How The Outside World Views Sidney Crosby
by Mike Chen on Mar 4, 2010 8:00 AM CST
in Special features
64 comments
f you haven't seen it by now, you will soon, either at the grocery store or the airport or anywhere else that sells Sports Illustrated. Their new cover doesn't feature an NBA player, Tiger Woods on his apology tour, or Olympic darling Lindsey Vonn. It is an Olympian, but it's not even an American -- and for SI, how sacrilegious is that?
It's Sidney Crosby.
The sound you just heard was magazine covers being ripped up in Philadelphia and Washington DC.
When Crosby scored the gold-medal winning goal, I posted that his fans and haters probably grew equally. After seeing the adoration that the mainstream media showered on Crosby (the non-stop NBC camera shots, the SI cover, etc.), I'm guessing those haters now outweigh the fans. The Crosby hype machine was working overdrive, though in all fairness, none of that was actually decided by Crosby.
It's filtering into mainstream media. Take these two examples of newspaper columns by guys who've probably never even seen a puck before. From Jeremy Solomon, columnist for Hearst Newspapers (owners of the San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, and other newspapers):
You could say that Crosby - handsome, rich, supremely talented - has been smiled on by the gods. On Sunday, the gods from Mount Olympus joined the hockey gods in one huge Crosby grin, as the already famous forward moved from superstar to legend status at 22.
Wow. A bit of an exaggeration, maybe? Look, we all know that Crosby is one of the most talented guys in the league. In fact, he's probably on an elite level only shared by Alex Ovechkin. He's got a pretty complete game, works hard, and seems to add something new to his skill set each season. A legend? Perhaps a legendary moment, but I wouldn't put him in that category yet.
Crosby haters, if that doesn't turn your stomach, this will. Scott Ostler, SF Chronicle sports columnist obviously never covers hockey -- the word "Sharks" shows up exactly six times in a year-long search of his archive. In fact, the Chronicle doesn't really cover the San Jose Sharks that extensively -- they let go of their beat writer a few years back when they downsized. Ostler did, however, cover the Olympics. When it came to hockey, he led his recap of the gold medal game with this joke:
Wise-guy question: Which sport has the most accidents? Answer: Hockey. They're called goals.
Yeech. Well, Ostler does wind up showing appreciation for the game and the sport. As for Crosby? Ostler may still have some drool on his mouth.
It was far beyond cool, then, when the biggest game in the history of hockey was decided by the greatest player on a goal that was as non-fluky and as brilliantly executed as any play ever performed at the ultimate moment by Jordan or Bonds or Manning or Federer.
It was the "The Starry Night" of hockey goals-so beautiful, so obvious, so difficult and so simple that anyone could appreciate it.
Let's leave Barry Bonds and his inflated head out of this, but Michael Jordan or Roger Federer? Those guys are obviously among the greatest, if not the absolute greatest, athletes in their respective sports. And Ostler is comparing Crosby to them.
Congratulations, NHL marketing. You've finally done your job well. The mainstream media, those eyes that you've so desperately wanted to win over for so long, have bought into the notion that Sidney Crosby is on par with the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, and Bobby Orr.
Now, before Crosby fans come out to defend him, please understand this: I actually like the guy. I sure as hell wish he was on my team, and I think that his work ethic on and off the ice has brought him to a level that few can achieve. He's a surefire Hall of Famer, one of the best players of his generation, and may wind up being in that rare category of best players of all time -- but near the top of that list? No way. Perhaps after all is said and done, he'll be in the 10-20 range, but there's simply no way he'll match what guys like Gretzky or Orr brought to the table.
That's not a knock on Crosby by any means. It's just understanding the difference between perception and reality. I'm guessing if you took away the media and the hype, if that never existed and you just had Sidney Crosby as a hockey player, most fans would respect or like him. But when you bring the Gretzky tag when the talent is more comparable to, say, Jaromir Jagr, fans get irritated.
And now, more than ever, the mainstream media is buying into the hype. It's pretty irritating, but if you take a step back, you have to wonder: could it actually be good for the game?
No single person is greater than the sport, but having a face and a presence out to capture the casual fans' attention and the media spotlight is a good thing. It helps that Crosby is humble, works hard, and at least has a pretty decorated resume to lend some credibility to the perception that he's the best player in the sport -- I mean, let's face it, even begrudging hockey fans will admit he's in the top five, perhaps even number one on any given night. It'd be far different if he was merely another point-per-game first liner.
So he's got the chops to earn most, but not all, of his distorted reputation among non-hockey folks. Irritating as that might be to many hockey fans, here's a guy who has done the near-impossible -- he's been able to reach into the mainstream and be a viable, relevant face. If Crosby's presence can grow the game to people who normally wouldn't know Steve Yzerman from Stephen Weiss, how can that be frowned open?
A few years back, I was at a San Jose Sharks playoff game with a friend and I complained about how HP Pavilion just got so damn crowded during the playoffs. All the bandwagon fans crawled out of the woodwork even though the only guys on the team they knew were Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau. I'd shake my head and bemoan the idiots that surrounded me. My friend raised a Spock-ian eyebrow at me and said in a very matter-of-fact voice, "You're always trying to convince people how great hockey is. Now more people are watching it and you're complaining about it? Don't you want people to like hockey?"
