Jump to content

Grading the Habs after 10 games


tomh009

Recommended Posts

The Athletic's Marc Antoine Godin posted player grades for the Habs this morning. I'll post just the scores here, I am sure some of us will agree and others will disagree vehemently. 😀

 

93 Suzuki

92 Toffoli

90 Weber

88 Petry

87 Lehkonen

87 Allen

86 Evans

86 Chiarot

85 Anderson

84 Drouin

83 Edmundson

83 Gallagher

83 Romanov

82 Byron

81 Kotkaniemi

80 Perry

78 Price

77 Kulak

77 Armia

73 Tatar

72 Mete

70 Danault

 

Oh, how the first line has fallen in the rankings!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don’t think those rankings are far off. 
 

Allen has indeed looked better than Price. 
 

Tatar looks lost much of the time 

 

Danault can’t even hit the net

 

Suzuki looks great in every inch of ice

 

Toffoli scores in different spots, from different spots and is engaged 

 

We have 3 lines that have a legit chance of scoring every shift and a 4th line that scored at a third line pace

 

Lehkonen is the most relentless forechecker in the league 

 

Kulak deserves a higher score but only. Commandant and I see how great he really is 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Allen has indeed looked better than Price. 

 

I’m glad I’m not the only one to notice this. I think after 10 games Allen and Price should be splitting starts until Price plays better. Everybody knows Price has 2 more levels above how he is playing now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:

 

I think after 10 games Allen and Price should be splitting starts until Price plays better. Everybody knows Price has 2 more levels above how he is playing now.

 

Agree 100%....when you have depth, everything should be earned and nothing given just on namesake.  Some internal competition can be a healthy thing, and if we need Price to be pushed to find his A game, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tomh009 said:

The Athletic's Marc Antoine Godin posted player grades for the Habs this morning. I'll post just the scores here, I am sure some of us will agree and others will disagree vehemently. 😀

 

93 Suzuki

92 Toffoli

90 Weber

88 Petry

87 Lehkonen

87 Allen

86 Evans

86 Chiarot

85 Anderson

84 Drouin

83 Edmundson

83 Gallagher

83 Romanov

82 Byron

81 Kotkaniemi

80 Perry

78 Price

77 Kulak

77 Armia

73 Tatar

72 Mete

70 Danault

 

Oh, how the first line has fallen in the rankings!

 

I don’t see how Weber would be ahead of Petry right now - and I’m someone who thought that Petry was purely an offensive dman.  Danault has not been productive. But last? Really!?? IMO Allen, Byron and Lekhonan are w also too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My numbers 🤷‍♂️
 

Not a general ranking but just a perspective from my own “eye test” of how they’ve played through the first 10 games.

 

Toffoli 91

Suzuki 88

Petry 88

Weber 87 

Anderson 85

Gallagher 84

Drouin 84

Allen 84

Chiarot 84

Lehkonen 83

Evans 82

Perry 82

Romanov 81

Tatar 81

Edmundson 81

Kotkaniemi 80

Price 80 

Armia 78 

Kulak 77

Byron 77

Danault 74

Mete 72

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are rating the fourth line substantially lower (83-82-77 as opposed to Athletic's 87-86-82). I think I'm closer to the Athletic on those, all three really have played above expectations. At least in my view. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally feel that’s way too high for Lehkonen. It’s probably because of his short handed prowess, but still would not rate his performance as better than anyone on the Drouin line.

 

Byron was one of two lone Habs not to have a goal yet, along with Danault. Yes, he is on the fourth line, but he has had the capacity to score 20 goals in this league in the past and so I have him underperforming.

 

Evans in my mind is similar to Subban, yet on a completely different scale, in that he is simultaneously underrated and overrated at the same time. It seems as though people are eager for him to do well and I have liked many instances of his play but in the end it’s 2 points in 12 games, (poehling had 3 in his first NHL game [yes I know Evans handles other areas better]) lots of penalty minutes, and a decent face-off percentage. Nothing to write home about outside of a “good performance from a young kid”. 
 

