Antti Raanta Appreciation Thread

[Chief Walking Stick]

<p style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-size:48px;">7-1-1</span></p>
<p style="text-align:center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align:center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align:center;"><span style="font-size:48px;">

</span></p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

All hail Finland.</p>


 </p>


Raanta is just sick... not saying he's better than Crawford and no one deserves to lose their starting position due to injury (unless your a Special person meathead Bears fan)... but... if he dominates the next couple games it's going to be hard to deny him the net.</p>


 </p>


What a great problem to have... two very capable NHL goalies with a great defense and amazing offense.</p>


 </p>


I love being spoiled.</p>

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

<u>Crawford:</u></p>


 </p>


17-6-3</p>


.907 SV%</p>


2.47 GAA</p>


 </p>


<u>Raanta:</u></p>


 </p>


7-1-1</p>


.920 SV%</p>


2.26 GAA</p>


 </p>


Keep in mind Raanta gave up 5 goals on 25 shots in Toronto in 2 periods.  So there is a decent outlier sample size here.  Minus the shutout of course.</p>

 

[CLWolf81]

Regardless, unlike the opposite end of the Ike, there won't be a controversy on who starts when he returns.


Still, though, Raanta is definitely showing he belongs here as a backup.  </p>

 

[roshinaya]

I've noticed that new goalies usually start well, but soon come back to Earth as soon as opponents have seen enough and have a book on them. The goalies that still keep that edge are the ones that are the real deal and the others quietly disappear from the league. Which one is Raanta, time will tell, but until then WOOOHOOO!

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

Crawford will obviously have his job back when he returns, but other than the Toronto debacle Raanta is simply playing better than Crawford has this year.</p>


 </p>


He has also been great on the penalty kill as of late, something that Crawford has been shaky on all year compared to last.</p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="roshinaya" data-cid="217293" data-time="1387353196">
<div>


I've noticed that new goalies usually start well, but soon come back to Earth as soon as opponents have seen enough and have a book on them. The goalies that still keep that edge are the ones that are the real deal and the others quietly disappear from the league. Which one is Raanta, time will tell, but until then WOOOHOOO!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


We'll see how that goes for guys like Martin Jones too.</p>


I still don't understand why Sutter played Scrivens over him when LA came to town.</p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

69

Corey Crawford

<a>CHI</a>

27

25

565

42

523

.926

88

19

69

.784

14

1

13

.929

7

10

1

.900

1.90


 </p>


That highlighted .784 is Crawfords GAA when we are shorthanded......only 3 goalies worse in the entire NHL, and thats any goalie thats been on the ice with their ream shorthanded.</p>

 

[The Count Dante]

Raanta is aight...but he aint no Emery yet...</p>

 

[CLWolf81]

Maybe not, but Emery does have a 3.02 GAA this year... an .891 sv% and a record of 3-6.... Rantaa is a tad better than Emery's showing this year. </p>

 

[The Count Dante]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="CLWolf81" data-cid="217312" data-time="1387381912">
<div>


Maybe not, but Emery does have a 3.02 GAA this year... an .891 sv% and a record of 3-6.... Rantaa is a tad better than Emery's showing this year. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Now now, not all goalies can have the Hawks roster in front of them.</p>


 </p>


I mostly kidding as well, I like Raanta a lot. </p>

 

[MassHavoc]

Luckily they work in a sport that allows them to both play and we'll probably see Q just go with the hot hand at times like in the past.</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="BlackhawkPaul" data-cid="217295" data-time="1387377962">
<div>


We'll see how that goes for guys like Martin Jones too.</p>


I still don't understand why Sutter played Scrivens over him when LA came to town.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


It was back to back for the Kings.  Just thinking most coaches don't do that to their goalies. </p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="217344" data-time="1387389237">
<div>


It was back to back for the Kings.  Just thinking most coaches don't do that to their goalies. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I understand giving Jones a break there, but not sure why people have been so concerned about Crawford playing too much. I know everyone cannot be a Vezina candidate, but I was looking through past winners and some of the all-time greats, and those dudes and the tops in the league consistently play 60+ games a year.</p>


