Saved_by_Jesus

Members
  • Content Count

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

275 Excellent

About Saved_by_Jesus

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

2,719 profile views
  1. Before the win against the Islanders, sportsclubstats.com had the Canucks chances as: Winning the West: 5%. Missing the Playoffs: 4%
  2. Tonight, the only really meaningful game for the Canucks overall chances of making the playoffs is the Vegas vs. Carolina game. Because Vegas won, our playoff chances went down 0.3% With Edmonton winning against St. Louis as well, it was a bad scoreboard watching night.
  3. There it is! That's what I was hoping for. Thanks Shaelon.
  4. I'm not sure you get this thread. Obviously these numbers mean less with 30 games left than with 10 games left. Obviously teams can go on streaks. Everyone knows that. What he is doing is making projections based on past performance (which is arguably one of the most predictive indicators that one can use). I'll bet if I told you that 50% of coin flips will be heads, you would say "well not necessarily, you might get tails 10 times in a row". You are hijacking this thread with your useless, obvious observations. If you don't personally think this thread is useful or informative - stop posting (spamming?) here and go somewhere else. I honestly don't get people like you.
  5. To add to the intrigue, according to sportsclubstats.com, these games have the following effects on the Canucks' playoff chances: NAS vs NJD = -0.1% because NAS won in SO LAK vs ARI = +0.1% because ARI lost in OT BUF vs MTL = no effect So overall, tonight was pretty even for the Canucks playoff chances.
  6. I understand what you are saying here. Have you, by chance, seen Shaelon's previous annual magic number threads? They were presented in a fairly comprehensive table that included a lot of information that many of us, including me, found very interesting. This year, I understand that Shaelon doesn't have the time to make the big comprehensive table, and has opted to do a more simple calculation of the record needed down the stretch to achieve certain things. It should be very valuable for a lot of people on this forum who, for example, don't seem to understand how mediocre the Canucks could be in the last 30 games and still make the playoffs. If you want a more fulsome mathematical picture that considers strength of schedule and other things, you can go to one of the websites I cited in my post above.
  7. With the win in San Jose, the main hockey stats sites have our playoff probability at an average of 94.5% Playoff Probabilities Report: 93.9% SportsClubStats: 96.5% Playoffstatus: 93% I don't count MoneyPuck, because their projections make no sense (for example, they have Montreal with a 9.1% chance of making the playoffs, but also a 1.0% percent chance of winning the cup? That means that, if the Habs did squeeze into the playoffs, they would have a 11.0% percent chance of winning the cup, which is better than Boston's 10.1% chance? Makes no sense). Also, those websites (particularly the first two) project the playoff cut-off in the West to be around 90 points (if not lower).
  8. You have had like, 15 of the last 23 posts in this thread, and the total amount of correct information you have provided could have easily fit in one post. The thread was beginning to look like one long rambling conversation with yourself.
  9. No offence, but you are ruining this thread.
  10. I find this to be interesting - playoff probabilities from various statistics websites: Chances of making the playoffs (sources: playoffstatus.com / hockey-reference.com / sportsclubstats.com / moneypuck.com / AVERAGE): Vancouver: 84% / 87% / 91% / 66% = 82% Edmonton: 80% / 82% / 84% / 75% = 80% Calgary: 76% / 69% / 60% / 79% = 71% Winnipeg: 40% / 37% / 29% / 18% = 31% These sites, which calculate odds based on a huge number of simulations, all seem to agree that the likely amount of points it will take to make the playoffs in the Western Conference is approximately 90. The Canucks only need 32 points in 33 games to get to 90, so it is no wonder their playoff probability is so high - they don't even need to play .500 hockey the rest of the way to likely make the playoffs.
  11. The thing is... I don't know any St. Louis Blues fans that will rub it in my face if they win the cup - same with Tampa Bay Lightning fans or Pittsburgh Penguins fans. I never hear from them. I do however, hear alot of boasting about Edmonton's cups, Toronto's great future, and Calgary's divisional wins from their fans here in B.C. If another Canadian team were to win the Cup (except for maybe Winnipeg or Ottawa), I will never hear the end of it and it will be frustrating as hell. For that reason, I cheer against the Oilers, Flames, Leafs and Canadiens.
  12. Shaelon, you're the guy who used to do the magic number threads, right? Are we lucky enough to get one this year?
  13. I'm not sure what assessment of talent has to do with being a good fan? My problem with you is as follows: 1) I think you have identified that Green has deficiencies as a coach - good for you, that doesn't take much talent. 2) Despite the fact that all coaches have weaknesses, you have decided that, because you are smart enough to recognize his deficiency (which I question whether you have accurately done that), that he should be fired. 3) You are not capable enough in your coaching talent assessment to realize that, if you fire Green, you need to replace him with some other coach. That other coach will have to be currently unemployed (i.e. recently fired), and is very likely to have deficiencies that are as bad (and probably worse) than Green's. Your opinion just seems reactionary (based on simply a "lack of toughness?), and not well thought out.
  14. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours is simply wrong. If you had a great idea for a replacement, I might bother to keep listening to you, but suggesting Gallant just makes me certain that you have no idea what you are talking about.
  15. But firing a winning/overachieving coach, and hiring the coach who was just fired for underachieving with a more skilled team on paper - that's your winning strategy?