The simplicity of his question was a punch in the gut. Yes, of course I wanted people to like hockey. We know it's the greatest game, we know why it's the greatest game, and we'll preach it to the ends of the earth. If it meant that there were more bandwagon fans during the playoffs, then so be it -- because those bandwagon fans could turn into dedicated fans once they were exposed to the speed and skill of the game.
I look at the Crosby situation the same way. I know he's not Gretzky, you know he's not Gretzky, but Joe Blow reading Sports Illustrated in New Mexico may buy into it. Ok, so it's not our preferred way of exposing him to the game, but it comes down to the simple question: do you want more people to like hockey? I do. And because of that, I'm willing to accept that some guy who never watches the game thinks Sidney Crosby is the greatest player since Wayne Gretzky -- because at least he's thinking about Crosby, which means he's thinking about hockey. And that's a start.
2 recs |
64 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I don’t disagree with the article, but I think you’re selling Crosby’s talents a little short. Of players who have played 40 playoff games only Gretzky and Lemieux have more points per game. He’s the youngest player to ever win a scoring title, and since the lockout (Crosby’s whole career) he has more PPG than anyone (Ovechkin and Thornton have more points total). Crosby is still only 22 and probably 4-5 years away from his peak, there’s a reasonable chance that he could end up 2nd all-time in scoring if he stays healthy. No he will not be as good as Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux. But other than those guys and Howe, I’m not sure there’s anybody that he can’t end up being better than.
I did say that I think he could wind up being considered as high as tenth best of all time when all is said and done. You don’t know what injuries will do to a guy later on. Just imagine if Peter Forsberg was healthy his entire career.
So I don’t think that’s necessarily selling him short, though I suppose you could argue about the #7, 8, 9 spot. At that point, it’s subjective and the devil’s in the details. Just saying that he’s not in the Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe level — and that point, we agree on.
I still don’t know about that. If he continues as one would expect, I could see his peak around 5, but not higher. But he’s only 22. He has time to get better. He probably helped himself a lot by finding a way to score goals better than anyone else save one, basically, this season.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions
How do you expect him to continue? Me, I expect him to remain pretty much the player he is now. What you’re seeing is his peak. I expect that it’s going to be a lot longer than the peak for most players, but not much higher than this.
There is a misunderstanding about player aging patterns. People think that the shape of the curve is similar for all types of players. It’s not. As a general rule, players that come into the league as one of the best players have matured earlier than their age group. Most of the development that most players experience between the ages of 24 and 29, they have achieved by the age of 21 or 22.
Take Wayne Gretzky. He was pretty much a finished product at the age of 21. He never got much better than he was then. Of course, he didn’t need to be any better than that to be the best in the league, and he stayed at his peak for almost a decade. That’s an eternity for an athlete.
The same thing is true of Albert Pujols in baseball. When he broke in, you heard nothing but, “If he’s this good at the age of 21, can you imagine how good he’s going to be when he’s 27?” As it turned out, he was almost exactly as good at 27 as he was at 21.
Sidney Crosby is a fantastic player, but don’t hold out the unrealistic expectation that he’s going to keep getting better. He might, but the odds are strongly against it.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 4, 2010 5:26 PM CST up reply actions
I misphrased what I was trying to say, sorry. I meant that at this rate his peak I doubt will last very long. But he could tweak his game so as to make it longer, which would set him apart from simple HoF status and into top-10 all-time status.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 6:49 PM CST up reply actions
I get your point, though Pujols at age 25 was better than Pujols at age 21. Baseball players, even the ones who show up fully-formed, mature a little later than hockey players. The peak for a hockey player is probably 24 as opposed to 27. But Crosby doesn’t have much growing left before he hits his long peak.
Sidney Crosby is a fantastic player, but don’t hold out the unrealistic expectation that he’s going to keep getting better. He might, but the odds are strongly against it.
Every season Crosby’s improved his faceoff percentage, he worked on his shot and this season he’s tied with Ovechkin.
Crosby finds aspects of his game to improve. As a scoring champion, in the top 10 of faceoffs, and a guy who’s defensively responsible, it raises the question: what’s next?
Winning, that’s what.
Wayne Gretzky had it wrong: 100% of the shots Gary Roberts doesn't take DO go in.
Talk about “damning with faint praise.” How many NHL points did Forsberg have by his 22nd birthday? 50. Crosby? 397. Forsberg’s 27 points in 39 games in the SEL at age 18 would have translated to 35-40 points in the NHL, while Crosby had 102 at the same age. Forsberg was a great player, but he didn’t lead the league in anything until he was 29. Crosby won the scoring title when he was 19.
Crosby is the best player in the world and is light years ahead of many of the game’s best in his development. Shitting on him is not the correct marketing strategy.
Only Gretzky, Lemieux and Hawerchuk had more points at Crosby’s age, and all those guys were doing it in a much higher scoring environment.
Just one more point in his favor. Baseball fans have a hard enough time explaining why A-Rod, Clemens and Bonds were the best players of the last 20 years and yet they were hated because they were jerks and steroid users like every other player. Hockey fans shouldn’t have to explain why a kid like Crosby was hated.
Ok, let me just clarify the Forsberg point…I was just saying that you don’t know how injuries could hamper a great career. That’s all, not making comparisons. I could say the same thing about Lindros — look at his points-per-game before he started having concussions.
