Mike Machnik wrote:
 
>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.
 
I thought scoring goals and winning the game was the purpose of playing
hockey games.  With that in mind Ken *was* noticeable on the ice.  As for
Ken being in the right place at the right time, I thought that was part of
the "total packge" of being a good hockey player.
 
>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.
 
I disagree with you that Ken did not stand out.  I noticed him as much as
O'Sullivan.  As for picking him over O'Sullivan, Kraft, or Bonin, I
disagree.  Rausch had 3 goals in the two games, while O'Sullivan had 2 goals
and on assist, Kraft had 3 goals and 1 assist and Bonin had 2 goals and 3
assists.
 
More importantly are when the goals were scored by Ken.  His goal against
Western in the third period came a few minutes after Western had scored to
make it a one goal game.  His goal gave BU the momentum and restored their
two goal lead.  In the championship game Ken's first goal in the third
period tied the game up at 2-2, while his second goal was the game winner.
 
As for picking Ken over the three players who were chosen, I find it very
hard to not select him.  If the winning goal had been his only point in the
tournamnet, then maybe I could see him not being chosen, but it was his
third goal and it did win the championship.
 
>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.
 
The Mariucci Classic MVP, O'Sullivan, was one of the players named on the
All-Tournament Team.  I have noticed that the MVP for a turnamnet is many
times *not* named to the All-Tournamnet Team, thereby allowing a seventh
player to be honored by being selected.  I believe it is a regular practice
at the Auld Lang Syne Tournamnet, and I know it has occured for other
tournaments.
 
I do not agree that it should always be done his way, why not in this case?
Of course, the real problem is that the players are voted on or selected
*before* the end of the game most of the time, especially when it goes to
overtime.  And who expected Ken Rausch to get the game-winning goal (other
than me;-)  )?
 
Maybe MVP and All-Tournamnet Teams *should* be done away with altogether.
That way there would be no bias, no deserving players left off the team and
no undeserving players being named to the team (usually a goalie).
 
Visit my new BU Hockey Page at http://www.tiac.net/users/spickett/hockey.html
 
Sean Pickett
Go BU Terriers, 1994 Hockey East Champions!
[log in to unmask]