The (basically) end of regular season report cards

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,383
77,968
Redmond, WA
I know there is one more game, and I suppose these grades could massively change if something drastic happens against the Sabres tomorrow, but I figured it was still appropriate enough to give out final grades for the season for players.

Forwards:

Crosby: B. He's had a relatively poor year in terms of 5v5 production, and his saving grace has been that he has gotten a lot of empty net points. But even with that, he's still on pace for around 35 goals and 95 points on the season while being pretty excellent defensively and being one of the only healthy players on the year. I think a B is appropriate for him.

Guentzel: B+. Similar to Crosby, but Guentzel has been more productive at 5v5 than Crosby and has firmly established himself as an elite LWer in hockey.

Rust: C+. He produced at basically his old career normal at 5v5 but has just gotten top line minutes this year. His overall stat line is still good, he's roughly on pace for a 30-30 year per 82 games, but I would have expected him to be producing a little more considering how much ice time he got (and how many empty net points he got). Sullivan has also basically stopped using him on the PK and has started using him as an offensive first winger, which I think doesn't get all you can out of Rust.

I may get pushback on this one because "he's on pace for 60 points!", but I'm honestly tempted to bump him down to a C if anything. I used the post-February 18th for Malkin below, and I just happened to look at where Rust fell at in that window. He has a 1.33 5v5 points/60 in 41 games since February 18th, which is 19th of any player on the Penguins and 17th among players who have played in 10 or more games. That's terrible. His 5v5 points/60 over that window is on par with Lafferty and Angello, both of who are slightly above him. Over that same window, Crosby and Guentzel are almost exactly at 2 5v5 points/60 (2.04 for Crosby, 1.99 for Guentzel).

Malkin: F to start the year, A to end the year. Let me put Malkin's stat before February 18th and after February 18th, and I think you can figure out why this rating is fair:

Pre-February 18th: 7 points in 14 games, 1.53 5v5 points/60, -6.75% xGF%Rel
Post-February 18th: 21 points in 18 games, 3.01 5v5 points/60, +3.69% xGF%Rel

I really think the stats can justify the ratings perfectly. Since February 18th, Malkin has been a downright force. Before then, he was downright horrendous. Luckily the Stanley Cup playoffs don't happen in the first half of the season, so if I had to give him a rating on the year overall, I'd put more weight on post-February 18th than pre-February 18th. Malkin has been elite since that cutoff point that I picked, and I think that really supports the argument that Malkin's slow start was due to COVID messing with his off-season and pre-season routines.

Zucker: C-. I think he's been thoroughly meh throughout the year. His stat line is fine and I think people on here have been way too harsh on him, but I don't think he has passed the eye test that much and his on ice results are pretty blah overall. But luckily, if your worst grade on the year is "meh" (spoiler alert, no regular forwards are below C- for me), your team is in a great spot.

Kapanen: A. He's been the best 5v5 producer for the Penguins this year by a pretty healthy margin, outside of Carter being amazing since he was acquired. That's just a fact. Easy A. If this is the Kapanen the Penguins get going forward, they're going to end up underpaying for him.

McCann: A. He's been one of the best 5v5 producers this year for the Penguins, has shown he can play in a variety of roles while still producing and had a huge part in reigniting the Penguins stagnant powerplay to start they ear. Easy A in my eyes.

As an aside, the performance of McCann and Kapanen this year should probably make Hextall really hesitant on giving Rust an extension. If this is what McCann and Kapanen are going to be going forward, they're both better than Rust and Hextall would be making a bad decision to lose out on one of them to pay Rust.

Carter: A. His small sample size this year as the Penguins 3C has been better than any 3C performance the Penguins have gotten since Staal. And yes, I'm including Bonino with HBK there. And before someone makes a big fuss about that, put this Carter with 2016 Hagelin and Kessel and see how he does there. I bet he does even better than Bonino did.

He has completely replaced the role that Bonino had, while costing about 60% of what Bonino would have cost to retain. The only sad thing to me is that he's old and he's likely leaving after next year, but he's been the solution to the 3C question that the Penguins have had since Bonino left.

Rodrigues: B-. He was an absolute failure while playing with Crosby to start the year, but since getting demoted to the bottom-6, he's been a very effective bottom-6er for the Penguins. I don't think he's been anything special and I don't think a B- is a bad rating, but I think he's been a solid depth guy for the team.

ZAR: B-, and has been dropping since the start of the season. ZAR was absolutely great to start the year. He was producing really well, looked significantly faster and was actually playing like a 3rd liner. But look at his last 20 games, he has 2 goals and 6 points in 20 games while playing 15 minutes a night. That translates to a 5v5 points/60 of 0.94. Sure, the defense is still there and he looks better than what he did last year. And maybe my rating is a little too harsh because of how good ZAR looked to start the year. But he's been steadily getting worse and worse as the season has gone on.

Blueger: B+. On one hand, his production looks awesome this year. Blueger basically playing at a 40 point pace while playing mostly with defensive wingers in an ultra defensive role is great. But if you look under the hood, it really seems like his production is absolutely unsustainable. He's playing better than what he did last year, but his point totals are super inflated because of an unsustainable shooting%. He's been good this year, but he's a big time candidate for a big regression next year.