I tried to explicitly state that I like Crosby and he’ll most likely end up being pretty high up in one of those Hockey News Best of All Time lists. And I’m not pooping on him — I’m saying that it’s probably a good thing for the sport if fans accept the somewhat distorted perspective of him. He is a great player, no doubt about that. However, he’s not Gretzky, but the outside world perceives him as such. Yet, if that gets them thinking about hockey for the first time, I’m all for it.
deep breaths
“Hype.” “Irritating.” “near the top of that list? No way.”
Your words, Mike. Appreciate the best player in the game and what he’s done before some of the best even got their careers going. There’s no reason to state categorically today that Crosby won’t end up as the #3 or #4 player of all-time.
“Hype” — the NHL pushed the kid before he even played a game. I think if they hadn’t done that and just let him grow into his role naturally, he wouldn’t have rubbed so many people the wrong way. And when I say that, I don’t mean the actual guy. Crosby has no control over the marketing machine, so you can’t blame him.
“Irritating” — when anything is blown out of proportion, people will find it irritating. We all agree that he’s not Gretzky, as good as he is, right? As a hockey fan, I get irritated (keep it in context though; there are obviously bigger things in the world to get upset about) when someone who doesn’t know much about the game calls him the next Gretzky. I think that’s a fair argument.
“Near the top of that list? No way.” — I wouldn’t put Crosby past Lemieux, Orr, Gretzky, or Howe. Could he wind up being right outside that group? Sure. We don’t know how things will pan out — injuries can occur, or sometimes players just hit a funk (like Jagr). And of course, players play in different eras, so that creates hypothetical situations that we’ll never be able to answer.
Like I said above, you’d be hard pressed to find someone that honestly lumps him in that group of four. Outside of it is hard to predict and it depends on what you want to factor in. Right now, I’ve seen enough out of him that I could comfortably say he’ll wind up in the 10-20 range in a best-of-all-time debate. Maybe he does something down the road to elevate that. I’m open to that. But we’ll see.
So yes, my words.
You think the league didn’t hype Gretzky and Lemieux before they hit the league? Hell, we knew about Gretzky when he was 7. He was nicknamed “The Great One” when he was 15 and still playing Junior B. No one could have possibly stated with any confidence that he’d be better than Howe and Esposito. Oh well. Appreciate the guy for what he can do, don’t focus on what you believe he can’t.
“Now, before Crosby fans come out to defend him, please understand this: I actually like the guy. I sure as hell wish he was on my team, and I think that his work ethic on and off the ice has brought him to a level that few can achieve. He’s a surefire Hall of Famer, one of the best players of his generation, and may wind up being in that rare category of best players of all time.”
Again, I tried to explicitly state that so readers would focus on the marketing aspect of the guy, not whether or not I’m bashing him. I certainly do appreciate his skill, especially the fact that he’s added new facets to his game each season (faceoffs, PK, etc.).
We just had a week where the game was marketed using Ryan Miller, who cracked a roster at 26 and might be one of the ten-best goalies in the NHL. Better to market it with someone who’s historically good.
It’s one thing to market Crosby, it’s another to market Crosby, only Crosby, and nothing but Crosby
(not entirely true, but I’m exaggerating to make the point clear).
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 6:52 PM CST up reply actions
"Hype" — the NHL pushed the kid before he even played a game. I think if they hadn’t done that and just let him grow into his role naturally, he wouldn’t have rubbed so many people the wrong way. And when I say that, I don’t mean the actual guy. Crosby has no control over the marketing machine, so you can’t blame him.
I suspect that what rubs people the wrong way about Crosby is that he keeps delivering in the biggest moments.
How many 22-year-olds have you ever seen who have captained not one but TWO teams to the Stanley Cup Finals (winning one)? Now add in the fact that the same player has won a Hart Trophy, a scoring title, and has led his country to a World Junior championship and now an Olympic Gold Medal.
I’m sorry but that’s not the byproduct of media hype, it’s called a clutch player who continues to deliver. If anything I think it would suggest that a number of people have grossly underrated the kid.
"Irritating" — when anything is blown out of proportion, people will find it irritating. We all agree that he’s not Gretzky, as good as he is, right? As a hockey fan, I get irritated (keep it in context though; there are obviously bigger things in the world to get upset about) when someone who doesn’t know much about the game calls him the next Gretzky. I think that’s a fair argument.
The only person I’ve ever heard compare Crosby to Gretzky favorable was Wayne himself when he predicted that Crosby had a chance to surpass all of his records. I suspect that Wayne was being gracious and I think everyone else knows the score.
I’m still not sure why it is irritating to anyone when people are fussing over Crosby when it is pretty clear that the kid has the resume to back up the hype?
Also, I’m not sure if you were around in the 80s but Gretzky was pretty hyped back in his day as well. Don’t get me wrong, he warranted the excitement and was entirely deserving of the accolades but there was a pretty good French-Canadian kid toiling for the hapless Penguins that most casual observers essentially ignored and that too was a crime as like Gretzky he too was a once-in-a-lifetime type of talent.
That’s just how it goes.
"Near the top of that list? No way." — I wouldn’t put Crosby past Lemieux, Orr, Gretzky, or Howe. Could he wind up being right outside that group? Sure. We don’t know how things will pan out — injuries can occur, or sometimes players just hit a funk (like Jagr). And of course, players play in different eras, so that creates hypothetical situations that we’ll never be able to answer.
