#3 Christian Djoos (defenseman)
#4 Calle Andersson (defenseman)
#6 Jesper Pettersson (defenseman)
#9 Hamppus Lindholm (defenseman)
#10 Mattias Nilsson (defenseman)
#12 Ludvig Nilsson (forward)
#13 Tobias Tornkvist (forward)
#14 Mattias Kalin (forward)
#15 Sebastian Collberg (forward)
#16 Filip Forsberg (forward)
#21 Filip Sandberg (forward)
#23 Erik Karlsson (forward)
#28 Ludwig Bystrom (defenseman)
OVERALL GRADE
The top overall grade was earned by #13 Tobias Tornkvist. Tornqvist was among the least involved players, but his play in the neutral-zone carried his grade. the only other player with a grade above 80 was earned by #21 Fiip Sandberg. Sandberg had impressive ratings and ratios in all 3 zones. Filip Forsberg (#16) also produced a well above-average grade. The lowest grade was produced by unranked defenseman, Mattias Nilsson.
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
WINS
|
15
|
11
|
15
|
22
|
11
|
16
|
13
|
24
|
12
|
22
|
21
|
20
|
19
|
WINS
|
EVENTS
|
22
|
17
|
20
|
36
|
19
|
26
|
15
|
32
|
24
|
28
|
25
|
29
|
26
|
EVENTS
|
GRADE
|
68
|
65
|
75
|
61
|
58
|
62
|
87
|
75
|
50
|
79
|
84
|
69
|
73
|
GRADE
|
PLAYER
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| |
CSB RANK
|
18
|
15
|
31
|
4
|
NR
|
57
|
28
|
NR
|
3
|
1
|
101
|
14
|
8
|
CSB RANK
|
EVEN-STRENGTH RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO
#3 Christian Djoos (defenseman) earned an even-strength risk/reward rating of 0.22, and a ratio of 1.29 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in only 1.78 events per-minute of ice-time.
#4 Calle Andersson (defenseman) produced an ES rating of 0.22, and an even-strength ratio of 1.29 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in a low 1.78 events per-minute of ice-time.
#6 Jesper Pettersson (defenseman) had a solid even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.11, and an ES ratio of 3 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 2.22 even-strength events per-minute of ice-time.
#9 Hamppus Lindholm (defenseman) earned an even-strength risk/reward rating of 0.86, and a ratio of 1.60 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in an impressive 5.14 events per-minute of ice-time.
#10 Mattias Nilsson (defenseman) had a even-strength rating of 0.22, and an even-strength ratio of 1.22 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 2.22 events per-minute of ice-time.
#12 Ludvig Nilsson (forward) earned an even-strength risk/reward rating of 0.86, and a ratio of 1.60 successful plays for every 1unsuccessful play. He engaged in 3.71 events per-minute played.
#13 Tobias Tonrkvist (forward) earned an impressive even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.57, and an ES ratio of 6.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 2.14 events per-minute of ice-time.
#14 Mattias Kalin (forward) had an even-strength risk/reward rating of 2.29, and a even-strength ratio of 3 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 4.57 events per-minute of ice-time.
#15 Sebastian Collberg (forward) had a disappointing even-strength risk/reward rating of 0.00, and a ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 2.44 events per-minute of ice-time.
#16 Filip Forsberg (forward) earned a even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.43, and a ratio of 2.25 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He engaged in 3.71 events per-minute of ice-time.
#21 Filip Sandberg (forward) earned this group's top risk/reward rating. He had an even-strength rating of 2.43, and an ES ratio of 5.25 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
#23 Erik Karlsson (forward) had an even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.43, and a ratio of 2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. he engaged in 4.29 events per-minute of ice-time.