I will admit, I am slightly harder on Evans than most in general. 
 

I made my ratings purposely ignoring what the Athletic had done because I did not want to be swayed. But I do think they handicapped the reality that a player is on the 4th line and have a different role and opportunity than a 1st liner per se. In the end, I still stand by my (personal opinion) ratings for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont even think its underperforming.

 

You can be above expectations and still not earn an 85 or a 90.

 

You are a fourth liner for a reason and the reason is that you dont have the same talent as drouin.

 

When Drouin is playing badly, they might be better players.   But when Drouin is playing at an 85 level... you cant say Lehkonen or Evans is also 85 cause they are above expectations.  Youre still a fourth liner even playing above expectations... maybe a third liner on another team.

 

75 might be the best you can do, even at your best 

 

Even at their best they still arent 90% of Drouin at his best.  Talent needs to be part of this.

 

Jacques martin once said he wanted 12 tom kostopolous.  Well 12 kostopolous' all playing to his max potential is still a shitty hockey team. 

 

Part of the equation is hard work, but part is also talent.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Commandant 

 

Evans also has Lehkonen on his line and the guy is a relentless beast. Evans works hard and makes few mistakes, he is a perfect 4th liner. 
 

I hope Drouin realizes just how great he is setting up plays. He still struggles carrying the puck but his passing is elite 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

I dont even think its underperforming. You can be above expectations and still not earn an 85 or a 90. You are a fourth liner for a reason and the reason is that you dont have the same talent as drouin.

 

When Drouin is playing badly, they might be better players.   But when Drouin is playing at an 85 level... you cant say Lehkonen or Evans is also 85 cause they are above expectations.  Youre still a fourth liner even playing above expectations... maybe a third liner on another team.

Their grades were not absolute, but relative to each player's potential, in that Danault performing at 90 (or 100!) should be far better than Evans performing at the same grade level.

 

To quote:

"These grades aren’t just to highlight talent and statistics. It’s also about gauging what the player does in relation to his potential. And Evans has far exceeded expectations. He’s been more effective in the faceoff circle over the last six games, he’s a player you can rely on for the penalty kill, and more importantly, he’s leading a fourth line that always manages to keep its head above water even if it’s not dominating in terms of puck possession."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see how it looks if we put them in a line up format and using The Athelics' grades:

| D=60%–69% | C=70%–79%  | B=80%–89% | A=90%–100% |

 

Tatar(C) - Danault(C-) - Gallagher(B)

Drouin(B) - Suzuki(A-) - Anderson(B)

Toffoli(A-) - Kotkaniemi(B-) - Perry(B-)/Armia(C+)

Byron(B-) - Evans(B) - Lehkonen(B+)

 

Chiarot(B) - Weber(A-)

Edmundson(B) - Petry(B+)

Kulak(C+)/Mete(C-) - Romanov(B)

 

Price(C+)

Allen(B+)

 

===============

I would have rated higher Suzuki's line and the Edmundson-Petry pair. I also would have given a better grade to Armia.

 

It is interesting to see that the team has room to grow despite the record; let's hope the second 10 game span allows for the Danault line to perform better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite his Norris caliber season thus far and his dominance the last couple seasons, Petry remains criminally underrated. Being able to scoop him up in late rounds has been a big part of the reason I am crushing my three hockey pools. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think the grade should be in relation to there position...

An example Petry as a #2  is surely at A+

Toffoli as 3rd line LW surely an A+

Tatar as 1A/1B LW a C

Price as #1 B

Allen as a backup A

 

What is the grade of Evans and Lehkonan performance in relation to their position? 

 

Not who's the best on the team ... thats simply to easy an analysis 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

I would think the grade should be in relation to there position...

An example Petry as a #2  is surely at A+

Toffoli as 3rd line LW surely an A+

Tatar as 1A/1B LW a C

Price as #1 B

Allen as a backup A

 

What is the grade of Evans and Lehkonan performance in relation to their position? 

 

Not who's the best on the team ... thats simply to easy an analysis 


This type of analysis would also be skewed because one night Danault could be your 1st line center, and another he could be your 3rd. Especially with the way the habs are configured. Regardless of how it’s written down on paper, Toffoli is not a 3rd line LW.

