Raycroft the Scapegoat

This is long, and I offer no apology because of it. I took a lot of time out of my week to get this together, so that we can all debate this as fans of hockey. Feel free to bash me, but please, if you think Raycroft is all so bad, read this entirely and check the videos on NHL.com. When the Leafs lost, the usually lost by more than goal. Going to through out some season Rankings for the leafs before I start.

15th on the PP. 27th on the PK. 3rd in total shots/ 3rd for shots per game. 7th in least allowed shots / 7th in shots against per game, but that ranking is so close for all the teams, the leafs are at 28.4 per game allowed, tied with 4 teams there and 7 other teams with less than a shot more a game. One of those stats that we look at and make a bigger deal of than really is. When Toronto was outshot, their record was 8 – 9 – 2, good for 27th in the league.

I’m a little tired of people saying that Toronto had one of the best D units in the league, and it was their best unit since whatever season. I just got done reviewing every single goal scored against the Leafs in loses only, and let me tell you its embarrassing. I will break down each loss that could possibly be blamed on goaltending. It was very enlightening to say the least, and I saw good and bad things from the Leafs.

October 4th, 2006 – Ott 4 / Tor 1 (Not Raycrofts Fault)

Regardless of how #1 played, the team didn’t score enough to win. The only goal on the NHL Video was the first goal, and it was by Patrick Eaves on the PP, and something of note, was Kaberle looked lost. The other 3 goals were not viewable.

October 18th, 2006 – Col 4 / Tor 1 (Not Raycrofts Fault)

Once again the team failed to score more than 1 goal. The goals break down like this. 26 shots, 22 saves, 4 GA.

1st goal – Mclean – Of note: I thought it was a great goal, No D help for Raycroft.

2nd goal – Liles – 4v4 goal, really Fluky play, Gill looked bad on it as well.

3rd goal – Liles – Breakaway goal, obviously no D to be found

4th goal – Hejduk – 2 on 1 goal

Raycroft faced 26 shots, stopping 22, while that sounds bad, the team gave up some pretty big shots. Breakaway and a 2 on 1 goal.

October 24th, 2006 – Ott 6 / Tor 2 (Raycroft not to blame, the D was a joke this game)

While they finally managed more than 1 goal this loss, they were severely out played where it counts. #1 faced 21 shots, stopped 16, gave up 5 goals with 2 being on the PP. Here is how they break down.

1st goal – Fisher – 2 on 1, #3 on Tor gets beat pretty bad

2nd goal – Meszaros – A one-timer from the point, pretty all around play

3rd goal – Eaves – PP goal, Gill was looking for a contact lens on the play

4th goal – Vermette – PP, McCabe was looking for the contact as well

5th goal – Heatley – Rebound goal, really soft D in my opinion

November 22nd, 2006 – Tor 4 / Buff 7 (Total lack of Defence the entire game)

They did a better job on offense this game, and could have been a win. The problem is playing the Sabres with a soft and slow defence (overall). Not to mention the sabers were on fire at this time. 27 shots, 22 saves, 5 GA, 2 PP.

1st goal – Afingenov – PP, No D what so ever. Terrible goal for the entire line

2nd goal – Novotny – McCabe got schooled hardcore

3rd goal – Briere, PP, All I can say is, nice goal

4th goal – Campbell – All around bad D on this goal

5th goal – Briere – Raycroft turns the puck over at a bad time, McCabe doesn’t do much to help him recover at all, pretty much stands their looking at Raycroft.

November 25th, 2006 Bos 3 / Tor 1 (Turnovers lost this game)

Not being able to score against boston is pretty bad, but the team played poorly as a whole I feel. The team was really soft in their own end. 25 shots, 22 saves, 3 GA, 1 PP.

1st goal – Tenkrat – Great play and shot, turnover started this entire goal

2nd goal – Savard – PP, 1 timer shot, pretty weak, but he was moving from one side to another, over all bad goal for #1 I’d say.

3rd goal – Boyes – McCabe forgets he’s playing D again

November 28th, 2006 – Bos 4 / Tor 1 (D gets owned again)

The team backchecking wasn’t to be found, not to mention the total lack of D on almost all 3 goals. 23 shots, 20 saves, 3 GA.

