Stars Stuff: Recapping the Blues recap, the blueline toughness discussion, and previewing Colorado

More hockey is on tonight.

One of my plans for the Substack is treat prospects and the Texas Stars no different than Dallas. That’s gonna mean doing some film room analysis for Emil Hemming in the OHL.

It’s an odd situation, as so much of the Stars’ cupboard is basically all in the AHL. That’ll change in the coming years, and I want to make sure the Stars Stack is ready. The NHL draft, and prospect talk and analysis might be my favorite part of hockey writing; yes even more than hugging my precious charts. It’s the only place where the practical knowledge of who a player is meets so tangibly with the theoretical knowledge of who they might become. Or hockey philosophy in other words.

Anyway: re-watching parts of the St. Louis game, I found myself noticing certain players more and more. This is the thing about the Eye Test; you’d be a fool to think you need only one. And I totally missed that Nils Lundkvist’s ‘gaffe’.

Let’s watch it again.

It’s definitely a bad look. I counted one unforced turnover, one lost retrieval, and one miscalculation. It’s a really bad look. But was the game in its totality a bad look for Dallas’ seventh defensemen? No. How was this sequence any worse than this sequence by Matt Dumba?

I can already feel myself getting sucked back into this seventh defenseman abyss, so let me be clear: I am not saying Lundkvist is a better option than Dumba, nor is this a criticism of Dumba’s game overall. In fact, I’m gonna try my best not to make excuses for Lundkvist. If he was so confident in pushing for a roster spot that he actively wanted to come back, then the buck has to stop with him at this point.

Nonetheless, I wanted to recognize something I missed. I do watch certain players with biased eyes, but I try not to miss things because of that bias. I still think he had a good game, but his game will always be defined not by potential, but by precision.

Thankfully, my eyes were not wrong about Mavrik Bourque on first watch. But more on him later this week.

The value of toughness

If you haven't read Robert Tiffin's piece in D Magazine on the new defensemen, I recommend reading it. Now. 

I’m gonna skip Robert’s thesis because I want to make clear that I’m disagreeing with something Robert never claims. As expected, Robert is making a a much more subtle argument. He is not making the classic “fighting/toughness as a deterrent to teams taking liberties” argument or whatever. But I want to focus on that because *I* used to believe that. I used to buy the Argument For The Enforcer. It makes a certain kind of sense. A big hit can inspire fear. Crosschecks, and facewashes aren’t just annoying; they hurt, and can even cripple. And plus, isn’t the game simply more fun when everything gets personal?

Personal experience hasn’t taught me much because I’ve experienced very little, but who that has ever been knocked down isn’t inspired to get right back up? That’s the problem with this notion of deterrence, beyond just the fact that a proper study has already established the last word on fighting’s effectiveness at deterring anything of actual consequence. A big hit can inspire fear. But it can also inspire fearlessness. A big hit can hurt an opponent. But it can also hurt your own team. Good luck scaring someone out of a sport they’ve dedicated their lives to since childhood. Physicality is a two-way street. To the extent that it’s a skill, it's no different than any other skill — too predictable, and it can be leveraged against you.  

However, it's also something that can get out of hand. Isn’t this why this discussion always reaches a crescendo in the playoffs, when the stakes are highest? Is this the type of hockey really worth promoting? The hit on Joe Pavelski by Matt Dumba, or the crosscheck on Roope Hintz by Nathan MacKinnon? I don't have any easy answers to this. And I know I frequently talk about this, with probably the exact same talking points. I don’t want hockey’s physicality gone, but we can ask for something better. The only way forward is to have a conversation, and we already know the Department of Player Safety won’t have it. Might as well be us.

Dallas vs. Colorado

I suspect tonight’s game will sit players like Thomas Harley and Mason Marchment. I could see Logan Stankoven getting the veteran treatment. He already plays like one. His presence was felt all over the ice versus St. Louis.

Usually preseason gives us an extended look at the youngest players and AHL tweeners while veterans make their cameos. Meaning we should finally get a look at Arttu Hyry. He’s the player with the most buzz outside of the official roster, drawing comparisons to Mattias Janmark.

As for Colorado, it’ll be interesting to watch their depth players. While nothing will fundamentally change with their current roster, they have a lot of interesting players in the margins. I’m thinking Nikolai Kovalenki, and Cal Ritchie in particular. The Avs are still looking at an unknown timetable for Gabriel Landeskog, but Artturi Lehkonen also underwent shoulder surgery, meaning spots are open.

We’ll also likely get a good look at how Oliver Kylington and Erik Brannstrom fit into their blueline. While I liked those signings, I could also see the moves forcing Colorado to target the trade deadline for more impactful help. They’re solid defenders, but they only play one-way. Monday night is by no means a proper preview of this regular season matchup, but it’ll give us glimpses where changes have been made.