Tanev: B+. I think you can basically copy and paste the justification for Blueger and change it to Tanev and it would fit perfectly. He's been good, but he's not a 40 point guy going forward.

Extras (not going to spend a ton of time on the justification and not going to look at guys with small sample sizes):

Gaudreau: A. He's proven to be a great versatile bottom-6er that can play in a variety of roles. Considering he was signed as an AHLer, that's a great outcome for him.
Lafferty: D. He's probably not on the team next year. 0 goals and 6 points in 34 games with a ton of stupid penalties? I think he was probably the worst forward who got in a substantial amount of games on the team this year.
Sceviour: C. A disappointment in what he was advertised to be, but he hasn't exactly hurt the Penguins either. He put up roughly a 20 point pace while killing penalties in a 4th line role, I think that's fine. He'll be a decent signing for a team with bad depth for next year IMO.
Angello: C. He had flashes, but that's really about it. He's similar to Sceviour, he was a fine 4th liner but that's really about it.
Jankowski: D-. Jankowksi was so forgettable that I forgot to even include him in this post.

Will do the F and G in another post
 
Last edited:

ronduguayshair

Registered User
Oct 23, 2017
3,583
1,398
I know there is one more game, and I suppose these grades could massively change if something drastic happens against the Sabres tomorrow, but I figured it was still appropriate enough to give out final grades for the season for players.

Forwards:

Crosby: B. He's had a relatively poor year in terms of 5v5 production, and his saving grace has been that he has gotten a lot of empty net points. But even with that, he's still on pace for around 35 goals and 95 points on the season while being pretty excellent defensively and being one of the only healthy players on the year. I think a B is appropriate for him.

Guentzel: B+. Similar to Crosby, but Guentzel has been more productive at 5v5 than Crosby and has firmly established himself as an elite LWer in hockey.

Rust: C+. He produced at basically his old career normal at 5v5 but has just gotten top line minutes this year. His overall stat line is still good, he's roughly on pace for a 30-30 year per 82 games, but I would have expected him to be producing a little more considering how much ice time he got (and how many empty net points he got). Sullivan has also basically stopped using him on the PK and has started using him as an offensive first winger, which I think doesn't get all you can out of Rust.

I may get pushback on this one because "he's on pace for 60 points!", but I'm honestly tempted to bump him down to a C if anything. I used the post-February 18th for Malkin below, and I just happened to look at where Rust fell at in that window. He has a 1.33 5v5 points/60 in 41 games since February 18th, which is 19th of any player on the Penguins and 17th among players who have played in 10 or more games. That's terrible. His 5v5 points/60 over that window is on par with Lafferty and Angello, both of who are slightly above him. Over that same window, Crosby and Guentzel are almost exactly at 2 5v5 points/60 (2.04 for Crosby, 1.99 for Guentzel).

Malkin: F to start the year, A to end the year. Let me put Malkin's stat before February 18th and after February 18th, and I think you can figure out why this rating is fair:

Pre-February 18th: 7 points in 14 games, 1.53 5v5 points/60, -6.75% xGF%Rel
Post-February 18th: 21 points in 18 games, 3.01 5v5 points/60, +3.69% xGF%Rel

I really think the stats can justify the ratings perfectly. Since February 18th, Malkin has been a downright force. Before then, he was downright horrendous. Luckily the Stanley Cup playoffs don't happen in the first half of the season, so if I had to give him a rating on the year overall, I'd put more weight on post-February 18th than pre-February 18th. Malkin has been elite since that cutoff point that I picked, and I think that really supports the argument that Malkin's slow start was due to COVID messing with his off-season and pre-season routines.

Zucker: C-. I think he's been thoroughly meh throughout the year. His stat line is fine and I think people on here have been way too harsh on him, but I don't think he has passed the eye test that much and his on ice results are pretty blah overall. But luckily, if your worst grade on the year is "meh" (spoiler alert, no regular forwards are below C- for me), your team is in a great spot.

Kapanen: A. He's been the best 5v5 producer for the Penguins this year by a pretty healthy margin, outside of Carter being amazing since he was acquired. That's just a fact. Easy A. If this is the Kapanen the Penguins get going forward, they're going to end up underpaying for him.

McCann: A. He's been one of the best 5v5 producers this year for the Penguins, has shown he can play in a variety of roles while still producing and had a huge part in reigniting the Penguins stagnant powerplay to start they ear. Easy A in my eyes.

As an aside, the performance of McCann and Kapanen this year should probably make Hextall really hesitant on giving Rust an extension. If this is what McCann and Kapanen are going to be going forward, they're both better than Rust and Hextall would be making a bad decision to lose out on one of them to pay Rust.

Carter: A. His small sample size this year as the Penguins 3C has been better than any 3C performance the Penguins have gotten since Staal. And yes, I'm including Bonino with HBK there. And before someone makes a big fuss about that, put this Carter with 2016 Hagelin and Kessel and see how he does there. I bet he does even better than Bonino did.

He has completely replaced the role that Bonino had, while costing about 60% of what Bonino would have cost to retain. The only sad thing to me is that he's old and he's likely leaving after next year, but he's been the solution to the 3C question that the Penguins have had since Bonino left.

