We’ve already discussed this ad nauseum on the other thread. If you wish to continue picking apart my argument that was originally intended to back up your own claim that Raycroft was better than people gave him credit for, go ahead. Here was your original passage from your blog:

He didn’t look too bad in Denver. I think he earned himself a backup job somewhere, and I don’t think it’s out of question for him to eventually be a #1 again. He wasn’t as bad as his numbers.

Now you keep throwing out completely false statements like:

When he was piling up a 9-1 record, he was consistently playing teams who were struggling

when I laid the game-by-game breakdown for you showing that he beat:

Philly when they were (0-2-1)
Dallas when they were (1-2-1) on one day’s rest and travel
Tampa Bay when they were (6-9-7)
Detroit when they were (20-5-4)
Tampa Bay when they were (7-15-8) on two day’s rest and travel
Phoenix when they were (17-15-5)
Nashville when they were (17-18-3)
Chicago when they were (22-8-7) on one day’s rest and travel
Pittsburgh when they were (20-16-4) on one day’s rest

The only opponent that qualifies as “struggling” is the secong victory over Tampa Bay, as the other eight wins came over teams within three games of .500 (including Philly and Dallas who both made it back to .500 by Halloween despite losing to lowly Raycroft). The so-called “struggling” Philly team managed to score 3 vs Lundqvist and Price, 10 vs Nabokov in B2B games, and 9 vs Brodeur in B2B games, yet only 2 vs Raycroft. Struggling, you say? Not on offense.

But you already know this, having read it in my comments from last week on the above link provided. You also know from there and from my above comment, that Raycroft played in 7 games in 15 days to close out February, yet you continue to throw out false statements like:

“Raycroft never played in more than 4 games in a row”

or the week-old gems,

“His Philly win was when they were 0-6”

to which I offered you the correction that they were actually (0-2-1), which prompted you to revise your false statement to

“Philly ended up starting something awful like 0-7-1”.

They actually started 4-3-3, but you have shown a pattern of not even bothering to look up the stats that I have provided for you, so saying that Raycroft never played more than 4 in a row is just the type of statement that I expect you to make.

I am sick of discussing anything with you. You obviously resent me for constantly correcting your factual errors and will take every opportunity to try to discredit me, facts be damned. I cannot compete with the constant reassurances you get from your MHH brethren, so you and your gang can be content with having driven me out of your own blog, Mile High Hockey, Puck Daddy and possibly this here haven. I don’t need to waste time defending myself to you anymore, especially on a point that you were the first to make.

I already knew that when I said “black” that you’d say “white”, but now I see that when you say “black” and I say “yeah, black” you turn around and say “white” anyway, just to spite me. You have a personal problem with me and you let it guide every response you make to my comments, so I should simply stop giving you the opportunity. I will continue to read James’ articles, but after years of frequenting your own blog, I can now confidently unbookmark it. It’s a shame because your new contributor, the doctor, is a great writer who displays far less pettiness.

After all, he was the one who originally disagreed with you that Raycroft was good, yet you were the one who decided to respond negatively to every comment I made defending your position. As I once stated on a fanpost about cities’ populations – you have never met a TD O’Dell comment that you didn’t feel was your duty to disparage. I’ll keep them to a minimum from now on, just for you, Mary Mary Quite Contrary.

You’re right about one thing

Well thanks for that. Imagine my surprise to see one of the MHH faithful offer even a token agreement with anything I have to say.

the doctor once asked me why I don’t rejoin your community, but frankly, I am more than satisfied reading DDC’s articles. Having to defend every opinion that deviates from the Wings-like groupspeak on MHH does not appeal to me. I can spend a half-hour researching my argument and providing data, but a single off-hand remark that is patently false can be uttered by Jibbles, and you guys all “Rec” his borderline funny line and ignore all my numbers.

Your signature line of “Get rid of the loser point”, if uttered by me, would surely be enough to change Jibbles’ opinion on the matter, but FWIW, I always liked your two signatures. I’ll be silently rooting for the Avs from here on out, so you keep up the good work. Even though I said about a dozen things about Raycroft, and you only found one that I was right about, I never got the feeling that you were merely arguing with me to argue. Not here or even on MHH.