Speculation: Sports Book USA has Hawks finishing season with 90.5 points

[RayP]

call me biased, but I think that this new roster with the additions and subtractions that have been made will eclipse the 90.5 point mark.

Rather easily too, in my opinion. The only thing is that the Central division has only gotten better as well. Colorado is loaded with talent up front, on the back end, and in goal for instance.

I’m not sold on Colorado, especially if they are heavily relying on both Byram and Makar.

Nashville got worse. Winnipeg got worse. Can St. Louis replicate what they did last year? Maybe.

 

[Blue Liner]

I know 100 points isn't quite what it used to be but it's still a pretty damn good benchmark. It's not impossible but A LOT of things will have to go exactly right (and then some) for this team to accomplish that.

 

[ChiHawk21]

And? I'm confident that they're a playoff team. That's all that sentence says. This team finished with 84 points last year... Vegas thinks with all the improvements, they're only 3 wins better. C'mon. Vegas is in the business of making money. They set things like this based upon what they feel is the safest way to make money whether people bet the over or the under... They're doing their best to make it a no-lose situation for themselves. Nothing more.

if its a 1% chance in your mind then you should put it all on the over, no joke. yes they are in the business of making money. could you explain how setting a "low total" would make this a no lose situation because it seems like that would be the opposite because the line will only move up when the money comes in?

 

[ChiHawks10]

if its a 1% chance in your mind then you should put it all on the over, no joke. yes they are in the business of making money. could you explain how setting a "low total" would make this a no lose situation because it seems like that would be the opposite because the line will only move up when the money comes in?

I would, if I bet on sports other than fantasy, but I don't.

And I'm not saying they set a "low total". You don't understand how Vegas is in the business of making money? This is an easy concept.

Vegas sets an over under somewhere where they have analyzed and know they can maximize their money. If they set it at 90, and equal amounts of people bet both over and under, they make a bunch of money, no matter the outcome. If they set it too high(based upon their assessments/analysis of the situation with both statistical data and anecdotal data) at say... 100, then everyone takes the under, and Vegas loses. If they set it too low, say 82, then everyone takes the over, and Vegas loses. They analyze these numbers, and set them where they do, based upon numerous factors, in order to maximize their gains. If they set it at 90, then you'll have some people betting the over, and some people betting the under, and either way, they can make money, no matter the outcome. Their goal is to keep betters split evenly between the over and the under. They don't want everyone taking a guaranteed over, because then they have to pay out on all bets. They don't want everyone taking a guaranteed under, because then they have to pay out on all the bets. Setting a moderate number, and keeping the over/under betters split fairly evenly, is win-win for them.

TL;DR is the 90 point over/under is not necessarily a reflection of how good they think the Hawks will be. It's a reflection of their analysis of the statistical and anecdotal data telling them what number is best to maximize their profits on the bets. Nothing more.

 

[Hawkaholic]

He was a .31 and .33 PPG guy in our Cup winning years. In 14-15 he was getting 60% of his starts in the offensive zone, in 13-14 it was 69%! so its not like he was some defensive dynamo. He was an ancillary piece, if we're being honest he was what like the 10th at best most important player on the team during the Cup runs?

Now go watch the games.

In 14-15, he had the 7th most ice time among our forwards, had a better points per game than Brandon Saad, won 50% of his draws, (170 faceoffs), provided grit and hits and was our main net front presence on the PP which are all very key things in the playoffs, not to mention his locker room presence that a lot of guys spoke of.

If you think he was just another guy, I feel bad for the kids you coach.

 

[ChiHawk21]

I would, if I bet on sports other than fantasy, but I don't.

And I'm not saying they set a "low total". You don't understand how Vegas is in the business of making money? This is an easy concept.

Vegas sets an over under somewhere where they have analyzed and know they can maximize their money. If they set it at 90, and equal amounts of people bet both over and under, they make a bunch of money, no matter the outcome. If they set it too high(based upon their assessments/analysis of the situation with both statistical data and anecdotal data) at say... 100, then everyone takes the under, and Vegas loses. If they set it too low, say 82, then everyone takes the over, and Vegas loses. They analyze these numbers, and set them where they do, based upon numerous factors, in order to maximize their gains. If they set it at 90, then you'll have some people betting the over, and some people betting the under, and either way, they can make money, no matter the outcome. Their goal is to keep betters split evenly between the over and the under. They don't want everyone taking a guaranteed over, because then they have to pay out on all bets. They don't want everyone taking a guaranteed under, because then they have to pay out on all the bets. Setting a moderate number, and keeping the over/under betters split fairly evenly, is win-win for them.

I literally just said that in my last post...........

so you are not saying they set a "low total" but you give them a 1% chance of going under. seems like what you are saying is they set it fair to the public but you just completely disagree with the public. is that right?

 

[ChiHawks10]

I literally just said that in my last post...........

so you are not saying they set a "low total" but you give them a 1% chance of going under. seems like what you are saying is they set it fair to the public but you just completely disagree with the public. is that right?

Sorry, when you said "could you explain" I wasn't sure if you were being a smart-ass, or genuinely curious. They're not setting anything fair to the public. They're setting things fair for Vegas in order to make as much money as they can off of the bets. Vegas sets a moderate number that will keep the bets split evenly between the over and the under, because they want to win.

I'm not saying they set a low total. I'm saying they set a total that they feel comfortable with when it comes to maximizing their money intake(losing bets). These aren't reflections of how well they actually think the Hawks will perform, but what number most makes sense for them to make the most money.

Now, I think they have a 1% chance of going under, because I'm confident this team is better than a 90 point team.(This is how Vegas will make money). Example: Over/Under set at 90 points. You think the Hawks will suck, so you take the Under. I think the Hawks will be great, so I take the over(hypothetical situation). Now Vegas can win 50% of the bets, no matter what(or better, depending on what the actual split is). If their number is too low, or too high, then they risk losing a larger percentage of bets. If they set it at 90, and everyone thinks it's too low, then everyone bets the over, and they risk losing 100% of the bets. If they set it at 100, and everyone thinks it's too high, then everyone bets the under, and they risk losing 100% of the bets.

 

[Illinihockey]

Now go watch the games.

In 14-15, he had the 7th most ice time among our forwards, had a better points per game than Brandon Saad, won 50% of his draws, (170 faceoffs), provided grit and hits and was our main net front presence on the PP which are all very key things in the playoffs, not to mention his locker room presence that a lot of guys spoke of.

If you think he was just another guy, I feel bad for the kids you coach.

lol the 7th most ice time, because he's just a guy. At evens he was 10th, tied with Antoine Vermette. He was a role player, the kind of guy the Hawks have been replacing constantly since 2010. People overrate Shaw because he was a big presence and had some big moments in the playoffs.

 

[ChiHawks10]

lol the 7th most ice time, because he's just a guy. At evens he was 10th, tied with Antoine Vermette. He was a role player, the kind of guy the Hawks have been replacing constantly since 2010. People overrate Shaw because he was a big presence and had some big moments in the playoffs.

Everything you're saying actually proves that he's not just a guy. You're proving your own assertion false... which is kinda funny. I'm gonna go out on a limb here(not really) and say you think Vermette was "just a guy" also, since you mentioned him there...

 

[RayP]

lol the 7th most ice time, because he's just a guy. At evens he was 10th, tied with Antoine Vermette. He was a role player, the kind of guy the Hawks have been replacing constantly since 2010. People overrate Shaw because he was a big presence and had some big moments in the playoffs.

 

[ColdSteel2]

I would, if I bet on sports other than fantasy, but I don't.

Why not? Seems wasteful not to profit from all of the time invested.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Why not? Seems wasteful not to profit from all of the time invested.

I don't gamble a lot. I prefer to have my money to buy the things I want, knowing that money is there, as opposed to risking it in gambling. Every so often I'll go play cards, or craps, or sit in front of a slot machine, but I just prefer to not risk it on sports, when sports can be so f***ing goofy sometimes.

 

[Hawkaholic]

lol the 7th most ice time, because he's just a guy. At evens he was 10th, tied with Antoine Vermette. He was a role player, the kind of guy the Hawks have been replacing constantly since 2010. People overrate Shaw because he was a big presence and had some big moments in the playoffs.

LOL, had big moments and was a big presence. You basically just said he isn't just a guy without saying it.

No one said he is the reason we won, but he is more than just a guy, just a guy are the Ben Eagers, Adam Burishs.

And who did the Hawks replace Andrew Shaw with?