#28 Ludwig Bystrom (defenseman) had a solid even-strength risk/reward rating of 1.57, and an ES ratio of 2.38 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
POS
|
9
|
9
|
15
|
21
|
11
|
16
|
13
|
24
|
11
|
18
|
21
|
20
|
19
|
POS
|
NEG
|
7
|
7
|
5
|
15
|
9
|
10
|
2
|
8
|
11
|
8
|
4
|
10
|
8
|
NEG
|
RATIO
|
1.29
|
1.29
|
3.00
|
1.40
|
1.22
|
1.60
|
6.50
|
3.00
|
1.00
|
2.25
|
5.25
|
2.00
|
2.38
|
RATIO
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
POS/MIN
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
1.67
|
3.00
|
1.22
|
2.29
|
1.86
|
3.43
|
1.22
|
2.57
|
3.00
|
2.86
|
2.71
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
0.78
|
0.78
|
0.56
|
2.14
|
1.00
|
1.43
|
0.29
|
1.14
|
1.22
|
1.14
|
0.57
|
1.43
|
1.14
|
NEG/MIN
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
EVENTS/ MIN
|
1.78
|
1.78
|
2.22
|
5.14
|
2.22
|
3.71
|
2.14
|
4.57
|
2.44
|
3.71
|
3.57
|
4.29
|
3.86
|
EVENTS/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
0.22
|
0.22
|
1.11
|
0.86
|
0.22
|
0.86
|
1.57
|
2.29
|
0.00
|
1.43
|
2.43
|
1.43
|
1.57
|
RISK/REWARD
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
CSB RANK
|
18
|
15
|
31
|
4
|
NR
|
57
|
28
|
NR
|
3
|
1
|
101
|
14
|
8
|
CSB RANK
|
OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO
#3 Christian Djoos (defenseman) had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of -0.11. He was unsuccessful with his only offensive-zone event during the game. He lost his only offensive-zone puck-battle.
#4 Calle Andersson (defenseman) earned an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of -0.11, and an offensive-zone ratio of 0.67 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 1 loose-puck, but wasn't able to get either of his 2 shot attempts through to the net. He engaged in 0.56 o-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
#6 Jesper Pettersson (defenseman) did not engage in any offensive-zone events during the game.
#9 Hamppus Lindholm (defenseman) earned an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.00, and an offensvie-zone ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He failed with his only attempted pass, but was able to get both of his attempted shots through to the net. He engaged in 0.57 offensive-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
#10 Mattias Nilsson (defenseman) produced an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of -0.33, and a disappointing ratio of .025 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost his only puck-battle, and failed with his only attempt to beat an opposing player 1on1 (deke). He engaged in .56 offensive-zone events per minute played.
#12 Ludvig Nilsson (forward) had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.43, and an o-zone ratio of 1.6 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 3 of 5 puck-battles, recovered 32 loose-pucks, and was successful with 1 of his 2 pass-attempts. He engaged in 1.86 offensive-zone events per-minute played.
#13 Tobias Tornkvist (forward) earned an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.14, and an o-zone ratio of 1.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 1 of his 2 puck-battles, and was successful with 1 of his 2 attempted dekes. He engaged in 0.71 o-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
#14 Mattias Kalin (forward) earned an impressive offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 1.14, and an o-zone ratio of 2.6 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won both his puck-battles, recovered 5 loose-pucks, and was successful with 5 of his 8 pass-attempts. He was unable to get his only shot attempt through to the net, and he engaged in 2.57 offensive-zone events per-minute played.
#15 Sebastian Collberg (forward) had a disappointing (for him) offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.22, and an o-zone ratio of 1.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only puck-battle, recovered 3 loose-pucks, but was only successful with 1 of his 4 pass-attempts. He engaged in 1.11 offensive-zone events per-minute played
#16 Filip Forsberg (forward) had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.71, and an o-zone ratio of 2.25 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only puck-battle, and recovered 1 loose-pucks. He was successful with 2 of his 3 passes, and 3 of his 5 attempts to beat US players 1on1 (deke). He was able to get 2 of his 3 attempts shots through to the net., and he engaged in 1.86 o-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
#21 Filip Sandberg (forward) had an impressive offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 1.14, and this group's top offensive-zone ratio at 3.67 successful pays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won both his puck-battles, recovered 4 loose-pucks, and was successful with 2 of his 4 pass-attempts. He was able to get 2 of his 3 shots through to the net, and he engaged in 2 offensive-zone events per-minute played.
#23 Erik Karlsson (forward) had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.29, and an o-zone ratio of 1.25 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost both his offensive-zone puck-battles, and recovered 5 loose-pucks. He completed 2 of his 3 passes, and was successful with 3 of his 6 dekes. He engaged in 2.57 offensive-zone events per-minute played.
