Sean Shapiro's Thought Experiment On Ty Dellandrea: A Measured Response

Is Sean Shapiro onto something?

My apologies for not posting some postgame stray observations yesterday. Gavin Spittle has been kind enough to keep me on regular-ish rotation on Spits and Suds, which has been a lot of fun. I got to talk a little bit about when I played baseball in sixth grade, the Columbus game, and even though my eyes nearly rolled out of their socket when he brought up plus/minus, I kept my composure. Sticktap to Gavin for his work. Listen here!

At D Magazine, Sean Shapiro had a big idea: what if Ty Dellandrea were Dallas’ trojan horse for load management? What if he was on a routine rotation to ease the burden of his top six teammates? What if he was something other than a 13th forward, but something more like the forward group’s coccyx — vestigial yet ever-present?

I suggest you read the entire feature for itself. Part of what I love about Sean’s work is that he’s the consummate professional and insider, but he has opinions too. A writer without an opinion is like documentary filmmaking without a subject to explore. You don’t have to proselytize but if you don’t have an opinion, how do you expect to dig deeper?

Needless to say, his modest proposal really tickled my brain. I personally love it. But I get why some might hate it. The way I’ll approach this measured response is in three phases: first by breaking down the player, then the pros within player context, and the cons within player context.

Who is Ty Dellandrea?

Does anyone really know? Sure, we can talk about what we see: a player who can skate, who can forecheck, and has some tangible offensive acumen that seems to benefit the bottom six more than the top six. But we’re talking about only one full season. And we’re talking about a significant chunk of that season spent next to Jamie Benn and Wyatt Johnston: two superior, more talented forwards.

It’s easy to chalk Dellandrea’s season up to riding the coattails of his teammates. I think there’s truth to that but I also think there’s truth to Dellandrea pulling his own weight.

Data and visual courtesy of Micah Blake McCurdy.

In case you’re not familiar with synthetic goals (or sG), I like to think of it as a player’s immediate shift-to-shift value. Why ‘immediate’? And why use this description for sG instead of say, xG? Because of Micah’s unique difference in modeling. As you can see, Dellandrea grades out as having the immediate value of an elite third liner who borders on being a second liner.

While he doesn’t add offense as a functional finisher, his playmaking is underrated. And dogged.

Data and visual courtesy of Micah Blake McCurdy.

Dellandrea’s an interesting candidate for this position. He’s young but his game is not so versatile that it’s nothing but untapped potential on the horizon. At the same time he’s versatile enough to be potentially optimized in different ways.

For the sake of clarity I’ll be calling it the wheel role or some variation. It’s basically positionless hockey taken to its most extreme; not just positionless, but roleless in some ways. It might seem counterintuitive. “Forwards either go into the top six, or the bottom six. What’s the point of consistently playing someone who doesn’t play either?”

My naval gazily response is that this is why I feel like “vestigial” is a good word here. This is just as true in hockey (example: the purpose of checking lines) as it is in the natural world. Consider the ostrich. Its wings don’t serve the purpose of flight. But do they function? Of course: mating, maintaining balance, and threatening enemies. Likewise with Kakapos: funny-looking but beautiful New Zealand parrots whose wings are vestiges, but not functionless either.

The point? Function and purpose are not mutually inclusive.

Trojan Ty: The Pros

I want to start with what I think is the biggest pro: learning more. This reminds me a little of Eric Tulsky’s (Assistant GM of the Carolina Hurricanes; I know this is petty but I always like mentioning Tulsky’s job title given where he started — as a nerdonaut writing spreadsheets instead of watching games) research into goalie performances in back-to-back situations. While that work has changed over time, it was still a critical find ala the four-forward power play setup, attacking from behind the net instead of from the point, et cetera.

Getting back to the concept of learning more, what if we find that top six forwards increase their expected goal impacts (xG) in games where the wheel forward was used versus in those where it was not? If not shot quality, what about overall possession (Corsi For)? Is there something in the transition data that stands out? Is one side of the puck affected more than the other i.e. offense is more disproportionately affected than defense, or vice versa?

In Sean's piece, a scout makes the following comment.

“It’s outside the box, for sure, but I see how it could be done, plus I like the idea of certain guys on that Dallas roster getting extra time to heal up at times,” one said. “But I think selling that group of players on it, that be the tough part on Pete [DeBoer.]”

I’m sorry but you don't need to hear every single opinion in the room to make a crucial decision.

Off the bat I can think of countless benefits: building chemistry, identifying new roles, creating new skills, and even — and this is a big one for me — breaking down archetypes. Think of how many players who could have benefited from this wheel position: William Karlsson, Carter Verhaeghe, Pavel Buchnevich, Valeri Nichushkin, Artturi Lehkonen, Chandler Stephenson, Anthony DuClair, etc. Hockey is littered with players whose development was stunted (although not all) by teams looking through this binary lens of Top Six Versus Bottom Six. In many ways this new role would have the added benefit of weeding out top six players who don’t belong, and elevating bottom six players that do.

This is what makes the bottom six versus top six concept so outdated, and why I always criticize it in the context of development. How is a playmaker supposed to develop playmaking skills if they’re on the bottom six, surrounded by players who can’t shoot? (Imagine Mavrik Bourque starting his NHL career with Radek Faksa.) How is a shooter supposed to develop consistency if they’re surrounded by players who can’t pass? (No need to imagine Jason Robertson with Faksa and Joel Kiviranta since that actually happened.) A wheel position could theoretically address that by giving players the opportunity to gel with different skillsets.

Also, Dellandrea really fits this potential role. We've already seen him mesh well with a line that oozes talent. And we've also seen him gel with a line that does not.  

Trojan Ty: The Cons

Personally, I think the scout's objection can kick rocks. And I say that with the same tone as Sean Connery to Ed Harris in The Rock. The concept of “buy-in” is only a drawback if you're not clear about the objective and how to achieve it.

I don't have any criticisms to Sean's experiment in concept. It’s really a question of proof. And that depends on how clearly defined the objective is.

1. Is the objective just to manage the load of your star players over the course of the season?  If so, how much true grit and pride will the player in this role actively take? Sean doesn't seem to regard the role as temporary but it’s somewhat implied. After all, when it gets down to the marrow, this can’t be a role that remains in the postseason, right?

2. Is the objective to manage the load of your star players from game to game? I think this is way more interesting, while also potentially being more problematic. Let's say Dellandrea takes Pavelski's spot for two shifts in the second period. What chances did Dallas leave on the table within those two shifts?

These aren’t convincing arguments though. They’re just questions, and off the bat I can think of several easy answers. For example, to the second question, while you may leave chances on the table in that Pavelski example, what kind of quality is potentially enhanced by giving Pavelski a ramped shift?

As with everything, it comes down to application. Plenty of players are designed for the top six, yet aren’t treated that way (see Nikolaj Ehlers in Winnipeg). Some aren’t, yet are treated like they are (see Pierre Engvall for the Islanders). How is this theoretical position treated? Seriously, or with the same skepticism that teams treat prospects with?

In Summation

There's a reason that Sean posed this thought experiment to begin with: Dallas is more than four lines deep. Beyond that we've already seen this concept played out in a softer form: think about Thomas Haley getting shifts with Miro Heiskanen in trailing situations, or William Nylander getting the odd shift with Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner.  

The other issue is that Craig Smith, Joe Pavelski, and Matt Duchene are gone after this year. Sure, at least one of them will be brought back. But that’ll leave one right winger on the NHL roster. Wouldn’t it behoove Dallas to learn just how fluid Dellandrea’s place in the lineup actually is?