 

My approach would be to have a knowledgeable base of the player’s potential and rate how he had performed compared to that expected ability. Again, this method can be tarnished by bias (different people will rate a player’s base differently) but the most neutral approach would have the most accurate performance ratings. 
 

It wouldn’t simply be a matter of saying who’s the best player on the team in this case. If Jake Evans was the 3rd leading scorer on the team, behind Tatar and Gallagher, well he’d likely still have the highest rating on the team, as an example.

 

I think in the end, what we are saying is quite similar. But the Tatar 1a/1b vs Toffoli 3rd line may have been alright last year, but I’m not so convinced with this year’s lines. Danault is playing like a 3rd line center, while KK and Suzuki are outperforming him statistically. Right now Tatar is the 3rd line LW as far as I’m concerned and again this could change in a week’s time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IN THE HEARTS OF MEN said:

I would think the grade should be in relation to there position...

An example Petry as a #2  is surely at A+

Toffoli as 3rd line LW surely an A+

Tatar as 1A/1B LW a C

Price as #1 B

Allen as a backup A

 

What is the grade of Evans and Lehkonan performance in relation to their position? 

 

Not who's the best on the team ... thats simply to easy an analysis 

I don't think it matters what line they are on. I think you have to look at expectations coming into the season vs actual production. Petry, Taffoli, Anderson and Suzuki have been by far the best players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 2/9/2021 at 10:43 AM, alfredoh2009 said:

Let's see how it looks if we put them in a line up format and using The Athelics' grades:

| D=60%–69% | C=70%–79%  | B=80%–89% | A=90%–100% |

 

Tatar(C) - Danault(C-) - Gallagher(B)

Drouin(B) - Suzuki(A-) - Anderson(B)

Toffoli(A-) - Kotkaniemi(B-) - Perry(B-)/Armia(C+)

Byron(B-) - Evans(B) - Lehkonen(B+)

 

Chiarot(B) - Weber(A-)

Edmundson(B) - Petry(B+)

Kulak(C+)/Mete(C-) - Romanov(B)

 

Price(C+)

Allen(B+)

 

===============

I would have rated higher Suzuki's line and the Edmundson-Petry pair. I also would have given a better grade to Armia.

 

It is interesting to see that the team has room to grow despite the record; let's hope the second 10 game span allows for the Danault line to perform better.

 

Revisiting this old thread, and revising grades with 9 games to go in the season:

Tatar(C+) - Danault(C-) - Gallagher(B)/Caufield(*)

Drouin(D) - Suzuki(B) - Anderson(A-)

Toffoli(A+) - Kotkaniemi(B-) - Perry(B+)/Armia(C-)

Byron(C) - Evans(B-) - Lehkonen(C)

Frolik(D) - Staal(D)

 

Edmundson(B+) - Petry(A)

Chiarot(C-) - Weber(B-)

Kulak(B) - Romanov(B)

Merril(N?A) - Gustafsson(N/A)

 

Price(C)

Allen(B)

 

The team is underperforming but it does not stink. The forward group has stayed together with injuries and long droughts affecting the line combinations. The Danault line was slow to start but was perfromaing well just before Gallagher's injury. Suzuli's cannot sahke the sophomore slump, but Kotkaniemi seems to be steadily improving.

 

On D, Weber has not fared well under the compressed schedule and he looks tired, slow and powerless except for a game here and there. Romanov has been the revelation of the season, but the team cannot expect him to carry the load yet.

 

Price has been very inconsistent, and Allen has not had goal support when he has played well.