Rodrigues: B-. He was an absolute failure while playing with Crosby to start the year, but since getting demoted to the bottom-6, he's been a very effective bottom-6er for the Penguins. I don't think he's been anything special and I don't think a B- is a bad rating, but I think he's been a solid depth guy for the team.

ZAR: B-, and has been dropping since the start of the season. ZAR was absolutely great to start the year. He was producing really well, looked significantly faster and was actually playing like a 3rd liner. But look at his last 20 games, he has 2 goals and 6 points in 20 games while playing 15 minutes a night. That translates to a 5v5 points/60 of 0.94. Sure, the defense is still there and he looks better than what he did last year. And maybe my rating is a little too harsh because of how good ZAR looked to start the year. But he's been steadily getting worse and worse as the season has gone on.

Blueger: B+. On one hand, his production looks awesome this year. Blueger basically playing at a 40 point pace while playing mostly with defensive wingers in an ultra defensive role is great. But if you look under the hood, it really seems like his production is absolutely unsustainable. He's playing better than what he did last year, but his point totals are super inflated because of an unsustainable shooting%. He's been good this year, but he's a big time candidate for a big regression next year.

Tanev: B+. I think you can basically copy and paste the justification for Blueger and change it to Tanev and it would fit perfectly. He's been good, but he's not a 40 point guy going forward.

Extras (not going to spend a ton of time on the justification and not going to look at guys with small sample sizes):

Gaudreau: A. He's proven to be a great versatile bottom-6er that can play in a variety of roles. Considering he was signed as an AHLer, that's a great outcome for him.
Lafferty: D. He's probably not on the team next year. 0 goals and 6 points in 34 games with a ton of stupid penalties? I think he was probably the worst forward who got in a substantial amount of games on the team this year.
Sceviour: C. A disappointment in what he was advertised to be, but he hasn't exactly hurt the Penguins either. He put up roughly a 20 point pace while killing penalties in a 4th line role, I think that's fine. He'll be a decent signing for a team with bad depth for next year IMO.
Angello: C. He had flashes, but that's really about it. He's similar to Sceviour, he was a fine 4th liner but that's really about it.

Will do the F and G in another post

I agree with everything except Blueger. You can't deduct points for something the didn't happen. You grade for what did happen. He deserves an A-.
 

orby

Registered User
Jun 16, 2013
6,637
5,155
Erie, PA
www.youtube.com
Forwards
Sid - B+
(not his best season and he had some prolonged periods of blah play, but he absolutely carried the team when he needed to)
Guentzel - B+ (similar to Crosby - not the best he's looked, but the scoring is where it needs to be)
Rust - A- (advanced stats aside, Rust's scoring impresses me more every year)
Malkin - I (for incomplete. Feels like we don't have enough consistent "data" to grade him)
Zucker - C (just kinda...there)
Kapanen - A (WAY better than I thought he'd be. Best a winger has looked with Malkin since Neal, and he's contributed elsewhere too.)
McCann - A (I will be very upset if we lose this guy in expansion. Really starting to deliver on the promise people saw in him early on in his career)
Carter - A (would've been an A- until last night. One of my favorite centers the Pens have had in the bottom 6 since Staal. Hope he keeps it up)
Blueger - B+ (Still would like to see a little more from him, but he's solid overall and I'm convinced he should be a long-term Penguin)
ERod - B- (he's been a nice "utility guy" throughout the lineup, although he's no Dupuis)
ZAR - C+ (I don't hate his game but he always seems like he should be contributing a little more than he does)
Tanev - B (Looked good when he was healthy - but considering the injury, this grade is borderline on Incomplete)

...
Sceviour - C- (not much to say about him. a big "meh")
Jankowski - F (least favorite forward on the team this year, by far. A total plug)
Gaudreau - B+ (I expected very little and he's been a nice contributor)
Zohorna - B (somewhat promising at times, though we didn't see much of him)
Lafferty - C (another guy I have very little to say about. He was...whatever)
Angello - C (see above)

Defense
Letang - A (one of his best seasons ever. Should get Norris consideration)
Dumoulin - B+ (Abysmal to start the year - much more respectable since returning)
Matheson - B (better than I expected - his game has warts but he is a very dynamic player who works well in this system)
Ceci - B (waaaaaaaaaay better than I expected. Solid if unspectacular. Great depth pickup that has punched above his weight)
Pettersson - C (not terrible but uninspiring and mediocre relative to what he's getting paid. I hope he is the expansion casualty)
Marino - B- (wouldn't call him a liability, but definitely a sophomore slump relative to his great rookie season)
Friedman - B (solid waiver pickup who has filled in nicely when asked)

Goalies
Jarry - B
(like Dumo, abysmal to start and better since. Still a little too inconsistent for my liking).
DeSmith - B- (his bad games made me angrier than Jarry's. Nonetheless, he's been a solid backup)
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,383
77,968
Redmond, WA
Defensemen:

Letang: B+. I think Letang has mostly been good this year. He's been one of the most productive defenseman in hockey and is a significantly positive player. But at the same time, his underlying numbers this year are substantially worse than they have been in other years. Letang has historically been one of the best analytical defensemen in hockey, but this year, he just wasn't up to that standard. I think his overall results are still more than good enough to compensate for his blah underlying numbers, but I think he may be a guy to watch next year. If the underlying numbers continue, I could see the wheels coming off with him.

