Five reasons the Chicago Blackhawks aren’t a playoff team

There are some people asking the question, “Are the Blackhawks a playoff team?” and the answer might not be what fans want to hear.

The short answer is, no. It might be easy to be cynical about this and just say, “They stink.” However, it’s oversimplifying things to say the isn’t very good, and stop at that. There are multiple reasons why Chicago isn’t reliably a playoff team.

Despite a wild 6-5 shootout victory against Columbus, it was the previous game against the Carolina Hurricanes that was more important. Essentially, Carolina threw down the gauntlet against the Chicago Blackhawks and showed everyone who is really ready for the playoffs. Chicago isn’t, and despite the fact that the Blackhawks have a winning record (10-6-4), they aren’t ready to be considered a contender.

You might ask, “why?” The team is winning games, right? They’ve pushed a lot of match-ups into overtime. Even if Chicago loses, it’s been by a small margin.

All of these things are true, and despite Chicago managing to hang in there against some great opponents, they aren’t ready for the postseason. While there are no hard and fast rules that separate a true contender from any other team, but when they’re on the ice the difference is obvious for everyone watching.

It doesn’t really matter what metrics are scrutinized. People will calculate puck possession, shot suppression, the average age of the team, and all kinds of things. These are all factors, but not one stands above the rest as a way to predict success. Chicago is deficient in many areas, but here are five reasons that the Blackhawks shouldn’t be in the postseason.

1. The Chicago Blackhawks are struggling tactically.

In a bunch of write-ups about the team, such as one by Ben Pope of the Chicago Sun-Times,  players have been quoted saying things to the effect of, they’ve been buying into the system. Coach Jeremy Colliton has done a good job of implementing changes, and the players are on board.

Some people such as Jay Zawaski had previously suggested a couple of years ago that Colliton had potentially lost the room and should be fired, but that doesn’t seem to be as valid a critique as once it had been.

Unfortunately, the team is being exposed as having problems. This tweet from Ben Pope illustrates that:

Well, Murphy was wrong. Chicago has trouble consistently spending time in the offensive zone. They’re struggling to slow down the opposing team’s offense in any capacity. They’re giving up way too many shots on the net. A lot of this comes down to strategy.

Some of these problems can be attributed to inexperience, either with Colliton in the case of the veterans or more broadly in the case of the newer players. This isn’t a sufficient explanation of what’s been happening on the ice.

Colliton has been the head coach of the team for several years. Maybe not full seasons, but it’s not like he’s new at this by now. While this season has shown marked improvement over previous campaigns, the team’s problems are tactical issues as much as they are caused by personnel.

This might lead someone to say that, “well, if they had so-and-so playing, then things would be different.” That’s perhaps true, especially for players like Jonathon Toews and Kirby Dach. That isn’t everything though.

Watching the games shows a consistent problem with the structure, especially defensively. Whether Colliton’s insistence on man-to-man coverage is the problem is debatable. Regardless, something needs to change because the team’s defense often looks paper-thin, and there’s no way they will ever compete in the postseason unless they tighten things up.

3. The sample size is not large enough yet to get a fair assessment.

Kevin Lankinen has been far, far better than anyone probably would have believed he would be at this point. However, it’s too early to say that he’s the real deal. More time is needed to determine if Lankinen is really ready to be an NHL starter, even if the net is basically his at this point.

He’s just one example of the fact that the team’s success is based on players that aren’t proven NHLers. It’s one thing to say that such-and-such player belongs in the NHL, but it’s another to have a record of success to refer to. Chicago has played 20 games this year, and that’s about all the NHL experience some of these players have.

I might be being overly cynical, but you don’t start making postseason predictions when a single player like Duncan Keith or Patrick Kane has more pro experience than all of the rookies combined. Pius Suter and Kevin Lankinen were both playing in professional leagues before coming to North America, and so there’s a little bit more of a record to take into consideration.

However, for guys like Ian Mitchell, Nicolas Beaudin, and Philip Kurashev, just to name a few, there’s not much to go on. Certainly not enough to say that their success so far is guaranteed to continue without error or significant setbacks.

Chicago needs more time to let the players develop and really show what they can do, and the level they can perform at. There’s more talent in the system than people probably realized, but it’s too early to make predictions about where the team is at. Twenty games simply aren’t enough.

4. The numbers are telling the truth about where this team is at.

The importance of using statistical analysis for hockey, and other sports, is debatable among fans. Despite a lack of consensus, analytics has become a major part of sports, and neither hockey nor the NHL are exceptions.

