What I don't really understand why anyone would view control of the Senate as likely to hinge on Missouri. McCaskill is a 2 term incumbent in what seems likely to be a very strong Democratic year.
The outcomes of Senate races are strongly correlated with each other and with the overall national climate.
That doesn't mean it is impossible for her to lose, but if she loses, it is much more likely to be because the 'very strong Democratic year' turns out to be generally less strong than expected - i.e. if the GOP holds on to NV and AZ (in which case if McCaskill loses, it won't decide control of the Senate).
But what is much less likely is that McCaskill loses while Dems simultaneously pick up NV and AZ, and maybe run close races in TN and TX. If Dems pick up NV and AZ and run close (or even win) in TN and TX, it is quite unlikely that McCaskill will lose re-election, and it probably won't even be particularly close.
I agree with your overall point, but Dems probably win NV before holding MO regardless.