A relatively tame game through two periods took off in the third, with the Avs and Coyotes combining for four goals in the final 20, forcing the game to overtime, where Andre Burakovsky would end it with a beautiful shot. With the 3-2 victory, the Avs start the season 4-0 as they head onto a season-long road trip.
How did each player perform? Let’s find out…
Erik Johnson – B
The other half of the best pairing for the Avs tonight, EJ was steady tonight, not doing anything spectacular but being the perfect partner for Girard, for the most part. Took a penalty early but settled down after that. Led the defense with four shot attempts at even strength.
Cale Makar – B+
Is everyone ready for some fun? Makar had his best game with the puck but also a bit of a wild man defensively. His skill level is off the charts. Big fan of him shooting the puck a lot more, as it keeps teams honest, and created a goal tonight. The physical play may surprise some, but not anyone who watched him play in the NCAA.
Matt Calvert – D
The fourth line was basically non-existent tonight, which happens to most fourth lines. But the good news is the penalty kill came up big tonight, something the team needed. The Avs were +2/-8 in shot attempts with Calvert out there, so a lot of time in their own end.
Valeri Nichushkin – D
Another tough outing for the Big Russian. He has a combined one shot attempt in the last two games, and saw his ice time drop dramatically tonight. He looked to be in some pain on the bench a few times, something to keep an eye on.
Nikita Zadorov – D
Really didn’t like Z’s game for the most part tonight. Thought he showed some jump in the third but also got caught running around on the Coyotes first goal. His physical play jumped up tonight, however.
Tyson Jost – B+
Outside of his face-off struggles, it’s clear he’s a center and Bednar indicated as much after the game. Led the team with four shot attempts at even strength, and did it in only 9:32. Big first goal of the year for him.
Colin Wilson – D
Got bumped up to the second line late in the game, but took a clear step back from the other night. Had a rush in the second where he led a four on two, and some slow decision making put the play offsides. No shot attempts for him tonight.
Ryan Graves – B-
He is a tough cookie to figure out. Made some great plays at the offensive blue line to keep the puck alive in the offensive zone, but also some giveaways in his own end. Played his best game on the PK this year.
Nathan MacKinnon – C-
He still looks off, and the Coyotes defended him well tonight. Attempted only two shots at even strength on the evening, which is very low for him. Looked visibly frustrated at times, and yet, he still has 6 points on the year. Guys that handle the puck a lot tend to be credited with more giveaways than others, but he was given four by the scorekeeper tonight.
Pierre-Edouard Bellemare – D
Bellemare was not on the ice for a single shot attempt at even strength towards the Coyotes net. Brought in partly because he’s great in the face-off circle, he struggled again tonight, winning only 38% of his draws.
Mark Barberio – D
Barberio had the shift from hell in the second period, where he tripped over the blueline and then had to deal with a skate issue for the rest of the shift, limiting his mobility. I think he was stuck out there for almost four minutes and a lot of attempts against. Nothing went in, but that shift was a good chunk of his night.
Samuel Girard – B
It’s clear he’s become the “go to” guy on the blueline for the staff, as they are sending him out there a lot to calm things down. He had a tough first, with a few rough giveaways in his own end and passing up shots in the offensive end. After that, he was terrific and played keep away just long enough for the Avs to create the game-winning goal. Best CF on the defense tonight at 57%.
Joonas Donskoi – C+
Donskoi is a master at generating offense, but again, he needs to shoot a lot more. He was credited with zero shot attempts on the evening, despite having the puck a lot on his stick. He did have the best possession numbers on the team, even without putting anything towards the net himself.
Matt Nieto – B+
If there’s an unsung hero on this team right now, it’s him. Just quietly goes about his business. Made a great play on the penalty kill in the third period to stop a good chance and clear it, and then tied up the Coyotes player to give Makar time to walk in and create a good chance on the Jost goal.
Nazem Kadri – B-
You could kind of see the weight of the world come off his shoulders after his goal (which I called, somehow). He was an absolute monster in the face-off circle yet again, winning 15 of his 22 face-offs on the evening. At some point, they will have to find him some consistent linemates.
Gabriel Landeskog – C
The top line, after opening night, has looked a little tame. They were on the ice for both of the Coyotes goals in the third period. Landy still does a lot defensively to carry that line and you could see it tonight.
Andre Burakovsky – B+
Four shots on goal, which led the team with #96, and a beautiful game-winner in overtime. He wanted a chance to play in the top six and he’s getting it. Through four games, the trade looks pretty good for the Avs.
Mikko Rantanen – B-
With Burakovsky, he tied the team lead with four shots on goal, and I’m not sure that includes his miss in front in the second period, where he whiffed on a pass from MacKinnon and appeared to hit the side of the net. Rantanen has not been good, historically, in OT, so him picking up an assist on the game-winner means only good things.
Pavel Francouz – B+
He said it after the game that, in hindsight, the early PK helped him get into the game. I wouldn’t say he faced a ton of “Grade A” scoring chances, but he played very well and has to give the coaching staff a lot of confidence moving forward when they need to give Grubauer a rest.
0 Comments (17 conversations)
JD16
I don’t get the Calvert grade at all. I started the game at the beginning of the second. But to me he looked good the rest of the game when he was out there. Had some good workhorse shifts. Nice to see Jost and Kadri get on the board (though I do still this Kadri is being wasted on the first PP)
JDC15
Gotta agree, shot differential aside I thought Calvert and Belmaire were solid if unspectacular. I think that top line needs to be graded lower since they were on the ice for both of the Yotes goals.
If part of your argument is “If we disregard actual on-ice results in favor of purely anecdotal information”, the argument probably isn’t very strong.