#28 Ludwig Bystrom (defenseman) had an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.14, and an o-zone ratio of 1.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won 1 puck-battle, recovered 1 loose-puck, and completed his only pass. He engaged in 0.71 offensive-zone events per-minute played.
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
OZ POS
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
8
|
3
|
13
|
6
|
9
|
11
|
10
|
3
|
OZ POS
|
OZ NEG
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
5
|
2
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
8
|
2
|
OZ NEG
|
RATIO
|
0.00
|
0.67
|
N/A
|
1.00
|
0.25
|
1.60
|
1.50
|
2.60
|
1.50
|
2.25
|
3.67
|
1.25
|
1.50
|
RATIO
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
POS/MIN
|
0.00
|
0.22
|
0.00
|
0.29
|
0.11
|
1.14
|
0.43
|
1.86
|
0.67
|
1.29
|
1.57
|
1.43
|
0.43
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
0.11
|
0.33
|
0.00
|
0.29
|
0.44
|
0.71
|
0.29
|
0.71
|
0.44
|
0.57
|
0.43
|
1.14
|
0.29
|
NEG/MIN
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
EVENTS/ MIN
|
0.11
|
0.56
|
0.00
|
0.57
|
0.56
|
1.86
|
0.71
|
2.57
|
1.11
|
1.86
|
2.00
|
2.57
|
0.71
|
EVENTS/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
-0.11
|
-0.11
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
-0.33
|
0.43
|
0.14
|
1.14
|
0.22
|
0.71
|
1.14
|
0.29
|
0.14
|
RISK/REWARD
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
CSB RANK
|
18
|
15
|
31
|
4
|
NR
|
57
|
28
|
NR
|
3
|
1
|
101
|
14
|
8
|
CSB RANK
|
DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO
#3 Christian Djoos (defenseman) had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.00, and a d-zone ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost his only puck-battle, recovered 1 loose-puck, and was successful with 2 of his 3 passes. He engaged in 0.89 defensive-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
#4 Calle Andersson (defenseman) had a disappointing defensive-zone risk/reward rating of -0.11, and a d-zone ratio of 3 successful plays for every 4 unsuccessful plays. He lost his only puck-battle, completed both his passes, and failed with his only attempt to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone. He engaged in 0.78 defensive-zone events per-minute of ice-time.
#6 Jesper Pettersson (defenseman) had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.78, and a d-zone ratio of 2.75 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won both his puck-battles, recovered 3 loose-pucks, and was successful with 6 of his 9 defensive-zone pass-attempts. He engaged in 1.67 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#9 Hamppus Lindholm (defenseman) earned a d-zone risk/reward rating of 0.71, and a d-zone ratio of 1.38 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost both his puck-battles, and recovered 8 loose-pucks. He completed 9 of 15 passes, but only 1 of 3 defensive-zone dekes. He engaged in a red-flag-waving 4.43 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#10 Mattias Nilsson (defenseman) earned a d-zone rating of 0.33, and a defensive-zone ratio of 1.75 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He lost his only puck-battle, and recovered 2 loose-pucks. He was successful with 3 of 4 passes, and he engaged in 1.22 d-zone events per-minute played.
#12 Ludvig Nilsson (forward) had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.14, and a d-zone ratio of 1.2 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only puck-battle, and recovered 4 loose-pucks. He was only able to complete 1 of 5 defensive-zone passes, and he engaged in 1.57 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#13 Tobias Tornkvist (forward) managed a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.29, and was successful with both of his defensive-zone events. He completed 1 pass, and intercepted an opposition pass. He engaged in 0.29 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#14 Mattias Kalin (forward) had an impressive d-zone risk/reward rating of 1.00, and an impressive defensive-zone ratio of 8 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 2 loose-pucks, and completed 3 of his 4 passes. He was also successful with his only deke, and engaged in 1.29 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#15 Sebastian Collberg (forward) had a disappointing defensive-zone risk/reward rating of -0.22, and a ratio of 0.5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He recovered 2 loose-pucks, but was unsuccessful with either of his attempts to beat US players 1on1 (deke). He engaged in 0.67 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#16 Filip Forsberg (forward) had a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.42, and a d-zone ratio of 4 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won both his defensive-zone puck-battles, and recovered 1 loose-pucks. He wasn't able to completed his only d-zone pass, and engaged in 0.71 d-zone events per-minute played.