Completely agree with that paragraph. Crosby plays in a much tighter era than did Gretzky and Lemieux so of course his numbers will never approach either player’s career totals. Well he could surpass Lemieux but that is only because Lemieux’s career, like Orr’s, was cut short due to injury. Still, Crosby is not nearly as talented as any of the aforementioned players and no reasonable argument can be made to the contrary.
Like I said above, you’d be hard pressed to find someone that honestly lumps him in that group of four. Outside of it is hard to predict and it depends on what you want to factor in. Right now, I’ve seen enough out of him that I could comfortably say he’ll wind up in the 10-20 range in a best-of-all-time debate. Maybe he does something down the road to elevate that. I’m open to that. But we’ll see.
So yes, my words.
See this is where I lose my patience with this argument (not just you but others as well).
So what you are saying is that potentially the 10th greatest player in the history of your favorite sport is getting a lot of attention for being great and it annoys you to no end because he’s not as good as the top four players of all-time? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? I’m sorry but that sounds like jealousy to me.
The bottom line is he is a GREAT player who has enjoyed TREMENDOUS success at a VERY young age despite being castigated and villified at every turn by opposing fans who are terrified that he will gash them like he has vanquished so many opposing fan bases before them.. He is also handsome, articulate, seemingly humble and he seems to play his best during the biggest moments of the most important games. Why on earth would anyone want to promote that?
by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer on Mar 4, 2010 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
“So what you are saying is that potentially the 10th greatest player in the history of your favorite sport is getting a lot of attention for being great and it annoys you to no end because he’s not as good as the top four players of all-time? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? I’m sorry but that sounds like jealousy to me.”
See, I’m not annoyed with him and I’m not villifying him. I said that I like him and that any overhype from before he started playing for the Penguins should be blamed on the league for trying to cash in.
What annoys me is when the mainstream media paints him with a simple, broad brush. But again, if it gets non-hockey people to think and talk about hockey, it’s something I can live with and I hope other hockey fans accept the bigger picture.
awesome post
All of them are, really. Can we just link this forum as required reading for every hockey fan, new and old?
“Crosby plays in a much tighter era than did Gretzky and Lemieux so of course his numbers will never approach either player’s career totals. Well he could surpass Lemieux but that is only because Lemieux’s career, like Orr’s, was cut short due to injury. Still, Crosby is not nearly as talented as any of the aforementioned players and no reasonable argument can be made to the contrary.”
I disagree. See my post below. If you factor out the “era” they played in, Crosby is off to as good of a PPG start as Lemieux was, and I just checked that his pace is ahead of Howe and Orr. Now, those guys had many other accomplishments to cement them in legend, and you can only start to make that case for Crosby…but he is off to a damn good start.
Having said that, Gretzky at this stage was better than Crosby on a weighted PPG-basis, while Lemieux improved with time. It will be hard for Crosby to best those two. Still, if Crosby can keep it up for at least another 10 years, I don’t see how he won’t be considered in the Top 5 of all time. If he can go until he’s 35-40 (big if), there’s no doubt.
I’ve made this claim before: basically every ~1 PPG player is a star. The only separation comes down to who can stay healthy the longest, and that is sometimes beyond a player’s control. Lemieux is the prime example of “what if”, but you can even play that game with guys like Lindros, Bure, Fleury, and many others.
I appreciate Crosby and absolutely don’t mind the hype because he’s the best player to have come into the league in the last 15 years, save maybe Ovechkin (blah blah blah insert debate here).
Are the comparisons to Gretzky fair? Arguably, Gretzky had the better supporting cast (since Crosby rarely plays with Malkin), and he played in an era where defenseman were basically blueline forwards. It’s so difficult to compare the two that I don’t think any comparison will be fair. For what it’s worth, even if the skill and numbers aren’t quite on-par with Gretzky, his impact on his team and the league cannot be debated – it is as much, if not more, than what Gretzky accomplished at the same age.
by unavoidable on Mar 4, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The zenith of absolute over-bearing Crosby love was definitely Jim Hughson’s first ever Stanley Cup winning call. “They’ve done it! Sidney Crosby and the Penguins have won the Stanley Cup!” Never mind that Crosby was injured during that game, and Evgeni Malkin won the Conn Smythe, Sidney got precedent over his entire team.
I’m not sure where Crosby will rank amongst the all-time greats. That’s a story yet to be written. The fact that he’s a sure-fire Hall of Famer at 22 suggests greatness, though.
Some people have a problem with him being the goal scorer. It kind of sucks that it takes away from Jonathon Toews, who was awesome at pretty much everything all tournament and scored the first goal of the game, but hey… great players have great moments. And all the Canadian fans still cheered the goal. Crosby will never be liked in Philly or Washington, but Gretzky was never liked that much in Winnipeg or Calgary, either. And if we want to go with Jagr, he was never liked in Washington as well… even when he played for them!
Hockey blogging can't get any flatter.
crosby wasn’t too injured to raise the cup. just sayin’
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
I bet that SOB was faking the injury from that dirty hit
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Mar 4, 2010 3:41 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah and neither was Doug Weight in 06 with a separated shoulder.
