Speculation: Our Contender Window

[cgf]

Seriously do you have any examples when I’m not engaging in good faith? I honestly try to be fair and it seems like you’re the one trying to slander here...?

Sure, lemme look for an example...found one after some digging:

You’re trying to say Minny is comparable to us because we aren’t taking that final step and toiled in mediocrity right?

If thats correct than what I am saying is they never had the right core and that alone is the reason for mediocrity not their GM not buying into whatever philosophy you believe is right...

It’s also ironic you claim I missed the point when you’re clearly misunderstanding mine

This something I never said, or even hinted-at...which is why in my very next post I compared our eventual Retool to that of the early-2010s Penguins not the mid-2010s Wild. So no, that's not what I was trying to say...at all.

What I was trying to say was what it says in that post, namely that:

This 'if you're saying we won't be contenders, then you must be saying we won't be any good' argument always rings hollow to me because things simply aren't that binary. There's more than just top contenders, bubble/fringe-playoff teams, and tank-masters.

 

[avsfan09]

Sure, lemme look for an example...found one after some digging:


This something I never said, or even hinted-at...which is why in my very next post I compared our eventual Retool to that of the early-2010s Penguins not the mid-2010s Wild. So no, that's not what I was trying to say...at all.

What I was trying to say was what it says in that post, namely that:

Apparently strawmen are questions now... Yet you've routinely referred to me as a coward without having an understanding of my thoughts... I’m not sure if you’re intentionally missing your hypocrisy.

 

[cgf]

Apparently strawmen are questions now... Yet you've routinely referred to me as a coward without having an understanding of my thoughts... I’m not sure if you’re intentionally missing your hypocrisy.

reading what you want to read again, I see...anyways, when you're chronically misrepresenting my posts and "asking questions" that were answered in my very next post (if not the very post you've quoted); then tacking a question mark on the end, doesn't suddenly mean you're being fair.


And I don't really care if you think I'm a hypocrite or if folks agree with me; I only care about getting you to stop misrepresenting my position all over these boards. I don't have issues with most of the posters who share your opinions -- at least from my end, I'm sure how I often I left myself get sucked in by you & Foppa has annoyed plenty of them -- and have explained myself at length peacefully with them...as seen on the very last page, in a conversation you randomly quoted a single post from for your oh-so-clever non-sequitur.

My only issues are with the two of you who keep taking snide shots at things that nobody -- at least no one who isn't on my ignore list already -- is going to bat for and then arguing against those imagined positions while quoting me. If you wanna continue patting yourself on the back for being against dumb moves that nobody ever suggested we make...like the signing of Neal when he was a UFA...then be my guest, but don't drag me into your circle jerk.

 

[avsfan09]

reading what you want to read again, I see...anyways, when you're chronically misrepresenting my posts and "asking questions" that were answered in my very next post (if not the very post you've quoted); then tacking a question mark on the end, doesn't suddenly mean you're being fair.


And I don't really care if you think I'm a hypocrite or if folks agree with me; I only care about getting you to stop misrepresenting my position all over these boards. I don't have issues with most of the posters who share your opinions -- at least from my end, I'm sure how I often I left myself get sucked in by you & Foppa has annoyed plenty of them -- and have explained myself at length peacefully with them...as seen on the very last page, in a conversation you randomly quoted a single post from for your oh-so-clever non-sequitur.

My only issues are with the two of you who keep taking snide shots at things that nobody -- at least no one who isn't on my ignore list already -- is going to bat for and then arguing against those imagined positions while quoting me. If you wanna continue patting yourself on the back for being against dumb moves that nobody ever suggested we make...like the signing of Neal when he was a UFA...then be my guest, but don't drag me into your circle jerk.

Ok dude... I asked you a question when I saw your post. I couldn’t predict you would clarify in the future. Anyways I’ve think you’ve sort of proved my point anyways.

 

[cgf]

Ok dude... I asked you a question when I saw your post. I couldn’t predict you would clarify in the future. Anyways I’ve think you’ve sort of proved my point anyways.

It wasn't the future, it was literally two posts down and a full 16 hours before you got involved.

