Re: Bulldogs 09-10 Season
I know nothing about Steck and can't say if your overall conclusion is right or wrong. But aren't you picking and choosing a little in building your case? Harss did have the key performance against Minnesota, with a GAA and Save % more impressive than what Steck turned in earlier. If you're going to second-guess the decision of who started against OSU, one should also concede that a different course of action versus Minnesota may not have turned out as well and UMD could have wound up w/o the WCHA title.
I don't think that it was cherry picking information. I didn't say that Harss didn't play well vs. UM...but back up a bit to look at the bigger picture as it unfolded chronologically in order to compare the two with what information was available after Steck had had those two starts and played extremely well. After being able to compare the two after splitting two series and having one play better than the other was it not a reasonable question to ask whether one would have thought that she would start at least one of the UM games? After all, why did Miller play her if not to test her. And if she, or any other player in that situation, doesn't perform well then, sure, let her sit. But when she plays almost as well as is possible, stats wise, what is your next logical step?...let her sit?...for the next 6 games until the season is over?...even when the other goalie is obviously struggling?...after almost dropping a series to OSU? Again, we're just asking "what is reasonable, what is logical, what would seem to make sense in this or any situation, given the facts"? (Not wanting to broaden the scope of this conversation lest the focus is lost, I will ask you a question about UM...last season, sans Raty, if Grogan had struggled in a series do you think Frost would have hesitated in playing Lura in the next series, or vice versa?)
If we take your smaller sampling of the UM series where Harss played well, can we conclude that it was logical to play her vs.OSU?...of course we can.
But that is something that is closer to being definable as cherry picking information since it ignores the entire process and how this has unfolded chronologically, from the beginning. After the way that Harss struggled in the OSU series do you not think it would have been reasonable to ask whether Steck was going to start in one if not both BSU games given the way that she played in the two starts that she was given a couple of weeks earlier?
Your last sentence, while I understand your point, is just hypothesizing. That cuts both ways. Taking your lead, we can also concede that a different course of action in the OSU series may have turned out better and that UMD might have won the championship outright, instead of sharing it with UM.
Again, the discussions on this end, as mentioned previously, have not been centered on hypothesizing but rather around what would seem to make sense, logically, in each situation given the facts available...but meaning the facts of the entire situation as it has chronologically unfolded from the beginning. How else can one attempt to be completely objective?
By the way, everyone's input has been appreciated. We're all fans of the game.