 </p>


I did not buy into the Crawford needs rest at the start of the year seeing as it was only a 48 game regular season last year. Get him in there and play, he is capable, and in the case he is too tired to go for a night then give him a rest. But I wouldn't expect that to be too often. </p>


 </p>


Edit: Yes I understand its tough to compare Crawford to Roy, Hasek etc. but I see no reason why he shouldn't play 60-65 games this year, obviously not going to happen now with the injury, but I do not believe it would have made him weaker at all in the playoffs.</p>

 

[The Count Dante]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="217382" data-time="1387397021">
<div>


I understand giving Jones a break there, but not sure why people have been so concerned about Crawford playing too much. I know everyone cannot be a Vezina candidate, but I was looking through past winners and some of the all-time greats, and those dudes and the tops in the league consistently play 60+ games a year.</p>


 </p>


I did not buy into the Crawford needs rest at the start of the year seeing as it was only a 48 game regular season last year. Get him in there and play, he is capable, and in the case he is too tired to go for a night then give him a rest. But I wouldn't expect that to be too often. </p>


 </p>


Edit: Yes I understand its tough to compare Crawford to Roy, Hasek etc. but I see no reason why he shouldn't play 60-65 games this year, obviously not going to happen now with the injury, but I do not believe it would have made him weaker at all in the playoffs.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I doubt Crow would argue with ya</p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Deadliest Man Alive" data-cid="217383" data-time="1387397226">
<div>


I doubt Crow would argue with ya</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Plus I heard that he stores energy supplements in his lips.</p>

 

[R K]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="217386" data-time="1387397492">
<div>


Plus I heard that he stores energy supplements in his lips.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


There was an interesting article, I can't seem to find right now but it was correllating the new pad requirements to all the groin injuries occurring.  I would prefer our goalies not playing back to back if they don't have too.  No reason with a record like some of these teams have that they would even put the goalie into that position.  Zero need IMO.  Not to say the goalies can't handle it but if they don't need to, why do it.</p>

 

[PatrickSharpRules]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="217415" data-time="1387405978">
<div>


There was an interesting article, I can't seem to find right now but it was correllating the new pad requirements to all the groin injuries occurring.  I would prefer our goalies not playing back to back if they don't have too.  No reason with a record like some of these teams have that they would even put the goalie into that position.  Zero need IMO.  Not to say the goalies can't handle it but if they don't need to, why do it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


That study would be interesting. I understand not playing him back to back when the team is more or less winning with or without him, but I do believe in confidence building up players to give them that extra edge, and by taking it easy just to be safe just doesn't make much sense. </p>


 </p>


Its apparent he will not be overplayed, but even in the case that he did not get hurt this year I would much rather had a Crawford going into the playoffs with 60-65 starts than with 50-55. </p>

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="217344" data-time="1387389237">
<div>


It was back to back for the Kings.  Just thinking most coaches don't do that to their goalies. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Sutter has.

The most recent being Jones working Dec 10 and 11.


My point was why not start Scrivens against Ottawa, and Jones against the Hawks.  They had 2 off days between Toronto (Dec 11) and Ottawa (Dec 14).


 </p>

 

[Variable]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="PSR" data-cid="217296" data-time="1387378049">
<div>


69 Corey Crawford <a>CHI</a> 27 25 565 42 523 .926 88 19 69 .784 14 1 13 .929 7 10 1 .900 1.90</p>


 </p>


That highlighted .784 is Crawfords GAA when we are shorthanded......only 3 goalies worse in the entire NHL, and thats any goalie thats been on the ice with their ream shorthanded.</p>


 </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


I think you meant save percentage with that, and I believe that number will come back up, don't think it can get worse. But still, it goes back to my point where one really good season doesn't make an elite goalie and it doesn't mean you should pay him like an elite goalie. His shorthanded save percentage in the playoffs was an insane .943. You can't ever expect that to be sustainable or a repeat of something like that to happen, just in the same way his current short handed save percentage isn't going to stay that abysmally low.</p>