The best player doesn't always win the game...

Because once again, all things come back to reality TV and the Caps... I have been questioning what makes someone "the best." In March, I watched my favorite all-time reality TV star, Boston Rob, get blindsided and taken out of Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains before even making it to the jury. Then in April, I watched my favorite hockey team also get blindsided and knocked out of the playoffs, before even making it to Round 2. Both, in my eyes, were the best at their games, and both were outplayed by the underdog.

First, the Caps lost in the playoffs. Best team in the league, out after one series. President's Trophy winners, cleaning out their lockers way too soon. We worried about a future match-up against the Penguins or the Sharks, the teams with the best chance of beating the Caps, but instead, they were upset, as we know, by the #8 seed, the Montreal Canadians. As a Caps fan, it was shocking, and really hard to process. Not only would we miss them, and our hopes of a Cup in 2010 were crushed, but we wondered -- could we still claim that our team was the best, even though they were ousted so early? What did the regular season mean when the post season ended so abruptly? Were our star players Ovechkin, Backstrom, and Green really the best in the league, even without their names engraved on the Cup?

As I pondered these questions, I tried to lift my spirits by watching the Habs then take out the defending Stanley Cup Champs, the Pittsburgh Penguins. Another upset - the #8 seed has never back-to-back beat the President's Trophy winners and the defending champions. The win over the Pens made it easier for me to handle the fact that the Habs beat the Caps. Why? Because maybe they really were THAT good afterall. Maybe they deserve to hold the Cup up high. Or do they? Are they better than the other teams, even though their record during the regular season didn't show it? Are they a better team than the Caps, who were in first place basically all season? Sure, they beat them, but just because you're hot in the playoffs, are you truly better than the team that was hot all season? Is this just a quick winning streak? (The answer might be yes, considering the Habs got killed 6-0 last night against the Flyers - the #7 seed, by the way.)

Last night was the Survivor finale. It's no secret that I think Boston Rob is the best that's ever played the game of Survivor, even though he's never won it. And this time was no different. I felt a little better watching Russell, who took Rob out early this season, make some brilliant plays to knock off other strong players in the game. But last night Russell didn't win. Not even a defending champ (and incredibly strong player) Pavarti could repeat as Sole Survivor. Instead, Sandra won. Not unlike the Habs, she wasn't the biggest threat or the toughest competitor throughout the season, but in the end, she went head-to-head against Russell and Pavarti and was the one who pulled off the win. Sandra was never in a true alliance all season. She never won an individual challenge and was declared by her competitors as the weakest physical player. But, she stayed in the game and made it to the final three. And from there, she took home the million... for the second time. She is the only person in Survivor history to win the game twice. Rob and Russell have never won. Pavarti won once. Sandra has never been voted off the island, but she has also never won a challenge.

Because of her official record, is she the best? Or can the argument be made that Russell, Rob, and Pavarti are the best players to ever play the game, even though the three of them combined have won less than Sandra? Don't get me wrong - I am not upset that Sandra won (I'm still upset that Rob didn't - hard to get over it). I respect the game she plays. But a two-time winner? On paper, Sandra's the ultimate Survivor. But when you watch the game, and when you are a true fan of the game, you just KNOW that she's not the best who's ever played it. And you don't even have to agree with me that Rob is - you can argue that it's Russell or Pavarti, or Rupert, Ethan, even Johnny Fairplay. Just like not all hockey fans agree that the Caps were the best team in the league, and many can make a strong argument for the Sharks or the Blackhawks. But most outside of Montreal can agree that the Habs OVERALL aren't the best team of the season in the Eastern Conference (and, dare I say, the Flyers aren't either). Yes, they are winning, and who knows?, they could win it all, but does that mean they're the BEST to play the game in the 2009-10 season? I don't think so.

Last night, on the Survivor Reunion show, they talked about what makes you a winner - strategy and game play; physical ability; and a lot of luck. The same goes for sports. It's possible in any game to win it all without being the best. And this season, my idea of the best players didn't win it all, but I sure enjoyed watching them play the game.