 

Overall, the team is still a bubble team but improved from the last two seasons. The only way this teams becomes a contender is if Kotkaniemi and Suzuki improve another notch and become consistent top 6 centers and if the top-4 D improves significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

 

Revisiting this old thread, and revising grades with 9 games to go in the season:

Tatar(C+) - Danault(C-) - Gallagher(B)/Caufield(*)

Drouin(D) - Suzuki(B) - Anderson(A-)

Toffoli(A+) - Kotkaniemi(B-) - Perry(B+)/Armia(C-)

Byron(C) - Evans(B-) - Lehkonen(C)

Frolik(D) - Staal(D)

 

Edmundson(B+) - Petry(A)

Chiarot(C-) - Weber(B-)

Kulak(B) - Romanov(B)

Merril(N?A) - Gustafsson(N/A)

 

Price(C)

Allen(B)

 

The team is underperforming but it does not stink. The forward group has stayed together with injuries and long droughts affecting the line combinations. The Danault line was slow to start but was perfromaing well just before Gallagher's injury. Suzuli's cannot sahke the sophomore slump, but Kotkaniemi seems to be steadily improving.

 

On D, Weber has not fared well under the compressed schedule and he looks tired, slow and powerless except for a game here and there. Romanov has been the revelation of the season, but the team cannot expect him to carry the load yet.

 

Price has been very inconsistent, and Allen has not had goal support when he has played well.

 

Overall, the team is still a bubble team but improved from the last two seasons. The only way this teams becomes a contender is if Kotkaniemi and Suzuki improve another notch and become consistent top 6 centers and if the top-4 D improves significantly.

I think you are being too generous. As an example, I’d say our D is much lower. 
- Weber ’d say it’s been more of a “D”

- Petry started out as an “A+, but on a whole has been more of “B-“

-Edmondson- B-

Chariot - C

Romanov - B-


if our D was anywhere close to what you rated them, we’d be a much better hockey team.  Ditto with a lot of forwards. If they were as high as you’ve rated we wouldn’t have sucked so much outside of the first 9 or 10 games of the season.

 

I’d give Price a C-

 

the only players who I’d give above a B are:

- Taffoli -  A+

- Anderson - A-
- Allen - B+
-Perry - B


All of these were from 4 out of the 5 key new pickups from last summer. The core, like Gallagher, were defiantly under a B- l, but I do agree with your ratings for guys like Danault and Drouin.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think you are being too generous. As an example, I’d say our D is much lower. 
- Weber ’d say it’s been more of a “D”

- Petry started out as an “A+, but on a whole has been more of “B-“

-Edmondson- B-

Chariot - C

Romanov - B-


if our D was anywhere close to what you rated them, we’d be a much better hockey team.  Ditto with a lot of forwards. If they were as high as you’ve rated we wouldn’t have sucked so much outside of the first 9 or 10 games of the season.

Think you are impacted by some recency in some of those ratings ... overall, I'd say Weber is a C/C+, Petry a B+/A-, Edmundson B-/B, Chiarot C-, Romanov B-, Kulak C+ ... Mete was C-/C

 

4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I’d give Price a C-

 

the only players who I’d give above a B are:

- Taffoli -  A+

- Anderson - A-
- Allen - B+
-Perry - B

Price would be a C-/C compared to the league ... D compared to CAREY PRICE (i.e., expectations, even tempered expectations)

 

I agree with the four newcomers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Revisiting this old thread, and revising grades with 9 games to go in the season:

Tatar(C+) - Danault(C-) - Gallagher(B)/Caufield(*)

Drouin(D) - Suzuki(B) - Anderson(A-)

Toffoli(A+) - Kotkaniemi(B-) - Perry(B+)/Armia(C-)

Byron(C) - Evans(B-) - Lehkonen(C)

Frolik(D) - Staal(D)

Please allow me to pick on your forward grades ... :)

 

Tatar (10g+20a): C+

Danault (4g+18a): C-

Drouin (2g+21a): D

... and yet ...

Anderson (17g+7a): A-

 

Yes, Anderson is an impact player, but at essentially the same points production as Danault (C-) and Drouin (D) he gets an A-? And Tatar gets only a C- at 30 points?

 

Armia is C- at roughly the same production level as last year and Byron (C) is close. I don't think either one is far below (realistic) expectations, and both have spent time on the fourth line where there is not much scoring to be done.

 

We all love Toffoli and Perry, but I do think some of our returnees are getting a short shrift here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...