2024 NHL Draft: Zeev Buium and Artyom Levshunov
**Most clips are Pulled from Prospect Shifts or otherwise watermarked by their respective channel**
The top two draft eligible NCAA defensemen have both finished the season with historic production and accolades to match.
Zeev Buium won a National Championship with Denver and two golds with the USA at WJC20 and IIHF U18s. He was also named Offensive Defenseman of the year and Rooke of the Year for the NCHC.
Artyom Levshunov was Big 10 Defensive Player of the Year, Big 10 Freshman of the Year and Second Team All-American for the AHCA and won the Big 10 tournament with Michigan State.
Zeev Buium is pedigreed coming from hockey royalty development organizations like Shattuck St. Mary’s and the USNTDP.
Artyom Levshunov is raw and his path unique, jumping from Belarus to the USHL to the NCAA in consecutive seasons.
Both put up the most productive draft eligible NCAA defensemen seasons this millenium.
The Playercards
Both players have highly appealing tracking data. Their Offense Involvement, xG Buildup/60 and Game Score/60 are all very high and well worth high pick consideration.
Both generate entries at volume and exits with proficiency. Levshunov looks better in respect to his team (there’s an overaching Systems Conversation that I’ll get into later) but Buium does it in higher volume. They are both talented playmakers who appear to set up teammates with quality passes across the rink.
The differences between the players lie in the following areas: Shooting, Successful Pinches, Retrievals, Cutbacks & Delays, NZ Breakups, Advantages Created for Self and Body Positioning.
I believe through these statistics we can see the differences in playstyle and abilities between the two players.
Levshunov is a higher volume shooter but Buium does a good job prioritizing high quality shots over volume from the point. Factored in with other habits (Advantages Created for Self combined with In-Zone Offense) we can see that Buium, in in-zone situations, seeks to improve the conditions of the play prior to putting the puck on net.
His manipulation and handling ability are a hallmark of his offensive zone creation style. There are concerns about his skating mechanics, with respect to these handling moves, translating to the NHL in the way that Cale Makar and Quinn Hughes do. Buium certainly has the habits and brain to “stack the deck” in his favor prior to these decisive handling moves.
Both are talented transition players, doing so translatably, who factored into an uncanny amount of offense for their teams (Entries/60, Exits/60. Entry Success% Rel, Exit Success% Rel, Crosslane Plays/60, Transition Inside Plays/60). Zeev Buium grades out as having higher-end habits and being a more present player who also has dual-threat ability in transition because of his puck handling.
Where Buium is more controlled and intentional, Levshunov is more specific and powerful. He uses his frame, with inconsistency, to some results at the NCAA level whereas Buium can struggle with decisive contact and it bleeds into other areas of his game (Retrievals, Slot Protection, Body Positioning).
Levshunov is difficult to categorize under any umbrella terms but most of the time Zeev Buium is the more proactive defender, who seeks to create conditions and exploit them in all facets of the game. He sets up defenders and beats them with handling (Advantages Created for Self, Cutbacks and Delays, In-Zone Offense), quickly moves passes up-ice or uses active reads and mobility to kill plays in the neutral zone (NZ Breakups, Entry Prevention).
That being said, what Levshunov lacks in proactivity he makes up for with size, reach and athleticism. Despite being a mostly disengaged defender (poor Weakside Breakups, NZ breakups and Entry Prevention being indicators) he can still generate stops in the d zone and fight at the netfront (DZ Breakups, Slot Protection).
Where Buium has the edge in many important defensive facets Levshunov excels in key areas (Retrievals, Pinches). While Levshunov is often reactive and doesn’t dictate situations, he has some key components for elite o-zone oriented defensemen (high level shot, manipulation or handling aren’t quite there). Namely, he gets the puck out and puts in a lot of work to keep it there.
Buium has high hockey sense in all areas and improved as the stakes were raised. His performance in the NCAA Championship was marvelous and his work beating the forecheck and moving the puck out of the zone was nearly immaculate.
