Up next: The defense

He is the one Blue who has significantly exceeded expectations this season. Brought in as a fourth-liner, he has scored 10 goals in 51 games while playing up in the lineup from time to time due to injuries. Acciari earned a 50.1 expected goals percentage in 5-on-5 play heading into the break. That metric projects which team is expected to score more when a certain player is on the ice due to shot quantity and quality — and most Blues were well under 50%. Acciari won 54.4% of his faceoffs, led the team with 158 hits, handled a 40.7% share of penalty killing and blocked 52 shots overall. Well done, sir!

Grade: A

When healthy, he assumed an even larger role while leading all forwards with 19:28 in playing time. His power-play share jumped from 40.2% to 58.3%. His penalty killing share bumped up to 40.0% from 35.5%. He was minus-1 on a team featuring five players with plus-minus ratings of minus-21 or worse. Buchnevich converted 20.8% of his shots, which would be a career high, but his shot rate fell from 2.7 per game to 1.9. He earned a positive takeaway/giveaway ratio of 20/14, but his expected goals percentage dipped from 52.0 to 40.4.

Grade: A-minus

Like Jordan Kyrou, he grew into a bigger role after getting a massive contract extension. His playing time climbed to 19:09 per game while his scoring rate slipped from 3.4 points per 60 minutes to 2.8. His power-play share jumped jump from 45.0% to 60.3%. Thomas made additional improvement in the faceoff circle, winning 53.9% of his draws, up from 49.9%. He still must shoot more; he is averaging just 1.5 shots per game. He fell from plus-17 to minus-2, which isn’t so bad on this team. Despite his strong takeaway/giveaway ratio of 49/26, his expected goals fell from 49.8 to 39.5. There is still plenty of room for growth.

Grade: B

His hit rate and scoring rates (24 points) similar are similar to what he did during last season’s nine-game trial, but his possession metrics are much improved. Neighbours increased his time on ice from 9:21 to 12:22 as injuries gave him some Top 9 forward work. His takeaway/giveaway ratio of 10/3 spoke to his ability to win board battles. He posted a 50.2 expected goals percentage through 27 games. And his breakaway goal at Winnipeg pointed to his offensive upside. All in all, his development is on track.

Grade: B

His willingness to shoot pucks at every opportunity helped him build the best expected goals percentage (59.1) on the team. He finished with an even plus-minus before the break, quite the accomplishment on this team. Leivo has just four goals and nine assists in 38 games, but it wasn’t for a lack of trying. He made 123 shot attempts in 38 games and he generated 9.1 shots on goal per 60 minutes. He also earned a strong takeaway/giveaway ratio of 19/9. All in all, he did fine stepping up from his extra man role.

Grade: B

He followed last season’s breakout by scoring at a point-per-game pace again this year. Kyrou led the team with a point share metric — a hockey version of Baseball’s Wins Above Replacement — of 4.5 at the break, edging Buchnevich (4.0) and Thomas (3.9). His shot rate jumped from 2.5 per game to 3.5. His share of power-play duty increased from 40.2% to 58.3%. His overall time on ice jumped from 16:35 per game to 18:14. But after finishing plus-10 last season, he is minus-25 this time around with more giveaways (34) than takeaways (30). His expected goals percentage dipped to 39.3. The defensive side of his game still needs considerable work.

Grade: B-minus

Last year he scored 26 goals while shooting 23.4%. That was not sustainable. Sure enough, this season he has nine goals in 51 games on 11.8% shooting with a similar shot rate (1.5 per game). Also, his penalty-killing role shrunk to a 17.5% share and he remained weak in the faceoff circle (39.2 percent), His expected goal percentage (42.5) was poor. On the plus side, he drew a team-high 17 penalties, earned a 32/27 takeaway/giveaway ratio and landed 105 hits. As a sturdy third-line forward hitting his athletic prime, he is drawing trade interest.

