The Discourse: Rating the keys to victory between Dallas and Colorado

It was a hell of a series. But which factor contributed the most to their dramatic Game 7 come-from-behind victory?

I’m not sure further reflection has really helped make sense of that white knuckler of a series between Dallas and Colorado.

Of course, I was more than happy to be wrong. As readers know, I had Colorado in six. Dallas won in seven. Nonetheless, as happy as I am to be wrong, I’m also happy to stand by my analysis. Being right or wrong is never the point, nor should it. The point is to be useful. My assessment was that Colorado was an offensive facade, but that even a facade should have been enough to penetrate a Dallas defense consistently without its top defender, not to mention one of their best defensive forwards.

That’s more or less what happened right? Colorado was an offensive facade — unable to score on the power play and struggling to win the shot quality battle on the road — but they still penetrated Dallas’ defense, outshooting them 190-135 at even-strength, with an 86-59 edge in high danger chances. Is shot differential the only measure worth looking at? Of course not. So what did I miss?

Plenty. Small things that added up, like Pete DeBoer’s shift in attack style. The new line combos (cough, that I clamored for). Just how lopsided special teams would be (how many were truly confident that the power play would become an active asset in this series?). Dallas’ home-ice advantage, and what a difference it made in the possession battle versus on the road. Just how great Jake Oettinger was. And how quiet Cale Makar was. And of course: how dominant Mikko Rantanen would be when it got down to the marrow.

In other words, I hope you still have confidence that I’m doing my homework. It’s a weird hyperspace for me where the point of my writing is to be right, and so it’s nice to be validated, but as I fan, I’d much rather be wrong. The analysis here at the Stars Stack is not about what I want, but about what I expect to happen based on the evidence. Will I be as “negative” about this upcoming series versus Winnipeg as I was of Colorado? This week we’ll be doing an Into The Weeds edition of Dallas vs. Winnipeg(paid). So we’ll get there.

For now, let’s focus on rating all the different keys to victory in retrospect. And if you don’t like this abridged version and would rather hear Robert Tiffin and I talk about it, then check out our appearance on Dimitri Filipovic’s PDOcast.

Star(s) Power

Before the series started, most would agree that Colorado had the edge in star power. After all, Dallas had nobody better than Nathan MacKinnon and Cale Makar. Right? Wrong. Mikko Rantanen and Thomas Harley combined for more points than the MacKinnon-Makar connection (17 to 16).

Obviously, not enough can be said about Rantanen. His performance reminded me of Alex Radulov in October of 2019, when Dallas was in danger of losing eight straight to start the season. Against Minnesota, down by three, Radulov took the game over.

That was Rantanen in Game 7. Granted, only the laziest talking heads thought “Is Rantanen a MacKinnon merchant?” was a real question. But still, it was nice to see Rantanen turn into the player Dallas bought, not to mention — to see Dallas rewarded for their bold move. The Stars are in a real pickle with the cap next season. But that’s not why you move mountains to get a player like Rantanen. You want your weekend, and right now, the Stars are getting their money’s worth a quarter of the way through.

Harley is also a major piece here. When Harley’s name popped up on Dom’s model about defenders with deserved Norris love, I thought his season would be fascinating to track from the perspective of other models. Sure enough, I found something from Evolving-Hockey’s expected Wins Above Replacement¹. There were four defenders topping the charts on this stat: Zack Werenski, Quinn Hughes, Makar and Harley. Want to guess who topped the list at a value of 4.8 wins or nine points added in the standings? A big part of why Dallas’ blueline didn’t fold is because it wasn’t held up by a defender in Miro Heiskanen’s shadow, but by a defender who casts his own.

Actual key to victory: right key, right door

Pete DeBoer

We all know that Dallas lost the shot battle pretty handily. Colorado had the puck more often, which is definitely not how the Stars drew it up. What they did do effectively is that they gave Colorado different looks, they won the special teams battle by a significant margin, and Dallas actually had the edge in share of shot quality at home. That says a lot about what DeBoer did with the lineup he had. He mitigated Dallas’ weakness as best he could (giving Harley more minutes away from the MacKinnon line was huge IMO), while tapping into their strengths. It was really a masterclass in coaching helping dictate momentum through adaptive systems work.

Actual key to victory: right key, right door

Special Teams

Six Dallas goals to Colorado’s three on the power play. Dallas’ power play was one of the bigger x-factors. After all, on paper they didn’t really have the edge. The Stars were a middling team in terms of conversion, while Colorado was a middling team on the penalty kill. It ended up being fatal for the Avs, who couldn’t do anything against Dallas’ aggressive power killing units except try the same thing over and over.

Timing was everything too. Colorado was gift-wrapped four minutes to start Game 7 after a Jamie Benn crosscheck. They did nothing with it. Meanwhile, twenty seconds into a late-third period Colorado penalty, Wyatt Johnston snapped the handle off the dagger they stuck Colorado with — with the kind of motion and deception (switching formations) the Avs didn’t even try to tinker with. What stings for Colorado here is that they had a significant edge in shots and goals at even-strength. It just goes to show you: in a close series involving two talented squads, you can’t punt 20 percent of the game that’s played on special teams, and that’s exactly what Colorado did.

Actual key to victory: right key, right door

Offense

Dallas’ offense was by no means perfect. In fact, the absence of the Mason Marchment-Matt Duchene-Tyler Seguin seemed like it could have been fatal going into that third period. Wyatt Johnston had the toughest assignment, and came out even. The fourth line; meh. The offense really felt like it came down to Rantanen and Roope Hintz, who were massive in this series. That’s not to say that no one else deserves mention because they do. But Dallas’ two most potent playoff performers were Dallas’ two most potent playoff performers.

For all the talk about playoff performers, there’s another player in the top 25 over the last three seasons in points per 60, and that’s Hintz. He was behind only Rantanen and MacKinnon in the series scoring and led Dallas in carry-in percentage per Corey’s tracking data. It’s easy to see why he’s so effective in the playoffs where his raw speed can exploit broken plays and counters. Hintz is the actual Baby Barkov IMO. No he’s not as good, but even a small step below Barkov is still otherworldly.

Actual key to victory: good key, wrong door

Defense

Because of outcome bias, I think fans, writers, and analysts will probably argue that “well, Dallas’ defense is good actually.” This is just…wrong. Dallas’ defense got caved in. Esa Lindell and Cody Ceci rocked a 32 percent expected goal share, and got outshot 29-71. In what world do they deserve credit, here? And for what? The goaltending that saved their pasture-raised bacon?

Dallas’ weakness is still its weakness. Harley is the only player doing yeoman’s work in all three zones. But one thing I’ll give credit where credit is due for is that every pair had a player that added value. The same could not be said about Colorado, which is why a less lethal offense was able to penetrate the Avs’ defenses. Heiskanen’s return can’t come quick enough.

Actual key to victory: wrong key, wrong door

Goaltending

Jack Han had a really fun breakdown where he talked about Joe Daccord’s dad, and his goalie heuristic, and how broadly speaking, goals can be broken down into four categories: no chance, could have had it, should have had it, and bad goal. Out of the five goals he allowed in game six, there was only one goal he should have had, and one goal he could have had. And that was really the story of the series. Oettinger was extremely sharp when his team wasn’t. He gave up the goals he couldn’t stop, but with very rare exceptions, there was never a goal he gave up that he should have had. Overall Oettinger finished with over two goals saved above expected. More according to Parick Bacon’s model.

Actual key to victory: good key, right door

Depth

I would say that this is where Dallas really fell short. That’s not to say there weren’t some outstanding performers. Tyler Seguin poked his head out for four points, and Lian Bichsel had what I considered a very strong series in proportion to role and experience (he and Alex Petrovic were the only defense pair above 50 percent in expected goal share). But Dallas had very few producers beyond the top dogs. The Duchene line, and the fourth line were largely afterthoughts. The blueline was the Harley show. This doesn’t mean depth can’t be a factor in the next series (in point a fact, a series with Winnipeg is exactly where I’d expect it to show up); just that against Colorado, it shouldn’t be a talking point.

Actual key to victory: wrong key, wrong door

GM’ing

I don’t know that a GM’s fingerprints have ever been so obviously on the roster on the ice. When healthy, Dallas has seven players Nill had a hand in drafting. As for as trades go, does Dallas win that series without Nill pushing his chips in to trade for Rantanen? To be sure, this postseason is just getting started. One series win is just that; a good start. But Nill did a lot of things differently to bring this roster together, so full marks in helping build a roster that could beat Colorado without Heiskanen and Robertson².

Actual key to victory: good key, right door

1. I’ve done my best to explain Evolving-Hockey’s WAR model in laymen’s terms here.

2. I thought it was interesting how much MacKinnon also seemed despirited by the loss, even mentioning not being able to beat a team without such two important players, as if to say “how good could we even be?”