective as when the entire line is together.

Quite frankly, I can go on and on with a myriad of additional statistical evidence to further demonstrate that the KZB line has clearly been one of the most effective forward lines for the Rangers over the prior two seasons, but the point of this article is not to prove this line is effective, it is to discuss WHY this line is effective, so for the sake of brevity, let’s just leave it at this for now. If you’d like to discuss this further, please feel free to comment on the article or hit me up on twitter and I’d be happy to chat.

So, now to get to the point of this article, what makes the KZB line so effective? Obviously all three players are good at their jobs, and naturally placing three good forwards on the same line while all are playing their actual positions should lead to positive results. However, there have been plenty of lines in the NHL full of talented players that for one reason or another never meshed well. Further, each of Kreider, Zibanejad and Buchnevich have been afforded the opportunity to play with other good Rangers forwards over the years, such as Mats Zuccarello, Rick Nash, Derek Stepan, J.T. Miller and Kevin Hayes, but none of those combinations saw the consistent positive results that the KZB line has.

This is when we start to get into the topic of “chemistry,” and in my personal opinion, and the opinion of many other fans and analysts, the KZB line clearly has chemistry. But what exactly does this mean? Chemistry is often spoken about as consisting of elements such as communication, learning the playing styles of your linemates and understanding specific elements of their games such as where they like the puck, their pinching habits, their strengths and weaknesses in the defensive zone etc. While many elements in the discussion of chemistry cannot be measured (at least, not by anything publicly available), we now have some micro-stats available to the public that do allow us to statistically measure certain elements that some may lump into the conversation of “player chemistry.”[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”3089″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Ryan Stimson is easily one of the most prominent names in the hockey analytics community, as he now writes for The Athletic Buffalo, is an editor and contributor to Hockey-Graphs and is one of the organizers for the annual RIT Sports Analytics Conference. He also created a fantastic Player Traits and Performance Comparison Tool, which I wrote about in August, that illustrates player impacts on defense and shot attempt contributions, as well as the expected primary points he should generate given his shooting and passing ability. However, more important to this particular conversation, the tool also provides a variety of contextual metrics that help users understand the components that go into determining their impact on shot attempt contributions and expected primary points, such as how they rank across a variety of types of passes (e.g. passes that lead to one-timers), their individual shots and primary shot assists, and the types of shots they attempt.

I urge you to check out the article I wrote on this tool if you’d like to learn all about it, but for the purposes of this article, here is a quick explanation of the stats provided in the tool:

• RelTCA60 – This stat, teammate relative Corsi against per-60, is a measurement of shot suppression. It measures the amount of shot attempts the opponent takes while the player is on the ice, per-60 minutes of 5v5 play, relative to the player’s teammates. In theory, if the opponent consistently takes less shots while player A is on the ice compared to when any other teammate of player A is on the ice, than he is defensing effectively and not allowing the opposition to get into a position to rip off a shot.
• SCB% – To be completely candid, I don’t have the slightest clue what exactly the acronym SCB stands for, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn’t matter. What I can tell you with 100% certainty, and what does matter, is that this stat measures the percentage of shots attempts that a team takes while a player is on the ice which the player in question directly contributed to via taking the shot himself or setting up the shot with a pass.
• xPrP60 – This stat, expected primary points per-60, is similar to the expected goal models that have become very popular within the hockey community, with one significant difference. An expected goal model measures the amount of goals that would have been scored, given league average goaltending, due to the quality of scoring chances generated by the team. This stat however, expands that, and measures the amount of expected primary points (primary assists + goals) a player should register, isolating for factors out of his control such as fantastic goaltending or a terrible shooter. This stat accomplishes this by weighting a player’s shot contributions by quality; shot contributions that have a higher likelihood of converting into a primary assist or a goal have a higher weighting than those with a lower likelihood of converting into a primary assist or a goal.
• 1TSA60 – The number of times per-60 minutes of 5v5 play that a skater passes the puck to a teammate that rips a one-timer shot attempt.
• BuildUp60 – This stat measures the “build-up” in play leading to a shot attempt. Specifically, it measures the secondary and tertiary shot assists per-60 minutes of 5v5 play that a skater registers.
• DZSA60 – This stat might be by personal favorite among these 11 contextual metrics, as it measures the number of shot assists a player registers that lead to a high-danger scoring chance. Specifically, it measures the shot assists created from a pass from behind the net to a player in front of the net, or a shot assist created from a pass across the slot, which have been proven to lead to higher quality scoring chances.
• ixA60 – Individual expected assists per-60 minutes of 5v5 play. Think of this as the same thing as expected goals, except it measures the amount of assists a player should accumulate given the quality of the pass and scoring chance.
• Trans60 – This stat measures the amount of shots and shot assists a team takes per-60 minutes of 5v5 play due to a “transition” pass from the player in question. Specifically, it measures the shots and shot assists resulting from passes from the player from the neutral or defensive zone.
• PSC60 – Primary shot contributions per-60 minutes of 5v5 ice time. Primary shot contributions include shots a player takes himself, and primary shot assists.
• SA60 – The number of shot assists per-60 minutes of 5v5 play that a skater registers. Shot assists are when the skater passes the puck directly to the player that takes the shot attempt.
• Shots60 – The amount of shots the skater takes per-60 minutes of 5v5 play.
• 1T60 – The amount of one-timer shots a player takes per-60 minutes of play.
• iDZ60 – The amount of times a player takes a high-danger shot that resulted in a pass from his teammate across the slot or from behind the net, per-60 minutes of 5v5 play.
• ixG60 – The amount of expected goals the player himself generated per-60 minutes of 5v5 play. Expected goals is a statistic that considers both shot quantity and quality in order to provide a metric for how many goals a team (or player) should have scored, given the quality of scoring chances generated, if the opposing goalie played at a league-average level. Expected goals accomplishes this by weighting each unblocked shot attempt by a variety of shot attributes (e.g. shot type, distance, angle etc.), with heavier weightings applied to shot characteristics with a higher chance of leading to a goal.

All data used in the tool is for the 5v5 game state only from the 2014-2018 seasons and is drawn from multiple sources, including EvolvingWild’s RAPM data, Corsica and the manual passing and zone entry/exit data tracked and gathered by Ryan, Corey Sznajder and volunteers that assist them. One last note on the tool before I dig into the data for the KZB line: the bar charts and associated numbers represent the player’s percentile among their positional group. So, if a forward’s 1TSA60 (one-timer shot assists per-60) bar has the number 98 next to it, it means he is in the 98^th percentile among forwards in terms of one-timer shot assists per-60.

With all of that out of the way, we can finally get to the point of this article: analyzing the passing, shot creation and shot qualities of each player on the KZB line to see if there are any matching attributes that help paint the picture of why this line seems to have such good chemistry. For example, if one player on the line is frequently able to execute passes that set up one-timer shots—which one be indicated by the 1TSA60 pass quality attribute bar—and another player on the line is frequently able to rip off one-timers himself—indicated by the 1T60 (one-timer shots per-60)—than they are likely a good fit together. This type of attribute pairing would lend itself to the chemistry conversation of, “player X knows how to get player Y the puck in the spots he likes,” because player X has consistently demonstrated the ability to effectively set up one-timers while player Y loves taking one-timer shots.