Grade: B-minus

He earned 10:46 a game in his bottom six role by putting his large frame to work. Toropchenko averaged 12.2 hits per 60 minutes before the break. In his second season of filling in at the NHL level, he took some penalty-killing shifts (15.4% load) and got more offensive zone starts (43.4%, up from 36.5% last season). But he produced just three goals and four assists in 38 games, so his offensive game must improve.

Grade: C

He made offensive progress in the AHL this season, scoring 12 goals and adding eight assists in 23 games. Alexandrov got careful usage as a fourth-line fill-in in the NHL, earning just 8:46 in average ice time with 63.6 percent offensive zone starts. He had three goals and two assists with 15 hits and 10 blocked shots in 18 games. Alexandrov must improve his faceoff efficiency (31.7%) to strengthen his bid for ice time.

Grade: C

As injuries hit the team, his became a regular contributor to the fourth line. He has landed 1.81 hits per game and earned a 12/3 takeaway/giveaway ratio. But he is not a special teams contributor, so that limited his ice time to 9:25 per game — his smallest workload since his 11-game rookie season in 2013-14 in Edmonton. He is scoring at a 16-point pace, which is a notch lower than his average from 2016-21.

Grade: C

He scored 14 goals in 44 games and stayed on pace for his career norm. The departure of David Perron and subsequent injuries boosted his playing time from 16:16 per game to 17:03. But he has produced just one power-play point after scoring eight power-play goals and adding five assists with the man advantage last season. His takeaway/giveaway ratio regressed from 45/25 to 20/18, but his expected goals percentage (44.2) was better than most forwards on the team. After earning a 5.0 point share last season, he was at 1.9 at the break.

Grade: C-minus

Last year this heart-and-soul player scored 24 goals and had 34 assists in 62 games. But his underlying metrics screamed regression for this season — and regress he did while producing 37 points in 51 games. His shooting percentage dropped from an unsustainable 21.6 to a 14.0. Schenn went into the break minus-27 after finishing plus-21 last season — although like many Blues, he was hurt by the team’s poor save percentage (.868) when he was on the ice. His takeaway/giveaway ratio slipped from 42/28 to 21/34. His expected goals percentage slipped to 38.1 and his point share slipped from 6.5 to 2.5 so far this season.

Grade: D-plus

He got the All-Star nod despite his notable regression from the 2021-22 campaign. Maybe his strong showing in the festivities in South Florida will improve his trade value as GM Doug Armstrong sets out to retool. Tarasenko’s point share metric plunged from 8.9 to 2.1 so far this season. His shooting percentage dropped from 14.9 to 9.7, his goals per 60 minute dropped from 1.6 to 0.9 and his goals per game fell from 0.45 to 0.26. His expected goals percentage was a dismal 36.9. He is minus-18 this year after finishing plus-7 last year. On the other hand he drew 13 penalties and took just four and he pumped 9.28 shots on goal per 60 minutes.

Grade: D-plus

He cratered in the walk year of his contract, which explains all the trade rumors. O’Reilly produced 10 goals but just six assists and a ghastly minus-28 rating in 37 games before suffering his broken foot. His overall playing time fell to 18:26 — down more than two minutes from his St. Louis peak — and his power-play share fell from 54.9% to 40.4%. He remained strong in the faceoff circle (53.4%), although not as strong as last season (56.8%). O’Reilly had an excellent takeaway/giveaway ratio of 32/7, but his expected goal percentage was 40.9 and his point share fell to 0.5 thus far.

Grade: D

The Aussie was outstanding last season in his fourth-line role, scoring eight goals and adding four assists in 30 games while bringing energy and an edge. But this season he produced just a goal and three assists in 28 games while moving in and out of the mix. He still hit people and won faceoffs (58.1%), but as with most of the other forwards his fancy stats were grim.

Grade: D

He lacks the skill to play an offensive role at this level and he lacks the tenacity to play checking or energy roles. Brown’s 13 games between injuries have been pretty empty. He has no goals and two assists in his 9:42 playing time per game he has won just 28.6% of his faceoffs. His Corsi, Fenwick and expected goals (30.0%) metrics are all terrible.

Grade: D-minus