1st goal – Donovan – 2 on 1 goal

2nd goal – Murray – Toronto’s D gets schooled

3rd goal – Sturm – McCabe gets injured, and takes his time getting off the ice, doesn’t realize the play is coming at him and he leaves his position wide open and they score. Was milking an injury and cost his team a goal, total douche move.

November 30th, 2006 – Tor 0 / Atl 5 (Toronto didn’t come to play)

The team was probally tired, they did play a jam packed week I feel. No effort to be found in these highlights. 27 shots, 22 saves, 5 GA, 3 PP.

1st goal – Hossa – PP, Toronto just looked beat

2nd goal – Hossa – 3 on 1 play, great play

3rd goal – Mellanby – PP, McCabe who?

4th goal – Larsen – Weird play, #7 along with Sundin get stripped and scored on

5th goal – Hossa – PP, Walks through the entire team right up the middle on the PP

December 5th, 2006 – Atl 5 / Tor 2 (Outplayed as a team again)

This last 12-14 days the team has been playing poorly overall. The D is choking up more pucks each game. The O looks tired and defeated. Sundin while I dislike him will look 10x better with Blake. 36 shots, 32 saves, 4 GA, 2 PP.

1st goal – Metropolit – PP, Deflection goal. Can’t blame the goalie for them.

2nd goal – Kozlov – Gill turnover

3rd goal – Kozlov – Gill is having a bad game

4th goal – Hossa – PP, Breakaway. Don’t ask me how…

December 9th, 2006 – Tor 1 / Det 5 (All goals scored on the PP, not #1’s fault)

Just pretty much a special teams’ game, from the highlights it looked like a good game in between the penalties. Where Detroit obviously exposed their PK unit. 20 shots, 16 saves, 4 GA, 4 PP.

1st goal – Samuelsson – PP, Nice freakin pass!

2nd goal – Zetterberg – PP, Nice play

3rd goal – Samuelsson – PP, Wide open.

4th goal – Zetterberg – PP, Kaberle caught standing still

December 19th, 2006 – Fla 7 / Tor 3 (Another game where the D didn’t come to play)

1st goal – Olesz – Defense got schooled

2nd goal – Roberts – All alone behind Kaberle for deflection

3rd goal – Peltonen – Gill embarrasses himself by falling down and allowing a breakaway the other way. I laughed at loud, and than cried in shame for the guy.

4th goal – Roberts – Gill turns over the puck, another embarrassing play

5th goal – Gelinas – PP, Point shot deflected, no blame anywhere imo.

6th goal – Kwiatkowski – PP, nice overall play I think

December 23rd, 2006 Was 3 / Tor 2 (First goal cost them the game I think)

Team played good, close game. The first goal was a bad bounce and really made Raycroft look bad. 27 shots, 24 saves, 3 GA, 3 PP. Obviously the PP unit didn’t get the job done again.

1st goal – Ovechkin – PP, was a scramble

2nd goal – Semin – PP, Perfect shot, great play and keep in

3rd goal – Zubrus – PP, Where the hell is McCabe?

This is a look at the first half of the season’s losses, if enough interest is shown, I’ll break down all the other losses for the rest of the year. A few games were left out because of how bad the game was. The game that did it for me was this game:

October 26th, 2006 – Ott 7 / Tor 2

Blow out. Plain and simple. Ottawa owning Toronto pretty much. 40 shots, 33 saves, 7 GA, 1 PP.

1st goal – Fisher – Gill has lost his mind

2nd goal – Vermette – Screened shot

3rd goal – Heatley – perfect play no D

4th goal – Corvo – Wide open shot, no D

5th goal – Heatley – Perfect setup, no chance

6th goal – Heatley – PP, D didn’t tie up his stick

7th goal – Spezza – McCabe turnover

Mind you all these goals and shot totals are ONLY with Raycroft in the net. Some of these games he was pulled, or some he replaced Aubin. I didn’t specify which, well because I forgot too. I’ve taken a huge interest in Raycroft since his public bashing on the forums, and while he did play 72 games, and was probally physically exhausted, he did NOT play bad. Watch the videos my friends, take notes, and post a reply. Lets debate this, not argue unintelligibly.


