Tracking the Blues’ Stanley Cup Quest—LOL

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
The current projected cutoff is Dallas in the second wild card spot (based on points percentage) with 91.5 points.

Wild CardGPWLOTPTSROWGFGADIFFHOMEAWAYS/OL10STRKLast GameNext Game
1 Dallas261310329137270+28-3-15-7-20-04-4-2W1Nov 28: DAL 4 - CGY 3Dec 1 @ VAN
2 Winnipeg23138228137766+118-3-25-5-00-15-4-1L1Nov 27: WPG 3 - PIT 4LIVE vs CHI, 2-2
3 Vegas261312127127773+47-3-16-9-01-16-4-0W4Nov 27: VGK 8 - CHI 3Nov 29 @ VAN
4 Vancouver271113325107896-185-4-16-9-21-21-7-2OT1Nov 27: VAN 1 - LAK 2Nov 29 vs VGK
5 Edmonton241111224116576-115-4-16-7-10-03-6-1W1Nov 27: EDM 1 - DAL 0Nov 29 vs LAK
6 Chicago2591152396890-225-4-34-7-20-13-5-2L1Nov 27: CHI 3 - VGK 8LIVE @ WPG, 2-2
7 Arizona23101122295765-85-6-15-5-11-03-5-2W1Nov 27: ARI 4 - MIN 3LIVE @ NSH, 0-0
8 St. Louis2381231987077-76-7-12-5-20-03-7-0L2Nov 28: STL 3 - DET 4Nov 30 @ COL
9 Los Angeles2491411985375-225-8-14-6-01-04-6-0W2Nov 27: LAK 2 - VAN 1Nov 29 @ EDM
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stupendous Yappi

Stupendous Yappi

Any famous last words? Not yet!
Sponsor
Aug 23, 2018
8,548
13,325
Erwin, TN
More perspective:

Record needed for 95 points: 36-19-4
Hypothetical final home record: 23-14-4
Hypothetical final road record implied: 21-17-3

Remaining home record needed: 17-7-3
Remaining road record needed: 19-12-1

And I have a really, really difficult time seeing us suddenly go 17-7-3 the rest of the way at home - which would put more pressure on that "need to go 19-12-1 on the road from here out" part which already looks daunting. The hope here is that the cutoff shifts closer to 90, because that buys us a little more breathing room - but still, we're 10 really 11 back of Dallas and 9 really 10 back of Winnipeg, and before you can worry about where the cutoff for making the playoffs is you gotta start whittling down that gap [preferably by winning games before the shootout so you can bank ROWs and get closer on the 1st tiebreak and make life easier in the event of a tie on points].
Are we still doing this?

More power to you I guess.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
Are we still doing this?

More power to you I guess.
I'm doing it more as an underscore for how this season is lost. It's like tracking a dead man walking, or ... whatever the hell the correct analogy here is.

Better off tracking a top 5 pick
We're getting close to that point, but I think we're about 20 or so games away from getting semi-reasonable figures with it. Plus, there's the entire lottery system to factor in which we'll have to get up to speed on again - except this time, we're not staring at #14 like "well f***, it's either 1, 2, 3, or 14 and we're gonna need a miracle to not be picking 14."
 

Saint Loser

"(they) are unavoidably unsafe" - SCOTUS
Mar 16, 2018
508
505
Some of the more casual fans that come on here may not realize just how close we are to being eliminated.
Yes we are!! The numbers will be against us very soon.

The Blues have to have an historical December (like the Cardinals' historic August) just to even sniff the playoffs this season.

But this is not going to happen.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bluesman91

TruBlu

Registered User
Feb 7, 2016
6,784
2,923
I can't remember who it was, but they brought up sportsclubstats.com. I go there close to the end of the season when it doesn't swing so violently one way or the other stat-wise, but we are currently sitting about 17% to make the playoffs.
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
I appreciate Carter and Irish's contribution here.

Thank you. :) That said, I have mentally and emotionally shifted to a burning desire to get Hughes.

