Sean Pickett writes:
>Is this correct?  O'Sullivan the MVP?  I think Ken Rausch Should be the MVp,
>since he had three goals, including the chamiponship winning goal.  And if
>he is not the MVP, he should at the very least be on the all-tournament team.
 
Rausch's goals were big, but I agreed with the selection of O'Sullivan -
I certainly believed he was the best player on the ice for either team
in the championship game.  At both ends of the ice, he made big plays
that at first prevented BU from falling further behind when they were
being outplayed and then enabled them to control the game the rest of
the way.
 
I didn't see any of the other games in the tourney, but on the basis
of this game, it would have been pretty tough to take Rausch over
Kraft or Bonin too - and that's certainly not a putdown of Rausch.  Kraft
and Bonin were dynamite and impressed the heck out of me.  I'm glad I
finally got to see what everyone had been raving about re: Kraft.  He
*is* a player.
 
But back to Rausch, I couldn't think of any way he was noticeable (like
O'Sullivan, Kraft and Bonin) other than the goals he scored.  The
goals are important, but so is the total package - as well as the fact
that he was in the right place at the right time for at least two of
his goals, when Wright made a great quick pass to him off the boards
for his first goal Saturday and then when Drury drew Callinan over
and returned the puck back to Rausch for the tap-in winner.
 
>If it is correct, do the writers in Minnesota have a problem with a
>journeyman player having an outstanding tournament?  Even if Ken was not a
>personal favorite of mine, I would think he had a great tournament and
>deserves to be recognized.
 
I understand that he's a favorite of yours and there's nothing wrong
with that, but still, he did not stand out in the way that the three
forwards named did, at least not in the championship game.  I think
that putting personal preferences aside, it is tough to take him over
O'Sullivan, Kraft, or Bonin.
 
The problem with All-Tourney teams is that they result in arguments
like these when it should just be enough to appreciate the things that
all of these players have done.  Unfortunately, in trying to explain
why I disagree on choosing Rausch above any of the players on the
All-Tourney team, it almost sounds like I'm criticizing the guy - far
from it.  The truth is that he had an important role to play in
helping BU win, and he played it well.  That should be enough, but
because we have these "honors" selected by people who often display
bias, it isn't enough.
 
I have never seen an All-Tourney team that I thought meant anything.
MVPs are okay with me, but why do we have to choose an entire set of
players, especially when some aren't deserving?  In the RPI Invitational,
Maine's Blair Allison was named the All-Tourney goalie despite not
having a very good pair of games - allowing a total of 8 goals in two
games.  In fact, in the 40 total minutes played during the third
periods vs Miami and vs RPI - when the game was on the line - Allison
faced only *3* shots (2 vs Miami, 1 vs RPI).  Allison did what he had
to do, but in actuality, his team carried him to the wins and not the
other way around.  And none of the other teams' goaltenders were
deserving of such an honor, either - I think Allison got it by default.
 
In Allison's defense, he seemed to be feeling the effects of being
overworked, and the break Maine is currently on will likely do him
some good.  Heck, he had done enough to carry them earlier in the season,
and it was only fair that the team reciprocated by finding a way to win
despite a pair of sub-par performances of his.  In fact, Shawn Walsh
seemed to agree and thought it very important and a good learning step
for his team that they could win a pair of tough games when the
goaltender wasn't at his best.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93