296 Responses to Raycroft the Scapegoat

  1. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    hey i povide 6 stats, you provide zero. you dismiss 3 of mine because they werent on the one website you did all of your research on(nhl.com).

    answer me this. lts assume raycroft was overwoked. 72 games was too many. but does it hide the fact that the leafs goaltending wasbad, NO, it doesn't. 72 games or not, raycroft was bad. teams that had goalies split games 40-40 had good goaltending, the leafs had bad goaltending.

    i'm happy its over

    B&W 6 valid stats

    LFAAJ 0 valid stats

    Senatorsguy 1 valid stat.

    you outnumber me 2-1, but i outdo you 6-1. no wonder you're ending this.

  2. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    yeah, that is also what it said before the 05-06 season started.

  3. leaffansareajoke says:

    Are you serious?  All you did was take what you said in another post and post in on the article.  We debated all of your so called stats, and i put you to shame.

    I'm not going to sit here and copy and paste everything until one of us gets tired of doing it.

    Learn to deal with defeat man.  You're *****ing delusional.

    How about this, something fresh…

    Gill – 35th in the league in +/-
    White – 52nd
    Kubina – 59th
    Colai – 76th
    McCabe – 86th
    Kaberle – 89th

    Brendan WItt had a higher +/- than any leaf defenseman.  Be proud of that +/- stat.  It means oh so much.

    Owned, again.

  4. leaffansareajoke says:

    How does one argue with someone like you? 

    You're a coward and a joke, you take the easy way out by blaming a guy who worked his ass off for your team.  I have no time to sit here and repeat myself over and over and over again to you.

    You want me response to the stats, scroll up and read what i wrote the first time you wrote this you moron.

  5. leaffansareajoke says:

    Are you Blue and White with just another account?  I swear you and him think alike.  If you think at all…

  6. leaffansareajoke says:

    My point is, how can you be consistent when leaf fans have narrow vision. You see waht you want to see, you see a goal go in, you blame raycroft, while McCabe is limping off the ice and doesn't realize the play is coming at him.  But its all raycrofts fault…

    You're the type of fan in Toronto that is destroying your team.  You know what?  I love it, i love knowing that hockey players have to play in front of people like you, its just more reasons for people not to sign there. 

    LOVE IT!

  7. brianc689 says:

    So, what you're saying is, all six of the leaf defensemen are in the top 89 out of a list with 301 d-men on it. So wouldn't that mean that all of the leaf defensemen are in the top third of the league defensively? I know that's not true, but these are your stats so that must be what you're saying. Also, McCabe played all 82 games. There are guys ahead of him on the list who played less than 10. You said that with Raycroft, his stats meant nothing because of the games played factor. There are 17 guys on that list that played less than 50 games ahead of McCabe. Finally, obviously Brendan Witt had a higher +/- than anyone on the Leafs. This is a guy who for his entire career has made his living by being a defensive defensemen, and he had a better goalie behind him to keep that +/- up.

  8. brianc689 says:

    And one more thing, McCabe was 6th in the league in ice time, Kaberle was 10th. More time they spend on the ice practically trying to protect an empty net, more goals that will be scored to lower their +/-.

  9. leaffansareajoke says:

    Here, more proof the D was a joke.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yz072FyDU44

    Watch the D on all these plays.

    Look at this clip too… great D…. lol….

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=x22A3f2z-DU&mode=related&search=

    Here is a non-shot on goal during a shootout… one example of how goalie doesn't get credit for a save….

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=2C4lNJBmCwQ&mode=related&search=

    Typical leaf fans just blame the Goalie.  1900 shots, i wonder how many of those shots were a result of turnovers and or defensive breakdowns and odd man rushes?

  10. leaffansareajoke says:

    Only an empty net because they refuse to play defense and allow so many odd man rushes that they'd make Broduer look bad.

    I was posting useless stats just like he was posting useless stats.

    TO have your TOP PAIRING at 89th and 86th isn't bragging rights.  Like i said, there are a lot of players who are terrible above them. 

    Defense wins games right?  Or did leaf fans change that to Goalies win games?

  11. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    really, but we never blamed eddie, or cujo for losing… i wonder why???