Dumoulin: B+. I think Dumoulin got a lot of shit at the beginning of the season and I never really understood it. But on the year overall, he put up roughly 30 point pace while being a massively positive player (+18 at the time of this posting), while being the same old steady defensive defenseman that the team has had for years. I don't think he has done anything to warrant getting an A, but he certainly has been good.

Pettersson: B-. Oh Pettersson, I don't know what to think of you. You can look amazing and terrible based on the eye test in back to back games while giving the same exact on ice results in those 2 games. Even with people's complaints about him on the year, his on-ice results are still solid. Frankly I find it a little crazy that he got as much shit as he got while Marino basically got off entirely free of criticism. But with that being said, I frankly have no idea what really to rank Pettersson's year on the overall. I'm happy with his performance right now, he looks very solid. But the underlying numbers all year have been good, which just doesn't match the eye test.

Marino: C- to start the year, B to end the year. Yes, I'll get pushback for this. Marino hasn't been anywhere close to where he was at last year. His production cratered and his analytics cratered, although they got substantially better as the year went on. Sure, he may pass the eye test, but the overall results just weren't up to the standard he set last year. Luckily, the end of his season was substantially stronger than the start of his season and he has performed to expectations since a rough start, so I think you can attribute it to a sophomore slump plus a weird off-season.

Matheson: B+. Matheson has been basically everything that JR hoped he would be when the Penguins acquired him. He brings an incredibly unique element to the defense that the team has desperately lacked since Daley left. I think he's one of the stronger 5v5 offensive defensemen in hockey, and he's been really solid as a middle pair D (fringe #3/4 IMO) this year. But at the same point, his performance this year still hasn't lived up to the price tag of his contract IMO. It may be unfair to dock him points because of his contract, but if a pretty great year doesn't live up to his contract, I don't think you can ignore it.

Ceci: A+++ to start the year, C- to end the year. I may get pushback for this one as well, but if you look at the last 25 games, Ceci's numbers has been awful. I was looking at the last 25 games to comment on how Marino has rebounded nicely, but then I saw Ceci's numbers. In the last 25 games, Ceci has an xGF%Rel of -7.5%, which is miles away from any other defenseman (Matheson is closest at -0.7 xGF%Rel). That's heinously bad, that's Jack Johnson caliber bad. I think Ceci's amazing start to the year made people stop paying attention to him (including myself), because he's been really bad for a while now. I'm giving Ceci a C- for the second half of this year because he is still producing well (11 points in 25 games) and is still a positive player (+11 in 25 games), but I think Ceci's a ticking time bomb and I think I've completely abandoned the idea of retaining him.

Ruhwedel: B. I think Ruhwedel has been perfectly good enough where you can go into next year with him as your #6 D on a pair with Matheson. Perfectly solid, nothing super for or against him to comment on.

Goalies:

Jarry: B+. Jarry had a rough start to the year, but he quickly rebounded and basically became exactly what the Penguins need out of their starting goalie: a solid and healthy starter. I don't think Jarry will live up to what he did last season, but the Penguins don't need him to do that. They just need him to be solid, they need him to be above average. That's exactly what he has been this year.

DeSmith: B+. DeSmith has managed to completely squash any concerns I had with him as a platoon to Jarry this year. But at the same time, DeSmith absolutely cratered to end the season this year just like he did in 2018-2019. As weird as it sounds, I think DeSmith is a good platoon goalie but a bad backup goalie for Jarry. DeSmith seems to be a goalie that is really bad when he goes in cold, but goes on hot runs when you keep him in the net. I think the current split between Jarry and DeSmith is an appropriate way to use them, but if you make Jarry a 60 game starter, I don't think DeSmith makes sense as a backup.
 

Le Magnifique 66

Let's Go Pens
Jun 9, 2006
23,618
3,246
Montreal
Honestly, after 2-3 weeks I was ready for a full rebuild, I was so wrong!!

I won't give this group a hard time this season.

Jankowski is a clear one that didn't work out though. Zucker is currently playing his best hockey since being acquired, so let's hope that continues..
Ceci and Matheson have been great surprises. Pettersson is probably the odd man out.
McCann and Rust have been the guys who stepped it up a notch with all our injuries offensively, big + to them
Gaudreau and Crater have been excellent aditions to the team

Now let's hope the guys have 16 W in them!!
 

orby

Registered User
Jun 16, 2013
6,637
5,155
Erie, PA
www.youtube.com
Ceci: A+++ to start the year, C- to end the year. I may get pushback for this one as well, but if you look at the last 25 games, Ceci's numbers has been awful. I was looking at the last 25 games to comment on how Marino has rebounded nicely, but then I saw Ceci's numbers. In the last 25 games, Ceci has an xGF%Rel of -7.5%, which is miles away from any other defenseman (Matheson is closest at -0.7 xGF%Rel). That's heinously bad, that's Jack Johnson caliber bad. I think Ceci's amazing start to the year made people stop paying attention to him (including myself), because he's been really bad for a while now. I'm giving Ceci a C- for the second half of this year because he is still producing well (11 points in 25 games) and is still a positive player (+11 in 25 games), but I think Ceci's a ticking time bomb and I think I've completely abandoned the idea of retaining him.
I also don't think the Pens should retain Ceci. He acquitted himself well in his time here, but I think he earned a contract above and beyond what the Pens should be paying him, considering where they are as a team.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,383
77,968
Redmond, WA
I also don't think the Pens should retain Ceci. He acquitted himself well in his time here, but I think he earned a contract above and beyond what the Pens should be paying him, considering where they are as a team.