And if I were to assume that you were genuinely trying to be reasonable, your interpretation would make no sense in the context of the ongoing discussion had you read anything but the first 6 words of my post that you quoted...so it's pretty hard to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore

 

[avsfan09]

It wasn't the future, it was literally two posts down and a full 16 hours before you got involved.

And if I were to assume that you were genuinely trying to be reasonable, your interpretation would make no sense in the context of the ongoing discussion had you read anything but the first 6 words of my post that you quoted...so it's pretty hard to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore

I didnt read the pages beforehand. Thats why I asked for clarification but how you can take my asking for clarification when I don’t understand your point and than go on to write three bullshit paragraphs doing the exact same thing you accused me of and not have the aelf awareness to realize that we are all human beings on the internet. I highly doubt anyone on here reads every single post in these threads. We all have lives and shortened attention spans because of them.

 

[cgf]

I didnt read the pages beforehand. Thats why I asked for clarification but how you can take my asking for clarification when I don’t understand your point and than go on to write three bull**** paragraphs doing the exact same thing you accused me of and not have the aelf awareness to realize that we are all human beings on the internet. I highly doubt anyone on here reads every single post in these threads. We all have lives and shortened attention spans because of them.

Then how did you find the post that you quoted, given that there is literally 1 post in between the two?

If you wanted clarification, why didn't you try reading a little bit more of the conversation that that post was a part of to try & see what the context was? Cause I do do that for you...except for when I'm just jumping off from a single line to be a smartass/try-to-be funny; which I admit to freely when called out on.

If reading two posts, when you've been misrepresenting my points for months, is such an unreasonable ask let me know. At least then I'll understand why I can't get you to understand what I'm trying to say; whether you continue not agreeing with it or not.

 

[avsfan09]

Then how did you find the post that you quoted, given that there is literally 1 post in between the two?

If you wanted clarification, why didn't you try reading a little bit more of the conversation that that post was a part of to try & see what the context was? Cause I do do that for you...except for when I'm just jumping off from a single line to be a smartass/try-to-be funny; which I admit to freely when called out on.

If reading two posts, when you've been misrepresenting my points for months, is such an unreasonable ask let me know. At least then I'll understand why I can't get you to understand what I'm trying to say; whether you continue not agreeing with it or not.

I don’t understand where I’ve been misrepresenting your points haah. I have seen you refer to people who oppose your views as “Sakic haters”, “Cowards” or “blowing smoke up Sakic’s Ass”.

Yet you try to take the high horse here and claim I’m the one misrepresenting when Im asking questions not putting labels on entire groups of people.

 

[avsfan09]

Then how did you find the post that you quoted, given that there is literally 1 post in between the two?

If you wanted clarification, why didn't you try reading a little bit more of the conversation that that post was a part of to try & see what the context was? Cause I do do that for you...except for when I'm just jumping off from a single line to be a smartass/try-to-be funny; which I admit to freely when called out on.

If reading two posts, when you've been misrepresenting my points for months, is such an unreasonable ask let me know. At least then I'll understand why I can't get you to understand what I'm trying to say; whether you continue not agreeing with it or not.

Also like everyone I assume.. I read threads from top to bottom. If while reading I have a thought I reply to that post. But you go ahead and try and put malicious intent behind that.

 

[Foppa2118]

You win cups with guys like ROR. He does almost everything well and we ****ed with him

Yeah, regardless of whether he's a #1C or #2C, ROR is the type of hard working two way player you want on a Cup team.

I've always been of the opinion that you can win a Cup with ROR as #1 or #2, as long as you build a team of similar hard working two way players around him, have a good goaltender, and then just make that your identity. Maybe add one game breaking sniper at the deadline or something.

That's basically what LA did for both their Cups with Quick, Richards, Kopitar, Brown, and Williams, and then added Carter as the game breaker.

 

[MarkT]

I don’t understand where I’ve been misrepresenting your points haah. I have seen you refer to people who oppose your views as “Sakic haters”, “Cowards” or “blowing smoke up Sakic’s Ass”.

Yet you try to take the high horse here and claim I’m the one misrepresenting when Im asking questions not putting labels on entire groups of people.

To be fair, at this point cgf calling people those names is essentially a running gag and (I'm pretty sure) meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

On the other hand, he doesn't exactly go out of his way to make that obvious, so it's easy to take everything he says at face value.

