Post-Game Talk: The 100 Year Drought - Avs 4 @ Canucks 1 | Who are we - really?

[Baby Pettersson]

I never used the word guaranteed. I posted the exact chances for each team.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. We are in a better position than LA and CGY. That's the point. But you and others seem to think that we have the tougher road. All I'm saying is We have a good shot, and I am confident they'll do it.

This is all I'm trying to say to. Emphasizing this fact since some of you fail to understand it.

 

[PG Canuck]

I never used the word guaranteed. I posted the exact chances for each team.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. We are in a better position than LA and CGY. That's the point. But you and others seem to think that we have the tougher road. All I'm saying is We have a good shot, and I am confident they'll do it.

I don't think anyone thinks this.

 

[NuxFan09]

I swear to god I will be the first to admit I cheered on and believed my team could make the playoffs. I swear to god.

Yeah, way to cover your bases. Chastise people for being realistic and critical about the hockey team and the position they're in, then claim they were simply being a fan and cheering on the team if said people were right.

That may sound petty, and I know it is, but this kind of stuff bothers me. A lot of the "negative nancies", as you guys call them, usually come back and accept the crow when they're wrong, but rarely ever get credit when they're right. Bugs me, but what can you do? It's the internet. Can't take it too seriously (words all of us here should live by - too much bickering).

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

We were talking about a hypothetical situation, that could very well happen.

My point is not numbers, stats, odds, %'s.. My point is that we are in no way close to making the playoffs.

MIN - 91
VAN - 90
WPG - 90
LAK - 88
CAL - 87

Can teams lose 2 in a row? Yes. Can teams win 2 in a row? Yes. We aren't close to anything.

What does 2 in a row have to do with anything? We don't need to win 2 in a row to make it.

We are ahead of three teams, with 7 games left. That's three teams that need to outperform us by varying degrees to make it. If we go 4-2-1 then Winnipeg, LA, and Calgary would ALL have to do better than that to knock us out. Calgary would need to run the table. Could it happen? YES. But the odds are still higher that one of them goes .500 the rest of the way and that's all we need to make it. AGAIN, we need FOUR things to happen in order to miss.

- We need to do worse than our pace this year.
- AND Winnipeg needs to do better than us
- AND LA needs to do better than us
- AND Calgary needs to do a fair bit better than us.

Even if 3 of those 4 things happen we will still make it. AGAIN, it's not just the amount of points, the amount of teams who need to catch you is equally important if not moreso. If LA runs the table it means Calgary can't, because they play each other. ETC.

IT's a red herring every year that people look at the standings and think that some team in 13th has some good chance of making it because they are only 5 points back. Being 5 points back of one team and being 5 points back of 5 teams are incredibly, importantly, significantly different things.

I have a reputation as being one of the most negative, pessimistic pieces of arrogant **** on this board and I'm telling you: we are the favorites to make the playoffs.

 

[684]

I never used the word guaranteed. I posted the exact chances for each team.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. We are in a better position than LA and CGY. That's the point. But you and others seem to think that we have the tougher road. All I'm saying is We have a good shot, and I am confident they'll do it.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I said 'guaranteed'. When did I put words in your mouth?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure I said 'guaranteed'. When did I put words in your mouth?

Why did you ask me if that meant they were guaranteed? I never claimed as such.

 

[684]

Flames win 2 in a row, we lose 2 in a row in regulation.

Flames are ahead of us by 1. See how quickly the odds can change?

I get it, you guys are just more positive about our boys taking care of business, that's great. To me, however, this is anyone's playoff spot.

 

[NuxFan09]

Do you think we'll go 0-5-0?

If we go 1-2-2 we'll have 95 points and two games left against the two worst teams in the west. And if we blow both of those games then well, what can you say really.

What you can say?? You can look back at games like this and say "Geez, that might have been an important to bag 2 points in".

But nah, games like this are no biggie, right?

 

[VanillaCoke]

Stinky game

 

[684]

Why did you ask me if that meant they were guaranteed? I never claimed as such.

Rhetorical question intended to emphasize how better odds mean pretty much nothing, as hockey still needs to be played.

 

[684]

Where's Ronaldo? He owes me 4000 vCash

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

If you don't agree with me that's fine, but please stop ignoring me when I tell you that the amount of TEAMS you are ahead of is an important piece of the calculation, not just how many POINTS.

Take an extreme situation:

It's the last day of the season. All teams have one game left to play. We are in first place, but only 1 point ahead of 8 teams. That's 1 point away from missing the playoffs.

Are we likely to make it? YES.
But why, it's only one point! Well: If we win, we're guaranteed in. If we lose, we would still need EIGHT teams to win in order to miss. The odds of us losing AND all eight teams winning is incredibly low. Some other team will lose and we'll make it in.

That's an extreme example to illustrate how being ahead of a lot of teams is just as important as being ahead of a lot of points. The reason some of us think we have very good odds is not because we're ahead by 3 points, but because we're ahead of three teams.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Yeah, way to cover your bases. Chastise people for being realistic and critical about the hockey team and the position they're in, then claim they were simply being a fan and cheering on the team if said people were right.

That may sound petty, and I know it is, but this kind of stuff bothers me. A lot of the "negative nancies", as you guys call them, usually come back and accept the crow when they're wrong, but rarely ever get credit when they're right. Bugs me, but what can you do? It's the internet. Can't take it too seriously (words all of us here should live by - too much bickering).

Oh man I wish that were true.

I mean, it happens only when it's the most obvious that can't possibly be denied. But if there is even the slightest shred and deniability of being wrong on an issue, they take it. That's human nature.

And not admitting they were wrong isn't even the most annoying part of the neggies. It's the ease with which the jump to the negative. One bad play/period/game/season and that's it. That player sucks, this team sucks, that coach sucks or what have you.

 

[Pip]

If we **** the bed enough to lose a playoff spot then there will be quite a few of these games. All in all these two points would have been great, but not the end of the world. We are still in control and are in a very good spot.

Still doesn't excuse the terrible effort obviously.

It's not as if we are on a slide or anything. We have a better last 10 than the guys trying to catch us and just came off of a 3 game winning streak.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

Yeah, way to cover your bases. Chastise people for being realistic and critical about the hockey team and the position they're in, then claim they were simply being a fan and cheering on the team if said people were right.

That may sound petty, and I know it is, but this kind of stuff bothers me. A lot of the "negative nancies", as you guys call them, usually come back and accept the crow when they're wrong, but rarely ever get credit when they're right. Bugs me, but what can you do? It's the internet. Can't take it too seriously (words all of us here should live by - too much bickering).

You asked me to admit it if I was wrong In the future. I agreed. Yet now you twist my words around and make me the bad guy. And all I did was post what you asked. **** me right?

 

[VanillaCoke]

Well, Hamhuis has certainly had better games, that's for sure.

Hes had better seasons too

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Flames win 2 in a row, we lose 2 in a row in regulation.

Flames are ahead of us by 1. See how quickly the odds can change?

I get it, you guys are just more positive about our boys taking care of business, that's great. To me, however, this is anyone's playoff spot.

Even if that happens, we could still be ahead of LA and Winnipeg. If the terrible hypothetical of losing twice in a row and having a team chasing you win two in a row still has you potentially in a playoff spot, then you're doing pretty well.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Flames win 2 in a row, we lose 2 in a row in regulation.

Flames are ahead of us by 1. See how quickly the odds can change?

I get it, you guys are just more positive about our boys taking care of business, that's great. To me, however, this is anyone's playoff spot.

And if you flip it, we just about do guarantee the playoff spot.

Rhetorical question intended to emphasize how better odds mean pretty much nothing, as hockey still needs to be played.

Now you're just talking crazy. Odds don't matter? Well I guess Dallas, Colorado and San Jose are still threats...

 

[684]

If you don't agree with me that's fine, but please stop ignoring me when I tell you that the amount of TEAMS you are ahead of is an important piece of the calculation, not just how many POINTS.

Take an extreme situation:

It's the last day of the season. All teams have one game left to play. We are in first place, but only 1 point ahead of 8 teams. That's 1 point away from missing the playoffs.

Are we likely to make it? YES.
But why, it's only one point? Well: If we win, we're guaranteed in. If we lose, we would still need EIGHTS teams to win in order to miss. The odds of us losing AND all eight teams winning is incredibly low. Some other team will lose and we'll make it in.

That's an extreme example to illustrate how being ahead of a lot of teams is just as important as being ahead of a lot of points. The reason some of us think we have very good odds is not because we're ahead by 3 points, but because we're ahead of three teams.

Lucas Pizza, my friend. You're saying only truths, I understand.

My point, which has clearly been poorly expressed and therefore poorly understood, is that we have a good chance to make the playoffs compared to those fighting against us but that this 'better chance' is very minuscule if we lose another game in reg.

Chances and odds change by the game. At this point our odds are better than the Kings and Flames. We aren't 1 game away from the playoffs, we are 7. A lot can happen in 7 and it's possible that when there is 1 game left, we are the ones who have to leap frog a team to get in.

 

[NuxFan09]

Anyway, now that we've all got stuff off our chest, moving on to the Dallas game.

The Canucks obviously control their own fate but the thing is, they need to do just that: control their fate! They need to come out and play like a team that is not guaranteed a playoff spot yet. Lack did his part today and is usually there doing his part. It's the rest of this team that needs to get their heads out of their ***** and come out to play hard for 60 minutes. We've just seen way too much of losses like tonight.

Take a page out of Calgary's book: play with some urgency!

 

[684]

And if you flip it, we just about do guarantee the playoff spot.




Now you're just talking crazy. Odds don't matter? Well I guess Dallas, Colorado and San Jose are still threats...

Canucks, heavily favoured to beat COL tonight. We lost.

Odds are just probabilities, not realities.


And yes, (to your first comment) we could easily win 2 and have LAK or CAL lose 2. Thats my point, we are literally in a dog fight for a playoff spot that hinges on a couple of games either way.

 

[Pip]

Anyway, now that we've all got stuff off our chest, moving on to the Dallas game.

The Canucks obviously control their own fate but the thing is, they need to do just that: control their fate! They need to come out and play like a team that is not guaranteed a playoff spot yet. Lack did his part today and is usually there doing his part. It's the rest of this team that needs to get their heads out of their ***** and come out to play hard for 60 minutes. We've just seen way too much of losses like tonight.

Take a page out of Calgary's book: play with some urgency!

That's the issue I have had with your argument. We have done a great job picking up points during this stretch. Better than the other teams around us. I don't understand the pessimism.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Canucks, heavily favoured to beat COL tonight. We lost.

Odds are just probabilities, not realities.

You're right, we're probably ****ed.


But seriously, don't you think I know the difference. Nowhere have I said that we have it locked up. All I am doing is providing the numbers that support my level of confidence. Please stop acting like I am saying anything more than that.

 

[VanJack]

Canuck mysteries of the universe....why is Dan Hamhuis, he of zero goals on the season, manning the point on the second unit power play?...tell me again why Vey is in the middle and Mathias is on the wing, despite the fact that he's most effective when he can carry the puck?....what is the future of that deadly Bieksa-Sbisa d-combo?...finally, if Kassian or Kenins had made the same kind of giveway as Chris Higgins before the second Av's goal, how long would they be spending in the pressbox?....questions...questions, but answers? Not so much.

 

[NuxFan09]

You asked me to admit it if I was wrong In the future. I agreed. Yet now you twist my words around and make me the bad guy. And all I did was post what you asked. **** me right?

Nevermind. Maybe I got the wrong message from your post. Sometimes things get misconstrued on the internet. Apologies, but let's just move on shall we?