 

[Illinihockey]

Everything you're saying actually proves that he's not just a guy. You're proving your own assertion false... which is kinda funny. I'm gonna go out on a limb here(not really) and say you think Vermette was "just a guy" also.

A guy getting bottom 6 minutes at forward is exactly just a guy. He's a role player. I'm not saying he's a fringe AHL player.

 

[hawksrule]

Now go watch the games.

In 14-15, he had the 7th most ice time among our forwards, had a better points per game than Brandon Saad, won 50% of his draws, (170 faceoffs), provided grit and hits and was our main net front presence on the PP which are all very key things in the playoffs, not to mention his locker room presence that a lot of guys spoke of.

If you think he was just another guy, I feel bad for the kids you coach.

Shaw 79gp, 26 points
Saad 82gp, 52 points

Edit: I'm guessing you're talking playoffs. That's what I get for jumping late into a conversation. Shaw had a good playoffs in 2015, no doubt.

I'd also point out that Saad was very good on the pk.

 

[Illinihockey]

LOL, had big moments and was a big presence. You basically just said he isn't just a guy without saying it.

No one said he is the reason we won, but he is more than just a guy, just a guy are the Ben Eagers, Adam Burishs.

And who did the Hawks replace Andrew Shaw with?

Antoinne Vermette had big moments in that Cup run, another person who is just a guy. Ben Eager and Adam Burish are fringe NHL players.

 

[ChiHawks10]

A guy getting bottom 6 minutes at forward is exactly just a guy. He's a role player. I'm not saying he's a fringe AHL player.

...

In 5 years of playoffs with the Hawks, he averaged 15:22TOI, had 35 points in 67 games(.52PPG), and 167 hits...

 

[Hawkaholic]

Antoinne Vermette had big moments in that Cup run, another person who is just a guy. Ben Eager and Adam Burish are fringe NHL players.

I guess your defenition of just a guy is different than mine, and almost everyone elses.

Who did the Hawks replace Shaw with?

 

[ChiHawks10]

I guess your defenition of just a guy is different than mine, and almost everyone elses.

Who did the Hawks replace Shaw with?

Just a guy.

Except it was literally just a guy... and not what Illini thinks is just a guy.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Everything you're saying actually proves that he's not just a guy. You're proving your own assertion false... which is kinda funny. I'm gonna go out on a limb here(not really) and say you think Vermette was "just a guy" also, since you mentioned him there...

Antoinne Vermette had big moments in that Cup run, another person who is just a guy. Ben Eager and Adam Burish are fringe NHL players.

Welp.

 

[Illinihockey]

I guess your defenition of just a guy is different than mine, and almost everyone elses.

Who did the Hawks replace Shaw with?

Ryan Hartman who almost matched Shaw's point total from 15-16 in 16-17 all the way down to only having a difference on 1 minute in PIM

 

[hawksrule]

You're talking past each other due to the failure of anyone to define 'just a guy'. I think most people define it as a replacement level player, but you'll go in circles forever if you don't define terms.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Ryan Hartman who almost matched Shaw's point total from 15-16 in 16-17 all the way down to only having a difference on 1 minute in PIM

Hartman replaced Shaws point totals, thats it. That's why they traded him, and traded back for Shaw.

Hartman wasn't versatile (couldn't play C, win draws) lacked to display the edge that Shaw had, and was more of a perimeter player than a grind it out in the corners type of player. We wanted him to replace Shaw, but he never did.

 

[Illinihockey]

Hartman replaced Shaws point totals, thats it. That's why they traded him, and traded back for Shaw.

Hartman wasn't versatile (couldn't play C, win draws) lacked to display the edge that Shaw had, and was more of a perimeter player than a grind it out in the corners type of player. We wanted him to replace Shaw, but he never did.

Wait you think Hartman didn't play with an edge? He probably played with too much of an edge. He's just as undisciplined as Shaw. The Hawks traded back for Shaw because the GM is pretty unoriginal when it comes to players and their pro scouting has pretty much sucked over the last 5-7 years.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Wait you think Hartman didn't play with an edge? He probably played with too much of an edge. He's just as undisciplined as Shaw. The Hawks traded back for Shaw because the GM is pretty unoriginal when it comes to players and their pro scouting has pretty much sucked over the last 5-7 years.

Yes, the only reason for sure...