"Grind now, shine later." - Wesley Johnson
Or Max Talbot in 09 w/ the same injury
(seperated shoulder that required offseason shoulder surgery)
The problem is, some people want these kinds of comparisons
I lived with a Filipino family for four months in Vancouver, and the dad really liked sports but didn’t care too much for hockey. However, with hockey — and with all sports — he wanted to know who the best in the world was. He asked me who the best hockey players were, and I listed off the usual suspects, and he’d heard of Crosby and Ovechkin, so he was instantly pleased that he’d heard of them.
It was like this in every sport. He cheered for A-Rod because he heard he was the best in baseball. He cheered for Federer, because he knew he was the best. He wanted to know, for each sport, who the best player and team was so that he knew who he should cheer for.
Some people just want the media to spell out who they should be cheering for and who the icon in the sport is at a given time. Are comparisons to Michael Jordan overblown? Yeah, of course, but I bet my landlord would love them because he’s heard of MJ, and wants to know who the current MJ is in each sport.
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
ummm…i think this article kinda misses the point and is really just a sly way of a “blog” complaining about “MSM”.
we’ve heard all this crosby hype before in every other sport. lebron james comes to mind as a recent example in another sport. this happens everywhere and the MSM is enamoured with star-crossed moments. i’m not sure why anyone (the author) is surprised by this.
anyhow…
No one in the mainstream media is saying LeBron James is Michael Jordan. If you’ve heard of LeBron James, you’ve probably heard of half a dozen other guys as well. In hockey though, you’ve got Crosby, Ovechkin, and that’s more or less it. The new hockey fan sees two guys as heads, shoulders, knees, and toes above the rest. That’s not true, but that’s the perception that’s given, especially for Crosby. It’s incorrect logic, but one that I know happens.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 4, 2010 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
It’s more “hockey fans” complaining about “non-hockey fans” in their perception of Sidney Crosby — not so much the player, but what the NHL has invested in marketing the guy. Remember, he was booked on The Tonight Show before he even played an NHL game.
It’s also about how die-hard fans “niche” sport might want to accept that perception for the growth of the game.
So I’d say it’s a little more than just bashing the MSM.
This is nuts
This entire article is EXACTLY what is wrong with hockey. Do you know why hockey can’t succeed in the US? Because guys like you won’t let it succeed.
Is LeBron James as good as Michael Jordan? No, but that doesn’t make it “irritating” or offensive in any way when the NBA pushes him as the new “it” guy. Is it a disgrace when casual baseball fans want to compare Albert Pujols to Ted Williams or when casual NFL observers compare Larry Fitzgerald with Jerry Rice?
So why then do hockey people always get so upset when casual fans compare Crosby to Gretzky?
Look Mike, I agree whole heartedly that Crosby is not as good as Gretzky and that it is not close and never will be close. I don’t even think the most passionate Sidney Crosby supporter would argue otherwise. In Pittsburgh they’ve seen the top of the talent mountain with guys like Lemieux and Jagr and they know precisely where Crosby fits in even within his own organization. However Crosby’s detractors always seem to miss that what separates him from everyone else in the game is not his talent alone but the fact that he is supremely talented but also an incredibly diligent worker. In short he is a hockey player’s, hockey player.
I think any fan who denigrates Crosby or Ovechkin – or even the next level guys like Malkin, Datsyuk and Zetterberg – are missing the point entirely and doing the game itself a disservice.
by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer on Mar 4, 2010 1:57 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
“Do you know why hockey can’t succeed in the US? Because guys like you won’t let it succeed.”
Well, I beg to differ. At least from my POV, I’ve established that I think he’s supremely talented and I like him as a player. This whole post is about how the NHL’s marketing machine, in one of the few instances where they’ve done something right, has painted him as just a bit more than he is — but ultimately, that’s ok if it grows the game.
So if anything, this is asking die-hard fans to not get too put off by his constant media exposure because any growth of the game is good in my book.
So if anything, this is asking die-hard fans to not get too put off by his constant media exposure because any growth of the game is good in my book.
And it could be worse — if Crosby played for the Rangers, you’d really never hear the end of it. :)
This whole post is about how the NHL’s marketing machine, in one of the few instances where they’ve done something right, has painted him as just a bit more than he is
He was painted as the face of the sport, and no doubt has had a lot of hype and marketing muscle (none of it his asking).
And by age 22 Crosby’s become the league’s youngest captain, broke Mario Lemieux’s Penguins franchise rookie scoring record, he’s an Art Ross winner, a Hart winner, a Stanley Cup champion and scored the gold medal winning goal for Canada. What exactly is it that you want him to be more than what he is? Find a cure for cancer and cure world hunger?
Wayne Gretzky had it wrong: 100% of the shots Gary Roberts doesn't take DO go in.
That’s all relative though, right? Who was it, EJ Hradek I think, who said some time ago he’d expected that by now Crosby would have had a 50 goal 150 point season. The expectations set by the marketing were too high. He’s a fantastic player and should end up top-10 of all time, but he’s not as dominant as Gretzky or Lemieux or Orr.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 6, 2010 2:22 AM CST up reply actions
Crosby
Well someone likes to overanalyze just a bit. Relax, someone had to be the hero and writers need to write about hero’s. If you don’t like the writer’s OK, I get that. But Crosby is under the microscope of the hype machine and is rare that he is the same person. Because for Cripes sake if he believed his press clippings his head would arrive 10 min before he did it would be so big. Ease up on criticism of the hero. It’s old as day old dog sh@t on the kitchen floor.
by powerplay on Mar 4, 2010 1:59 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
I’m a Crosby hater, but if he can sell the sport, I’ll let it happen. I just don’t like how they make it sound like Sid’s the only star player in the league. Those casual fans won’t know any differently. He’s overhyped and it’s too bad it has to be that way.