    2 reasons, we didn't lose much with those 2, and hey werent the reason we lost when we did. i do blame McCabe for ofensive zone givaways, botched transition plays, bad penalties, but i feel raycroft was, over an 82 game season, more of a problem than McCabe.

  12. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    clps mean nothing, as I've said before its a screenshot of the good/bad of a player. not the whole picture.

    the leafs allowed the 7t fewest shots in the NHL, if they really turned over the puck as much a you said they did, they would have allowed a lot more, dont you think??

  13. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    wow, all 6 leaf defensemn are in the top 90 in +/-!!!!! wow, statisticly only 3 PLAYERS from each team should be in that catagory, let alone 6 defensemen. WOW.

    Brendan Witt was better defensively than any leafs defenseman. thats his clame to fame. Thats like saying Lidstrom had more points than any leaf defensean.
     
    you're idea of putting me to shame is talking about games played, and saying you don't like stats that arent from nhl.com.

  14. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    defense wins CHAMPIOSHIPS. and i dont recall ever saying the leafs will be champions.

    the idea isn't where the +/- stats stack up in he league, its that they are plus. If McCabe was half as dreadful as you say, he'd be -20.

  15. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    yeah, you talked about 1 stat. th GAA stat. and you amazing defense was that raycroft played too many games. yea, he did play too many, so what, he still stunk. you haven't even talked one bit about the stat where raycroft has the worst SV% from 50 feet away.

  16. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    oh, and the poke check counts as a save.

  17. leaffansareajoke says:

    Not all the time.  There was always that question if the poke did or did not count as a save. 

    In some circumstances it does not, and other it does.  But i'm still pretty sure, unless the person is trying to shoot, and makes a move instead, if a poke check stops it its not a save.

  18. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    ts no question in a shootout. i the alie or any of his equiptment touch the puck its a shot.

    in live play, if the puck is coming in the general direction of the net, an the goalie changes is path, or stops it, it is a save.

  19. leaffansareajoke says:

    See what i mean?

    Your logic is flawed.  You use the same stat over and over and over again.  You honestly watched all the games right? 

    McCabe alone had over 100 turnovers, so now you're denying thats true?  Wtf is wrong with you? 

    THere is no debate that the leafs D turned over the puck a lot, i'd even argue probally top 3 in the league as a team.

    You can't debate facts you idiot.

    You lack any and all reasoning power, it is really astonishing how a person can be so dim.

  20. leaffansareajoke says:

    If a goalie steers a puck away its not a save.

    As for your first sentance, huh?!

  21. leaffansareajoke says:

    I can no longer stand reading your posts.  Your must be mentally handicap.

    I"VE ALREADY RESPONDED TO ALL OF THE STATS YOU MENTIONS YOU STUPID SOB!

    *****ing scroll up you lazy bastard.

  22. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    i am not denying that McCabe turned he puck over a lot. I am denying that many quality scoring chances came from it. Smith had more givaways, but nobody would dare call him a defnsive liability? thats because McCabes givaways were mostly in the offensive zone. as opposed to players lke white and Bell who early in the season, got into trouble with transition givaways.

    Am I saying McCabe was peachy defensively, no, but I can live with McCabe blowing up a play and leading to a goal here and there. it happens all the time. I am not ok with raycroft giving up a soft goal EVERY GAME.

  23. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    it is in the shotout, which judges hits and misses, not saves and misses.

  24. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    http://www.hockeytraderumors.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=255292&sid=9217&pid=255227&mode=thread&order=1&thold=-1#255292

    this is your original response.

    no mention of this stat.

    Raycroft having the worst SV% from 15 feet, 50 feet, and high glove side. YOU STILL HAVENT MENTIONED THEM ONCE. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THEM.

  25. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    i love how our arguments go.

    i wite a detailed reason why your wrong,and in retunt i get:

    "I can no longer stand reading your posts.  Your must be mentally handicap.

    *****ing scroll up you lazy bastard."

    this happened like 10 times already today.

  26. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    i stopped, why dont you

  27. leaffansareajoke says:

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    you literally made me fall out of my chair laughing.

    I said that because, you keep posting the same thing over and over and over again.

