A (horse)fly in the ointment?

Much has been made [David Shoalts, The Globe and Mail] of this afternoon's upcoming Game I tilt between Alexander Ovechkin's Washington Capitals and Sidney Crosby's Pittsburgh Penguins as a ready-made marketer's dream for the NHL. Hopes are high, and many seem to feel that this kind of matchup between two of the league's brightest stars could be a breakthrough moment for hockey in the U.S. There are some aspects that favour that idea, as both stars toil in reasonably large media markets where there isn't much else going on at the moment; both cities have atrocious baseball teams and Washington's NBA team didn't make the playoffs, while Pittsburgh lacks an NBA team completely and Pennsylvania's lone NBA team was just eliminated [Howard Beck, The New York Times]. If this series is going to draw in the viewers, though, it will have to start with a strong first game. Fortunately for the NHL, they've been able to get this game off of the obscurity of Versus and onto a major network, NBC. Unfortunately, scheduling concerns might just ruin the parade and turn the marketing dream into a nightmare scenario.

You see, the Pittsburgh - Washington game is set to start at 1 p.m. today. That's a little earlier than most NHL games, but not a huge problem. What is a problem is what's scheduled for the next block, though. At 4 p.m., NBC is set to air the Kentucky Derby pre-race show, leading up to the race itself at 5 p.m. Remember what happened the last time [Eric McErlain, Off Wing Opinion] a playoff game in overtime on NBC conflicted with a major pre-race show? That's right, NBC decided to abandon the Ottawa Senators - Buffalo Sabres game in the middle to switch over to their coverage of the Preakness Stakes (which apparently drew more viewers than the hockey game!). Now, the Preakness is important, but it doesn't quite have the cachet of the Kentucky Derby. If the network's willing to drop the playoffs for the Preakness, surely they'd do the same for the Derby?

Fortunately, the parties involved appear to have learned a bit from the last go-round. Greg Wyshynski reports over at Puck Daddy that the network has made contingency plans in advance. They've committed to showing the first overtime period on the main network (which would likely cut into the pre-race show), but then switching to the Derby while sending the NHL game to Versus for a second overtime and beyond if necessary. Obviously, this isn't an ideal situation, but it's the best hockey fans could hope for given the circumstances; it would be ratings suicide for NBC to continue showing hockey and miss the Derby itself, and they may even take a ratings bath by showing the first period of overtime hockey instead of the pre-race show. At least this time around there is a contingency plan that's been made public, and that's certainly an improvement.

Still, a switch to Versus would alienate some viewers who don't have the channel or can't find it and certainly wouldn't help the NHL's efforts to rebuild its major-league image. You can bet that both the league and network executives will be fervently praying for a short game this afternoon. It's the playoffs, though, so anything can happen, and the first clash between Alexander the Great and Sid the Kid may well be relegated to the obscurity of the bull-riding and fishing network in favour of some horses running around a track. If that happens, it will only reinforce hockey's minor-league status in the States, and the series Bettman and co. had hoped would save their image may wind up driving yet another nail into it.

Hold the Crosby, please.

(Photo from (gasp) AveryNation. Makes me question who I hate more, Crosby or Avery. I think Avery wins by a nose, due to the Vogue internship and the whole Elisha Cuthbert thing, but Crosby's pretty close).

I don't want to make it seem like I'm always ragging on the Globe and Mail's William Houston, but his column today annoyed the hell out of me. Here's the highlights (lowlights?).

"Let's see. He's the youngest player to be appointed as the captain of an NHL team. This is his first Stanley Cup final. Hard to tell, but he may still be hurting from an ankle injury that sidelined him for 29 games in the regular season.
On Wednesday, Sidney Crosby scored two of the Pittsburgh Penguins' three goals and logged almost 20 minutes of ice time to lead the Penguins back into their series against the Detroit Red Wings. It was a terrific performance.
But guess who received the attention during the Hockey Night in Canada postgame coverage? Gary Roberts.
The show's grudge against Crosby has gone well beyond ridiculous. Yes, host Ron MacLean interviewed him last Saturday, but the show's most influential commentator, Don Cherry, doesn't like him. And MacLean certainly defers to his elder.
If Cherry mentioned Crosby in his postgame commentary, we missed it. Instead, he enthused about Roberts, the Penguins' veteran, who played 8 minutes 45 seconds and earned an assist. And he praised the team's Jordan Staal, who also had a solid game, but no points.
“He's only 19 years old,” Cherry said.
Yes, and Crosby's 20."

Grudge? How the hell can you say that the CBC has a grudge against Crosby, and that it's gone well beyond the ridiculous? As Houston admits, he was interviewed by MacLean last Saturday. Later in the column, he talks about how Crosby was named the first star, chosen for a post-game interview by Elliotte Friedman and praised by Craig Simpson. That seems like quite a bit of coverage (and praise) for someone the network supposedly has a grudge against. Houston goes on:

"The ABC rule (Anybody But Crosby) had MacLean toeing the line. When he read off the three stars of the game, he said Crosby had been selected as the first star for scoring the opening goal and picking up another.
That understated Crosby's impact on the game about as much as saying Tiger Woods is occasionally noticed on the PGA Tour.
When Cherry did his postgame spot for ESPN, he continued to ignore Crosby and wax lyrical about Roberts. Finally, ESPN commentator Barry Melrose said, “What about the Crosby kid?”
“Oh,” Cherry said. “I forgot. Yeah, he played a great game.”
Crosby should be a Cherry favourite. He's a Canadian, he's tough and he has been in at least one fight. But the two got off to a bad start when Crosby was in junior hockey and was rapped by Cherry for being a hot dog because he used a lacrosse-style stick manoeuvre to score a goal. For his part, Crosby has a bit of an edge and he probably hasn't been appropriately deferential to Cherry.

First off, comparing Sidney Crosby to Tiger Woods is blatantly ridiculous. Tiger Woods is by far the most dominant athlete in his sport, and some, including ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski, have even anointed him as the greatest individual athlete of all time. That's up for debate, but at least he's in the running. Crosby? He wasn't even the best player on his own team this year (that honour goes to Evgeni Malkin, with a nice 47-59-106 goals-assists-points mark). Sure, he was injured for a lot of the year, and still put up 24-48-72 numbers in 53 games leaving him 31st in the league in scoring. However, even using a points-per-game reference, he finished third in the league behind Peter Forsberg (13 points in only 9 games, so a helluva small sample size, but he can still play when his foot isn't acting up) and Alexander the Great, who led the league with 65-47-112 and will be named the Hart Trophy winner if there is any justice in the world. Crosby's turned it up in the playoffs, putting up 6-17-23 in 17 games, which ties him for the lead with Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg (who has a more impressive 12-11-23). That still doesn't make him the clear best player in the league or even a lock for the Conn Smythe Trophy. It puts him in the conversation, but he's as close to being Tiger Woods as Tony Pena Jr. is to being Alex Rodriguez. Clearly, Houston's been drinking the Gatorade Crosby's (er, the league's, but the two are indistinguishable these days) marketing team is selling.

(Note: This site does not like Alex Rodriguez, and has not ever since he left the Mariners and became overpaid. However, he is still one of the best hitting shortstops in the game (even if he plays third base now) and he's the highest-paid player in baseball, making him suitable for this comparison).

Second, an Anybody But Crosby rule? Really? As Houston himself points out, the CBC named him the game's first star, interviewed him after the game, talked about his performance in glowing terms and had him interviewed by MacLean after the previous game. What more does he want? If he hasn't got his fill of Crosby adoration from the numerous pre-game shows and all of the coverage by CBC, Sportsnet and TSN, there's always the American telecast, where most of the broadcasters seem to think Crosby with a puck is like Michelangelo with a paintbrush. The CBC still shows far too much Crosby coverage for me (one of the reasons I'm not watching these Stanley Cup finals: I'll have more on that later today, though), but apparently it's not yet at the John Madden on Brett Favre level that Houston wants.

Third, consider this quote: "Crosby should be a Cherry favourite. He's a Canadian, he's tough and he has been in at least one fight." Anyone who calls Sidney Crosby tough must not be watching the same player I am (perhaps he tuned in to the practice where Maxime Talbot wore Crosby's jersey)? Crosby makes Manu "The Best Argentine Diver Who Didn't Play Soccer" Ginobili look tough. Crosby's diving has gotten so bad that he was called out by one Jaromir Jagr. The point is, diving is bad for sports (ask any soccer fan who's tried to convince North Americans to give the game a chance). Most leagues realize this: in fact, the NBA's even going to crack down on flopping next year. However, the NHL continues to market Sidney Crosby, a flopper who makes Cristiano Ronaldo look like an amateur, as the only hockey player in existence, so it's unlikely diving will leave the league any time soon. This aside, there is absolutely no good reason to call Crosby "tough" or suggest that Cherry should endorse him: his play is absolutely antithetical to everything Cherry stands for.

Here's how Houston concludes his column:

"Whatever the case, his performance on Wednesday ranked as one of the big NHL stories of the year and it deserved raves.
True, Hockey Night put him on the air for a postgame interview with reporter Elliotte Friedman. How could it not? And analyst Craig Simpson said a few words, chosen carefully, about his rising to the occasion.
But as a whole, the Hockey Night response to Crosby's effort was dismissive and small – a disservice, not to Crosby, because he receives plenty of kudos and doesn't need them from Hockey Night.
It was a disservice to the telecast and the viewers."

This is one of the things that bugs me the most about Houston and his ilk of sportswriters who make a living writing about what's on television: they automatically assume that everyone shares their preferences. Engaging in a reasonable amount of coverage, rather than the Crosby love-in Houston proposes (which can regularly be seen on most Penguins telecasts anyways, especially if Pierre McGuire's involved) is hardly a disservice to the telecast: it's actually a service to the telecast to provide information on what actually happened in the game as opposed to an overly-large focus on one man. In total, Crosby played 19:41 in that game, or just under a third. That includes a grand total of three seconds on the penalty kill. Thus, there was a lot that happened apart from Crosby, although you'd never know it from stories like this, this and this. Yes, Crosby was the best player in that game, which is why he was named the first star and interviewed afterwards. However, the last time I checked, hockey teams had twenty players dressed for each game. Houston and the League of Extraordinary Crosby-Adulaters would have you believe it's a crime against humanity (or at least that insignificant portion of it that watches the Stanley Cup Finals) to praise any of the other guys, but it's far more accurate in terms of reporting what actually happened. No matter how much Crosby "put the Pittsburgh Penguins on his 20-year-old shoulders", he still wasn't even on the ice for two-thirds of the game! Yes, he's a good player, and yes, he deserved at least some of the coverage he got from that game, but please stop asking for more: you're only further alienating those of us who are tired of having Crosby shoved down our throats, further mythologizing a decent game into a new verse in the never-ending "Ballad of Sid the Kid" and further removing coverage of the playoffs from actually reflecting reality, as opposed to the manufactured tales of one savior's heroism churned out by Gary Bettman's PR cronies.

In conclusion, the top five reasons to hate Sidney Crosby:

- The Diving: He consistently out-Ginobilis Ginobili.

- The Overexposure: Not only does he shill for Reebok, Gatorade and Tim Hortons, if you listen to the NHL's marketing campaigns, he's apparently the only player left (seeing as you never hear about anyone else).

- The Silver Platter: He was anointed as the NHL's saviour long before he'd even been drafted.

- The Captaincy: What did he ever do to be named an assistant captain as a rookie and the youngest captain in team history the following year? Sure, he's good, but skill as a player does not equal leadership skills (just ask Pavel Bure).

- The (Pitiful Excuse for A) Mustache:
Please leave the facial hair for those of us who can actually grow it. His "mustache" looks like he stole his mom's eyeliner pencil.



(Photo from (AUGH!) sidcrosby.blogspot.com)

Look, Crosby is a pretty good player. He's certainly in the upper echelons of the NHL, but can we please reduce his coverage to something approximating his status? I'd happily take Zetterberg or Pavel Datsyuk over him any day, as they can play at both ends of the ice and kill penalties (plus they score goals instead of just setting them up), but there's probably about a tenth of the copy written about them as there is about "Sid the Overhyped Kid". To conclude, as the Gatorade commercial says, "Crosby doesn't stop... annoying the hell out of people, flopping, serving as an overhyped saviour the NHL doesn't need and drawing people to his overfilled bandwagon." NHL, if you ever want me to return to your restaurant, please reduce the Crosby portions to a more appropriate size. The CBC should be commended for portraying Sid in a reasonable and fair way, not vilified by Houston and his fellow scribes who want hockey games turned into "The Crosby Show". In the end, it's not going to matter, as the team-first Red Wings will eventually triumph over the Penguins and their overhyped superstar. Now, I hate the Red Wings with most of the bones in my body and I was actually cheering for the Penguins before this, but the Crosby Hype Machine's kick into overdrive after Game Three forces me to opt for the lesser of two evils.

Postscript: Like it usually is, Houston's actual reporting in the column (buried after his rant about how there wasn't enough Crosby love) was pretty strong. The most interesting tidbit was his mention that Setanta Sports has acquired the rights for the FA Cup broadcasts in Canada through 2011-2012. That's a big loss for Fox Sports World Canada, as that was one of their signature properties and the only top-level English soccer they had left (they lost the Premier League to Setanta/the Score/Sportsnet last year, Setanta already has the Carling Cup and TSN's owned the Champions League for a number of years). Thus, soccer fans in Canada will have to shell out the $15/month for Setanta if they haven't already. Soccer obsessives like myself will probably find it worth their while (I love the channel), but it may turn off some casual fans unwilling to pay the extra cash, which could be bad for the growth of the game in Canada.

Related:

- Mike Halford of the superb Orland Kurtenblog (if you don't get the joke, you're clearly not a Canucks fan) has a great take on this. An interesting tidbit:

"That being said, I'm sure there's some media backlash involved with this. Every media outlet in the country was transfixed with El Sid's first tour through Western Canada ("Route 87" was the clever nomenclature, I believe) and the hype surrounding his return from a high ankle sprain was on par with The Beatles coming to America. There's no way HNIC, TSN, Sportsnet and The Score could actually look back on those moments and not cringe a bit with the overzealousness of their coverage. Hindsight being 20/20, it was probably too much too soon. Perhaps these same media outlets are now waiting for Crosby to, you know, win something before lavishing him with even more praise?"
- Houston's column drew some attention from Sports Business Daily south of the border (registration required)
- Houston's original column.

Fantasy hockey update

Just a quick note about the hockey playoffs: I've entered a team in the globesports.com challenge, which works on a pretty simple basis: pick one player from each list (i.e. a list of #1 forwards, #2 forwards, #1 defencemen, etc) until you have six forwards, four defencemen and two teams' goalie tandems. You get one point for each assist and two for each goal any of your players score, plus two points for each win your goaltenders put up and an extra point for each shutout. You can also completely retool your roster after the first and second rounds. Thus, I wasn't too concerned about picking teams that could go deep into the playoffs: I was more interested in finding the most offensive player available at each slot, and particularly those playing against teams with weaker defence and goaltending. My players and their performances to date are listed below. So far, I've accumulated 15 points from the first two nights, good enough to put me into a tie for eighth (however, that's a tie with a lot of other people).