On the third hand (if you have such a thing), you two are arguing over who misinterpreted who in an argument that doesn't mean much. It might be time to just walk away (and this comes from someone mildly famous for not letting petty arguments go).

 

[Bubba Thudd]

TBH I'm fine if we don't lol, avsfan09 has a tendency to only respond to what he wants to read rather than what's actually written...and I'd rather waste my time with those of you that actually engage in good faith

I don't engage in faith.

 

[avsfan09]

To be fair, at this point cgf calling people those names is essentially a running gag and (I'm pretty sure) meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

On the other hand, he doesn't exactly go out of his way to make that obvious, so it's easy to take everything he says at face value.

On the third hand (if you have such a thing), you two are arguing over who misinterpreted who in an argument that doesn't mean much. It might be time to just walk away (and this comes from someone mildly famous for not letting petty arguments go).

I did move on tbf. I just feel compelled to address the personal attacks. You can tell when a convo is going to be productive aha.

 

[cgf]

I don’t understand where I’ve been misrepresenting your points haah. I have seen you refer to people who oppose your views as “Sakic haters”, “Cowards” or “blowing smoke up Sakic’s Ass”.

Yet you try to take the high horse here and claim I’m the one misrepresenting when Im asking questions not putting labels on entire groups of people.

This is exactly the kind of factual accuracy I've come to expect from you Sakic lovers...

 

[avsfan09]

This is exactly the kind of factual accuracy I've come to expect from you Sakic lovers...

 

[Tweaky]

I don't engage in faith.

I don't have faith in engagements.

 

[Metallo]

There is something that I like to do during the season to see if a team is a contender. It’s as follow:
I look at the regular season results as a series of best-of-seven series. If a team can win four straight series at some point then it could be considered a contender.

For example, the Avs won their first series 4-0 and the second 4-2 and are 0-1 in the “3rd round”.

If at some point the team loses a series it will start a new round 1 series the following game. And so on until the end of the regular season. If you win 4 rounds it also restarts a round 1 series the next game.

It’s mostly for fun but if you can’t be consistent enough to win four straight series in the regular season then chances are you are not a contender.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

There is something that I like to do during the season to see if a team is a contender. It’s as follow:
I look at the regular season results as a series of best-of-seven series. If a team can win four straight series at some point then it could be considered a contender.

For example, the Avs won their first series 4-0 and the second 4-2 and are 0-1 in the “3rd round”.

If at some point the team loses a series it will start a new round 1 series the following game. And so on until the end of the regular season. If you win 4 rounds it also restarts a round 1 series the next game.

It’s mostly for fun but if you can’t be consistent enough to win four straight series in the regular season then chances are you are not a contender.

Damn...I wish I had more time on my hands. Would be fun to go back and really play with this in excel. Checkout how the various cup winners compared to the rest of the field. Really interesting thought.

 

[Metallo]

Damn...I wish I had more time on my hands. Would be fun to go back and really play with this in excel. Checkout how the various cup winners compared to the rest of the field. Really interesting thought.

Yes a more detailed analysis would be fun. Instinctively I would be very surprised to see a cup winner not accomplish this feat during the regular season. I might give it a go for the last few cup winners.

As a basis of comparison, last year’s Avs only made it to the third round. And only once if I’m correct.

 

[Foppa2118]

There is something that I like to do during the season to see if a team is a contender. It’s as follow:
I look at the regular season results as a series of best-of-seven series. If a team can win four straight series at some point then it could be considered a contender.

For example, the Avs won their first series 4-0 and the second 4-2 and are 0-1 in the “3rd round”.

If at some point the team loses a series it will start a new round 1 series the following game. And so on until the end of the regular season. If you win 4 rounds it also restarts a round 1 series the next game.

It’s mostly for fun but if you can’t be consistent enough to win four straight series in the regular season then chances are you are not a contender.

That's interesting. I took a look myself and found it matched up with the recent teams that made the finals in the last few years.

I think you need a lot bigger sample to get a clear picture, but it's an interesting idea to look into. It's also interesting that 3 of the 4 teams that have lost in the 3rd round won more series than the teams that made the finals.

I'd like to see how it matches up against teams that lost in the 1st and 2nd round too.