I just saw that rumor post in the trade thread about moving for Panarin and Bob???? I swear, if the owners allow DA to convince them that we should be buyers right now, they deserve to lose money. If Army even suggests trading away more youth and more future, he should be fired on the spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TruBlu

TruBlu

Registered User
Feb 7, 2016
6,784
2,923
Thank you. :) That said, I have mentally and emotionally shifted to a burning desire to get Hughes.

I just saw that rumor post in the trade thread about moving for Panarin and Bob???? I swear, if the owners allow DA to convince them that we should be buyers right now, they deserve to lose money. If Army even suggests trading away more youth and more future, he should be fired on the spot.
This is my opinion. No one is getting moved; no coaches, players, etc. We will keep our draft pick this year and then we'll look for a whole new coaching staff.
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
Wild CardGPWLOTPTSROWGFGADIFFHOMEAWAYS/OL10STRKLast GameNext Game
1 Minnesota25149230148071+98-3-26-6-00-15-5-0L2Nov 29: MIN 2 - CBJ 4Dec 1 vs TOR
2 Dallas261310329137270+28-3-15-7-20-04-4-2W1Nov 28: DAL 4 - CGY 3Dec 1 @ VAN
3 Vegas271412129138176+57-3-17-9-01-17-3-0W5Nov 29: VGK 4 - VAN 3Dec 1 @ EDM
4 Edmonton251211226126878-106-4-16-7-10-04-5-1W2Nov 29: EDM 3 - LAK 2Dec 1 vs VGK
5 Vancouver2811143251081100-195-5-16-9-21-21-8-1L1Nov 29: VAN 3 - VGK 4Dec 1 vs DAL
6 Arizona241111224106065-55-6-16-5-11-04-5-1W2Nov 29: ARI 3 - NSH 0Dec 1 vs STL
7 Chicago2691252397396-235-4-34-8-20-13-5-2L2Nov 29: CHI 5 - WPG 6Dec 1 @ NSH
8 St. Louis2491232197379-66-7-13-5-20-03-7-0W1Nov 30: STL 3 - COL 2Dec 1 @ ARI
9 Los Angeles2691611985682-265-8-14-8-01-04-6-0L2Nov 30: LAK 1 - CGY 4Dec 2 vs CAR
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]


Upcoming games
1. Coyotes
2. Oilers
3. Jets
4. Canucks
5. Panthers
6. Avalanche
7. Flames
8. Oilers
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
The fat lady is warming her vocal chords.

Figures have been updated--12/2.


1. Games Remaining—57 (Home Games—27; Away Games—30)
2. Available Points Remaining--114
3. Estimated Points Needed to get a Wildcard Slot—95
4. Points Earned to Date—21
5. Points Percentage Needed over Remaining Games to get a Wildcard Slot—.649
6. Sample Record that would get us to target—35-18-4


Upcoming games

1. Oilers
2. Jets
3. Canucks
4. Panthers
5. Avalanche
6. Flames
7. Oilers
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
Leave him alone. IB is a numbers guy. He likes it.
I did numbers before it was cool. Sometimes I feel like I'm about 8 years ahead of the curve. [Don't ask me about the "value" of current analytics and what I think is missing to make them worthwhile.]
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
You need to create a new topic that discusses what we need to do to get a top 10 pick. The playoffs are all but gone this season.
It's too early to get something useful, but I could throw something together when I get back to the apartment tonight.

And then I'll go down the rabbit hole on a couple things, and suddenly I'm 40 hours behind on my study schedule, ... and yet somehow, someone will make me feel like it's worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian39 and 67Blues

Saint Loser

"(they) are unavoidably unsafe" - SCOTUS
Mar 16, 2018
508
505
I did numbers before it was cool. Sometimes I feel like I'm about 8 years ahead of the curve. [Don't ask me about the "value" of current analytics and what I think is missing to make them worthwhile.]

Anionic?
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
You need to create a new topic that discusses what we need to do to get a top 10 pick. The playoffs are all but gone this season.
I'm going to approach this in two ways:
1. "We have to finish in the bottom 6" because that guarantees a top-10 pick regardless of lottery results [which, worst case, would still leave us in the top-10], and
2. "We have to finish in the bottom 10" which ignores potential lottery movement shuffling us back.