People don’t realize that Crosby isn’t Gretzky and that Crosby’s actually kinda boring. But he’s marketable because he’s hockey’s golden boy.
Here's to all us girls who love hockey...and the men who play it.
by Brad_Richards_Rocks on Mar 4, 2010 2:01 PM CST reply actions
I’d say most media make it sound like there are only two star players in the league, Crosby and Ovechkin. That’s where casual fans would start in looking at hockey. Of course we hockey fans know how many other great players there are, but Crosby and Ovie are the faces of the league right now.
You also have to admit it’s getting to the point where the results are matching the hype. He has both individual awards as well as winning the two biggest team prizes in the game, Stanley Cup and Olympic Gold. You could argue he was overhyped before, but that argument is much more difficult to make now.
Crosby’s actually kinda boring
So is every other player in the league not named Alex Ovechkin. It would be nice if Crosby displayed more flair and personality in his interviews, but it’s not going to happen. And it’s actually kind of good, in a way, because with the two biggest stars in the game today, Crosby and Ovie, you have all those differences, and it makes it much more interesting to compare and contrast and argue over who’s better and which approach is better.
leaf fan stuck in ottawa, a localized black hole that will suck everything in that area to oblivion.
The infamous Gretzky comparison
Some valid points, here, Mike. Thanks for the analysis, but I must quibble with one point.
You said in a comment: "We all agree that he’s not Gretzky, as good as he is, right? As a hockey fan, I get irritated . . . when someone who doesn’t know much about the game calls him the next Gretzky."
The Gretzky comparison is so frequently cited as evidence of Crosby overhyping. And many people act as if it emanated from Crosby or his camp. (In fairness, Mike, you did not so insinuate). However, since you brought it up . . .
Do people realize that a major instigator of these comparisons was GRETZKY HIMSELF?
From Sports Illustrated, Nov. 10, 2003 (Crosby was 16 at the time)
"When asked last summer by The Arizona Republic if a player might one day break some of his NHL scoring records, Gretzky said, “Yes, Sidney Crosby. He’s the best player I’ve seen since Mario [ Lemieux].”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1030453/index.htm
Yes, it is unfortunate when “someone who doesn’t know much about the game” compares Crosby to Gretzky. ;-)
Honestly, I wish Gretzky would have kept his big mouth shut, because what was probably a throw-away comment from him has only added to the animosity many people have for Crosby. The comparison seems to make people crazy: it dovetails perfectly with their anger over the perceived hyperbole—and they tend to take it on Crosby—as if he said it. When instead they should be asking themselves: Why would Wayne Gretzky say something so stupid?
Hey. Joe Blow from New Mexico here. I started paying attention to hockey back in the early 90s because SI for Kids gave marquee treatment to four or five of the biggest players in the game at the time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Lindros, and Neely are the ones I remember reading about). This, in turn, convinced me to ask for a copy of NHL ‘94. This, in turn convinced me to actually watch the Stanley Cup finals. This also convinced me to beg and cajole my parents to start taking me to minor league hockey games (which, unfortunately, no longer exist in New Mexico. It turns out that building a shiny new arena on the outskirts of town for a hockey team in a desert city isn’t a great idea. Who knew?).
That’s entirely anecdotal, of course. But the fact of the matter is that sports is about more than just scores, stats, and highlights. It’s about more than skill and athleticism. Any sport needs storylines, characters, rivalries, tension, and release. You need heroes and villains. To the non-fan, it’s much more fun to have a hero, and one way to make a star into a hero to a non-fan is to compare him to an old marquee star whom the non-fan may remember. Crosby-as-Gretzky may be a lazy bit of sportswriting for anyone who reads From the Rink, but it is an absolutely essential storyline to sell to build the game.
GUTEN TAAAAAAAAAAAAG!
“Crosby-as-Gretzky may be a lazy bit of sportswriting for anyone who reads From the Rink, but it is an absolutely essential storyline to sell to build the game.”
Agree. And considering the subject matter, these comments are a pretty civilized, thoughtful debate.
by Mike Chen on Mar 4, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
In Pittsburgh they’ve seen the top of the talent mountain with guys like Lemieux and Jagr and they know precisely where Crosby fits in even within his own organization.
In Pittsburgh, we’ve been lucky to see our teams best players carry the torch as the games best players for the better part of 20 years or more. We know how great Sidney is for the sport, our team and by extension, the NHL. If the NHL uses him as “a gateway drug” (for lack of a better reference) to get fans into the game so that they can actually care about the other stars in the league on whatever teams they happen to follow, why is that such a bad thing? I prefer Crosby and his humble work-like attitude, while some prefer Ovechkin’s snarl.
As a Pens fan, it’s easy to respect and appreciate other players in the NHL b/c of what they bring to the table, but it seems that many people who are not as blessed as we are prefer to cheer against Sidney and the Pens, even cheering our failures more than their own successes.