I think you're definitely right with that as well. I think some team is going to give him something like 3.5 million a year for 4 years and they'll immediately regret it. I think he was amazing to start the year and has still been alright recently, even with the bad analytics. But if I had to guess which Ceci was the actual Ceci, I'd guess it's the second half Ceci because that's pretty in line with what he has been in his entire career.

Ceci's basic numbers (like points and +/-) have still been good in the second half of this year, so we just need to hope that good luck (1.05 PDO) continues. But you shouldn't be banking on that luck to continue, because a guy who's consistently getting out-shot when he's on the ice is going to yield bad results sooner than later.
 

HandshakeLine

A real jerk thing
Nov 9, 2005
47,751
31,593
Praha, CZ
I think the roster has, by and large, played up to expectations. I'll do my individual grades later. But since I harp a lot about the coaching, I'll add my views here:

Sully -- Grade B- Mike Sullivan is a great regular season coach who has some blindspots regarding line compositions, player roles, and accountability. That said, Sullivan has turned in another great regular season performance, which is to be expected. What I'm anxious about is his ability to get the roster to focus and to buy in during the post-season. One of the biggest problems the Pens have faced this year is a lack of mental discipline and focus in big games. Perhaps that's due to the weird schedule this year, perhaps it's because the core is getting complacent, maybe it's just a bit of confirmation bias. But solving that will be key to the postseason. If Sully can keep the team focused and make some smart adjustments in the postseason, then he's worth every penny of his contract. But if he doesn't...

ACs-- since we're never ever sure what the ACs actually do even when they claim they have jobs, I'll just talk about their portfolios

Penalty Kill -- Grade D+. This is the one that annoys me the most out of everything this year. This team has all the players it needs to run a smart, effective, and offensively dangerous penalty kill. The roster has tons of players with speed and decent defensive play, it's got guys who specialized in being parts of other well-regarded PKs in the league, and yet... we ice a PK which looks like it was designed to nullify every single advantage this roster has. We play passive, we let opponents set up unchallenged, we let people camp out in the slot, we intentionally (apparently) allow point shots, we leave shooting lanes open, we don't challenge the puck and weirdest yet, we don't put guys who've had excellent PK success elsewhere there. It's something that has been an obvious problem for the entire season, and we don't see much effort to improve it or to revert to a more successful (and more widely-known) penalty kill scheme. It worries me.

Power Play -- Grade C+. It's frustrating that one of the most offensively gifted teams in the league has perennial problems with the man-advantage, but that's the sad truth of it. That being said, the problem for the PP is slightly different than the PK in my eyes, is that the general idea of the powerplay can work, but we're putting players in roles they're not always ideal for (e.g. Jake) and we have real problems with movement and getting shots through. So, when the execution and focus are on, the power play looks okay (never great or particularly lethal) but when it's not, it's almost a liability. I think the PP is fixable, but that's the one that sort of needs the stars to buy into it, and I don't see them wanting to change things up now. The thing is that I don't think the PP is going to make or break our postseason success-- this team is going to go as far as its 5v5 scoring will take it-- but it is always frustrating to see the team concede an advantage for no reason.

Goalie coaching -- B+ A horrible start from both goalies made us all question what it is the goalie coach is actually doing here, but I think both CDS and Jarry have rebounded nicely. Again, focus is an issue, especially with Jarry, but this could also be the result of a season spent playing the same opponents over and over and the major divide between playoff teams and the also-rans this season.

Generally, while I get annoyed by Sully's roster management and line usage, I think the biggest thing to worry about in the post-season isn't any of that, it's this team's horrendous lack of focus and preparation on occasion, especially for opponents that we already have the book on. We know Boston is going to try to use their physicality to nullify our speed (and can do that if we let them), we know Washington is going to try to goon it up with Wilson and get us to take retaliation penalties. So, we can't keep letting ourselves get roped into that. We can't afford to drop 2 games to any opponent before we get around to playing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy99

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,206
Grades before we even play the last game of the season? I'm guessing some people have real slow Fridays at work ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Al Smith

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,383
77,968
Redmond, WA
Grades before we even play the last game of the season? I'm guessing some people have real slow Fridays at work ;)

200.gif
 

Andy99

Registered User
Jun 26, 2017
50,008
32,181
I think the roster has, by and large, played up to expectations. I'll do my individual grades later. But since I harp a lot about the coaching, I'll add my views here:

Sully -- Grade B- Mike Sullivan is a great regular season coach who has some blindspots regarding line compositions, player roles, and accountability. That said, Sullivan has turned in another great regular season performance, which is to be expected. What I'm anxious about is his ability to get the roster to focus and to buy in during the post-season. One of the biggest problems the Pens have faced this year is a lack of mental discipline and focus in big games. Perhaps that's due to the weird schedule this year, perhaps it's because the core is getting complacent, maybe it's just a bit of confirmation bias. But solving that will be key to the postseason. If Sully can keep the team focused and make some smart adjustments in the postseason, then he's worth every penny of his contract. But if he doesn't...