#21 Filip Sandberg (forward) earned a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.57. He was successful with each of his 4 defensive-zone events. He won his only puck-battle, recovered 2 loose-pucks, and completed his only pass. He engaged in 0.57 d-zone events per-minute played.
#23 Erik Karlsson (forward) earned a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.71, and was successful with each of his 5 d-zone events. He recovered 3 loose-pucks, and completed 2 passes. He engaged in 0.71 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
#28 Ludwig Bystrom (defenseman) had an impressive defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 1.14, and a defensive-zone ratio of 2.6 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. He won his only puck-battle, recovered 2 loose-pucks, and was successful with 6 of his 9 attempted passes. He blocked 1 shot, and engaged in 2.57 defensive-zone events per-minute played.
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
DZ POS
|
4
|
3
|
11
|
18
|
7
|
6
|
2
|
8
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
5
|
13
|
DZ POS
|
DZ NEG
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
13
|
4
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
DZ NEG
|
RATIO
|
1.00
|
0.75
|
2.75
|
1.38
|
1.75
|
1.20
|
N/A
|
8.00
|
0.50
|
4.00
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
2.60
|
RATIO
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
POS/MIN
|
0.44
|
0.33
|
1.22
|
2.57
|
0.78
|
0.86
|
0.29
|
1.14
|
0.22
|
0.57
|
0.57
|
0.71
|
1.86
|
POS/MIN
|
NEG/MIN
|
0.44
|
0.44
|
0.44
|
1.86
|
0.44
|
0.71
|
0.00
|
0.14
|
0.44
|
0.14
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.71
|
NEG/MIN
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
EVENTS/ MIN
|
0.89
|
0.78
|
1.67
|
4.43
|
1.22
|
1.57
|
0.29
|
1.29
|
0.67
|
0.71
|
0.57
|
0.71
|
2.57
|
EVENTS/ MIN
|
RISK/REWARD
|
0.00
|
-0.11
|
0.78
|
0.71
|
0.33
|
0.14
|
0.29
|
1.00
|
-0.22
|
0.43
|
0.57
|
0.71
|
1.14
|
RISK/REWARD
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
21
|
23
|
28
| ||
CSB RANK
|
18
|
15
|
31
|
4
|
NR
|
57
|
28
|
NR
|
3
|
1
|
101
|
14
|
8
|
CSB RANK
|
NEUTRAL-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING AND RATIO
Tobias Tornqvist (#13) had the top neutral-zone risk/reward rating among this group of players. He was successful with each of his 8 neutral-zone events, as he won 1 puck-battle, recovered 3 loose-pucks, and completed both his pass-attempts. Other players with above-average neutral-zone risk/reward rating include; Calle Andersson (#4), and Filip Sandberg (#21).
The lowest neutral-zone risk/reward rating belonged to Sebastian Collberg (#15). He earned a neutral-zone risk/reward rating of 0.00, and a ratio of only 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play.
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 28 | ||
| NZ POS | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 3 | NZ POS |
| NZ NEG | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | NZ NEG |
| RATIO | 2.50 | N/A | 4.00 | N/A | 3.00 | N/A | N/A | 1.50 | 1.00 | 1.67 | 6.00 | 2.50 | 3.00 | RATIO |
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 28 | ||
| POS/MIN | 0.56 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.14 | 0.33 | 0.29 | 1.14 | 0.43 | 0.33 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.71 | 0.43 | POS/MIN |
| NEG/MIN | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 0.14 | NEG/MIN |
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 28 | ||
| EV/ MIN | 0.78 | 0.44 | 0.56 | 0.14 | 0.44 | 0.29 | 1.14 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 1.14 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.57 | EV/ MIN |
| RISK/REWARD | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.33 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.29 | 1.14 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.71 | 0.43 | 0.29 | RISK/REWARD |
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 28 | ||
| CSB RANK | 18 | 15 | 31 | 4 | NR | 57 | 28 | NR | 3 | 1 | 101 | 14 | 8 | CSB RANK |
No comments:
Post a Comment