TEAM ORR
(FORWARDS)
#11 Branden Troock
#12 Chandler Stephenson
#14 Tanner Pearson
#15 Colton Sissons
#22 Francis Beauvillier
#23 Lukas Sutter
#24 Scott Kosmachuk
#25 Mikhail Grigorenko
#28 Raphael Bussieres
#71 Tomas Hyka
#86 Andreas Athanasiou
#94 Radek Faska
OVERALL GRADE
The top overall grade among Team Orr forwards belonged to #71 Tomas Hyka (83). Hyka is the CSB's 45th ranked North American skater. Other skaters with above-average grades include #14 Tanner Pearson (78), #22 Francis Beauvillier (72), #23 Lukas Sutter (77), and #25 Mikhail Grigorenko.
The lowest grades belonged to #12 Chandler Stephenson (60), and #15 Colton Sissons (60).
Central Scouting's final ranking of each player is included under their respective numbers.
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
WINS
|
45
|
34
|
51
|
33
|
28
|
50
|
34
|
46
|
26
|
35
|
28
|
55
|
WINS
|
EVENTS
|
67
|
57
|
65
|
55
|
39
|
65
|
53
|
63
|
39
|
42
|
43
|
83
|
EVENTS
|
GRADE
|
67
|
60
|
78
|
60
|
72
|
77
|
64
|
73
|
67
|
83
|
65
|
66
|
GRADE
|
PLAYER
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
|
CSB RANK
|
65
|
33
|
25
|
14
|
56
|
39
|
24
|
3
|
129
|
45
|
40
|
7
|
CSB RANK
|
EVEN-STRENGTH RISK/REWARD AND RATIO
The top even-strength risk/reward rating belonged to #14 Tanner Pearson. Pearson engaged in 4.42 events per-minute played, and his best work was done in the offensive-zone. Other players with risk/reward ratings above 2.00 include #23 Lukas Sutter, #25 Mikhail Grigorenko, and #71 Tomas Hyka.
The lowest even-strength risk/reward ratings were earned by #15 Colton Sisson, and #28 Raphael Bussieres.
The top even-strength ratio was earned by #71 Tomas Hyka. Hyka had an incredible ES ratio of 4.43 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. The second-best ratio belonged to #14 Pearson, as he made 3.08 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
POS
|
36
|
32
|
40
|
29
|
28
|
40
|
33
|
40
|
23
|
31
|
26
|
47
|
POS
|
NEG
|
25
|
24
|
13
|
24
|
11
|
15
|
20
|
15
|
17
|
7
|
15
|
27
|
NEG
|
RATIO
|
1.44
|
1.33
|
3.08
|
1.21
|
2.55
|
2.67
|
1.65
|
2.67
|
1.35
|
4.43
|
1.73
|
1.74
|
RATIO
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
POS/MIN
|
3.00
|
2.67
|
3.33
|
2.42
|
2.33
|
3.33
|
2.75
|
3.33
|
1.92
|
2.58
|
2.17
|
3.92
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
2.08
|
2.00
|
1.08
|
2.00
|
0.92
|
1.25
|
1.67
|
1.25
|
1.42
|
0.58
|
1.25
|
2.25
|
NEG/MIN
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
EVENTS/ MIN
|
5.08
|
4.67
|
4.42
|
4.42
|
3.25
|
4.58
|
4.42
|
4.58
|
3.33
|
3.17
|
3.42
|
6.17
|
EVENTS/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
0.92
|
0.67
|
2.25
|
0.42
|
1.42
|
2.08
|
1.08
|
2.08
|
0.50
|
2.00
|
0.92
|
1.67
|
RISK/REWARD
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
CSB RANK
|
65
|
33
|
25
|
14
|
56
|
39
|
24
|
3
|
129
|
45
|
40
|
7
|
CSB RANK
|
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD AND RATIO
#11 Brandon Troock had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.25, and an o-zone ratio of 1.19 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 3 of 5 o-zone puck-battles, recovered 7 loose-pucks, but was successful with only 4 of 11 pass-attempts. He was only able to get 1 of his 3 shot attempts through to the net.
#12 Chandler Stephenson had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.17, and an o-zone ratio of 1.13 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 3 of 5 puck-battles, recovered 5 loose-pucks, and completed 7 of 12 pass-attempts.
#14 Tanner Pearson had a well above-average o-zone risk/reward rating of 1.25, and an offensive-zone ratio of 2.88 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 9 loose-pucks, completed 5 of 8 passes, and was able to get 6 of his 8 shot attempts through to the net.
#15 Colton Sissons earned an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of -0.33, and a ratio of 0.78 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful plays. Expressed differently, this shows that Sissons made more unsuccessful offensive-zone plays than successful o-zone plays. He won only 1 of 3 puck-battles, recovered 6 loose-pucks, and was successful with 3 of 8 passes.