JD16
Sometimes yo have to look beyond fancy stats. One team can have 50 shots on goal the other 1 and that team can with the game 1-0. You can have good shifts without shots on net. Especially the fourth line.
If your shifts are resulting in shots against and not shots for, you’re not doing your job. No amount of “they played hard!” negates results, especially if they arent producing any offense. Fancy stats arent everything but ignoring them entirely is favoring a bad argument
JD16
The shot attempts were there they just didn’t get through tonight (6). He also was on a perfect PK… I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I really didn’t mean for this to be a thing. Anyway gotta get off my but and get ready for Thanksgiving.
Just for reference, Calvert on ice at even strength: 2 shot attempts for, 8 against. Bellemare 0 for, 7 against.
Enjoy Thanksgiving! By far the yummiest holiday nomnomnom
GenButtN8ked
Calvert grade is absurd!!! We’re you watching a different game
Lamba
So Matt Calvert does his No. 1 job great – penalty killing – in a 3-2 win and he gets a D? These grades are becoming absurd. Watch the actual game Evan, not a spread sheet
Lamba
Speaking of absurd: Kadri a goal and 15-22 on face offs and that’s a B-. I’m done reading these
Eidolon
Bye!
Cerveau
I have to agree that some times I wonder how these grades are curved, because I often see the top line get high minutes and achieve very little, but still get C’s, while I see the third and fourth lines get half the minutes, achieve very little, but get D’s.
I like your commentaries a lot Evan but it would be helpful if you could explain the criteria by which you curve.
Are you following AJ’s directive? Because he seems to do the same thing: give the third and fourth lines C’s and D’s for the same effort and results that the first and second lines get B’s and C’s for.
Do higher minutes automatically get a player higher grades?
Just askin’.
In fact, it would make for an interesting article: one that explains the criteria by which each of you guys curve your grades, because while you’re doing good hard work, you seem to us ignorati laymen out here about as consistent as the referees.
Speaking of which: I think it would be super interesting if the referees and coaches got graded too.
Hockeyhead
In the teaching world, it is called a rubric, a tool that specifies the standards or criteria that teachers will use to grade their students. Applying it to a hockey players performance in a game, interesting, if you can get past the subjective opinion.
I’ve explained how I grade in these very comments at least five times. If itll stop the curiosity about criteria, maybe it would be best to write a post that we can forever refer people to so they can see what our approach is. It’s not really great content but if itll please the readers, it might be worth it.
Cerveau
Case in point:
It seems to me that if Mackinnon had done the same effort and stats as Burky tonight he would have been given an A by you and AJ, just because he’s Nate. Why didn’t Burky get an A?
Likewise with Franky… it’s his first game, he gets a phenomenal .944% on a team that at the moment is pretty dangerous, and gets a B+ where Grube probably would have gotten an A.
Likewise, I get the impression the team as a whole was graded more poorly even though we got the win, just because we were playing Arizona instead of Boston, even though AZ are clearly really good at smothering the play.
So, back to you grading curves… somehow lines, teams played, and minutes played seem to factor into how you curve your grades.
What are the general criteria?
Wesley
I get that you’re being conservative, but not a single (A) worthy performance?? Being generous with the grading (especially in an OT win) is a good thing…
xdikkx
While the Avs certainly looked sloppy at times, ARI’s forechecking constantly kept them on their heels. Credit to them for keeping the puck on the opposite side of the ice for long stretches.
rb9cms
Good lord, people! A win is a win and perspective is perspective. I enjoy reading these and compare to what I saw but in the end who cares what Evan and AJ grade? Avs 3- Yotes 2. I mean, really!
gtq
It is called discussion. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with an assessment.
Eidolon
Evan, who pissed on your Cheerios for the Calvert grade. His line was used as a ‘Yotes momentum killer for chunks of the 2nd and 3rd and did well. I agree Nuke was a no-show and Belly needs to win some draws, but that line did some lunchpail work and helped keep Arizona from building a regulation win.
Dario
Calvert wasn’t good for large chunks. I mean, would I take umbrage if the grade was a F when I thought he should have been a B? Sure. But he gave him a D and I’d be hard pressed to give him higher than a C. So, what’s the big deal? It’s not a personal attack, it’s just a judgement of play on the ice. I would have given Calvert a C- because he did draw a penalty. But, he and his line were completely ineffective at even strength for the most part.
jbame
WTF. Not a single A grade? Francouz even? Okay.
Evan Rawal
AuthorI don’t mind people disagreeing with the grades. It’s all subjective but the fact of the matter is the Avs spent the majority of their time in their end with Calvert on the ice. It was obviously a little different than the previous games. Of course Calvert is working hard, that’s the only way he knows how to play, but that doesn’t make it more effective. I’ve been really happy with him for the most part this year.
I do take issue with people telling me to “watch the game”. That’s all I do up in the press box.
Evan Rawal
AuthorI appreciate everyone reading and commenting. There is no exact science to everything. I take what I see and also take the shot metrics into account because it’s impossible to see everything at once, and you should use both the eye test and the analytics.
As for no “A’s”, it was a pretty close game and I wouldn’t say anyone took it over or dominated on either side, really.
Jose
The grades are just for fun. I don’t think that we should be quite so serious about them. We can enjoy commenting and disagreeing.
ljp78
I always enjoy the grades. It’s incredibly hard to watch every player and quantify their contribution to the game. I also appreciate how hard it is to remove anonymity and put your opinions out there. You absolutely open yourself up to criticism. Some of these commenters would do well to remember that. Take your username and make it your real one, put your real face on your profile, and put your opinions out there and see how easy it is. God forbid someone have a different opinion than you.
Pucklehead
Wish I could figure how to watch on tv….are all you commenters other than DNVR staff at the game?