The remainder of this article goes fairly deep into the analysis of the passing and shooting qualities of Buchnevich, Kreider and Zibanejad; for those of you that may not necessarily care to read all of the granular details but just want a high-level summary, I’ve included a “Putting All of the Pieces Together” summary section at the end that provides the key highlights. I obviously encourage you to read this whole piece, but I understand everyone digests content in various ways, so you can skip to the end if you are in a rush or if the level of detail I’ve provided isn’t your cup of tea.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Chris Kreider & Mika Zibanejad[/custom_headline][text_output]First, let’s start with the below chart, which shows a side-by-side comparison of Chris Kreider and Mika Zibanejad. I’ve chosen to include the full available data timeframe of the tool (2014-2018) in order to have the largest sample possible for this discussion, as it can be misleading when analyzing these sorts of micro-stats using tiny sample sizes. As you can see by the fact that literally every bar for both players are blue, Kreider and Zibanejad are both effective, well-rounded players that can playmake and shoot. However, beyond the fact that these are both high-quality players with well-rounded skill sets, there are certainly some specific traits that jump out that lend themselves to the discussion of why these two seem to mesh so well together on the ice.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”3091″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]The first thing that catches my eye is the fact that Kreider is in the 90^th percentile in Trans60, which represents the amount of shots and shot assists a team generates per-60 minutes of 5v5 play due to a “transition” pass from the player in question (Kreider). Specifically, it measures the shots and shot assists resulting from Chris Kreider passes from the neutral or defensive zone. There has been a ton of research into the topic of the importance of neutral zone play and the importance of being able to effectively bring the puck up the ice and gain controlled entry into the offensive zone. This stat here tells us that Chris Kreider consistently can make a pass from outside of his offensive zone that will directly lead to his teammate (which is often Zibanejad or Buchnevich) either taking a shot, or making a pass that directly leads to a shot. When you are playing on a line with talented offensive players, this is a key skill to have that can help drive success for a line.

Another thing that jumps off the screen to me is that Kreider’s best trait relative to other NHL forwards is his proclivity for taking one-timers, ranking in the 92^nd percentile in one-timers per-60 (1T60). Mika Zibanejad is in the 83^rd percentile in one-timer assists per-60, so suffice it to say, Zibanejad has ample ability to set up Kreider to rip those one-timers on net. For what it’s worth, Zibanejad is in the 98^th percentile himself in one-timer shots taken per-60, his strongest attribute in the chart. While Kreider isn’t as good as Zibanejad at setting up one-timers, he still ranks in the 66^th percentile in one-timer shot assists, and is more than capable of setting up Mika for his own rippers.

The last attribute pairing I’d like to point out is that Kreider’s best passing attribute outside of his transition passes is DZSA60, in which he ranks in the 81^st percentile among NHL forward. DZSA60 measures the number of shot assists a player registers that lead to a high-danger scoring chance. More specifically, it measures the shot assists created from a pass from behind the net to a player in front of the net, or a shot assist created from a pass across the slot, which have been proven to lead to higher quality scoring chances. The sister attribute to this passing stat is iDZ60, which represents the individual shots a player takes following one of these high danger passes that came across the slot of from behind the net. Mika Zibanejad ranks in the 90^th percentile in iDZ60, meaning that he has ample ability to convert these high danger passes from Kreider into a shot. Similar to our one-timer discussion, these two are a fit going in both directions with this stat, as Mika also excels at setting up high danger shots, ranking in the 97^th percentile in DZSA60, and Kreider is no slouch at capitalizing on these passes, ranking in the 78^th percentile in iDZ60.

There are a few more takeaways we can all make from this chart, but I think I’ve made my point. Chris Kreider and Mika Zibanejad are both very effective forwards, and their diverse offensive skill sets complement each other nicely and are a big reason why the KZB line has been so successful for the New York Rangers, and hopefully will continue to be so moving forward.[/text_output][image type=”circle” float=”none” link=”true” target=”blank” info=”tooltip” info_place=”bottom” info_trigger=”hover” src=”3094″ alt=”Image Credit: NHL.com” href=”https://www.blueshirtsbreakaway.com/” title=”Image Credit: NHL.com” info_content=”Image Credit: NHL.com” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Pavel Buchnevich & Mika Zibanejad[/custom_headline][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”3103″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]While the 23-year-old Buchnevich doesn’t have quite as impressive of an overall player traits profile as Kreider, he certainly has some very strong qualities that also pair very nicely with Zibanejad. It should be noted (in fact, I should’ve mentioned this at the onset), that these player traits can obviously be greatly influenced by the players a skater is often sharing the ice with, and Buchnevich’s inconsistent line deployment under the previous coaching regime probably did him no favors here. Nonetheless, Buchnevich still has some impressive traits, and should continue to build on these if he can settle into a more consistent top-6 role this season under David Quinn.