Levshunov, on the other hand, has mixed hockey sense. It’s my belief that his reading of the play on offense and in transition is good, I don’t think you can pinch this often without having a good understanding of the upcoming sequence of events, but defensively he has a lot of room for improvement.
Similarly, his style changed, as opposed to him enforcing his style on the game, in his final game against Michigan as he took matchup minutes against Michigan’s top line.
In the NCAA tournament, both players came up huge with highlight plays at critical moments.
Buium’s assist shows excellent handling and creativity as he manipulates the defense and finds a pass to a teammate in improved space.
Levshunov, on the other hand, simply barrels down the wing in a display of excellent skating power and slides a nifty pass to the slot for the goal to force OT.
The System Difficulty
Artyom Levshunov’s quality as a prospect is highly viewing and moment dependent. Undoubtedly, this suppresses his value and makes it difficult to be overly excited about drafting him as a player. Furthermore, the way Michigan State plays hockey complicates his projection.
At times, the system works both ways for Levshunov. There are times his forwards backcheck hard and complement his aggressive pinching style which allows him to utilize his vision and instincts in the offensive zone to great effect.
In this clip, Levshunov has great freedom to continually pinch and fight for pucks, even when not successful. He doesn’t win and Michigan gets a free zone exit but Michigan State is still covered defensively and has greater numbers back to defend than Michigan has to attack.
While this was a potentially risky and aggressive play it was the right one under the circumstances and not one made from a lack of awareness of the play or poor discipline and an abandonment of responsibilities.
Similarly, I would contest that he was significantly more advanced and had a greater success rate at this maneuver than fellow draft pick Maxim Strbak or D partner Nash Nienhaus. This suggests that his Successful Pinches are not exclusively a system result but on that reflects a skill of his.
There are also times that his forwards’ single-mindedness means Levshunov doesn’t always have the opportunity to build plays or create more “projectable” offense. Forwards leaving the low zone and backchecking might just be the best use of their skillsets and partially explain why Levshunov was such a significant producer on his team.
The most noticeable system effect is on Levshunov’s Zone Exit numbers. His Controlled Exit Rel% is ludicrous but that’s partially because his coach asks the team to pump pucks up the walls and out of the zone as quickly as possible. Michigan State, for that matter, is much closer to Carolina than the type of breakout that creates a projectable #1 defenseman.
Levshunov is generally a good, if inconsistent and at times rushed, passer out of his zone and has the ability to creatively find off wall passes. It’s possible, however, that the tracking data overstates his ability to move pucks out of the zone.
In comparing with Zeev Buium, who has lower Controlled Exit Rel%, we could simply be seeing the difference between a team with other defensemen who try to move the puck out of the zone with control, and as such have competitive Exit rates, and one being on a team with only one person with any proficiency.
Perhaps that means Levshunov is better at completing one touch quick ups than the rest of his teammates but maybe it simply means he freelances more.
In this clip you can see a couple of things. First, is his excellent forward skating defensive technique in the neutral zone. It allows him to establish a very tight gap but also to win the missed pass-loose puck race cleanly.
Then, he tries a bank pass behind the forecheck later to his teammate. He had time and wasn’t under too much pressure, so this was a mistake and one he can make with frequency. Too often he wants to make plays the instant the puck is on his stick, which can be excellent in the right situation, but often it doesn’t give his teammates time to adjust or prepare.
Determining whether this is an indication of a coaching preference, a habit that needs to be fixed, an underlying lack of understanding of setting up teammates for success or a very low panic threshold could be instructive for his future projection.
If he’s played with better players these passes could have different outcomes but, similarly, if he were elite he would anticipate his teammates readiness and offer them a softer touch pass or pull the forecheck to him.
Similarly, his defensive coverage post-turnover doesn’t scream shutdown defenseman. He loops back along the wall and picks his spot on the ice. This, too, is somewhat of a Michigan State thing and while it’s good that he didn’t over-pursue on the re-gap as an effort to make up for his mistake, thereby conceding a backdoor chance, there’s room for him to work harder to make a difference.
From there we can see that, while he is very much a work in progress in defensive coverage he still has the length and reach to make stops.
