Star dust

Fired coach Ken Hitchcock should be on Sather's speed dial

Last Thursday, anyone in hockey would have told you that the Dallas Stars still had a chance to turn their rocky 2001-02 season into a success. Their record was a respectable 23-17-6-4, and they were only four points behind the San Jose Sharks in the Pacific Division.

Yes, the Stars had played inconsistently and showed signs of the same wear that led to their second-round loss in the playoffs last season. But Dallas was a talented team with a gritty history, a team that was slowly beginning to gel. And, most of all, the Stars had a chance to make a late-season charge and postseason run because they had Ken Hitchcock as their coach.

Any hopes Dallas had of making a playoff run ended early Friday morning when Hitchcock, the best NHL coach not named Scotty, picked up his home phone and learned that he'd been fired.

On the face of it, the Devils' dismissal of Larry Robinson on Monday was even more out of whack than Dallas' dismissing Hitchcock. Robinson had taken New Jersey to two Stanley Cup finals in two playoff seasons as their coach. Yet the Devils never assumed a real personality under Robinson; he shepherded them but never made an imprint. The Stars were Hitchcock's team: smart, resilient and tough.

Dallas was the club that other teams hated to play in the same way you might hate running through a thorn bush at a naked picnic.

At their best -- and they were usually at their best -- Hitch's boys never gave you an inch. No wonder the Stars themselves grew weary after six years of playing Hitchcock's way. "The toughest style to play in the NHL is the Dallas Stars style," said Stars defenseman Richard Matvichuk just before the firing. "We've got to play 110 percent every night."

Ay, criminy! Pity the poor players who have to play 110 percent.

Just before Hitchcock was let go -- and this is no coincidence -- Stars center Mike Modano made some very public comments implying that he had grown tired of Hitch's system. I hope Modano realizes the reason he went from being a talented scorer to being the best two-way center in hockey is due to one thing: He had the privilege of playing under Hitchcock. Maybe Hitchcock chafed at Modano, maybe he rode him a bit too hard, but no coach will ever care about Modano, or drive him to succeed the way Hitch did.

How's this for a track record? Hitchcock had won more games in the past five years (277) than any coach in the NHL, except Bowman. The Stars had appeared in 73 playoff games over the past four seasons. In Hitch's 14-plus years as a coach -- in the WHL, the IHL and NHL -- he had gone 678-345-100. That is not a misprint. That is a winning percentage of .648. Hitchcock has had exactly zero losing seasons in his coaching career (he went 15-23-5 during his first partial season with the Stars, but left the Michigan K-Wings 19-10-11 that season).

Dallas may have lost in the second round last year, but they wouldn't have even made it that far without Hitch guiding them.

How many NHL coaches have a real, consistent vision and demand that their players hew to a certain style? No one got more out of seemingly spent players than Hitchcock. (I might mention John MacLean, I might mention Benoit Hogue.) This Hitchcock had been getting the team to play incrementally better, despite a run of bad luck that stemmed partly from the organization's ill-conceived signings (Valeri Kamensky?) that forced Hitch to use players out of position.

In the Stars' first game under interim coach Rick Wilson they lost 6-1 at home to the Mighty Ducks, the second worst team in the Western Conference. In their next game the Stars were tied at home with the Blue Jackets, the conference's worst team, until well into the third period. Nothing against Wilson -- he's well-liked and a good man -- but without Hitchcock the Stars have no chance to contend for the Cup. The bet here is that they miss the playoffs altogether.

Hitch wants another job, and while I'm not one to advocate a coaching change, let me advocate a coaching change. If New York Rangers general manager Glen Sather hasn't already called Hitchcock and made him an offer he can't refuse, we can only assume Sather's phone is on the fritz. Sather had better call soon because roughly 25 other teams (almost all of those that don't have a coach named Scotty) are trying to figure out how to get Hitchcock behind their bench.

The Rangers are a rudderless team that shows all the signs of being poorly coached (they're awful on the penalty kill, for example). Hitchcock would play well on the New York stage, and not just because the media loves bright, articulate leaders. Hitch would get the Rangers committed overnight; within weeks he'd have them winning close games. If the Rangers get Hitchcock, and spend more of their money -- wisely this time -- in the offseason, they'll be on their way to contending.

Wherever Hitchcock coaches next, he's going to do what he says he'll do: "Kick ass." Meanwhile, the Stars will be taking a giant step backward.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Kostya Kennedy takes sides every Tuesday at CNNSI.com. The thoughts expressed here are solely those of the writer.

 

Related information
Multimedia
Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV.