Welcome back to The Contrarian, the feature where you state the obvious and then I argue against it, because I’m a sportswriter and that’s just what we do, whether we mean it or not. This time around, you want to debate Alex Ovechkin, Connor McDavid, the playoff format and the Olympics, among other topics. Or then again, maybe you don’t. Let’s wade into the mailbag and find out.
Note: Submissions have been edited for clarity and style.
Alex Ovechkin’s quest for the all-time goals record is good for the NHL. — Kyle N.
On the contrary, Kyle, you dunderhead.
Oh, sure, it will get the league some attention. Ratings will go up, a little. And the record-breaking goal might even deliver a moment worth remembering. Emphasis on the “might,” because this is the NHL, and we all know that they’ll probably mess it up.
But sure, let’s assume Ovechkin breaks the record soon, with a classic one-timer seen around the world, including by plenty of sports fans who don’t usually pay attention to hockey.
Great. Now what?
Here’s what: We’ll be left with one of the greatest records in all of sports being held by a one-dimensional, overrated winger who’ll never be regarded as a truly elite player no matter how many goals he scores.
Think about it. Even assuming he breaks the record, and maybe even shatters it by the time he’s done, will Ovechkin ever be viewed as one of the five best players in hockey history? The 10 best? Remember, goalies and defensemen count too. It’s certainly not hard to come up with 10 or 12 or 15 names that have an excellent case to be made for them as better players than Ovechkin. Yet he’s going to be the guy who retires with the goals record.
Why? Because that’s all he does. Ovechkin has never bothered with playing defense — he hasn’t appeared on a single Selke ballot in 15 years and counting, because most of his shifts in his own zone look like this. He’s never been much of a passer. He’s big and strong enough to play a power game but rarely does. He’s not even a guy who creates his own chances. Instead, he stands in one spot and waits for his teammates to do all the work and feed him for an open look. Doing literally anything else to help his team win? He’s not interested.
This is a player who does exactly one thing well, or even better than average. Yes, that thing is very important, and he’s truly phenomenal at it, which is why he’s been able to last this long in a league where most players are expected to have more than one skill. But the all-time record-holder? This is going to be like if baseball’s home-run record fell to Adam Dunn.
And as for all that worldwide attention, is this really the guy you want to be the new face of your sport? Even putting aside his politics, is Ovechkin going to stick around to promote the game in North America for decades to come the way that Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux have? Or will he take his record back home to Russia in a year or two, essentially disappearing from the NHL radar once he’s filled his coffers with enough cash and individual glory?
We’ll find out. But not before we have to watch Gretzky and Gary Bettman follow Ovechkin around the continent, watching him score empty net goals and pretending to be happy for him while knowing deep down that his record will be a disaster. Full credit to the league for squeezing as much short-term marketing juice out of the chase as they can, because you might as well make the most of a bad situation. But for the rest of us who don’t have to pad their PR, it’s OK to admit that Ovechkin is over-hyped and always has been, and is nowhere near a worthy heir to goal-scoring throne. And that will be true no matter how many ignorant dummies want to overrate him.
Sidney Crosby has had a better career than Alex Ovechkin. — Anonymous
On the contrary, “Anonymous,” you clod. First of all, put your real name on your dumb opinions, you gutless invertebrate. If I wanted to waste my time on the ramblings of anonymous cowards, I’d go back to my cubicle in 2003 and read Slashdot. Grow a spine.
But more importantly, how dare you impugn the career of Ovechkin by comparing him to Crosby, a player he’s been superior to by almost every measure. Even now, as he’s on the verge of breaking the most important record in the hockey world, Ovechkin still has to deal with dullards who can’t recognize his greatness.
You’re certainly not alone. Most fans and media seem to agree that Crosby has been the better player, and in some cases don’t seem to think it’s all that close. Even our own ranking at The Athletic has Crosby multiple spots ahead. Then again, that was two years ago. Surely now that Ovechkin is about to assume the goals crown, we can reevaluate.
So let’s do that. First things first: Ovechkin leads the duo in goals, while Crosby has more points. But entering Thursday, that points gap is only 64, or roughly three or four per season. Meanwhile, Ovechkin’s 271-goal edge would account for over 44 percent of Crosby’s career total. Nice job racking up a few more secondary assists each year, Sid, but we’ll take the player who actually changes the scoreboard.
Ovechkin also has more MVPs, which should tell us which player was the best at their peak. Crosby has just one more Art Ross, and one more Conn Smythe (that we shouldn’t even count because he stole one from Phil Kessel). Meanwhile, the Rocket Richard race is nine to two in Ovechkin’s favor. When was the last time you went to see an NHL game that finished 9-2? I’m guessing you didn’t drive home debating which team was better.
So why does Crosby get all the love? Even putting aside the obvious and indisputable fact that he’s a good Canadian boy being compared to an enigmatic Russian, it seems to end up coming down to three main areas. The first is that Crosby has more Cups, with three compared to Ovechkin’s one. So sure, congratulations to Crosby and his many Hall of Fame teammates for that. Give Ovechkin an MVP-winning co-star and a 500-win goalie instead of Nicklas Backstrom and the barely animated husk of Jay Beagle to drag around and you can bet that plays out differently.
Next up is Crosby’s position, with centers seen as more valuable than wingers. And they are. But the flip side of that is that Crosby is, at best, the third-best center the sport has ever seen, and that’s assuming you put him ahead of names like Steve Yzerman, Marcel Dionne, Ron Francis and Mark Messier, who all have more points, not to mention Jean Beliveau, Phil Esposito, Bryan Trottier, Stan Mikita, Connor McDavid … you get the picture. Meanwhile, Ovechkin is so far ahead of everyone else at left wing that it’s pointless to even list any other names. Yes, centers might matter more than left-wingers, but there’s still one of each on the ice at a time. I’ll take the guy who laps the field at his position over the one who’s barely in the conversation for a bronze medal, thanks.
The final point is defense, which is admittedly not Ovechkin’s strong suit. But it’s hardly Crosby’s either — he has as many years as a Selke finalist as Ovechkin does. And that’s despite the very obvious recent desire from the PHWA to hand him a lifetime achievement award as a going-away present.
Meanwhile, Ovechkin is a human wrecking ball who can hit, fight and maybe most importantly stay healthy while doing it, to the point where it’s headline news when he misses any time at all. (That would be earlier this year, when he broke his leg and then missed like a week.) That durability, which is absolutely a skill, has allowed him to chase Gretzky’s record despite Bettman’s efforts to shut down the league every few years in his prime.
So no, Crosby isn’t better. He never has been. But keep pretending otherwise if you want. Ovechkin will just have to stay focused on his record chase, followed by a Presidents’ Trophy and then a lengthy playoff run that will take place while Crosby sits at home for a third straight year because only one of these two can actually carry a team to success. And that will be true no matter how many ignorant dummies want to underrate him.
Shootouts should be eliminated completely. — Alex K.
On the contrary, Alex, you dolt. The shootout stinks, we all agree. Nobody likes the gimmick anymore, especially those of us who stopped watching years ago.
But does that mean we should get rid of them entirely? Only if we bring back ties. I’m not against that, personally, especially in an era of three-on-three overtime where we’re far more likely to get a sudden-death winner. If you wanted to get rid of the loser point and go back to wins, losses and (rare) ties, I’m fine with it. But a lot of fans aren’t, especially the newer ones who weren’t around two decades ago. At some point, we decided that hockey games had to have a winner, and maybe that ship has sailed.
If so, you have to have shootouts, if only as a last resort. Unlimited overtime is great in the playoffs, but it wouldn’t work in the regular season. We can’t have some random Minnesota/Philadelphia game going to quintuple overtime in mid-November when both teams play on the road tomorrow night. It’s not worth it.
No, the answer here is the obvious one: Extend three-on-three overtime to 10 minutes, and accept the tiny number of shootouts that would still happen. That’s not all that insightful, because everyone has already figured out that it’s the obvious answer. Well, almost everyone.
Connor McDavid is the best player in the world. — Kristopher B.
On the contrary, Kristopher, you peon. It’s indisputably true that McDavid is the best forward in the world, even in an off-year like this one. But maybe try watching a game or two, and you’ll be shocked to learn that there are other positions.
That includes the two defensemen back there, who never get Hart votes because all hockey writers are morons. And it definitely includes the goaltender. You’ve heard of them, right? Big weird guy, way too much padding, always faking interference? He’s kind of important.
And right now, the best of them all is Connor Hellebuyck. He won the Vezina last year as the league’s best goalie for the second time. As an encore, he’s having an even better season this year, so much so that nobody is even debating the Vezina this time. That race is already over. Has been for months.
I’m not sure about other sports, but when one guy is indisputably the very best at the single most important position, that’s your best player. Today, that’s a Connor. But it’s Hellebuyck, not McDavid.
Why don’t we ever think about it this way? Because the NHL has a very messed-up awards system, with individual overall honors for goalies and defensemen but not forwards. (The Selke is specialized and doesn’t count.) That means that for reasons nobody is completely clear on, we’ve all apparently decided that only forwards can win the MVP. And since “MVP” is a synonym for “best player” in every sport, hockey fans have mind-melded the best player debate into one that can only include forwards. It’s been that way since Bobby Orr’s knees gave out, with a brief (and far from unanimous) break for Dominik Hasek in the late 90s. Other than that, only forwards can be the best.
It’s nonsense. And that’s especially true this year, where one guy is almost single-handedly carrying a team nobody really believed into first place overall. Hellebuyck should win the MVP, but not because of any weird semantics over “value.” He should win because, right at this moment, he’s the best hockey player in the world.
Olympic Hockey is better than the 4 Nations Face-Off. — Mike C.
On the contrary, Mike, you humanoid. Although I’ll be fair here, and point out that Mike sent this question in before the 4 Nations was played. Back then, when we were all performing variations of the “glorified All-Star Game” concern trolling, this probably felt like an impossible challenge for even the most blatant contrarian. Now it’s close to a slam dunk.
The only question is how to go about it. I could mention that the Olympics are in Italy, meaning they’ll be in a different time zone and the biggest games will be played in the afternoon while you’re at work, if not in the morning when you’re asleep. The crowds will be fine, but nowhere near the level we saw in Montreal and Boston. The IOC will own everything, so highlights won’t go viral and take over your feed like they did in February. The rules will be different. Everything, from the way the broadcast looks to how it sounds, will be just a bit off. I could mention all that stuff.
Or I could just remind you that in the 4 Nations, we got this:
Yeah, that’s not going to happen in the Olympics. That’s not to say the intensity won’t be high, because it will be. The players will care deeply. Team Canada will be looking to defend its crown. Finland and Sweden will be looking to avenge some tough losses. Other countries, excluded from 4 Nations, will be itching to show that they belong. And Team USA might even decide that this tournament is “the big one,” although we’ll have to wait until it’s over and we know the result to find out for sure. It’s going to matter, a lot.
But it won’t be like the 4 Nations, which turned out to be a perfect storm of pent-up frustration after a near-decade wait, fantastic hockey and yes, politics. We should all hope that the last part isn’t front and center a year from now, for all sorts of reasons. But it’s almost impossible to imagine the passion we just saw being repeated in Italy.
The Olympics will be great. But compared to what we just saw last month? It might feel like a glorified All-Star Game.
A conference-based 1-through-8 playoff format would be a huge improvement over the current division-based format, and far more fair to teams such as Dallas and Colorado who might have to meet in the first round despite being two of the best teams in the league. — Kevin S.
On the contrary, Kevin, you milk drinker. Look, if you prefer 1 vs. 8 to the current 1 vs. 4, I’m not even going to argue with you. As a fan who grew up in the 1980s, watching the 1 vs. 4 format serve up repeat playoff matchups that led to intense rivalries such as the Battles of Alberta and Quebec, I’m fine with the current system. But I acknowledge that the days of those kinds of rivalries are over, and we’ve hit a point of diminishing returns with 1 v. 4. Shayna lays out the case against keeping it here, and I get it. At this point, I’m not sure I have strong feelings one way or the other.
Except … can we please stop with the tears for teams like the Stars and Avs who might have to play each other a round earlier than they would under other systems? Same goes for the Leafs or the Lightning or whichever other teams inevitably end up playing a tougher opponent under 1 vs. 8 than 1 vs. 4.
It’s not 1984, when a powerhouse like the Oilers or Islanders could run through the league and earn a cupcake matchup with some 50-point weakling in what was essentially a first-round bye. In the parity era, every playoff team is good. Not necessarily great, sure, but good enough to beat any other team if things break right. There are no more easy paths through the playoffs.
And if you’re the Stars, your path is going to involve the Avalanche eventually. Or if not, it’s going to involve the team that beat them. Either way, if you’re not better than Colorado then you don’t deserve to win the Stanley Cup. And that’s ultimately what the playoffs are all about, we’re constantly told. One winner, 15 losers. OK, fine. But that means it really doesn’t matter if you lose a round earlier than you were meant to.
Yes, longer playoff runs are better for fans, not to mention the bottom line. But if it’s really just about the Cup, then everyone has to beat four good teams to get there. The current system doesn’t change that. All it does is occasionally guarantee that we’ll get a heavyweight tilt like Stars vs. Avs, rather than risking an upset coming along and messing it up. I don’t know about you, but I can live with that.
(Top photo: Amber Searls / Imagn Images)