Forward #1: Alexander Ovechkin: 0 points
Alexander the Great was a pretty easy choice here, seeing how he ran away with the Rocket Richard and Art Ross trophies and should claim the Hart as well. He's also up against Martin Biron and the Flyers, not the league's best defensive team. The first game is tonight. It's impressive that my team's doing decently when my biggest star has yet to play a game: I'm expecting a solid performance from Ovechkin to help me down the stretch.

Forward #2: Evgeni Malkin: 4 points
I loaded up on Penguins, seeing as they're facing the carcass of the Ottawa Senators, who could be described as defensively-inept at the best of times. Also, any time you can take a Hart Trophy candidate who put up the second-highest points total in the league (106, second only to Ovechkin's 112) as a second forward sounds pretty good to me. The only reason Malkin was available in this slot is each list has only one player from each team, and Crosby was picked as the Penguins' top forward. Malkin's made me look pretty good so far, putting up a goal and two assists in the Penguins' 4-0 win over Ottawa Wednesday. Game Two's tonight, so hopefully he'll keep it up.

Forward #3: Marian Hossa: 1 point
Picked Hossa for most of the same reasons as Malkin: Ottawa can't play defense, and Hossa's got the advantage of playing with a great offensive team. Also, he had better regular-season stats than most of the other #3 forwards (other choices included Sakic, Modano and Bertuzzi). He rewarded me with an assist Wednesday night.

Forward #4: Petr Sykora: 2 points
Again, tremendous value for a fourth forward, especially going against a weak defensive team. Other choices included Hejduk and Shanahan. Sykora scored Wednesday, and should keep that up.

Forward #5: J.P. Dumont: 0 points
I like Dumont for the numbers he put up this year (led Nashville in goals and points with 29-43-72). I don't understand how he's their fifth forward, seeing as he outperformed Arnott, Radulov, Erat and Legwand this year, all of whom are listed above him. Other choices included John Madden, Ryan Smyth and Sergei Federov. He's also playing against Detroit, a good defensive team but one with iffy goaltending in the reanimated corpses of Dominik Hasek and Chris Osgood. He played 19 minutes in the opener last night and got off two shots, but didn't score.

Forward #6: Jeff Carter: 0 points
Carter put up a very respectable 29-24-53 campaign this year for Philly, far better than most of the other options at sixth forward (Rob Niedermeyer, Chris Neil, Sean Avery). Also, Washington isn't known for its defence. We'll see how he does tonight.

Defenceman #1: Nicklas Lidstrom: 1 point
Hard not to go with the league-leader in points by defencemen (10-60-70). Lidstrom's key to Detroit's offence, and Nashville isn't known for great defence. He got an assist last night.

Defenceman #2: Mark Streit: 1 point
I've loved Streit ever since watching him play for the Swiss in the 2006 Olympics. He's had a great campaign this year for Montreal (13-49-62), and I expect him to put up some good numbers against Boston. He had an assist in the Canadiens' 4-1 win yesterday.

Defenceman #3: Niklas Kronwall: 1 point
This was one of the tougher picks to make, as Mathieu Schneider of the Ducks had better stats (12-27-39 vs. 7-28-35). However, I figured Nashville-Detroit would be higher-scoring than Anaheim-Dallas, and Dan Ellis would be more beatable than Marty Turco. So far, Kronwall has an assist and Schneider has nothing, but both teams have only played one game.

Defenceman #4: Dan Hamhuis: 0 points
Again, the possible high-scoring nature of Detroit-Nashville influenced this pick. Hamhuis is a pretty good offensive defenceman as well (4-23-27) this year.

Goalies: San Jose Sharks (3 points) and Montreal Canadiens (2 points)
All that matters in this system for goalies is wins and shutouts: I was the most confident in Montreal and San Jose winning their matchups going in, so that influenced this pick. Nabokov's also pretty good in the shutout category, while Boston doesn't have much offense, so those factors came into play as well.

I'll post perodic updates on the team during the playoffs.