Quoting: PantsOffnJacket
Peeke is quicker on his feet, blocks shots like crazy, makes a good first pass, plays pk and 5v5 against top lines.
I think he'll also excel under babcocks systems this season, and hopefully he's not expected to play 22 mins a night again... Was too much for him last year. If he's playing 18-19 minutes a night he will play much better then last season.
This is probably my other hill, which might be why Peeke is the first. (And I'm not trying to be rude, I apologize in advance, it's a little mini-rant because it's a pet peeve)
"plays pk and 5v5 against top lines" isn't anything special, if he plays them
well that's a discussion point, but he just doesn't. Literally anyone can technically play PK and 5v5 against top lines. For D-men to play 200+ minutes for Columbus last year, he's 8th/9 for relative expected G% at 5v5 (Gudbranson is last) at -1.3%. Werenski was a +16.8%. His on-ice xG% was 42.4%. Last year he was a 44.6%, ahead of only Jake Bean and Dean Kukan. On the PK in 2021-22, he was a -31.2 xG differential, and a -30.7 xG differential this year, good for 4th-worst in the league for D-men to play 50+ PK minutes (Gudbranson was -12.8).
I get that's not the whole picture, but it's hard to find any advanced or traditional stats that do paint him in a good light, in any situation. Most have him in the bottom-third of the league.
"If he's playing 18-19 minutes a night he will play much better then last season." I get if you play fewer minutes you're more fresh, but is an extra 3 minutes or so a night really the difference between decent-bottom-pair and borderline unusable? That's, what, 3 shifts for a defenseman? "He's better if he plays less" and "he's not that good so play him less" are the same thing IMO, if you knowingly have to shelter someone because they're a net-negative on average, you're better off trying someone that's not a known net-negative.
Maybe I'm just being ignorant, I've never played hockey on even a respectable amateur level. However, "just play him less" isn't an argument we typically hear for budding solid defensive D-men like Peeke is supposed to be, it's the kind of argument we hear for washed-up offensive D-men who bring something unique to the table (i.e. OEL, Klingberg, etc).