    You're like that annoying chick that no on likes because she keeps saying the same thing every other second…

    In your case you kept quoting the same stats over and over and over and over and over and over again.  Then said something about me not responding to it after a while after i responded ALREADY to them in a previous post.

    Go copy and paste them, i'm not doing it.

    I owned you, get over it.

  28. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    actually you still haven't said anything other than.

    "I dont accept stats not on NHL.com" along with swear words, insults, and profanity, which by the way is the mark of a guy pissed that he's been proven wrong.

  29. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    I said: 4. Raycrofts save% from shots 15 feet away- worst in NHL
    Leafs gave up only the 27th most in the NHL 

    So the D keeps guys more than 15 feet away, but the rare time the attckr gets withing 15 feet, he's got the best cahnce in the NHL at beating the goalie.

    5. Raycrofts save% from shots 40-50 feet away- worst in NHL

    And its not even close. Raycoft lets 10% of these goals in, the next worst is Cam Ward at 8%.
     

    6. Raycrofts save% from shots high glove side- worst in NHL

    want to score a goal on the leafs?? aim high glove side. easy goal.    You Said: Ok first off, i will only allow official NHL sites to quote stats.  So #4-6 are complete garbage.       

    That’s not a response, that’s pushing them aside because you know you’re wrong.

  30. leaffansareajoke says:

    Welcome to the NEW NHL, where 2 goals doesn't cut it.

    4 or 5 goals is needed to win on a steady basis.

    In my defense, we were only referring to the first half of the season, where Raycroft stood on his head and saved McCabe from looking like a tool on most nights.

    Second half is unrelated at this time.

    Raycroft can't be that bad if he had 37 wins.  Thats the same logic you leaf fans use, you pick one stat and consider it gospel.

    Raycroft isn't bad.  He was great the first half, and leaf fans say bad the 2nd half.

    Could you imagine having to play behind Turnover King McCabe?

  31. leaffansareajoke says:

    I can't argue stats that might be tainted or false.

    Its a losing battle. 

    Here log onto my website i just made up… it says and i quote "Raycroft isn't as bad as leaf fans say".

    Get my drift?  Thats why i won't talk about them.

  32. leaffansareajoke says:

    I haven't?

    Unless my comment didn't go through i responded to 1-3. the rest i refuse to because they could be made up, i'm pretty sure i don't have to explain that.

    I'm pissed because  you're like arguing with my nephew… yes it is.. no its not.. yes it is… no its not.. yes it is.. no its not etc…

    Did you know Raycroft was on a team with the #1 most give aways, Fewest Takeaways, and the Defense was responsible for every single goal that was given up, and McCabe put stones in Raycrofts glove to weight it down.  Yeah… says so on the web.

  33. kabby420 says:

    good defense or not, raycroft and the entire leaf team didn't get the job done, why are people resorting to name calling, are we not all adults here? raycroft is a crap goalie playing for a crap team we all realize this. his stats can be as good or bad as everyone has stated the bottom line is he was one of many weak links, first and foremost he is a weak link in between the pipes, defense was horrible yes, but the amount of times he blew the third period on us is just not right just accept the fact that raycroft was a one trick pony, just like jim carrey was for teh capitals, eventually raycroft will be forgotten and all this name calling will be over with.
    i can appreciate the facts that were made, but at the same time when making bold statements about someone you hafta take the bashing in stride. people will always disagree and name calling about the matter is just stupid

  34. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    hockeyanalysis.com is very well known for prodicing accuracy and detail. click on philly on the left hand side.

    again, you know you're wrong and all you're doing is being a snob. you're right is a losing battle, when you make yourself so obviously wrong.

    the stats he used came from the NHL's own play by play documents. if you'd read it, maybe you would have known. but you dont like reading anything because then you have to argue against it.

  35. BLUE_AND_WHITE says:

    ok show me the webpage…

    again, he uses NHL documents for his stats. and its always been a very reliable website.

    are you kidding me.

