The NHL's Real Rookie of the Year

THE NHL's REAL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR
The 2005-2006 Calder Trophy is a veritable certainty, but in a league that has lost $10 billion over a decade, expanded grotesquely, and lost an entire season and the solidity of its fan base, stats shouldn't be the only determining factor in this year's rookie race.

This year’s NHL Rookie of the Year Award contest only has two nominees that matter, regardless of having one of the best groups of rookies in years- Dion Phaneuf in Calgary, Henrik Lundqvist in New York, Mike Richards and Jeff Carter in Philly, to name a few. But the only two that count are the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Sidney Crosby and the Washington Capitals’ Alexander Ovechkin (OV). OV was tops in rookie scoring and third league-wide, Crosby finished second and sixth. These two players are the most exciting and captivating to land in the NHL since Teemu Selanne and Pavel Bure. Ovechkin’s flamboyant goal scoring most resembles the likes of Ilya Kovalchuk when he entered the league five years ago. Still, pertaining to the best package deal for the league and a team, the Calder Trophy may best be served if awarded to Crosby.

When taking into account the comparison between the two players, one factor jumps out at first. Crosby had a worse team to play with (as evidenced by the standings) and lost his roommate and line-mate, Mark Recchi, to the Carolina Hurricanes at the trade deadline. Ovechkin rode shotgun with Dainius Zubrus by his side all year long, a well seasoned and very skilled veteran, making it easier to learn how the other plays, thus, complimenting one another. Crosby had a more inconsistent lineup to play with and still had more assists than OV while lacking a specific line or teammate to form an one-ice chemistry with, which is a huge contributor to a player’s success. All of this attributed to Washington winning 29 games this season, seven more than Pittsburgh and good enough to store both squads in the basement among the league's four lousiest teams.

Looking at the total point figures, OV maintained a pretty healthy lead over Crosby for most of the year, although early on they were neck-and-neck. Still, OV finished with 106 pts, a mere four ahead of Crosby- a remarkable accomplishment by both rookies. However, a look deeper into the stats will tell you about Crosby’s characteristics as an unselfish playmaker. OV had 52 goals on 425 shots. Conversely, Crosby only had 39 goals on 277 shots. OV took 148 more shots than Crosby and only scored 13 more goals. What does this show? It shows that Crosby can carry his weight in goals but sees the ice well enough to dish the puck at the right time as opposed to feeling that he needs to take over five shots per game to produce.

An easy counter-argument to this would be that OV had a less than stellar supporting roster also and a greater amount of offensive pressure put on his shoulders. This would not be false. When crunching the numbers, OV scored a goal on average of once every eight shots. But Crosby averaged one every seven. Furthermore, when considering the shot differential between the two rookies and their numbers of goals, had Crosby taken as many shots as OV, he would have been on pace to score 21 more goals, catapulting him past OV’s 52.

In regards to assists, Crosby had 63, nine better than OV. Hockey players and analysts have long paid tribute to the assist column as the vital component to the goal column- almost every goal would not have happened had an assist not preceded it. The assist has always been a primary benchmark for determining true team players. That’s not to imply that OV is not a team player- his three shorthanded goals and 54 assists indicate quite the opposite. But taking into account the awful team in Pittsburgh, the disparity between goals vs. shots, and his significant surplus of assists, it seems that Crosby provides better at all around production. At the very least, his vision is certainly beyond his years.

One area where the two appear to run parallel is in their physical game. OV and Crosby do not fear contact; they just approach it in different ways. OV, at 6’2”, 216 lbs, has about three inches and twenty pounds on Crosby. OV has almost as many highlight open ice hits as he does highlight reel goals. Crosby, on the other hand, is a grinder who works hard in the corners and along the boards and has fought when he’s had to. Crosby simply lacks the size to throw the big hits like OV. Early in the season, fans caught a glimpse of his toughness when Derian Hatcher bloodied Crosby’s mouth and chipped two teeth with multiple high sticks, only to watch him beat the Flyers on an overtime breakaway. Toughness is an absolute necessity in hockey, especially the NHL, and these two youngsters can bring it…no question.