Similar to Kreider, Buchnevich is excellent at creating transition passes leading to shots or shot assists, ranking in the 86^th percentile of NHL forwards. When you have a line with two wingers that consistently demonstrate the ability to effectively transition the puck up the ice, you have the makings for a line that should be able to consistently generate high-quality offensive chances. Buchnevich’s strongest shot quality is his ability to receive a pass and immediately rip it on net for a one-timer, ranking in the 70^th percentile in 1T60. As we discussed earlier, Zibanejad is a more than adequate center at setting up one-timers (83^rd percentile in 1TSA60), so going forward, Buchnevich, similar to Kreider, should have ample opportunity to convert on Mika’s passes. Conversely, while Buchnevich is not anything to write home about regarding his ability to set up one-timers, he has been slightly above average at this throughout his career, ranking in the 56^th percentile in 1TSA60, so he also is certainly capable enough to complement Zibanejad’s elite ability to unleash one-timers.

Over the course of his young career, Buchnevich’s single best passing or shooting trait has been his ability to set up high danger shots, with a DZSA60 ranking in the 90^th percentile, which should lend itself very well to Zibanejad’s ability to convert these type of passes into shots (90^th percentile in iDZ60). Lastly, I think it is very much worth noting that Buchnevich has an expected primary points per-60 (xPrP60) ranking of 82^nd percentile among NHL forwards, placing him between Kreider (76^th) and Zibanejad (86^th). Despite Buchnevich not having the most eye-popping individual pass or shot qualities, he has consistently been able to generate expected primary points. For those unfamiliar, expected primary points functions similarly to expected goals—weighting shots for quality to determine how many goals a team/player should have scored given league average goaltending against—except this stat applies weightings to the quality of primary shot contributions (the pass leading to the shot + shots) to determine the likelihood of it becoming a primary assist or a goal.

The one area I will say that I would really like Buchnevich to improve in this year is his ability to turn high danger passes into shots. As I’ve noted a few times now, Zibanejad is among the best forwards in the entire NHL at dishing passes across these high danger areas, and Kreider is no slouch at this himself, so Buchnevich developing this skill could even further contribute to the success of this already very good forward line. I will say however that, while it is not reflected in the above chart (which spans Buchnevich’s entire career), during the 2017-2018 season Buchnevich did in the 78^th percentile in shots following a high-danger pass through the slot or from behind the net, which was his strongest shot quality on the season, so there is reason for optimism that he is capable of improving on this ability, and likely already has.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Pavel Buchnevich & Chris Kreider[/custom_headline][text_output]We already covered a few items we know will help drive this line’s success, such as both players being strong transition passers (as evidenced by their high Trans60 rankings), which certainly can help drive offensive success. However, there are a number of items that stand out when analyzing Buchnevich and Kreider to suggest that this line’s chemistry goes beyond Zibanejad meshing with his wingers.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”3096″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]The first thing that stands out to me is that Kreider’s shot qualities-related metrics are all higher than Buchnevich’s, and one of Buchnevich’s strongest attributes is his individual expected assists per-60 (ixA60). This tells me that, while Kreider is a balanced player, as we demonstrated earlier he is a strong shot creator and shooter, and a player such as Buchnevich on the other wing who leans more towards being pass-first can be a good fit, as there are so many shots to go around. Buchnevich’s passing ability lends itself well to generating a lot of expected assists, and a player like Kreider, who has a better shot than he’s often given credit for, and who loves nothing more than crashing the net (sometimes perhaps too literally), should be able to capitalize off of this.

More specific to the passing traits, we can apply a lot of the discussion we just had about how Buchnevich and Zibanejad mesh to this discussion. Similar to Zibanejad, Kreider loves one-timers, and Buchnevich has shown slightly above-average ability for setting up one timers to this point in his career. Further, while Kreider isn’t as adept as Zibanejad at converting high danger passes into shots, he is still no slouch, ranking in the 78^th percentile of forwards, and dishing these high danger passes is Buchnevich’s most impressive passing trait.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Putting All of the Pieces Together[/custom_headline][text_output]For those of you that have read the entire piece, I believe I’ve provided ample evidence to suggest that there the KZB line’s “chemistry” goes far beyond communication and familiarity, and that there are tangible, measurable traits that each player possesses that help contribute to the chemistry, and ultimately the success of the line. Now, let’s put all of the pieces together and highlight what, in my opinion at least, are the most important takeaways of the analysis I’ve provided above:

The line can consistently generate high danger shots – Perhaps the most notable aspect I found is how well-suited they are to consistently generate high danger scoring chances resulting from passes that cross the slot or that come from behind the net, which have been objectively proven to lead to goals at a higher rate than average. All three players are significantly better than average at creating these high danger passes, as evidenced by the fact that they all rank above the 80^th percentile among NHL forwards in DZSA60 (Kreider = 81^nd, Buchnevich = 90^th and Zibanejad = 97^th) which specifically measures the shot assists created by the player that are a direct result of one of these high danger passes. On top of that, Kreider and Zibanejad have both demonstrated the ability to convert these passes into a high danger shot attempt, as Kreider is in the 78^th percentile in iDZ60 while Zibanejad is in the 90^th percentile. While Buchnevich certainly has work to do in this area (40^th percentile), he was in 78^th percentile in iDZ60 last season, so hopefully this positive development continues.

All three players have a penchant for taking and assisting on one-timers – Buchnevich, Kreider and Zibanejad are all effective players in terms of ripping one-timers towards the net, placing in the 70^th, 92^nd and 98^th percentile in one-timer shots per-60 among NHL forwards, respectively. However, being good at ripping one-timers is a fairly useless skill if you don’t have anyone to pass you the puck in a manner that allows you to take the one-timer. Fortunately for the line, each of them is also above-average at setting up one-timers, ranking in the 56^th (PB), 66^th (CK) and 83^rd (MZ) percentiles in one-timer shot assists per-60.

Each player excels at transition passes – I’m not breaking any news here when I say that the ability to effectively move the puck up the ice into the offensive zone is a valuable feature of an effective line. One of the most impressive aspects of the KZB line is that each of the linemates is well above average at completing passes from outside the offensive zone that directly lead to either a shot or shot assist by a teammate, which is represented by the Trans60 portion of the charts. Chris Kreider impressively is in the 90^th percentile of NHL forwards in this stat, followed by Buchnevich in the 86^th percentile and Zibanejad in the 73^rd.

Kreider, Zibanejad and Buchnevich are all good at hockey – While the entire purpose of this article was to demonstrate that the KZB line possesses a great mix of passing and shooting qualities that help add to the lines chemistry, it would be foolish to not include in this portion one obvious fact: all three players are very good at hockey. Ryan Stimson said himself in his article for The Atheltic that the top-three stats in the chart—RelTCA60 (teammate relative Corsi against per-60, is a measurement of shot suppression), SCB% (measures the percentage of shots attempts that a team takes while a player is on the ice which the player in question directly contributed to via taking the shot himself or setting up the shot with a pass) and xPrP60 (expected primary points per-60)—are by far the most critical in terms of analyzing the overall impact on the game that players have. In fact, he states that, “those are really all you need to know for overall player value. I include everything else because my interest in getting into hockey analytics years ago was always about learning what players fit well together, specific way teams generate and suppress offense, and attempt to apply measurable and valuable metrics to tactics within games.”

As it turns out, with the exception of Buchnevich’s RelTCA60 performance, all three linemates are well above average at all three stats. While Buchnevich certainly needs to work on his defense, ranking in the 20^th percentile in RelTCA60, he did rank in the 76^th percentile in the stat in 2016-2017, before taking a nosedive last year, so hopefully last year was a blip on the radar and he can return to form. Kreider and Zibanejad ranked in the 81^st and 71^st percentiles in RelTCA60. All three players rate well in SCB%, with Buchnevich falling in the 58^th percentile, Kreider in the 81^st and Zibanejad in the 82^nd. Finally, they all have done very well with generated expected primary points, as Kreider ranks in the 76^th percentile in xPrP60, Buchnevich in the 82^nd percentile and Zibanejad in the 86^th.

Well there you have it everyone, some tangible data to help explain why the Rangers forward line of Chris Kreider, Mika Zibanejad and Pavel Buchnevich appears to have such good chemistry. I know this was a fairly dense article, so please do not hesitate to reach out to me on Twitter if you have any questions.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”3099″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””]