    You: no its not

    me: yes it is, heres a detailed reason, with stats that prove my point.

    you: no its not,  those stats aren't from MY website so they don't count,
     
    me: the site is very well known, ok heres more stats.

    you: NO ITS NOT YOU MOTHER F^&*ER

  36. senators101 says:

    Blue_and_White.  I hope you're ready for a beating:

    In response to all your points:

    1. A goalie's save percentage does not take into consideration the type of shot, the difficulty of save, the fact that it could be a tap-in on a powerplay, etc. Toronto got blown out in a number of games, not because of Raycroft, but because of less than mediocre play by the whole team.  These blowouts Deflate raycroft's Save percentage.
    Here are your blowouts and high scoring games:
    October
    Ottawa: 4-1
    New Jersey: 7-6 (shootout).  Can't say Brodeur is bad.  Both had a bad game.
    Colorado: 4-1
    Ottawa: 6-2
    Ottawa: 7-2

    November:
    Boston: 6-4 win (Raycroft played well. shots were 37-37)
    Buffalo: 7-4 Loss
    Boston: 4-1 Loss
    Atlanta: 5-0 Loss

    December:
    Atlanta: 5-2
    Detroit: 5-1
    Florida: 7-3
    Pittsburgh: 4-1

    January:
    Carolina: 4-1
    Vancouver: 6-1
    Pitts: 8-2

    FEb:
    Montreal: let in 5 goals
    Buffalo: 6-1
    Pittsburgh: 6 goals against again – pittsburgh's speed feasted on your slow D

    March:
    Ottawa: 5-1
    Washington: 5-1
    Buffalo: 5 goals against

    April:
    Rangers: 7-2
    Islanders: 5-2

    24 games where raycroft got thumped.  No defense does that to you.

    You said it yourself.  Played too many games.  But instead of just looking at the specific position of Raycroft, why don't you compare him with everyone else.  Out of every 100 shots, he's letting in an extra 1-1.5 goals against compared to Toskola (who played half the amount of games), Miller,  M.A. Fleury, Legace, Turco, Kari Lehtonen.  Over Raycroft's 1900 SA, we're looking at 20-25 goals all season.  One goal every 3 games.  Not that bad considering the number of blowouts cuz of lack of D.

    Those blowouts also means an inflated GAA.  Not good for the goalie.

    Also, it's unfair to compare him to goalies who played 30 games.  He wasn't used to playing that many games and he still held his own.

    2.All Leafs D were in the +.  The leafs scored a lot of goals, thats why they were in the plus.  They ranked 8th in the league in that department.  To take away the plus and minus, we can look at 5-on-5 goals and toronto was ranked 9 in goals for to goals against.  What does that mean? Raycroft must have played okay to have a positive for to against ratio and that they got owned on the penalty kill.
    As far as I am concerned, there would always be 2 defenseman on the ice when they scored 5-on-5.  What does this mean? A POSITIVE +/-.  As for your argument of if the defense was really poor they would be in the minus, I can EASILY turn that around and say, if it wasn't for Raycroft's good games, the Leafs D could be in the minus. You wanted stats, you got them. 9th in the league buddy.  Doesn't matter how shit your goalie is, if you are 9th in that department, you're set aslong as your PP and your PK click. 
    Out of the top 16 teams in that department, only 2 didn't make the playoffs, Leafs and Florida.

    3. Show me a Statistic that says leafs had most of hteir goals against on first shots.  Scoring chances are the main concern.
    Look at Nashville's stats vs. a whole boatload of teams.  Nashville finished 24th in shots against but were 8th in goals against.  They had more shots than Calgary but less goals.  More shots than Pittsburgh, but less goals, and more shots than Buffalo and less goals.  Does this mean Chris Mason and Thomas Vokoun are better than M.A. Fleury, Ryan Miller, and Kipper? I bet to differ.  You must look at the scoring opportunities.

    4, 5, 6… NOW THINGS WILL GET FUN.
    All 3 of those stats are from Hockey analysis.  Clearly you didn't read or have just disregarded his more recent post saying there's a BUG in his system that would have skewed some of the data.

    He himself has disregarded and changed it because of the potential bias at home stadiums mis-interpreting the length of the shots.
    You should read it.
    To fix this problem, he said he's only going to use the ROAD games so all of the home-town bias gets disregarded.
    New Stats:
    His new version goes something like this:
    Toronto's expected GAA on the road is: 2.44
    The actual is: 2.42. 
    What does this suggest? Raycroft makes up for the expected goals against and is better than average.

