21 Game Mark Player Grades

[Rounoush]

This is the sequel to the 10 Game Mark Player Grades. I meant to do this after 20 games but I forgot. 21 it is.

 

(Small letter grade to the left of the bigger letter grade is what the player got at the 10 game mark)

 

 

EDIT: Bumped Hughes up to an A-. I am actually curious to see other people's letter grades so have at it

 

 

Edited Thursday at 09:52 PM by Rounoush

[Drakrami]

Garland came to the season ready to play, well deserved A. 

Pettersson B- about right with him stepping up the last 2 weeks. 

Branstrom's more like a B for a reclaimed project playing ok 3rd pair minutes. 

There is no way Lankinen is not A+. 

[Pianoman]

Quinn Hughes has to be A plus, or A at the very least. B plus seems just as ridiculous as giving him a B ten games in. A lot of the other ratings seem pretty fair though in my opinion.

[Rounoush]

The only reason Hughes is not an A is I think his defensive play has slipped a little from last year.

 

EDIT: Also, I think he has even more to give if you can believe it. He's that good.

Edited Thursday at 10:16 AM by Rounoush

[JamesB]

Not sure if the letter grade is supposed to be i) player performance or ii) player performance relative to expectations.

 

1. But either way, any grade for Hughes less than A+ raises credibility issues. He tilts the ice in the Canucks' favor every night to an extent that no other D in the league equals. In the Evolving Hockey xGAR summary performance measure, he rates as the best D in the league and it is not close. 

 

2. Hronek also deserves more than C+. Hughes and Hronek are arguably the best pairing in the league. There are 3 or 4 other pairing that might also be considered, but they are certainly among the best.

 

3. Relative to expectations Hoggy has underperformed and I can understand the F grade, although I think it is too negative. Relative to expectations Lekker did ok, so a grade of C+ makes sense. But in terms of absolute performance, Hoggy is better that Lekker so giving Lekker a significantly higher grade does not make sense to me. (Lekker will likely be better than Hoggy in the future, but he is not there yet.)

 

4. The grades for Miller, DeBrusk, and Petey (C+,C+, and B-) are all too low if we are talking about absolute performance. Miller has 16 pts in 17 games. Yes, he struggled recently but his aggregate performance has still been very good. DeBrusk has also been good.

 

5. And the comparison of Petey (B-) and Garland (A) does not make sense to me. Petey has 17 pts and is +3. Garland has 18 pts and is +4. In absolute terms, both guys have good numbers and they are obviously very similar. But Petey plays center and plays much tougher minutes. He also contributes more to the physical game and is better defensively. Petey also plays on the PK and Garland does not. In the trade market, every team in the league would offer much more for Petey than for Garland even based on just this year's performance.  I would give Petey A- based on absolute performance this year, and Garland would be on the borderline between A- and B+.

[Rounoush]

59 minutes ago, JamesB said:

Not sure if the letter grade is supposed to be i) player performance or ii) player performance relative to expectations.

 

1. But either way, any grade for Hughes less than A+ raises credibility issues. He tilts the ice in the Canucks' favor every night to an extent that no other D in the league equals. In the Evolving Hockey xGAR summary performance measure, he rates as the best D in the league and it is not close. 

 

2. Hronek also deserves more than C+. Hughes and Hronek are arguably the best pairing in the league. There are 3 or 4 other pairing that might also be considered, but they are certainly among the best.

 

3. Relative to expectations Hoggy has underperformed and I can understand the F grade, although I think it is too negative. Relative to expectations Lekker did ok, so a grade of C+ makes sense. But in terms of absolute performance, Hoggy is better that Lekker so giving Lekker a significantly higher grade does not make sense to me. (Lekker will likely be better than Hoggy in the future, but he is not there yet.)

 

4. The grades for Miller, DeBrusk, and Petey (C+,C+, and B-) are all too low if we are talking about absolute performance. Miller has 16 pts in 17 games. Yes, he struggled recently but his aggregate performance has still been very good. DeBrusk has also been good.