“Crosby is marketable b/c he’s hockey’s golden boy”. If anything, it’s the other way around. And getting lost in all the hate is that Crosby never asked for any of it, he just goes about his business w/ professionalism and humility and simply does nothing but win. And he’s only 22, w/ a HUGE resume, the age of most college graduates.
No way. Perhaps after all is said and done, he’ll be in the 10-20 range, but there’s simply no way he’ll match what guys like Gretzky or Orr brought to the table.
This notion is predicated on the idea that Crosby ought to (statistically) dominate his era in the same way that Gretzky, Orr, et. al. dominated theirs. This is unfounded, and ignores the amazing increase in skill that the bottom half of the league now exhibits with respect to the top half. The introduction of big money in hockey means that every promising minor player gets exposed to personalized coaching in skating and stickhandling that his forebearers never had. Go watch the “Ultimate Gretzky” DVD for highlights of his 92-goal season, and take note of the defensive lapses and primitive goaltending that he feasted on. Now try to find the same opportunities in Crosby’s opponents. Gretzky and Crosby play in the same league in name only.
And now, more than ever, the mainstream media is buying into the hype. It’s pretty irritating, but if you take a step back, you have to wonder: could it actually be good for the game?
No. It’s not good for the game, because it sells the false idea that ‘superstars’ in hockey (outside of the goaltender position) have the same impact on the outcome of a game as they do in other sports. Building hockey marketing around this concept is false advertising that will eventually backfire (see Los Angeles & Wayne Gretzky). Hockey needs to stop emulating the big 3 sports.
If Crosby’s presence can grow the game to people who normally wouldn’t know Steve Yzerman from Stephen Weiss, how can that be frowned open?
If you’re an existing hockey fan, how is it in your interest to drive up ticket prices? (which is what happens in all markets when demand rises and supply remains finite)
If you’re an existing hockey fan, how is it in your interest to drive up ticket prices? (which is what happens in all markets when demand rises and supply remains finite)
Rising ticket prices and more gate receipts for your team means that they make more money. Having a team that consistently sells out their games means that there’ll also be a larger television audience for the games. That in turn means more advertising revenue. The more money they make in terms of gate receipts, advertising revenue, and the like, the more money they can spend on scouting, player development, and attracting free agents. This, in turn, means that there’s a better chance that your team will be good for a longer period of time (well, unless your team is in Toronto).
GUTEN TAAAAAAAAAAAAG!
I was a Crosby-hater for most of his career because he was always being hyped as something bigger than he was. But now, whether or not he’s deserving of the hype is impossible to even argue. Crosby is only 22, and he’s won the Hart, the Ross, a Cup (as captain), and had an Olympic gold medal with a fairy-tale OT winner. At some point it stops being hype and starts becoming reality. If even I’m finally coming around on The Kid, I think we’re there.
As for Gretzky vs. Crosby, if you factor out average league-wide GPG, Gretzky’s P/(GP*league avg. GPG) is 0.271. For Crosby, it’s 0.232. In this simple analysis, Crosby is about 6/7’ths the player Gretzky was. We can argue about that all day here, but to the causal/non-hockey fan, it’s close enough.
by Fultron on Mar 4, 2010 4:06 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Since you seem to have the stats handy...
Can you compare Crosby to Gretzky/Lemieux through Gretzky/Lemieux’s age-22 seasons?
Yes
This is rough because their birthdays vary:
Crosby is essentially unchanged: 0.232.
Gretzky was actually a little better: 0.277.
Lemieux started out about the same as Crosby: 0.231
And actually, I had a typo in my spreadsheet in the last post. Lemieux’s career number should have been 0.276, which makes him about 2% better than Gretzky, but he missed so many games so he was left in the dust.
Don’t you want people to like hockey?
Not really, no. I’m perfectly content to have a niche. Increasing the popularity of the game beyond a certain point, which we’re well past, impacts my life negatively. I’m a huge NCAA hockey fan. Since 1989, my father and I have been at every final four, except 1993, when he was out with knee surgery.
For about a decade now, the commercialization and increasing popularity of the event has been making it less and less fun to attend. There’s now a lottery to get tickets, which we had enough seniority to win every year, but it means that a lot of die hards who want to go to it for the first time can’t get in, because the tickets are all scarfed up by marginal fans who just want to go to a popular event, and don’t really care that it’s hockey.
This year, they’re holding the final four at Ford Field in Detroit. We won’t be there, despite the fact that it would be unusually cheap for us, since my parents live in Ann Arbor. I’m not interested in paying $90 per ticket to sit where I can hardly see the ice. We aren’t going in two years when it’s being held in Tampa, rather than a city where anyone knows anything about college hockey. We’re thinking that next year, when it’s at the Xcel Center in St. Paul is probably the last time we are going to go. We’re going to treat it as a wake.
Hockey’s increasing popularity has effectively driven us away from an annual trip that we’ve enjoyed together for more than two decades. I think hockey is one of the two or three best sports in existence, and it is clearly the best game of action and excitement. (The other two I put at the top are baseball and cricket, which have very different appeal.) However, I don’t need for there to be a huge mass of humanity validating my opinion on that. I’m more than happy to let them find enjoyment wherever they want to, preferably well away from me.