    Here's his quote:
    "The Leafs were generally a worse team at home than on the road despite the fact that it is typical for a team to play better (by about 10%) on home ice as road ice. Raycroft may have been the culprit as he had an .898 save percentage on the road and a .890 save percentage at home but it could also be the Leafs as a team played differently and gave up tougher shots at home. Without reliable statistics we will never know which is true or whether it is some combination of the two."

    Here's some more info from him when he wanted to see how the individual goalies were performing:
    Expected goals for raycroft considering the shots on a league-wide average.
    Raycroft's Expected goals against: 62.74
    Actual Goals against: 55
    Therefore, in actuality he saved 7.74 goals from going in.

    On this list, Raycroft ranked 20th, but when it comes to starting goalies he's alot better, as back-up goalies like Gerber, Curtis Stanford (STL), Jason Bacashihua (STL), Sean Burke, Thibault all were ahead of him and more were all ahead of him.

    Your famed writer who you've used the same statistic time and time again has thrown those stats out of the window because there was potential bias in them.  You yourself said: "hockeyanalysis.com is very well known for prodicing accuracy and detail".
    http://www.hockeyanalysis.com/?cat=39
    Read it and weep

    *Now, for my stats*
    Team giveaways: Toronto 5th (over 9/game)
    Personal giveaways: The turnover machine McCabe:  8th, second out of defense.
    PK% 27th.  PPGA 28th.  Only 2 better than the worst, but 5 worse than 27th place.
    Short-handed goals: tied for WORST with 3.  11 teams had double digits.
    They had the 11th most penalties.  Talk to McCabe about that one (115 PIM).

    I personally believe, I just ripped you because half of your stats have just been proven against you with rebuttals for your other points and even more stats to prove to you that it wasn't Raycroft….

    Now, enjoy your day.

    Toskola ranked below Raycroft in this category and the writer suggests that his GAA is a lot better than it should be because he played against the kings 5 times, coyotes 4 times, st.louis 3 times, and columbus 3 times.

  37. senators101 says:

    The part about Toskola ranking below Raycroft in this category should actually be where I talk about raycroft ranking 20th on the list.

  38. leaffansareajoke says:

    Something i found interesting…

    In all 37 wins for Raycroft, his save % was above .900.

    You could use that stat as one of 2 ways.. the D was doing what it was suppose to do and raycroft was playing good, or the team only won when they're goalie was hot.

    More often than not, when a goalie "steals" a game, the team actually helps.  Scoring 1 goal, regardless of how many the other team scores is not enough.  Ok letting in 4 bad goals deflates a team, grow up.  These are NHL players, if bad goals let them down they have no room in the NHL.  If your excuse is that the team should have won those games where they only scored 1 goal, than you're out of your mind.

    Not to mention the Leafs were 18-5-11 in 1 goal games.  Not to bad i'd say. How about 2 goals? 8-6

    What about 3?  14-20.

    Just to show you, Philadelpiha only had 18 3 goal losses while Toronto had 20.

    Toronto as a team was also +11 at the end of the year, which was good for 13th in the league.  Speaking of which, toronto was +1 at home while +10 on the road.  Good work fans!

    Toronto was tied for 19th in Home Wins.
    15th for amount of PP's.  (Pitts #1, anyone surprised?)
    13th for amount of PP goals.
    15th for PP %.
    10th in most times on the PK
    Only 3 teams worse on the PK (LAK, PHX, TBL)
    8th in goals for.
    25th in goals against
    4th in least amount of times they were shutout

    Records when they scored first, and when they were scored on first are:

    Scored First: 27-10-4 (20th in win % at .659)
    Scored on: 13 – 21 7 (19th in win % at .317)

    Toronto was 7th in amount of 1st period goals – 79
    Toronto was 7th in amount of 2nd period goals – 93
    Toronto was 18th in amount of 3rd period goals – 78 (3 spots behind philly)

    Giving up goals? Lets see…

    13th in amount of goals given up in the 1st period – 70
    9th in amount of goals given up in the 2nd period – 92
    3rd in amount of goals given up in the 3rd period – 96
    11th in OT goals against – 4

    Shows the team played worse as the game went on.