 

5. And the comparison of Petey (B-) and Garland (A) does not make sense to me. Petey has 17 pts and is +3. Garland has 18 pts and is +4. In absolute terms, both guys have good numbers and they are obviously very similar. But Petey plays center and plays much tougher minutes. He also contributes more to the physical game and is better defensively. Petey also plays on the PK and Garland does not. In the trade market, every team in the league would offer much more for Petey than for Garland even based on just this year's performance.  I would give Petey A- based on absolute performance this year, and Garland would be on the borderline between A- and B+.

The latter. I go for expectations, mostly. Basically, think of it as if a player has more to give or not.

 

C+ is average or they left no significant impression. Sometimes I give it out if the sample size is too small like in the case of Lekk.

 

Also, I just realized I was giving out A-'s (I'm not big into A+/-) so Hughes can get bumped up to that.

 

EDIT: In the case of Hronek, I want to see much better offense decisions from him (ex. Getting the puck past the 1st guy when he shoots) and less obvious defensive gaffs from time to time.

 

In the case of Hoglander. He is trying but his confidence is shot and it is affecting every aspect of his game. For the record, I DON'T want him traded and believe he will eventually get out of this funk. I really like his fitness level and the speed, skill and tenacity he brings to the team when he is on his game.

 

In the case of Pettersson, he has gotten MUCH better since the 10 game mark but I still want to see a little more speed and his shot going again.

Edited Thursday at 11:38 AM by Rounoush

[Canuck You]

Lanky is an A+ for sure, He's bailed us out in so many games, Without him we'd be somewhere near the bottom..Agree with most, Garland , Sherwood and Quinn all A+ also...DJ too small sample size and can't blame him.

[DrJockitch]

We going to do these every few games?

 

I expected us to be a 500ish team until around 30 game mark. We are about what we expected. 
‘I also expect we will hit our stride around the 30 game mark as we get Demko in and playing and hopefully JTM back and all the new faces settle in. 
We will likely see PA do something as well but it may not be until closer to the deadline this year. 
 

Not worried. We will come together. 

[PureQuickness]

6 hours ago, Rounoush said:

The only reason Hughes is not an A is I think his defensive play has slipped a little from last year.

 

EDIT: Also, I think he has even more to give if you can believe it. He's that good.

 

It still shouldn't be a B+ in my opinion. It's an A- at the very least.

[Canuck You]

A++

 

[Gurn]

21 games into the season.

11-7-3 for 25 points

on pace for 97.58 points.

 

The list of missing players

Miller

Boeser

Demko

Joshua

 

Hronek?

 

The list of people that are not/were not playing well enough

 

E.P.

Myers

Soucy

Silovs

DeBrusk- a notorious slow starter, but even at that, needed more earlier.

 

The list of people playing very well

Lankinen-  without this guy, the team would be fucked

Sherwood- best forward pick up in the off season

Garland- just continues to play well game after game, has no more than 1 'down game' in a row all season.

Hughes---the best Canuck player of all time- so far.

 

The rest

average?

-----------------------------------------

Depending on what J.R. and P.A. know about

Miller's timeline

Hronek's injury

Demko's return

ability to sign Brock

 

it might be time to consider trading assetts, and prepping for next year.

[DarthMelvin]

I also think Contract re-negotiation terms should be introduced to NHL contracts. 

 

Your contract is designed and prepared around your state of play and if you are not producing and/or "earning" you contract. The next year of your contract should be up for negotiation through arbitrator.  

 

This way these huge long term contracts the Canucks always get put into are viable. 

 

Just my opinion

 

EDIT: Though I doubt the NHLPA would go for that. Would they have a say???

Edited Thursday at 06:26 PM by DarthMelvin

[Jaimito]

Considering the adversity and set backs, I think they are doing ok.  In a playoff spot at the US Thanksgiving is a good sign.  

 

Team slowly getting healthier (Demko may play this road trip, rumor JT back for CBJ game at home) and players getting better (EP, Jake etc).  

 

Hronek is a big loss though, given how many mins he plays.  

 

PA doesn't sit around and wait.  They are aggressive and I trust them to make a move if needed. 

[DarthMelvin]

Saw Cap with a B+ and rolled my eyes.

 

 

[spook007]

8 hours ago, Rounoush said:

This is the sequel to the 10 Game Mark Player Grades. I meant to do this after 20 games but I forgot. 21 it is.

 

(Small letter grade to the left of the bigger letter grade is what the player got at the 10 game mark)

 

EDIT: I am actually curious to see other people's letter grades so have at it

Hughes the best d-man in the NHL getting a B+....?