ACs-- since we're never ever sure what the ACs actually do even when they claim they have jobs, I'll just talk about their portfolios

Penalty Kill -- Grade D+. This is the one that annoys me the most out of everything this year. This team has all the players it needs to run a smart, effective, and offensively dangerous penalty kill. The roster has tons of players with speed and decent defensive play, it's got guys who specialized in being parts of other well-regarded PKs in the league, and yet... we ice a PK which looks like it was designed to nullify every single advantage this roster has. We play passive, we let opponents set up unchallenged, we let people camp out in the slot, we intentionally (apparently) allow point shots, we leave shooting lanes open, we don't challenge the puck and weirdest yet, we don't put guys who've had excellent PK success elsewhere there. It's something that has been an obvious problem for the entire season, and we don't see much effort to improve it or to revert to a more successful (and more widely-known) penalty kill scheme. It worries me.

Power Play -- Grade C+. It's frustrating that one of the most offensively gifted teams in the league has perennial problems with the man-advantage, but that's the sad truth of it. That being said, the problem for the PP is slightly different than the PK in my eyes, is that the general idea of the powerplay can work, but we're putting players in roles they're not always ideal for (e.g. Jake) and we have real problems with movement and getting shots through. So, when the execution and focus are on, the power play looks okay (never great or particularly lethal) but when it's not, it's almost a liability. I think the PP is fixable, but that's the one that sort of needs the stars to buy into it, and I don't see them wanting to change things up now. The thing is that I don't think the PP is going to make or break our postseason success-- this team is going to go as far as its 5v5 scoring will take it-- but it is always frustrating to see the team concede an advantage for no reason.

Goalie coaching -- B+ A horrible start from both goalies made us all question what it is the goalie coach is actually doing here, but I think both CDS and Jarry have rebounded nicely. Again, focus is an issue, especially with Jarry, but this could also be the result of a season spent playing the same opponents over and over and the major divide between playoff teams and the also-rans this season.

Generally, while I get annoyed by Sully's roster management and line usage, I think the biggest thing to worry about in the post-season isn't any of that, it's this team's horrendous lack of focus and preparation on occasion, especially for opponents that we already have the book on. We know Boston is going to try to use their physicality to nullify our speed (and can do that if we let them), we know Washington is going to try to goon it up with Wilson and get us to take retaliation penalties. So, we can't keep letting ourselves get roped into that. We can't afford to drop 2 games to any opponent before we get around to playing.

Amen...I just wrote a post in another thread about how special teams will decide a series with Boston and that favors Boston big time...I’d say Sully has to completely change the PK approach for the postseason...they have to be more aggressive because the collapsing style just isn’t good enough against Boston’s top five ST units....
 

HandshakeLine

A real jerk thing
Nov 9, 2005
47,751
31,593
Praha, CZ
Amen...I just wrote a post in another thread about how special teams will decide a series with Boston and that favors Boston big time...I’d say Sully has to completely change the PK approach for the postseason...they have to be more aggressive because the collapsing style just isn’t good enough against Boston’s top five ST units....

The PK is the one that worries me. But that said, unless the Pens lose their heads and try to goon it up with Boston, I don't see the special teams being prevalent enough in the postseason to really be the difference maker. Again, I could be wrong, but I think the refs not wanting to decide games via penalties is actually an advantage for us this year and not as it was in years past when we actually had a great PP. :laugh:
 

kladorf2005

Registered User
Apr 20, 2018
1,403
1,614
I used to have similar feelings about empty net points as OP. But after that Caps game last week, I realized they are a much bigger deal than I gave them credit for.

I can't remember who sent the breakout pass too far, but the puck ended up in the corner. I think it was Jake and Rust down there with one of them retrieving it in the corner and the other in front of the net. Obviously they weren't able to pot the empty netter and then of course the villain himself scores with 14 seconds left to give the Caps their loser point, and could very possibly end up being the difference between 1st and 2nd place this year.

I say all that because I think OP is being too hard on the grades of the top line. Especially Rust. Empty netters matter and there's a reason why Sullivan has relied heavily on that top line late in games with a 1 goal lead. They've closed out a ton of games with those empty netters, and the one most recent one that they didn't, might be why we're facing Boston in round one this year.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,206
Since beginning of Feb our PP has been 3rd in the league. I dunno how paper tiger that is - we've only had 2 PP goals on Boston all season long - but I can at least say they figured out how to put PP goals in on what's in front of them.

The PK is the worrying part. It's improved throughout the season but it's ropey as all hell, in general and vs Boston if it comes to it.

Wait till people figure out that professors have a good idea of final grades before the end of the semester! :laugh:

I think for a lot of people, it'll be a pleasant surprise that the professor doesn't just take one look at their face and decide there and then.
 

HandshakeLine

A real jerk thing
Nov 9, 2005
47,751
31,593
Praha, CZ
Since beginning of Feb our PP has been 3rd in the league. I dunno how paper tiger that is - we've only had 2 PP goals on Boston all season long - but I can at least say they figured out how to put PP goals in on what's in front of them.

The PK is the worrying part. It's improved throughout the season but it's ropey as all hell, in general and vs Boston if it comes to it.

