Per 82 GP	2026-27projection adj	2025-2682 GP	H242 GP	H140 GP	Prev 3244 GP · 3y
TOI	18.35	17.57	17.25	17.06	20.47
PP TOI	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.10
G	2	1	-0	2	3
A	13	8	5	11	18
PTS	15	9	5	13	22
PPP	0	0	0	0	0
SOG	68	59	50	69	92
PIM	19	16	16	16	21
Hits	▼42	37	33	41	103
Blocks	117	113	119	107	120

Sample: 82 GP · 1,244 5v5 min (2025-26) — how much ice time backs these rates

Positional rankingDefense · league-wide (of 303)

263Adam Wilsby-46

264Kaedan Korczak-46

265Sawyer Mynio-47

266Cody Ceci-47

267Emil Andrae-48

268Trevor van Riemsdyk-48

269Henry Brzustewicz-48

offenseperipheralsvalue over replacement

Counts = projected deployment × projected /60 rate, per 82 GP. Rates regress off the process metric (ixG, shot-driving), not last year's finishing %. PP points = projected PP rate (anchored on the 2nd-half PP1 role, finishing regressed) × projected PP TOI.

Context-adjusted (▲/▼ vs the rate-model baseline): Hits trimmed to 42. His hit rate has collapsed from 5.2 per 60 to 1.5 over 4 seasons, worth 143 per 82 games down to 36. The engine projects 52 by averaging in the earlier, more physical years. 42 tracks the recent trend and sits near the external 41. His blocks are untouched at 117, because he played 2022-23 in Edmonton and escaped the corrupt blocked-shot rows that hit the other Kings defensemen.

Metrics worth highlighting

The charts that move this projection — where he broke from his own 3-year rate, where the season split in half, and where we’re taking the number next year

Second-half fade

all5v5

Assists ran at a 5 pace in the second half after 11 in the first, per 82 games.

Below his 3-year rate

Hits/60

Hits/60 ran 58% below his 3-year rate last season (1.59 against 3.74).

Below his 3-year rate

iSH%

iSH% ran 50% below his 3-year rate last season (1.79 against 3.60).

Second-half fade

SOG/60

SOG/60 finished the year 29% below where it started (3.28 in the first half, 2.34 in the second). The projection leans on how the season ended, so the second half counts for more.

Picked automatically from every chart on this card, ranked by how far each number moved. Each claim is measured off the chart drawn beside it.

Similar & complementary players

Similar makeup Defense

Closest across all seven categories — match % is the whole-profile fit

Rasmus RistolainenD · Philadelphia Flyers82% match
Braden SchneiderD · New York Rangers81% match
Timothy LiljegrenD · Washington Capitals76% match
Mattias SamuelssonD · Buffalo Sabres76% match

Complementary Defense

Same position, opposite profile — strong where Cody Ceci is weak or average, light where he’s strong

Quinn HughesD · Minnesota Wildcovers 3
fills: A, PPP, SOG
Rasmus DahlinD · Buffalo Sabrescovers 4
fills: A, PIM, SOG, PPP
Evan BouchardD · Edmonton Oilerscovers 3
fills: A, PPP, SOG
Erik KarlssonD · Pittsburgh Penguinscovers 3
fills: A, PPP, SOG

Profile shape — per-82 category values vs the league p99 for the position (same scale as the hero bars)

This player

the profile below

vs Similar

similar players hug the shape

vs Complementary

complements fill the gaps

Deployment

Deployment projection — next-year TOI & PP TOI vs the last two years (the role that drives every count)

Coaching

2026-27 · Peter Laviolette (LAK) new voice

Last year: Jim Hiller Q1-Q4 · fired Mar → D.J. Smith interim · end Q4 — in-season change

Metric	26-27 proj	2025-26	Prev 3	Diff
TOI	18.35	17.57	20.47	-14%
5v5 TOI	15.67	15.17	17.09	-11%
PP TOI	0.02	0.02	0.10	-84%

By quarter — 2025-26 vs 3-yr baseline

GP 21 · 19 · 22 · 20

TOI*

5v5 TOI

PP TOI

*Total TOI by quarter reconstructs 5v5+PP quarterly totals plus a held-flat season PK/GP — NST has no all-strength quarterly export. Level is accurate; quarter-to-quarter movement comes from 5v5+PP.

By season — year over year

TOI

5v5 TOI

PP TOI

TOI → 18.35: holds last year's role
5v5 TOI → 15.67: holds last year's role
PP TOI → 0.02: new coach (Peter Laviolette) — late-year 0.0 role discounted until the new staff sets usage

Shooting — volume & conversion

How much and how well he shoots — volume (SOG), finishing (% vs chance quality), and the individual shot-quality funnel (iCF ⊇ iSCF ⊇ iHDCF).