 

A is a minimum...

[DarthMelvin]

8 hours ago, Rounoush said:

The only reason Hughes is not an A is I think his defensive play has slipped a little from last year.

 

EDIT: Also, I think he has even more to give if you can believe it. He's that good.

 

Can't argue with that kind of logic.

 

[Nucker67]

I think the Canucks have a better record than they should have. Lankinen has stolen them some games and they've been really good on the road. Easier schedule has helped.

 

It's taken Petey and DeBrusk a while to get going, but they've been both playing a lot better lately. Joshua is starting to ramp it up, which is good news. Boeser's going to take a few games. Miller is a bit of an unknown, hopefully he comes back better. Demko is also an unknown, how he'll react to playing full games, and many of them. 

 

Hoglander and Silovs have been bad and aren't helping the team.

 

If Demko returns as Demko, and Miller comes back competitive and hungry, and Allvin fixes the D, then I think this team can do something in the new year, and who knows after that. Lots of hockey left, they have time to right this ship, and they're still clinging to a wild card spot. There's still hope. 

 

 

[Gurn]

I just noticed- and asked the mods to merge this thread with the already posted

 

 

Maybe we keep all the new posts over there?

[Nucker67]

Damn, maybe they're doomed afterall. Hronek is going to be out a while. 

[Guntrix]

I think Pettersson shouldn’t be in A or B tier.

 

C+ is a fair assessment, with his play these last couple weeks being the only reason he’s not getting an F. 

[Gurn]

Thanks to the moderator.

[Jaimito]

https://canucksarmy.com/news/vancouver-canucks-d-filip-hronek-out-while-upper-body-injury-report

 

About 75% of the time it is correct. 

 

 

[JeremyCuddles]

Huggy is an A for me, same with Garly and Sherwood. Myers, Silovs, Hogs, and Soucy are easy F grades. Everyone else slots into that C grade area. It's hard to give out B grades given how mediocre we've been overall. Brannstrom, Suter, Boeser, and Blueger I can see getting B grades. Petey as well as of late has really come online. But I could also just give them C+ grades as well. So I dunno. 11-7-3 isn't a terrible record though given we've had our starting goalie for a grand total of none games, so maybe I am just harsher than I need to be cause of losing the last game. Lol.

[Jaimito]

Quad's rankings 

 

[Kevin Biestra]

After a pretty lame start, I would say Jake DeBrusk has played his way to better than a C+ at the moment.  Pius Suter at least a B+ I think...I don't know what more people expected from this guy.  And Quinn Hughes...I think he's flirting around an A- at the worst.  He's on pace for well over 80 points which would be something the Canucks have never seen in 55 years but for Hughes himself last year.  I am trying not to be spoiled by last year's Norris Trophy campaign.  If Hughes is "just" one of the top few defensemen in the league and 2nd-4th in NHL scoring among defensemen...I try to keep in mind that this would still be the best thing ever accomplished on the Canucks blueline other than Hughes' own previous feats.

 

Silovs would get worse than an F thus far if I had such letters available.  He is playing himself right out of the NHL the way Cory Schneider did at the end of his Devils run.  It seems like we're getting playoff Dan Cloutier hockey in more than half of his games and it feels like winning the lottery if he plays well enough for the Canucks to have a chance to win.  It might be the worst hockey I have ever seen from a Canucks backup over any significant stretch in my decades of watching the team.  Guy needs to get his head screwed on right.

 

All I can really think of as a comparable offhand is Sean Burke's inexplicable 2-9-4 run as the Canucks starter before we pulled the rip cord on him (.876 SPCT and 3.51 GAA in the dead puck era).  That was weird because Burke was almost a Hall of Fame goalie with almost a decade of decent hockey left in him but he never quite made it to his feet in the Canucks crease and the whole thing was aborted altogether...after about as many games as Silovs has played.

 

Garland and Sherwood are the guys who have really surpassed expectations, and that's quite a feat for Garland given that he did the same with room to spare last year and raised those expectations.  He's really taken the next step as a team leader and core scorer when the "big names" are either injured or playing subpar hockey.  The guy is turning into Martin Gelinas 2.0.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 09:24 PM by Kevin Biestra