Ultimately, OV is almost guaranteed to win this year’s Calder Trophy- he’s fast, he’s flashy, and he’s the first rookie since 1992-1993 to score fifty or more goals (Selanne set the record that year with 76). And all the talking heads in the hockey world are on his side. But when it comes to deciding who had a greater impact on his team, Crosby clearly edges out OV. Crosby played in the same amount of games, and although scored fewer goals, he took far fewer shots than OV, which seems to display his propensity for better shot selection (further solidified by reiterating that had he taken one less shot than OV he may have reached 60 goals). Crosby’s assist stats illustrate his ability see the game as it develops, his selflessness with the puck, and his faith in his teammates (who sucked). And just like OV, he was called upon to play in every scenario- even strength, power play and penalty kill (except for the 110 minutes he spent in the box), holding a lead or climbing back from one. He accomplished this as an 18 year-old kid straight out of the Quebec junior league and no professional experience- something the 20 year-old Ovechkin had plenty of the last two seasons in Russia. The history books won’t forget Crosby either; he’ll be held in perpetuity as the youngest NHLer to ever hit the 100 point plateau. But off the ice, Crosby revitalized a town whose fans' waning interest had exacerbated its hockey team’s floundering success. OV came to a city that didn’t care about hockey and wasn’t able to change that. Only hockey fans cared about OV, but Vanity Fair readers learned to love Sid the Kid.

The argument for Crosby as rookie of the year is not one based on who’s the better player- OV and Crosby play different styles of hockey that are equally as effective (they can both change the tempo of a game in a single shift). It’s centered on the entire package that Crosby brought to the 2005-2006 table- the skill, the stats, the personality, the excitement, and the new arena the Penguins might now receive. He was able to achieve all of this while arguably having more pressure placed on him than any other rookie before; his draft day 2005 jersey read “Crosby,” that must be Canadian for “Franchise.” Statistics don’t always speak to a player’s real value. If the NHL is looking to boost its ubiquity in markets outside Canada and more towards major U.S. cities, they should be celebrating Crosby’s off-ice contributions as well as his outstanding on-ice performance when determining who had the better year.

A Few Thoughts On...

Illogical statements:

Regardless of your feelings on the war in Iraq, its constant review is necessary to make sure that the military’s tactics evolve accordingly in order to successfully combat the ever changing insurgency- one that is keenly aware that its survival and affect on American troops is dependant on constant reinvention. With that being said, many politicians/bureaucrats in the Bush administration have vocalized their view that it is inappropriate to criticize the Pentagon, the Defense Secretary, and the President during a time of war. Pardon me, but that seems to be quite an egregious assertion. So, really, what they are saying is that people (read: retired generals, military and DOD staff who’ve actually witnessed the war first hand) should not criticize how the war is being managed during the war- when lives are at stake, fresh approaches to cultivating a broken nation are vital, and when making the necessary changes is essential to ensuring that Iraq is reconstructed, politically and physically, well enough to return it to the functioning international community. Here is what some defenders of Secretary Rumsfeld had to say the other day about a Wall Street Journal article in which four retired generals dropped the hammer on Rumsfeld: "We do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war" (CNN.com). Oh, you don’t? Well, that makes sense. The quote is actually rather contradictory- military officers shouldn't criticize civilian leadership? Ok. Nothing says "we take responsibility and accountability" like claiming that criticizing those in charge is inappropriate. And this is coming from the party that opposes big government intervention. Maybe they believe they are above critique.

What is really being said seems to be “don’t bitch and moan until after military operations have ceased…and it's too late to fix our mistakes.” Can anyone explain this? When a football team is struggling to win, you don't hear its fans saying, "don't criticize the coach while the season is still in progress." You see quite the opposite, actually. There are blatant demands for his immediate removal, for a change to be made so that hopefully the team can muster some success in what’s left of that season. That's only football; this is real life with real consequences (i.e.: death, chaos, civil war). It is absurd to think that the citizenry should be reprimanded for criticizing its elected officials' mishandling of what has turned into a very unpopular, under-supported war, especially when those citizens are former military higher-ups who've got more credibility than any suit in Washington. It's not about how people think the war should be handled (not this time, anyway). It's about the nuaseating selfrightesouness of those who feel that criticizing those who made the decision to start it is unecessary. Hopefully democracy will show these fools to the door. Unreal.