Both players are strong puck-movers with impressive offensive-instincts. During the game scouted Grigorenko played more of a perimeter game, while showing a willingness and ability to support his defensemen through the neutral, and deep into the defensive-zone. Grigorenko has 25 goals and 33 assists through 36 games with the QMJHL's Quebec Remparts this season.
Yakupov also played a perimeter game. That said, once the puck was on the young phenom's stick, he would go straight to the tough scoring areas. As a winger, Yakupov had less d-zone responsibilities. As such, he was less involved defensively; often flying the d-zone early. Yakupov is averaging more than 2 points-per-game through 26 games with Sarnia this season, as he has 21 goals to go along with 32 assists.
OVERALL GRADE
Grigorenko had the better overall grade thanks to his offensive-ouput of 1 goal and 1 assist. Yakupov did produce multiple offensive opportunities in the game, but did not earn any points.
| 10 | 17 | ||
| WINS | 42 | 58 | WINS |
| EVENTS | 59 | 70 | EVENTS |
| GRADE | 71 | 83 | GRADE |
| PLAYER | 10 | 17 |
OVERALL RISK/REWARD RATING
Both players were impressively involved in the play; producing over 4 events per-minute played. Grigorenko had an elite-level overall risk/reward rating of 2.75 to go along with an overall ratio of 4.17 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. His best rating was produced in the defensive-zone.
Yakupov had an overall risk/reward rating of 1.66 to go along with an overall ratio of 2.24 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. His best rating was produced in the offensive-zone.
| 10 | 17 | ||
| POS | 38 | 50 | POS |
| NEG | 17 | 12 | NEG |
| RATIO | 2.24 | 4.17 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 12.67 | 13.83 | MIN/G |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| MINUTES | 13 | 14 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 3.00 | 3.62 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 1.34 | 0.87 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 4.34 | 4.48 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 1.66 | 2.75 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 | 17 |
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Despite Grigorenko producing more points, it was actually Yakupov who had the better offensive-zone risk/reward rating (1.10). His higher rating was made possible by his activity in the offensive-zone, as he was involved in an incredible 3 offensive-zone events per-minute played. He produced an offensive-zone ratio of 2.17 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He won his only offensive-zone puck-battle, while recovering 7 loose-pucks. He completed 8 of 14 o-zone pass-attempts, while successfully beating opposition players with 8 of his 12 attempted dekes. Two of his four attempted shots were on net.
Grigorenko had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.43 to go along with an o-zone ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He was involved in less than half as many o-zone evetts as Yakupov. He lost his only offensive-zone puck-battle, but recovered 6 loose-pucks. He completed 9 of 11 attempted passes, while successfully beating opposing players 1on1 with both his attempted dekes.
| 10 | 17 | ||
| OZ POS | 26 | 12 | OZ POS |
| OZ NEG | 12 | 6 | OZ NEG |
| RATIO | 2.17 | 2.00 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 12.67 | 13.83 | MIN/G |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| MINUTES | 13 | 14 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 2.05 | 0.87 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.95 | 0.43 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 3.00 | 1.30 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 1.10 | 0.43 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 | 17 |
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Grigorenko had far-and-away the better defensive-zone risk/reward rating (1.08), while managing an incredible d-zone ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He also had more than twice as many d-zone events as his fellow Russian prospect. He won 2 of his 3 d-zone puck-battles, while recoving 9 loose-pucks. He also completed 5 of his 6 d-zone pass-attempts.
Yakupov had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.08, to go along with a d-zone ratio of only 1.20 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He was involved in 0.87 d-zone events per-minute of ice-time. He won only 1 of his 3 d-zone puck-battles, and completed 2 of his 4 d-zone pass-attempts.
| 10 | 17 | ||
| DZ POS | 6 | 20 | DZ POS |
| DZ NEG | 5 | 5 | DZ NEG |
| RATIO | 1.2 | 4 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 12.67 | 13.83 | MIN/G |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| MINUTES | 13 | 14 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.47 | 1.45 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.39 | 0.36 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 0.87 | 1.81 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.08 | 1.08 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 | 17 |
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING
Both prospects had similar neutral-zone risk/reward ratings, but Grigorenko had twice as many neutral-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
Yakupov had a neutral-zone rating of 0.32 and a neutral-zone ratio of 3 successful plays per minute of ice time. He completed 1 of his 2 neutral-zone passes, while beating an opposition player 1on1 with his only attempted deke. He also intercepted 1 Swiss pass in the neutral-zone, while successfully dumping the puck deep into the offensive-zone 3 times.
Grigorenko had a neutral zone risk/reward rating 0.36 and a neutral-zone ratio of 1.83 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He lost his only neutral-zone risk/reward rating an completed 6 of his 8 n-zone pass-attempts. He was unable to handle 2 neutral-zone passes, and dumped the puck deep into the offensive-zone on one other occassion.
| 10 | 17 | ||
| NZ POS | 6 | 11 | NZ POS |
| NZ NEG | 2 | 6 | NZ NEG |
| RATIO | 3.00 | 1.83 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 12.67 | 13.83 | MIN/G |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| MINUTES | 13 | 14 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 0.47 | 0.80 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.16 | 0.43 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| EV/ MIN | 0.63 | 1.23 | EV/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.32 | 0.36 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 | 17 |
SHORT-HANDED RISK/REWARD RATING
Yakupov was not used to kill any penalties, while Grigorenko had just over 1 minute of PK ice-time. He had a perfect performance short-handed; producing 5 successful plays. He intercepted 1 neutral-zone pass, recovered 2 loose-pucks in the defensive-zone, while successfully dumping the puck out of the d-zone twice.
| 17 | ||
| POS | 5 | POS |
| NEG | 0 | NEG |
| RATIO | N\A | GAMES |
| MIN/G | 1 | MIN/G |
| 17 | ||
| MINUTES | 1 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 5.00 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.00 | NEG/MIN |
| 17 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 5.00 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 5.00 | RISK/REWARD |
| 17 |
POWERPLAY RISK/REWARD RATING
Both players were used on the powerplay. Yakupov was involved in 5.13 events per minute of powerplay ice-ime. He had a powerplay risk/reward rating of 4.27 and a PP ratio of 6 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He had 1 shot on net and completed 2 of his 3 PP pass-attempts.
Grigorenko produced 3.76 events per minute of powerplay ice-time, to go along with a PP ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 mistake or lost puck-battle. He had 1 shot on net, recovered 1 loose-puck, and completed 2 of his 3 PP pass-attempts.
| 10 | 17 | ||
| POS | 6 | 4 | POS |
| NEG | 1 | 1 | NEG |
| RATIO | 6 | 4 | RATIO |
| MIN/G | 1.17 | 1.33 | MIN/G |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| MINUTES | 1 | 1 | MINUTES |
| POS/MIN | 5.13 | 3.01 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.85 | 0.75 | NEG/MIN |
| 10 | 17 | ||
| EVENTS/ MIN | 5.98 | 3.76 | EVENTS/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 4.27 | 2.26 | RISK/REWARD |
| 10 | 17 |