The image quality is garbage, and there’s plenty of room to critique Levshunov’s foot plant and reach technique, but he does get his stick on this shot and send it over the net. At the end of the day, his forwards blew the zone and he found a way to cover a threat and generate a stop in a 2v1.
Still, lapses in coverage are all too common for a perfectly comfortable two way projection.
In a somewhat similar situation, Buium’s loose puck was not converted into offense against partially because his forwards were back in coverage and more disciplined.
Though Levshunov is a low-pace player, and that is unlikely to drastically change, it’s possible that the defensive zone structure of Michigan State enhances the feeling of this weakness or that there is otherwise tension from him learning and adapting to a conservative defensive system while moving up a level.
Michigan State prefers their defense to maintain this “5 on a die” shape. One defenseman stays over near the wall and one maintains a spot at the net-front. Across the roster, players wait at positions in space as a slot protection for puck pressure tradeoff.
That isn’t to say that Levshunov isn’t more passive than other players but that he is also somewhat adhering to the system.
Anyone who has watched the Blue Jackets this past season knows that there can be toxic interaction effects on already low-pace or defensively insecure players and playing in a system that prefers them to move and defend a space first.
In my viewing, Levshunov’s defensive work rate generally improved especially in his final game against Michigan. I wouldn’t say he moved in advance of the play or competed for inches but he was at least more proactive in taking body positioning that I had seen previously.
In this particular clip you can see all sorts of projectable plays followed by confusing engagements and reads in the defensive zone. The weak-side fold on Michigan’s exit is advanced. His confusing non-playing as he lost his glove somehow didn’t result in a Michigan possession.
Did he read that his teammate was closer in support? I really can’t say.
A subtle quality handle followed by flat pass to his teammate improved the conditions of the breakout. After the flubbed pass, he moves first to his area of responsibility but then out to challenge the attacker.
Once again, Michigan State forwards are beat on the backcheck by their Michigan counterparts but he also didn’t find the best defensive solution to the multiple variables at play. He probably should not have taken the net-front and instead the shooter that ultimately put the puck on net.
His defensive zone play is still very much a work in progress, some scouts project it to be a strength, but that will require a lot of self-motivated change from Levshunov.
Still, his frame (physical build and microstat profile wise) looks a lot like other defensemen who find success as retrievers and puck movers (his EPRinkside comps are Zach Werenski and Noah Dobson). At least, in that regard, there’s something to work with.
On Retrievals and Breakouts
For a similar reason, you can cast doubt on both Buium’s and Levshunov’s hand tracked retrieval numbers as projections of their true skill in that regard. Perhaps Buium struggled early in the year but manipulating forecheckers and starting breakouts is certainly a strength of the player.
In the case of Buium it’s likely a role assignment issue. Freeing up Buium to make plays with the puck, as opposed to take a hit along the wall, is simply the better tactical choice when compared with Sean Behrens.
Buium is an expert at keeping a mental map of the play and uses that to find creative small area passes to teammates. While his tracking data paints a poor puck retriever, it’s unlikely he remains that at the NHL level.
Similarly, Levshunov also head checks and creates mental maps on puck receptions. These are evidenced, especially in his game against Michigan, by his constant one touch passing on loose pucks in the offensive zone.
The issue, at least with Levshunov, is that he is obsessed with moving the puck instantly on puck reception. He can, at times, be patient, manipulative or creative but most often he’s just fast.
His mental map also often struggles to account for player speed which is perhaps a result of the multiple league changes in quick succession. Still, the head-check habits are good and creative flashes give something to build on for Levshunov.
Levshunov is generally aware and capable of finding lateral options, something that grades out well in his Advantages for Teammates and Inside Plays tracking data.
Projection
Despite each defenseman’s historic point production, it can be hard to visualize either of them becoming a True 1D in the way that Quinn Hughes, Zach Werenski, Charlie McAvoy and, arguably, Owen Power are. Jake Sanderson, Adam Fox and Cale Makar are all also top, or near top, defensemen who come from the NCAA development route but didn’t perform there in their draft year.