  39. leaffansareajoke says:

    But Raycroft sucks!! He's got the weakest glove hand!!  He blew all those one goal games!! (Leafs were 27-10-and something in one goal games)

    We've both owned him, and now he'll disregard it all and not even respond.

    I for one, am glad you took the time to do this, because i was running out of patience with him.  That and i'm recovering from surgery, so i'm trying not to read what he wrote ><.

    *****ing owned though… OWNED…

    All should read this. 

    I love you.

  40. leaffansareajoke says:

    Please tell me how many games he blew in the 3rd period.

    I'm not saying Raycroft is great, but he's being used as a scapegoat and its not fair to him.  Leafs shouldn't even have been that close to a playoff spot, they're team was undeserving to even smell it.

  41. leaffansareajoke says:

    Oh yeah?

    Read what Senators just wrote, and than come back to me after your done crying.

  42. senators101 says:

    Lol! Yea, he has probably read it, but he has nothing to say anymore cuz one point was pure speculation and his main 3 points went against him.

    Get Better.

  43. senators101 says:

    Think man! Jeez.  The only reason they let in so many goals in the 3rd period was because Raycroft only played 55 good minutes.  Those last 5 minutes were in the 3rd, that's why they lost.  The defense were rock solid, a team full of Prongers.

  44. leaffansareajoke says:

    haha yeah man what was i thinking

  45. GaryValk says:

    I think your assessment is severely flawed. For starters, you look at every single goal against the Leafs.

    How much before the goal did you see? Did you see Raycroft unable to freeze the shoot-in behind the net leading to the other team's possession? Or his inability to grab and freeze a puck instead coughing up a juicy rebound on the shot prior? I did. I watched the games.

    I think Raycroft is more to blame for the Leafs missing the playoffs than any other single player on the team. (and for players NOT on the team I blame JFjr) Granted he also played the most minutes of any player by far, but that is the plight of the goalie. Your team's success is most closely tied to your goalie's play and he was given the opportunity and found wanting. I used to think Cujo was a bad puck handler…oh to see him flipping the stick over would be welcome. Or Eddy, king of the breakout pass. It's true both these guys (and Potvin in his prime) made a lot of mediocre Leafs defense corps look good, but this past season the defense did their best to make Raycroft look good and couldn't. The Leafs had great numbers for shots against (a dubious category as you suggest) and still their goalie had one of the worst GAA and save percentages in the league (somewhere around 32nd out of 30 teams). Towards the end of the seaon you would see the entire team madly scrambling to recover rebounds and try to stop anyone from shooting, knowing that it was very likely that a soft "deflatorgoal" was imminent. This often led to bad defensive coverage, so it became a self fulfilling prophecy, but if your team doesn't TRUST the goalie to make the save then they are screwed. And I think that question of trust was the key failing. Although I wouldn't trust Raycroft either: no glove, no blocker really when you think of it, goes down early – especially when he has no idea where the puck is, which is often (begging the question "why does he have no idea where the puck is?")- gives up big rebounds, can't handle the puck, rarely makes a big save, acts like he's doing a great job throughout. What is that? Is he that out of touch or is he that full of s***? Either way it doesn't inspire confidence.

    But enough bashing, let's tell jokes… here are some of my favourites

    Andrew Raycroft is so fat.
    How fat is he?
    HE's SO fat he makes Jeff O'Neill look like Chuck Norris.


    Raycroft is so fat, that when the ice cream truck drives down his street, it pulls into his garage.


    The Razor is so fat… How fat is he? When Souray goes upstairs, he asks him to bring back a sandwich.


    Andrew Raycroft is so FAT. How fat is he? Raycroft is SO fat, when Maurice wants to pull him, he needs a crane.


    Andrew Raycroft is sooo fat. How FAT is he?
    He's sooooo fat he has a TEN-hole.

    Please post YOUR Raycroft fat jokes in the comments section on Fatty Raycroft's myspace page, enjoy the pictures too:

    www.myspace.com/fattyraycroft

    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=179085337

  46. leaffansareajoke says:

    Confidence?

    THe leaf D didn't do much to inspire confidence.

    Cant' give up 15 GREAT scoring chances a game and blame the goalie.

    But i understand what its like to be narrow minded and short sighted.  I use to be a Phillies fan.

Leave a Reply