Light Work: Reflections on the "fallout" following Dallas' loss to Tampa
What's the big deal?
This might be a running feature for postgame analysis. Something quick. Something light. But not empty calories, I hope.
Pete DeBoer was visibly frustrated after the game. He gave credit to the fourth line, mentioned Lian Bichsel, praised Casey DeSmith, and had nothing but metaphorical raspberries for everyone else.
Watching Dallas, I can’t help but frame every game in the context of how they grade on a curve, without Miro Heiskanen. Within that context, it was still a bad game. But I didn’t think it was the worst. Obviously, DeBoer isn’t interested in that framing: he’s interested in making sure the team is building and creating chemistry towards the postseason and making sure everyone’s prepared. In that context, he has every right to be frustrated.
I saw a comment at Bob Sturm’s place that caught my eye. We’re Sturm fans around here because Bob had a progressive mindset when it came to Stars analysis on the broadcast, so we miss him. Anyway, he wrote about the loss, which I recommend checking out.
This is not to single out the commenter over there. Not at all. But it’s the thing that sticks out at me when I go back to the Heiskanen discussion. “But we were fine until recently. We were winning!”
Go look at Dallas’ opponents during their so-called “heater” without Heiskanen: it’s a bunch of also-rans — which, it should be said, they didn’t even always beat — and then some good teams. The pattern is umistakeable: when Dallas played bad teams, they won. When they played good teams, they lost.
If you’re wondering why that is, it’s very simple, and it goes beyond goals, or wins. Nothing about Dallas’ performance was sustainable. Without Heiskanen, they’ve been a possession blackhole. They’re getting outshot, and outpossessed, full stop (Mike if you’re reading this, I’m sorry I didn’t use this graph instead for our piece).
The only reason they’re still winning games is because the hockey gods have rewarded them (hence their above average goal differential even without Heiskanen) for shooting, and their goaltending remains stout.
We don’t have to relitigate the “is Heiskanen, Dallas’ best player?” debate. I find it interesting that it’s not completely unanimous though. I would argue that Heiskanen is a top five player at his position, whereas I can’t necessarily say that for anyone else. Mikko Rantanen certainly has the resume of one but I don’t think it’s automatic that he’s better than say, Matthew Tkachuk, Nikita Kucherov, Kirill Kaprizov, Mitch Marner, and Brady Tkachuk — at least as they currently are. And with Rantanen, his status has changed so dramatically (arguably the most dramatic change of any player within the last decade), it’s only natural to give him time before making an assessment. We don’t just judge players on who they are, but for where they are.
So DeBoer is certainly right to be frustrated. After all, Dallas won’t struggle to win games. Their offense is too good, and even versus Tampa, they almost won a game they didn’t deserve to win against an elite opponent. The real question is not whether they can win games. The real question is whether they can find a strong possession game without him. That’s the kind of offense that is sustainable. And it’s something they’ll need going into the playoffs if they want to avoid being upset by a lesser team.
This team almost certainly won’t beat Colorado in a seven game series without Miro. It’s sports, so upsets happen, but it would be just that…an upset. The better team would have to have some things go wrong to lose.
This team without Miro is not a Cup contender and I think the numbers bear that out.
I have three main questions about this team in a broad perspective:
1) Is Jamie Benn a good enough captain for this team to win a Cup?
The Stars lacked superior leadership before the arrival of Pavelski. The Stars production rose after he arrived and adjusted, but so did their leadership group. A Stanley Cup final and two Western Conference finals all happened while he was here. After the loss to the bolts, the Stars trotted out Bichsel, Back, & DeSmith to answer for that stinker of a game & lackluster play against other good teams. No dudes who wear the C or an A came out to face the music. Shapiro has alluded to it while covering the Stars. Coaches have changed, players have changed, but the leadership under Benn has remained the only constant. One has to wonder if he’s missing something needed for the Stars to achieve their publicly stated goal of winning the SC in the next year or two.
2) Can the Stars win a Cup without a truly game changing dynamic type of player?
The Blues and maybe Vegas are the only recent examples of teams that have won it all without a true superstar. Vegas is debatable because Eichel may be one of those guys. The Stars haven’t had one of those guys since Mo retired. It seems you have to have one of those special type players and sometimes more than one to lift the silverware at the end of the playoffs.
3) Is Mikko Rantanen, when not playing alongside Nathan MacKinnon, a legit elite superstar or just a very good player like Roope, Robertson, Duchene, & Oetter?
The jury is still very much out on this. I like that Nill swung for the fences to find out if Mikko is that guy, because otherwise the only way to get one is to tank & get lucky enough to win the draft lottery in a year when there’s happens to be that type of player available. (Crosby, MacKinnon, McDavid, Kucherov, Pastrnak, Bedard, Ovechkin...you get the idea)
If the answer is no to that trio of questions, then the Stars will be what they’ve mostly been for a long while now. A good team that remains competitive, but not really good enough to hang a banner.
So much this!
You can outplay your metrics for a while but you're not going to beat quality teams on a regular basis while consistently losing the possession battle. Lot of folks, okay one guy making dumb....er, questionable comments on the other articles....seem to think wins are the only way to measure performance and that's a path that will lead you to heartache and an empty bank account if you're a gambler.