That being said, Levshunov and Buium’s becoming 1Ds is certainly a possibility given their different skillsets and unprecedented production. Picking the appropriate defensemen will likely come down to team structure, development strengths and simply placing the right bet.
Overall, Buium has a pretty high floor but his projection as a 1D is only complicated by the translatability of his highest level physical tools. His skating and physicality lack oomph and could keep him from developing into a special defenseman.
Right now, he uses his lateral mobility to create a lot of opportunities but he isn’t as elusive as Quinn or Luke Hughes. It could be easy to point to Adam Fox’s relative lack of quickness but it’s also risky, then, to assume anyone has the year over year growth and instant high end NHL sense as he does.
It’s most likely he becomes a high-end puck mover who’s intelligence and condition improving habits give him outsize impact on the game.
For Levshunov, the 1D projection is a little more difficult. It’s unlikely that his motor dramatically improves, though Zach Werenski and Noah Dobson may be proof of low-motor concept, and while he has flashes of high level ideas his execution leaves something to be desired.
This means that it’s going to take some time for him to refine his ability to execute, time that could be otherwise spent adding layers to his game.
I’ve decided to move some additional film analysis on Artyom Levshunov to a separate article partially because it was becoming too much and partially because the primary aim of these breakdowns is to talk about what their tracked data is showing.
These aren’t meant to be comprehensive scouting reports but give us an idea of some concrete data that can be used when evaluating the prospects.
This matters, especially to Levshunov, because I believe he’s got the toolset to become a specific type of special defenseman but it’s certainly complicated by the development staff of whichever NHL club drafts him.
There are certain techniques and habits that could form Levshunov into a very high level activator and the type of defenseman that drives extended offensive zone sequences. Specifically, he has early play-killing forward skating skills that would make him a dynamic fit for a club that values that type of play. These skills are the hallmark of Gustav Forsling in Florida and Pavel Mintyukov in Anaheim.
I’ll save more for the video breakdown but an elite exit-killer is certainly in the cards.
Program
That brings me to the next development opportunity and/or risk: the college program.
Zeev Buium, under head coach David Carle, is in an absolutely fantastic program to continue developing as a defenseman. He’s already learned what winning looks and feels like after play a significant role for Team USA and winning the National Championship with Denver.
Buium plays in a system that encourages poise and creativity on breakouts while still having one of the highest levels of competition available to prospects outside of select European pro leagues.
College hockey’s limited schedule could be the perfect place to continue to refine skating techniques and build strength off-ice while continuing to build excellent and translatable habits at a high end college program.
At the other end, Michigan State may not be the same quality program though Adam Nightingale has been a quality affiliated coach. At the moment, it looks like the program is adding some talented players from the USNTDP.
If a team wants to see poise with the puck and building breakouts through the middle, Michigan State might be a bad spot for Levshunov’s continued development. It’s also totally plausible that his propensity to make very quick moves with the puck is simply a correctable habit.
If Michigan State continues to be an intense backchecking system that may give Levshunov freedom to pinch, activate and refine the quality of those reads at the same time. As certain defensemen graduate perhaps he can grow into a more authoritative and game controlling position.
If there is room for criticism, it would certainly be that Levshunov never really authored game dominant performances and was far too inconsistent. Time spent in the same situation could give him the familiarity with situation that he needs for both.
It’s worth mentioning that Buium had significantly higher quality of teammates and we have to account for those effects in tracked data. As it relates to development, it’s an interesting case study. Levshunov stands out from his teammates whereas Buium has higher performance, more success and a better system.
The same implications echo across the draft especially in the case of Lindstrom vs other players like Catton or Iginla. Is it better to learn how to play with good players and benefit from their skill or stand out on a worse team?
Pedigree vs Runway
That brings me to the next potential bet: Pedigree vs Runway.
Zeev Buium has been part of Shattuck St. Mary’s and USNTDP programs that just continually churn out high level NHL players and stars. He’s been exposed to high level habits, patterns and coaching since he was young.