#22 Francis Beauvillier had an o-zone rating of 0.75, and an offensive-zone ratio of 2.29 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 3 of 5 puck-battles and completed 4 of 5 pass-attempts. He was not able to get any of his 2 attempted shots through to the net.
#23 Lukas Sutter earned an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 1.17, and a ratio of 2.75 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won both his puck-battles, recovered 6 loose-pucks, and completed 6 of 9 pass-attempts. He was also able to get 5 of his 7 shot-attempts through to the net.
#24 Scott Kosmachuk had an o-zone rating of 0.75, and an offensive-zone ratio of 1.69 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 3 of 6 puck-battles, recovered 7 loose-pucks, and was successful with 6 of his 8 pass-attempts.
#25 Mikhail Grigorenko earned this group's top offensive-zone risk/reward rating at 1.42. He also had the second-best o-zone ratio, as he made 2.89 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost his only puck-battle, but recovered 6 loose-pucks. He was successful with 10 of his 13 pass-attempts, and 5 of his 6 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke); all this in spite of a nagging ankle injury.
#28 Raphael Bussieres had an offensive-zone rating of 0.42, and an o-zone ratio of 1.63 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only puck-battle, recovered 3 loose-pucks, and was successful with 4 of his 6 pass-attempts. He was also successful with only 4 of his 9 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke).
#71 Tomas Hyka was the game's best offensive-player. He earned an o-zone risk/reward rating of 1.08, and an incredible offensive-zone ratio of 3.60 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 5 loose-pucks, and was successful with 8 of his 11 pass-attempts. He was able to get both of his shot-attempts through to the net, and beat 2 separate opponents 1on1 (dekes).
#86 Andreas Athanasiou had an o-zone rating of 0.33, and an offensive-zone ratio of 1.40 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 6 loose-pucks, and was successful with 5 of 9 passes. He was only successful with 2 of his 6 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke).
#94 Radek Faksa earned an offensive-zone rating of 0.33, and an o-zone ratio of 1.36 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won only 1 of his 3 puck-battles, recovered 6 loose-pucks, and completed 5 of his 8 pass-attempts. He was successful with 2 of his 5 dekes, and 1 of his 3 attempts to get a shot through to the net.
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
OZ POS
|
19
|
18
|
23
|
14
|
16
|
22
|
22
|
26
|
13
|
18
|
14
|
15
|
OZ POS
|
OZ NEG
|
16
|
16
|
8
|
18
|
7
|
8
|
13
|
9
|
8
|
5
|
10
|
11
|
OZ NEG
|
RATIO
|
1.19
|
1.13
|
2.88
|
0.78
|
2.29
|
2.75
|
1.69
|
2.89
|
1.63
|
3.60
|
1.40
|
1.36
|
RATIO
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
POS/MIN
|
1.58
|
1.50
|
1.92
|
1.17
|
1.33
|
1.83
|
1.83
|
2.17
|
1.08
|
1.50
|
1.17
|
1.25
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
1.33
|
1.33
|
0.67
|
1.50
|
0.58
|
0.67
|
1.08
|
0.75
|
0.67
|
0.42
|
0.83
|
0.92
|
NEG/MIN
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
He86
|
94
|
||
EVENTS/ MIN
|
2.92
|
2.83
|
2.58
|
2.67
|
1.92
|
2.50
|
2.92
|
2.92
|
1.75
|
1.92
|
2.00
|
2.17
|
EVENTS/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
0.25
|
0.17
|
1.25
|
-0.33
|
0.75
|
1.17
|
0.75
|
1.42
|
0.42
|
1.08
|
0.33
|
0.33
|
RISK/REWARD
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
CSB RANK
|
65
|
33
|
25
|
14
|
56
|
39
|
24
|
3
|
129
|
45
|
40
|
7
|
CSB RANK
|
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD AND RATIO
#11 Brandon Troock had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.67, and a d-zone ratio of 3.67 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 2 loose-pucks and was successful with 6 of his 7 d-zone pass-attempts.
#12 Chandler Stephenson had a d-zone rating of 0.67 and an impressive defensive-zone ratio of 9 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only d-zone puck-battle, recovered 3 loose-pucks, and was successful with 3 of his 4 pass-attempts.
#14 Tanner Pearson had a d-zone risk/reward rating of 0.42, and a d-zone ratio of 2.67 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 4 loose-pucks, blocked 1 shot, and was successful with 3 of his 4 passes.
#15 Colton Sissons earned a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.08, and a d-zone ratio of 1.20 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 1of 2 puck-battles, and was successful with 1 of his 2 pass-attempts, as well as 1 of his 2 attempts to beat opposing players 1on1 (deke).
#22 Francis Beauvillier had a d-zone rating of 0.25, and a d-zone ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 1 loose-puck, and was successful with both of his d-zone pass-attempts.
#23 Lukas Sutter earned a d-zone rating of 0.42, and a d-zone ratio of 1.83 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He had the second-most d-zone events among this group of forwards. He won 3 of 5 puck-battles, recovered 3 loose-pucks, and was successful with 3 of his 5 passes.
#24 Scott Kosmachuk had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.33, and a d-zone ratio of 3 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 4 loose-pucks, and was successful with 1 of his 2 pass-attempts.
#25 Mikhail Grigorenko earned a defensive-zone rating of 0.17, and a d-zone ratio of 1.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost both his defensive-zone puck-battles, but recovered 4 loose-pucks. He was successful with 1 of his 2 pass-attempts.
#28 Raphael Bussieres had a d-zone rating of 0.08, and a defensive-zone ratio of 1.2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 3 loose-pucks, but was unable to control 3 passes from teammates while in the defensive-zone.
#71 Tomas Hyka had this group's top d-zone rating at 0.92, as well as the best defensive-zone ratio. He made an incredible 12 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only puck-battle, recovered 1 loose-puck, and was successful with all 7 of his d-zone pass-attempts.
#86 Andreas Athanasiou had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.33, and a d-zone ratio of 2.33 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 1 of 2 puck-battles, recovered 1 loose-puck, and was successful with 1 of 2 passes.
#94 Radek Faksa earned a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.67, and a d-zone ratio of 1.62 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He produced the most defensive-zone events among the players included in this report. He recovered and amazing 13 loose-pucks, and won all 3 of his d-zone puck-battles. That said, he was only able to complete 2 of 13 defensive-zone pass-attempts, and was one of the most snake-bitten d-zone passers I have ever tracked.
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
DZ POS
|
11
|
9
|
8
|
5
|
4
|
11
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
12
|
7
|
21
|
DZ POS
|
DZ NEG
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
13
|
DZ NEG
|
RATIO
|
3.67
|
9.00
|
2.67
|
1.20
|
4.00
|
1.83
|
3.00
|
1.50
|
1.20
|
12.00
|
2.33
|
1.62
|
RATIO
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
POS/MIN
|
0.92
|
0.75
|
0.67
|
0.42
|
0.33
|
0.92
|
0.50
|
0.50
|
0.50
|
1.00
|
0.58
|
1.75
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
0.25
|
0.08
|
0.25
|
0.33
|
0.08
|
0.50
|
0.17
|
0.33
|
0.42
|
0.08
|
0.25
|
1.08
|
NEG/MIN
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
EVENTS/ MIN
|
1.17
|
0.83
|
0.92
|
0.75
|
0.42
|
1.42
|
0.67
|
0.83
|
0.92
|
1.08
|
0.83
|
2.83
|
EVENTS/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
0.67
|
0.67
|
0.42
|
0.08
|
0.25
|
0.42
|
0.33
|
0.17
|
0.08
|
0.92
|
0.33
|
0.67
|
RISK/REWARD
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
CSB RANK
|
65
|
33
|
25
|
14
|
56
|
39
|
24
|
3
|
129
|
45
|
40
|
7
|
CSB RANK
|
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD AND RATIO
The top neutral-zone risk/reward ratings belonged to #94 Faksa, and #15 Sissons. That said, the top neutral-zone ratio belonged to Sutter, as he made 7 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. Four players had n-zone ratings of 0.00, while Chandler Stephenson was the only forward with a negative neutral-zone risk/reward rating. Expressed differently, this shots that Stephenson made more unsuccessful plays in the neutral-zone than successful plays.
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
NZ POS
|
6
|
5
|
9
|
10
|
8
|
7
|
5
|
8
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
11
|
NZ POS
|
NZ NEG
|
6
|
7
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
5
|
2
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
NZ NEG
|
RATIO
|
1.00
|
0.71
|
4.50
|
5.00
|
2.67
|
7.00
|
1.00
|
4.00
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
2.50
|
3.67
|
GAMES
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
POS/MIN
|
0.50
|
0.42
|
0.75
|
0.83
|
0.67
|
0.58
|
0.42
|
0.67
|
0.33
|
0.08
|
0.42
|
0.92
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
0.50
|
0.58
|
0.17
|
0.17
|
0.25
|
0.08
|
0.42
|
0.17
|
0.33
|
0.08
|
0.17
|
0.25
|
NEG/MIN
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
EV/ MIN
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
0.92
|
1.00
|
0.92
|
0.67
|
0.83
|
0.83
|
0.67
|
0.17
|
0.58
|
1.17
|
EV/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
0.00
|
-0.17
|
0.58
|
0.67
|
0.42
|
0.50
|
0.00
|
0.50
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.25
|
0.67
|
RISK/REWARD
|
11
|
12
|
14
|
15
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
28
|
71
|
86
|
94
|
||
CSB RANK
|
65
|
33
|
25
|
14
|
56
|
39
|
24
|
3
|
129
|
45
|
40
|
7
|
CSB RANK
|
Please keep in mind, these are only 1-game scouting reports. As such, they are only meant to represent each player's play during this one game.
No comments:
Post a Comment