This is why I rated the PP as average-- it's looked great against lesser teams and below average against more serious opponents. And it's hard to tell if it's been a structure or execution problem because of the injuries all season. That said, it looks a lot better with less stars on it, for whatever reason, and that's always been a Penguins hallmark.

As for the PK, I really don't see why there's any reason that this team couldn't have a top 5 PK in the league. Other teams do far better with way less, and that's my biggest issue here.

I think for a lot of people, it'll be a pleasant surprise that the professor doesn't just take one look at their face and decide there and then.

I always get one or two students a year who think they can show up just for the final and not get laughed out of the exam room. :laugh:
 

Sorry

Registered User
May 18, 2005
8,308
830
Blueger performed exactly as I expected this season. A ~15 goal ~40 point third line center who can handle second line duties in case of injuries. He is a very nice asset and I still think he has more room to grow and become even more consistent. Intelligent and does so many little things the right way.

Solid A.

Sign him to a six year extension please.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,383
77,968
Redmond, WA
Blueger performed exactly as I expected this season. A ~15 goal ~40 point third line center who can handle second line duties in case of injuries. He is a very nice asset and I still think he has more room to grow and become even more consistent. Intelligent and does so many little things the right way.

Solid A.

Sign him to a six year extension please.



I'm 100000000% not giving Blueger a bloated contract after this year when his season this year is almost definitely unsustainable going forward. I'm also tired of giving depth players JR style contracts, too.

I used to have similar feelings about empty net points as OP. But after that Caps game last week, I realized they are a much bigger deal than I gave them credit for.

I can't remember who sent the breakout pass too far, but the puck ended up in the corner. I think it was Jake and Rust down there with one of them retrieving it in the corner and the other in front of the net. Obviously they weren't able to pot the empty netter and then of course the villain himself scores with 14 seconds left to give the Caps their loser point, and could very possibly end up being the difference between 1st and 2nd place this year.

I say all that because I think OP is being too hard on the grades of the top line. Especially Rust. Empty netters matter and there's a reason why Sullivan has relied heavily on that top line late in games with a 1 goal lead. They've closed out a ton of games with those empty netters, and the one most recent one that they didn't, might be why we're facing Boston in round one this year.

I don't mean that as in EN points don't matter, I mean that as in the top line has bad 5v5 production and it is just masked with EN points. I'm not trying to dismiss what EN points mean (although I don't view them as highly as you do), but the comment stems more from the point that the top line hasn't produced that well at 5v5 this year more than "empty net points are free points that don't matter".

Edit: let me rephrase, Rust has bad 5v5 production but Crosby and Guentzel are fine/good and the line as a whole has been productive. I guess that line gets a lot of production from defenseman, that's the thing that makes the most sense to me for why Rust's 5v5 production is bad but the line itself is good.
 
Last edited:

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,206
This is why I rated the PP as average-- it's looked great against lesser teams and below average against more serious opponents. And it's hard to tell if it's been a structure or execution problem because of the injuries all season. That said, it looks a lot better with less stars on it, for whatever reason, and that's always been a Penguins hallmark.

As for the PK, I really don't see why there's any reason that this team couldn't have a top 5 PK in the league. Other teams do far better with way less, and that's my biggest issue here.

Here for the sake of anyone curious is all our opponents' PK stats vs us since the month turned to February (so the GA is us, the GF is them, the CA is us, the CF is them, etc.etc.)

With the exception of NYI, there's a really stark difference on how we score vs good PKs and bad PKs (BOS/WAS/NYx2 all top 10 PKs, everyone else not so much). Which is slightly weird because the change generation's pretty much the same as everyone vs Boston. I guess part of that's imperfections in xGF, and part of it's which teams have goaltending, and part of its sheer dumb luck.

But yeah, very hard to argue with average, and the difference in opposition maybe shouldn't be that big.

I always get one or two students a year who think they can show up just for the final and not get laughed out of the exam room. :laugh:

The universe has to reward you with some laughs somehow.
 

kladorf2005

Registered User
Apr 20, 2018
1,403
1,614
I don't mean that as in EN points don't matter, I mean that as in the top line has bad 5v5 production and it is just masked with EN points. I'm not trying to dismiss what EN points mean (although I don't view them as highly as you do), but the comment stems more from the point that the top line hasn't produced that well at 5v5 this year more than "empty net points are free points that don't matter".
I hear what you're saying. I guess my point is that every empty net point (with a 1 goal lead) = a win essentially. And that to me (now) is every bit as valuable as a 5v5 point.

Now I will concede that empty net points while up by 2+ are more/less free points. And we have had a lot of those as well. So I may be overstating my argument here.
 

JRS91

Registered User
Jul 4, 2010
2,056
1,005
Guentzel: A. I think Guentzel is what he is, an elite LW that's sub-par defensively. He produces a ton 5 on 5 and is probably our best forward in that department. I can't fault the guy anymore or any less for that.

Crosby: B+. Crosby has been good this year. 5 on 5 production is suffering a bit, but I really respect his commitment to defense especially with who he's playing with, Guentzel isn't a two-way player and while Rust is, Crosby's commitment to defense over offense has probably been the most admirable thing about his game in the past several years.

