Hi-
        Posters have mentioned their inability to vote for Aaron Israel
for season honors based on how many fewer games he played in compared to
Finch, Little, or other clear first-stringers. I do not see their logic.
        The only reason to penalize him for lack of playing time is if
one believes his stats would be worse had he played more. Perhaps one
believes Israel played against easier opponents than Tracy. This may have
been true at the start of the season, after Tracy's amazing '92-'93
performance. But for most of the year, it seemed that who played was
based on the day of the week (Izzy Friday, Tripp Saturday) rather than
the opponent. Each played once a week, and no pair of ECAC travel
partners really stands out in my mind for its disparity of performance.
(Other than Vermont-Dartmouth, and I can't rememeber which goalie faced
which team.)
        Or perhaps one believes that Izzy's stats would be worsened
from the fatigue of playing more. But a 1.96 GAA is so far ahead of the
other contenders that even this effect would be minimal. Izzy playing
full-time with, say, a 2.25 GAA would still be head and shoulders above
other ECAC netminders. And the idea that his performance is a statistical
aberration is refuted in that he did play 50% of the team's games. If
there is any "minimum playing time" requirement that he does not fill,
then why would his stats be listed in ECAC lists at all?
 
--Matt
 
Matt Bruce ([log in to unmask]); my opinions are uniquely mine.