As far as Chicago is concerned in this department, there is room for improvement. Colliton is going to have his work cut out for him to correct some of these issues. Without delving into some of the more contested stats, Chicago’s team numbers leave a bit to be desired.

Yes, some of this comes directly from the long and ever-changing list of injuries Chicago has been plagued with this year. At the moment, Chicago has seven players out of the lineup. There’s no denying that injuries and health concerns are causing problems, but there is also a lack of depth throughout the roster. If there are questions, please refer back to the earlier comment about how Chicago is at the bottom of the league for shots allowed. Have a look at the stats for the game logs if you’re not sure.

Chicago’s possession metrics show that in 8/20 games they’ve had the puck more than their opponents (CF%). There are two games where possession was dead even (two losses against Tampa Bay), and the rest of the time they were underwater with regards to who had the puck. These kinds of stats aren’t perfect, nor are they necessarily predictors of on-ice success, but they help give a bit more insight into what’s happening on the ice. The eye-test is vital, but it’s better when there’s evidence that confirms what is being witnessed during the games.

The shots against are bad. Goals for and goals against essentially cancel each other out. In fact, across the board, the numbers for Chicago aren’t good. It doesn’t really matter what stat you look at. There are individual players that are carrying the team, but the overall story for Chicago is average at best. Teams that are ready for the postseason drive play, are tough to play against, and these things show up on the stat sheet. Chicago isn’t there yet this year.

5. The veterans have a hold on the cap space.

One of the biggest issues with Chicago’s youth movement is the veterans. This year, only two players that were around during Chicago’s dizzying heights are dressing for games, Duncan Keith and Patrick Kane. Both Jonathon Toews and Brent Seabrook have been sidelined because their health hasn’t allowed them to suit up. Both are poised to come back, but what impact will they have on the team?

Patrick Kane is still an elite player, and he proves this night after night. How much longer he can play at that level is anyone’s guess, but for now, he’s still producing. At the rate he’s going currently, he’ll be a point-per-game player for 2020-21. After more than ten years in the league, and over a thousand games under his belt, that’s pretty impressive.

Duncan Keith has freakish longevity, but in his case, there’s a noticeable decline. He’s not the player he once was, but he’s still logging 20-30 minutes a game at 37-years-old. Chicago’s longtime number-one defenseman has lost a step but is still a capable NHLer.

In the case of Toews, he’s on LTIR, and no one knows what is wrong with him, or when he’ll be back. When there’s something to announce publicly, he and the organization will make that information available. Until then, he deserves his privacy. However, it’s worth noting that when he returns, he’ll likely be 33 and still have term left on his contract.

His game has fallen off a bit, but he’s still a good player. Will he be when he returns though? That is a $10,500,000 question. Even if he comes back tomorrow, he’ll have missed what amounts to half a season and will be older. For an athlete, that’s a lot to recover from.

By contrast, Brent Seabrook was supposed to be ready to go to training camp, according to CBS and a host of other organizations. He was, but then apparently “tweaked” his back, and was put on IR. He could dress for a game any day now, but he hasn’t. Look, I’ve tweaked my back before, but it didn’t take months to recover from.

Maybe he wasn’t as ready to return to the ice as everyone thought. The issue here is that when he does return he’ll have missed a considerable amount of time, and his game has fallen off significantly. At this point, I’d be curious to know how his fitness tests ranked against other players on the team when everyone got back together for training camp. When he does suit up again, it’s going to take time away from one of the blossoming young players Chicago has been able to dress.

All of this begs the question, how much longer can Chicago give big minutes to their veterans? The issue here isn’t simply about on-ice performance. There are other factors to consider, such as salary (meaning cap hits), and roster spots. Aging players, as well as players that aren’t even in the press box, are impacting the team and maybe not for the best. The clock is ticking on their careers, and in some cases, the end is closer than anyone, players included, might want to admit. The youth movement means Chicago will need to transition away from relying on these players sooner rather than later, but when that happens is unknown.

Now, none of this means that the team has to be disregarded. There are clearly building blocks for the future. Probably nothing has been more surprising than Chicago’s apparent depth in net. The defense looks to be taking real steps towards substantive improvement for the first time in years. These are things to applaud. Chicago’s future looks brighter than it has for a while now, but the team isn’t there yet. While “there” is a moving target in regards to being a true contender, Chicago is making progress towards hitting that mark again.