Points needed the last 5 years to be top-6 and top-10:

Year​
Points to be top-6​
Points to be top-10​
2017-18​
73​
80​
2016-17​
79​
87​
2015-16​
78​
82​
2014-15​
78​
90​
2013-14​
83​
88​
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So, figure we probably can't go over 78 points to guarantee a top-10 spot, and probably need to be about 85 to finish no better than 22nd overall [which puts us 10th before the lottery]. Let's say that's records of 35-39-8 and 39-36-7 respectively. That means

* To guarantee a top-10 pick, we can't go better than 26-26-5
* To finish bottom-10, we can't go better than 30-23-4

And yes, if this carries on to where this becomes a legitimate possibility, I'll kick off a new thread on it.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,855
8,110
Damn, the level of sophistication in this forum has gone up since I was last here.

I won't say it's nil, but I will say that a lot of things mentioned as being somehow indicative of things really aren't. They're correlated, but as I often say correlation isn't causation. It tells a nice story, but it doesn't tell the story. I think there are a few places that are getting to it [hint: where are shots coming from, and how often are they scoring?] but they're still underappreciated and almost certainly underutilized, and I think they're still missing a few valuable pieces of the puzzle.

I'll take it a step farther: I don't care about how many shots someone gets, I care about where those shots are coming from. I don't care about time of puck possession, I care about quality of puck possession. I hit on both of those in at least 2003 if not farther back than that, and both of those items are still grossly ignored today - and both of them have all kinds of potential to shape in-game adjustments, coaching philosophies, and even personnel decisions and more.
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
I'm going to approach this in two ways:
1. "We have to finish in the bottom 6" because that guarantees a top-10 pick regardless of lottery results [which, worst case, would still leave us in the top-10], and
2. "We have to finish in the bottom 10" which ignores potential lottery movement shuffling us back.

Points needed the last 5 years to be top-6 and top-10:

Year​
Points to be top-6​
Points to be top-10​
2017-18​
73​
80​
2016-17​
79​
87​
2015-16​
78​
82​
2014-15​
78​
90​
2013-14​
83​
88​
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So, figure we probably can't go over 78 points to guarantee a top-10 spot, and probably need to be about 85 to finish no better than 22nd overall [which puts us 10th before the lottery]. Let's say that's records of 35-39-8 and 39-36-7 respectively. That means

* To guarantee a top-10 pick, we can't go better than 26-26-5
* To finish bottom-10, we can't go better than 30-23-4

And yes, if this carries on to where this becomes a legitimate possibility, I'll kick off a new thread on it.


I love it!

I wouldn't go so high as 10. One or two teams always seem to move up, so 10 doesn't feel very safe. Spot 8 or lower feels pretty safe. Just my thoughts. Thanks!
 

67Blues

Got it for Bobby
Mar 22, 2013
4,551
4,894
Section 111
I'm going to approach this in two ways:
1. "We have to finish in the bottom 6" because that guarantees a top-10 pick regardless of lottery results [which, worst case, would still leave us in the top-10], and
2. "We have to finish in the bottom 10" which ignores potential lottery movement shuffling us back.

Points needed the last 5 years to be top-6 and top-10:

Year​
Points to be top-6​
Points to be top-10​
2017-18​
73​
80​
2016-17​
79​
87​
2015-16​
78​
82​
2014-15​
78​
90​
2013-14​
83​
88​
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
So, figure we probably can't go over 78 points to guarantee a top-10 spot, and probably need to be about 85 to finish no better than 22nd overall [which puts us 10th before the lottery]. Let's say that's records of 35-39-8 and 39-36-7 respectively. That means

* To guarantee a top-10 pick, we can't go better than 26-26-5
* To finish bottom-10, we can't go better than 30-23-4

And yes, if this carries on to where this becomes a legitimate possibility, I'll kick off a new thread on it.
Well done. I can't see the Blues even going .500 the rest of this season with this current coaching staff, so I believe that the top 10 pick is pretty safe.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->