This means that we could be seeing the benefit of “early development.” Usually, that’s reserved for physical stature but it’s also possible that this early exposure means he has less tactical runway when compared specifically with Levshunov.
If Buium is operating at a high level because he has well coached habits and Levshunov is operating at a similar level purely on instinct then there might be a bet to be made about potential gains for Levshunov, once exposed to consistently high level coaching, that aren’t necessarily there for Buium.
In a different window, perhaps that means Buium has a platform to continue to build skills and keep pace with a continually changing NHL skill landscape. Buium already knows the patterns they are more instinctual and deeply ingrained.
Said differently, Levshunov could simply have more lower hanging developmental fruit whereas Buium is closer to diminishing returns. Truly special processing will always differentiate itself but given high level coaching at extended time, learned habits will offer similar benefits as just merely “good” hockey sense.
This, too, is where a savvy developer and/or scout could place a bet. Levshunov has, year over year, constantly adapted to different and increasingly difficult environments. Perhaps staying at the same level could offer a chance for Levshunov to move from adaptation to domination.
Development Comparables
There are always risks when assigning comparables to NHL prospects but in this case the following comparables are more about D-1 to DY progression and total microstat impact at varying levels. This way, we can see what true 1D looked like back when they were at a similar point.
I’ll start with Levshunov and his most recent development path comparable.
Levshunov compares favorably to Owen Power’s D-1 Season in the USHL.
He also grades out favorably for underlying performance in draft year. This isn’t to say that Levshunov doesn’t have projectability issues that are hold him back from the ceiling of Owen Power but moreso to illustrate that Levshunov has indeed done good work adapting his game from the USHL to the NCAA.
Levshunov does not have the peaks of transition dominance but did play a bigger role in creating his team’s offense.
Similarly, Levshunov’s defense remains a significant work in progress. Though motor is difficult to address and his hockey sense doesn’t appear to be at the same level, he’s not too far off in total impact.
These transitions for a player from a different country with minimal exposure to the language should not be taken lightly. There’s absolutely no guarantee that Levshunov takes a leap after adjusting but a scouting staff should be careful not to underestimate his resume.
Though everyone is already quick to acknowledge that Buium is not Quinn Hughes special, it’s important to notice the wide gap between their DY performances. Buium put up all time great production but his ability to generate transition and advantages for his team does not compare.
Although Sanderson and Fox are also tempting USNTDP comparables, their draft years were completed in the USNTDP and not in the NCAA. Similarly, Zach Werenski, Charlie McAvoy and Noah Hanifin do not have tracked data.
If we use Buium’s D-1 and Fox’s and Sanderson’s DY data it similarly isn’t close. All of those players looked quite special under the hood.
In Summary:
Levshunov and Buium both project as talented NHL defensemen but neither are sure things to be 1D. This makes them complicated picks in the Top 5 as quality Top 4 defensemen are more easily found outside of the draft than truly top flight forwards.
Many of the top two-way defenseman have come from the NCAA development pipeline and these two have both authored remarkably productive seasons.
Their tracking stats paint excellent profiles but ones that don’t quite reach the levels of guaranteed 1D.
Levshunov has quite a way to go in the defensive end, both motor and game reading, and has to iron out some of his execution details with puck play.
Buium has all the hallmarks of an excellent puck mover but may have to level up his physical skills if he wants to become a true #1.
Both are excellent generators of offense but differ primarily in their approach. Buium is more talented at consistently upgrading the conditions of the puck with dekes and feints where Levshunov is simple from the blue line and otherwise focused on pinching and activating for dangerous opportunities.
Still, there are angles for each player to supersede their current development curve. For Levshunov, stable adjustment to a league could reveal hidden confidence as could time with better teammates and forwards. If a team feels confident on betting his offensive movement and game reading to the defensive end, it could be a high quality bet. A talented development program with a synergistic NHL playstyle could create a special player. More coming soon.
For Buium, continued work with a strength and conditioning program or further refinement of high level instincts could make him a dominant puck retriever, puck mover and potentially offensive generator at the next level.