I disagree with most of the grades. You should not limit yourself to just 4 grades. It won't make much sense. You say they were rated from A-F but really it's A-D seeing how you didn't give anybody E or F.
I think a point system of 0-10 including half points would have given you a much more precise grade. If you had to stick to letters, then including + and - would also have made it more precise.
Some of your comments also don't fit the grades. You say Eller has seen better days, the he was quiet after scoring his goal, but had a great work ethic. Not sure how this gets him a B, if that's how you feel about him. Someone who gets a B certainly played pretty well and wasn't quiet. You don't get a B if you didn't play well, but if you look at your comment you would never know that he did play well.
I disagree with your comments, I thought Eller was arguably our best forward.
DLR was a ghost in this series, so I don't see how he gets the same grade, unless you considered he was a rookie. Even then though, I don't think DLR was good.
And they get the same grade as Prust who you say was a great veteran presence who was all over the ice?
It doesn't make any sense.
I think you should also explain your grading system. It's just not fair to be holding each player to the same level. Not everyone has the same role or expectations. You need to explain this and make it clear to your readers. Even if it's something you considered, your readers won't know you did unless you mention it.
My two cents.