Rust: A. I'll admit I've been wrong about Rust. I thought 2019-2020 would just be a fluke year and he'd eventually come back to Earth. While he is a bit streaky and I wouldn't say he's an elite RWer, he's arguably our second best winger and brings so many intangibles to the team besides producing offensively.

Zucker: D. The only reason he's not an F is because I think he's being misused. Zucker looked decent alongside Carter, he just doesn't fit with Malkin. While you expect players making $5.5M to adapt to the players around them, some players just don't fit together. Zucker has been bad, but some of it is not his fault.

Malkin: B+. The first handful of games brought his overall grade down. Part of it is due to playing with Zucker and part of it was just on Malkin. We all know Malkin isn't the best defensive player, but he was bad all-around the first dozen games of the season. I'm glad that he's found chemistry with Kapanen. We definitely need him down the stretch.

Kapanen: A+. I'll admit, I was wrong about Kapanen. I thought he'd be a borderline top-six player for us, but he's been very solid. His shot is way better than I thought it'd be and while he's a bit streaky, he can drive offense on his own. His defensive game needs some work, but his speed and shot have been a welcome addition.

McCann: A+. I never understood why people have always been so critical of McCann. The dude has been nothing but solid since he's been a Penguin. This season he's taken it to an entirely new level. He fits well with Malkin and Carter, he's versatile and can player center in a pinch. Just a guy you really like to have around.

Carter: A+. There's not really much to say here, the dude's been so good for us. Solid in faceoffs, solid defensively, solid offensively. He still has an absolutely lethal shot. Hopefully he keeps it up.

Rodrigues: C. I'll admit, I was wrong about Rodrigues. I did not want this guy back. He got off to a rough start but before being injured was playing his best hockey as a Penguin. I think this grade is good for him, he's been what you want out of a bottom-six forward, at least lately.

Aston-Reese: C+. I'm never been the biggest fan of Aston-Reese but he's been what you expect. Really good defensively, not much offensively. He fits well with Blueger and Tanev but outside of that he's been pretty forgettable.

Blueger: B. I really like Blueger, but Carter was a much needed upgrade offensively. Bluger is a solid defensive player and decent offensively, but I still question his ability to produce in a third line role. Perhaps having Aston-Reese hinders that a bit, but he's been what I expected so far this season.

Tanev: B. I don't think anyone hates Tanev here, just his contract. He continues to be a solid addition to the team. He's really our only physical presence and our best penalty killer. Hopefully he's back for the playoffs.

Jankowski: F. I wasn't expecting much, but yeah, he's been really underwhelming. It was a nice experiment and he's making league minimum so there aren't too many complaints.

Gaudreau: A+. I think Gaudreau is obviously playing way above his level right now, but I'll take it. I want him back for next season, he's filled in well in every role he's been asked to play. There's not really much to complain about.

Lafferty: D. He is what he is, a borderline 13th forward. He has good speed and brings some physicality but outside of that there's not much there.


Dumoulin: B+. He's been solid as always. His first dozen games were probably the worst I've seen from him, but the entire team was playing poorly.

Letang: B+. Everyone seems to hate Letang, but the guy's been solid this season. He makes mistakes, but I think he's definitely kept them at a minimum this season.

Matheson: B. This is another guy I've been wrong about. While he hasn't been perfect, he's been a lot better than I thought he'd be, he's a big part of the offense and has been pretty solid defensively. He's shown flashes of brilliance offensively.

Ceci: A+. Once again, a guy I was wrong about. I don't think very many people saw this coming, but he's been absolutely solid.

Pettersson: C+. I think this grade basically sums up Pettersson. Nothing flashy, nothing great. He's an average top four defenseman.

Marino: C+. Lately he's been good, but I was expecting a lot more. Everyone got off to a rough start but I think Marino had arguably the worst of it. He's been productive and solid lately, hopefully that keeps up. He's another guy we absolutely need to be solid down the stretch.

Ruhwedel: C+. He's a solid 7th defenseman, not much more to say.


Jarry: B+. He was really inconsistent to start the season, a lot better lately. Hopefully he keeps it up.

DeSmith: B. He's a solid backup goalie.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,383
77,968
Redmond, WA
Digging more into the numbers on the top line, the weird thing with Rust on the top line is that the top line's overall production is pretty decent, but it's just Rust's numbers that are poor. I'm not exactly sure what would cause that, maybe the Penguins get a lot of chances on the rush and they're scoring a lot without Rust getting a point on the goals? That would be my guess, something like a defenseman feeds Crosby for a breakout pass, he then feeds Guentzel and then Guentzel scores.

The line as a whole has a 3.25 5v5 goals/60. That's not anything really amazing, but that's better than what the Guentzel-Crosby duo had in 2019-2020 (3.1 5v5 goals/60). So it's weird that the team as a whole is producing well when that line is on the ice, but Crosby and especially Rust don't really have that great of 5v5 points/60.

Looking at on ice GF and on ice GA is borderline evaluating players based on +/-, I do get that. But at the same point, if the line overall is producing well, is it really fair to criticize the individual production of any 1 player on that line? Does it really matter if Rust isn't producing that well at ES if the Penguins are getting a good amount of goals on their 1st line with say a bunch of Guentzel goals with a Crosby and Letang assists? This is just rhetorical, just a thinking question.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->