2018-19 Blues - Once. 4 series won in a row.
2018-19 Bruins - Once. 5 series won in a row.
2017-18 Caps - Once. 6 series won in a row. Also 3 series won in a row to end the season.
2017-18 Knights - Once. 5 series won in a row.

2018-19 Sharks - Once. 7 series won in a row. Also 2 series lost in a row to end season.
2018-19 Canes - Once. 5 series won in a row to end the season.
2017-18 Jets - Twice. 8 series in a row and 4 series in a row.
2017-18 Bolts - Twice. 7 series in a row and 5 series in a row.

2018-19 Avs - None. 2 series won in a row twice, including to end the season.
2017-18 Avs - None. 3 series in a row once.

FYI you can download each team's schedule on Hockey Reference in excel format. Then you can just highlight the won and lost 7 game series in green and red. It's in the "share & more" drop down link.

2019-20 Colorado Avalanche Schedule and Results | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Metallo]

That's interesting. I took a look myself and found it matched up with the recent teams that made the finals in the last few years.

I think you need a lot bigger sample to get a clear picture, but it's an interesting idea to look into. It's also interesting that 3 of the 4 teams that have lost in the 3rd round won more series than the teams that made the finals.

I'd like to see how it matches up against teams that lost in the 1st and 2nd round too.

2018-19 Blues - Once. 4 series won in a row.
2018-19 Bruins - Once. 5 series won in a row.
2017-18 Caps - Once. 6 series won in a row. Also 3 series won in a row to end the season.
2017-18 Knights - Once. 5 series won in a row.

2018-19 Sharks - Once. 7 series won in a row. Also 2 series lost in a row to end season.
2018-19 Canes - Once. 5 series won in a row to end the season.
2017-18 Jets - Twice. 8 series in a row and 4 series in a row.
2017-18 Bolts - Twice. 7 series in a row and 5 series in a row.

2018-19 Avs - None. 2 series won in a row twice, including to end the season.
2017-18 Avs - None. 3 series in a row once.

FYI you can download each team's schedule on Hockey Reference in excel format. Then you can just highlight the won and lost 7 game series in green and red. It's in the "share & more" drop down link.

2019-20 Colorado Avalanche Schedule and Results | Hockey-Reference.com

Thanks for taking the ball and running with it. Interesting stuff.

 

[Foppa2118]

Thanks for taking the ball and running with it. Interesting stuff.

If anyone else wants to look into it, I think the real interesting part will be how the bubble teams and non conference final teams compare. I would bet the second half of seasons are more telling than the first half too.

Obviously better teams have more wins and that correlates to more of these 7 game series wins, but it would be interesting if the true contenders tend to be the only ones that win four in a row or not. It could kind of be like the old standings at Thanksgiving indicator of whether a team would make the playoffs or not, which probably won't mean much in this new NHL era anymore.

 

[Metallo]

If anyone else wants to look into it, I think the real interesting part will be how the bubble teams and non conference final teams compare. I would bet the second half of seasons are more telling than the first half too.

Obviously better teams have more wins and that correlates to more of these 7 game series wins, but it would be interesting if the true contenders tend to be the only ones that win four in a row or not. It could kind of be like the old standings at Thanksgiving indicator of whether a team would make the playoffs or not, which probably won't mean much in this new NHL era anymore.

Good points all around.

My working hypothesis is that it is a necessary but not sufficent criteria to define a “contender”. In other words, if you achieve it you might be a “contender” but if you don’t you clearly aren’t.

 

[cgf]

Can't imagine that the kings did well at this at all during the cups.

 

[Metallo]

Can't imagine that the kings did well at this at all during the cups.

Good point and I went back to take a look.

2011-12 They ended the season in the fourth round at 1-3. They did win the first 3 playoff games against the Nucks to kinda complete the stretch.

2013-14 They did win 4 series in a row in the regular season.

That first Kings team can sure be considered an extreme outlier, I don’t think many had them as cup contenders.

In the end I look at this mostly for fun. However it could be a bench mark to decide to make a trade for a rental at the deadline or not. For example, I wouldn’t be comfortable if Joe were to make such a trade this year and the Avs would have not showed that level of consistency. But that’s me.