So, the answer to the question you intended as rhetorical is no.
by J. Michael Neal on Mar 4, 2010 5:13 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Reading, I think lots of people are missing the point. The way I interpret this post is that the new hockey fan will think there are only two players, Crosby and Ovechkin (especially Crosby), and think then that those guys are the best ever. They’re not (yet). That’s what’s irritating. In any given season, there are others who approach their level, let alone over careers in history.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
Can people really be surprised when the mainstream (that’s a key word) media simplifies NHL stardom down to “Crosby = Gretzky”. Honestly, the MSM doesn’t care that much about hockey (in the US), it doesn’t care that much about going in depth on any topic. The MSM gives a brief soundbite overview of a topic, and then moves on. Crosby = Gretzky is as nuanced as anyone can reasonably expect.
You want better analysis, read hockey media. Otherwise, your expectations for the MSM are way too high.
I don’t know if the expectations are too high. I could understand through 3 seasons after the lockout, but really, after the gold-medal game and US-Canada in groups got great ratings, the success of the Winter Classic, the SCF reemerging as a major TV event, hockey is relevant, but still the MSM makes it out not to be. Maybe it’s all a ploy to keep TV rights cheap next time around, I don’t know.
Case in point: I live abroad, and on BBC World Sport in those 15 mins they always get in ice hockey. That’s in Europe. Imagine what it could be in America.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 5, 2010 5:36 AM CST up reply actions
Hawerchuk stole my thunder...
But the Crosby/Jagr comparison is nuts too. Through about the same amount of games, Crosby is 90 points ahead in a far less offensive era.
He’s not Wayne Gretzky but he’s a pretty incredible player. He’s a cut above the Jagr/Forsberg class.
Too early. Who knows how Crosby will continue producing. In all likelyhood he is in that class, but c’mon, Jagr scored ~125 points at age 32 or whatever. Jagr has scored 60+ goals in a season before, won several MVPs IIRC, and could very well return to the NHL right now and be very good. Forsberg was hampered by injuries, so we don’t really know how he would have stood up. But I firmly believe the greatest thing that separates the legends from the others is consistency. Can’t see that until a career is near done.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 5, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
Pens fan perspective
Try to put yourself in the shoes of a Pens fan in 2005. I’m old enough to remember the Lemieux/Jagr glory years, and it was tough to watch the team’s slide from those heights and the financial troubles that followed. By 2005 we’d watched the team giving away stars for pennies on the dollar, filing for bankruptcy, nearly being moved to Hamilton/Vegas/Kansas City/etc, and playing abysmal hockey for several seasons prior. Sid was the first thing in a while that Pens fans had to feel good about, and we pretty much all love what he’s done for our team.
The backlash over Crosby is, as you say, really more a backlash against Crosby hype than against the guy himself. My take on it: he’s too shy a person to really work the media, so he doesn’t do much to make non-fans like him; as such, for non-fans, it can feel like Sid hype is being rammed down your throat a la Favre hype, LeBron hype, or New England Patriots hype. When he plays for your team, trust me that Sid is everything you want in a star player. He’s humble; he doesn’t throw teammates under the bus or publicly criticize anyone; he doesn’t do things off the ice that would make you embarrassed to be a fan; he takes the game and his preparation for it very seriously; he works his tail off; and he’s always ready to play.
As far as where Sid fits into the pantheon of great players, it’s a tired barroom debate and nothing more. Today’s game isn’t comparable to the NHL of the 1980s and early 1990s. Aside from teams employing more sophisticated defensive schemes, the physical fitness/training revolution has drastically narrowed the gap between the more gifted and less gifted players. Watching old video of the Gretzky/Lemieux heydays, it’s striking to watch them move around defensemen like the latter are pylons in a skating drill; today’s defensemen and checking forwards are too strong and too fast for those moves. A guy like Ovechkin would have broken the 100-goal plateau had he played in 1987.
P is for Latrobe.
He may be great.
But he’s still a little girl. He dives all the time and complains when he doesn’t get his way. Sure, most players dive now and then, but I swear I see it from him at least once a game. Before the Oly break, I even saw him give up on a play (while his teammates were rushing back to defend), stood there next to Ryan Miller, and yapped away at the ref about something that clearly wouldn’t have been a penalty.
I retract my previous statement. He’s not just a little girl. I’ve seen little girls play, and they have some dignity.
Waaaay overboard
I doubt he was doing it once a game in his rookie season, let alone now. You cited one example, cite more to back yourself up on such a controversial claim.
Ovechkin = Green Backs
by red army line on Mar 5, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
I’ve watched a lot of Pens games and haven’t seen said frequency of diving. I don’t know how that could be if you’ve seen it once a game (all 65 games he’s played).
Patty Marleau: An Erotic Life
Picked overall #2
Admonish man-crush
Trade rumors abound
Turns-around career
Year of the Cup?
by Will Bulldozer on Mar 10, 2010 3:59 PM CST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on From The Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Video: Sidney Crosby homers out of Pittsburgh's PNC Park
- Fantasy Hockey Philosophy: Rob Higgins vs. unbearable expectations
- Bourne Blog: At contract time, players roll dice on hockey future
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Colorado Avalanche
- Pass or Fail: Buffalo Sabres' new road, alternate jerseys for 2010-11
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