Metric (5v5)	26-27 proj	2025-26	Prev 3	Diff
SOG/60	2.66	2.80	3.66	-23%
G/60	0.06	0.05	0.13	-62%
iSH%	3.06	1.79	3.60	-50%
ixG/60	–	0.12	0.15	-23%
iCF/60	–	8.78	8.30	+6%
iSCF/60	–	2.56	2.19	+17%
iHDCF/60	–	0.19	0.40	-53%

By quarter — 2025-26 vs 3-yr baseline

GP 21 · 19 · 22 · 20

SOG/60

iSH%

ixG/60

iCF/60

iSCF/60

iHDCF/60

By season — year over year

SOG/60

iSH%

ixG/60

iCF/60

iSCF/60

iHDCF/60

Per-82 count — 3 seasons, 2025-26 halves & 26-27 projection

all5v5

SOG

all5v5

The blue 26-27 point is our projection. The bold line is all situations; the muted line under it is 5v5 alone, so the gap between them is his special-teams production. Full seasons are true per-82 counts; the 2025-26 H1/H2 reconstruct all-strength from the 5v5+PP quarterly exports plus the season's held-flat PK/other. The projected 5v5 point is the engine's even-strength share of the total, converted to 5v5 by his own 5v5-to-even-strength split, so overtime and 4-on-4 scoring stays out of it.

Regression read — where next year's /60 rate lands and why (process over finishing)

ContextFinishing looks earned: iSH% 1.8% sits near the 3.6% 3-yr mark with 5v5 ixG/60 0.12 (5th pct league-wide) — goals held close to last year.

RiskShot volume down 23% (5v5 SOG/60 2.80 vs 3.66) — volume is the repeatable half, so this caps the goal ceiling.

ContextTrajectory: 5v5 ixG/60 fell from 0.14 (1st half) to 0.09 (2nd).

RiskAge 32 — modest past-prime drag on scoring rates.

Assists — playmaking & on-ice offense

Primary vs secondary helpers, plus the on-ice offense and luck signals underneath them.

Metric (5v5)	26-27 proj	2025-26	Prev 3	Diff
on-ice SH%	7.94	7.03	9.41	-25%
IPP	24.75	22.41	28.55	-22%
1A/60	0.12	0.05	0.22	-77%
2A/60	0.39	0.29	0.42	-30%

By quarter — 2025-26 vs 3-yr baseline

GP 21 · 19 · 22 · 20

1A/60

2A/60

By season — year over year

1A/60

2A/60

Per-82 count — 3 seasons, 2025-26 halves & 26-27 projection

all5v5

PTS

all5v5

Regression read — where next year's /60 rate lands and why (process over finishing)

TailwindIPP 22.4% sits below the 28.6% 3-yr mark — participation should rebound, nudging assists up.

ContextDefenseman — weight transition/PP facilitation over raw 2A; secondary assists read a touch better for D than forwards.

Power play

PP opportunity and finishing — modelled separately from 5v5.

Metric	26-27 proj	2025-26	Prev 3	Diff
PP TOI	0.02	0.02	0.10	-84%
PP iSH%	–	n/a	0.00
PP SOG/60	0.63	0.00	2.51	-100%
PP ixG/60	–	0.00	0.49	-100%

By quarter — 2025-26 vs 3-yr baseline

GP 21 · 19 · 22 · 20

PP TOI/GP

PP SOG/60

PP ixG/60

By season — year over year

PP TOI/GP

PP SOG/60

PP ixG/60

Per-82 count — 3 seasons, 2025-26 halves & 26-27 projection

PPP

PPG

PPA

The blue 26-27 point is our projection. PPG and PPA are the 2 halves of the PPP above them, split by the projection's own goal/assist mix. PP-only, so the halves are exact.

Regression read — where next year's /60 rate lands and why (process over finishing)

TailwindPP role projected up: 0.0→0.0 PP TOI/gp (new coach (Peter Laviolette) — late-year 0.0 role discounted until the new staff sets usage) — the biggest PPP lever.

Physical — PIM · hits · blocks

Peripheral counting categories. Noisier and scorer-biased — read as role over the years, not pure talent.

Metric (5v5)	26-27 proj	2025-26	Prev 3	Diff
PIMs/60	0.65	0.58	0.83	-31%
Hits/60	2.15	1.59	3.74	-58%
Blks/60	4.22	4.24	3.98	+6%

By quarter — 2025-26 vs 3-yr baseline

GP 21 · 19 · 22 · 20

PIMs/60

Hits/60

Blks/60

By season — year over year

PIMs/60

Hits/60

Blks/60

Per-82 count — 3 seasons, 2025-26 halves & 26-27 projection

PIM

all5v5

HITS

all5v5

BLK

all5v5

Regression read — where next year's /60 rate lands and why (process over finishing)

ContextHits role-stable at 1.59/60 (17th pct league-wide) → 2.15 projected.

TailwindBlocks surging late: Q4 5.44/60 and 2nd-half 4.56 vs a 4.24 season rate (3.98 3-yr) (85th pct league-wide) — reads as a real role/confidence step, so projected UP to 4.22/60, weighting the finish over the 3-yr baseline.