Let's yap about a (potential) Star: Michael Bunting
He's no Yautja. But he is a predator.
It’s hard not to root for a late bloomer. Like the flightless parrot, barely staving off extinction, hockey’s late bloomers defy conventions. Mason Marchment, Yanni Gourde, Jonathan Marchessault, Carter Verhaeghe. Sure it seems only the Tampa Bay Lightning have figured out how to preserve these players, but whatever the case, these late bloomers always seem to know exactly what they are, and wear the chip on their shoulder with aplomb.
Michael Bunting is, of course, another one. Drafted in the fourth round in 2014, Bunting never quite found his footing. He did quite well in the OHL, but his time in the AHL with the then Arizona Coyotes was a mixed bag. For four seasons, he played reasonably well but didn’t exactly light the world on fire.
And yet he kind of did when he finally broke into the NHL. 13 points in 21 games for the Coyotes during the 2020-2021 season would have put him on a 50-point pace. As a rookie! And yet the Coyotes simply let him walk as a UFA that season. Sure, he was shooting an unsustainable 26 percent (!), but still. That’s a solid showing that PDO-driven or not, you shouldn’t just walk away from.
Since then, Bunting’s career has zigged and zagged. He looked like a real gem his first season in Toronto. But since then he’s made stops in Carolina, Pittsburgh, and Nashville. Sure you’d like to see more consistency, but his consistency is about more than just his production.
Bunting has always been a player built around offense, piss, and vinegar (always in a different order). His shot impacts are high level, and he can make plays while also being able to capitalize on the plays of others. As much as fans love Justin Hryckowian, his offense is nowhere near the level that Bunting’s is (even if he might get there).
I know some fans get sick of these, but it’s important to emphasize where the data is less intuitive and why it’s important to understand them. For example, you might be wondering: why does Bunting’s offensive value rate so high if he’s only cracked 60 points once (with Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner no less), and 50 points once (in which his most common linemates were Martin Necas, Jack Drury, Rickard Rakell, and Evgenii Malkin) in his six-ish-season career?
Simple: goals and offense are not synonymous. Goals are offensive outcomes. They are not the offensive process. That’s why it’s so important to identify situations that lead to goal-scoring, and to credit players for it. So the fact that Bunting is so good at keeping his team off the penalty kill, and putting his team on the power play…is pretty important1. Evolving-Hockey’s Goals Above Replacement chart makes it a little easier to understand visually.
Bunting is by no means a perfect player. His defense is extremely lacking, and it’s something that shows up in every model. Nonetheless, he still grades out as a top six forward in terms of shift to shift impact.
A lot of this comes from the fact that Bunting, like Hryckowian, is the proverbial dog. He’s one of hockey’s most gifted forecheckers, and despite his size, he can and will throw his weight around.
So what’s the catch? Well the lack of defense is pretty important. Wyatt Johnston and Mikko Rantanen already hemorrhage chances against. So while Bunting might be able to help them generate more offense at even-strength, it’s worth wondering what exactly the net gain is here. A couple of other things make Bunting something of a risk. 1) The chemistry Johnston and Rantanen have with Hryckowian is quite real, albeit in a small sample. Bunting replacing him prevents them from developing further chemistry2. 2) Bunting is a surprisingly weak transition forward. His ability to read plays isn’t high level, so while he’s quick, he doesn’t always play quick. And on a team that could use better neutral zone play.
The reason why I would argue that Bunting’s case-for is stronger than the case-against is that to the extent that Dallas’ offense excels, they excel with traffic in front of the net, and spurts of strong cycle play. Bunting is extremely effective in both areas. He’s tough on opponents exiting the zone, and even better at outplaying defenders directly in front of the net. He also tends to do most of his damage at even-strength. That year he scored 63? Only five of them came on the power play. For a team that is now dead last in shot attempts-for at EV, that seems kind of important.
He may not be Dallas’ best option, but it looks like he could at least move the needle. Even just putting Dallas’ insane power play on the ice more often could be the difference. The margins always matter, which makes Bunting a discussion worth having.
I like to highlight this stat a lot so apologies if you’ve heard it before but a two-minute stretch of EV hockey has an 8 percent chance of leading to a goal whereas a two-minute stretch of power play time has a 24 percent chance of leading to a goal.
I think this is a weak argument, personally. I like Hryckowian quite a bit, but nothing about his game indicates he has 50-point potential. Then again I was wrong about him once before.
I would go after Schwartz or Tolvanen way way way before Bunting.
Would a Bunting acquisition for the Hintz line make sense- and move Robertson to the Johnston line?
But a more serious question- you brought up late bloomers in this piece.
I think Hryckowian COULD fall into that category as well IF he is given the chance to bloom.
He’s undrafted but at every level he’s carved out opportunities for himself and it just feels like- why couldn’t HE be a discount Zach Hyman?
He’s not there YET but he won’t get there EVER if not given the opportunity.
I’m not advocating a Hawks style let the kids all learn to fly and whatever happens, happens- but the Stars have done a good job these past 10 years (give or take) of having 1-3 quality rookies earning quality opportunities and letting them play those.
It would make sense to knock 49 down to the bottom six if the Stars were going after a genuine top six guy (not even Rantanen level but NOT a middle six guy), but if the Stars aren’t doing that- isn’t better asset management to develop these assets than spend some on a middle six stop gap (when they already have that for free?)
(I know that’s not the point of this series but increasingly I feel like forward pursuit for the sake of addition instead of “all in” just doesn’t make much sense.)