Dazzle
Members-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Dazzle
-
I can understand why it was changed too because Mr. Provost here isn't as rationally sound as he might have you think. He let emotions get the better of him, and now he even has the audacity to standing firm to what he said two months ago (I'm still laughing about this). LOL, even going as far as bending the meaning of "out of reach" to protect his fragile ego. Just embarrassing.
-
You are not mistaken. February 26th was when our 'math whiz' Provost claimed that the Canucks were out of reach. After two months of hockey, his math or his understanding of the term "out of reach" is under scrutiny, and rightfully so.
-
SMH. I am re-using something from March 29th, exactly one month after you claimed that the Canucks were "out of reach." Below, here is where we stand as of RIGHT NOW. Notice there's a difference. Montreal had 6 games in hand back then. Now we have 5 games in hand. Also, in case you're clueless about the world around us, we have no idea what the effects of COVID are on players. This could have short and long term consequences, hence why I brought up COVID hurting us. So if there are any performance deficiencies (we have yet to see), this WILL hurt us. Most importantly, this threatens players' safety and health. It was never out of reach then (one month ago), and it's not out of reach now. So that means your statement from TWO MONTHS AGO was wrong. Simply put, there were too many games left to play to make a DEFINITIVE statement that the odds were 'out of reach'. If you actually understood odds/probability, you'd realize that if you run something a thousand times, your chances for something happening (let's say a win for a lottery number) naturally INCREASE. Given that there were so many games left, how could you POSSIBLY say the Canucks were out of reach? Look at this. 15 more games left to go. 8 points behind. Do the freaking math. If it was out of reach before, how do you explain this situation now? Keep in mind, FIFTEEN GAMES TO PLAY. A MAXIMUM OF 30 points (very unlikely) to losing all FIFTEEN (also very unlikely). Also keeping in mind that the other teams are almost finished their games, thus our games in hand ARE difference makers. I am already taking into account that the other teams will be playing each other, thus making our ascent up the standing more difficult. WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE, and fairly reasonable one, thus this is a situation that isn't OUT OF REACH. The chance to make the playoffs isn't statistically irrelevant either. Christ, Provost.
-
The first definition should give you a freaking clue, buddy. None of the other dictionaries I have shown you say there is even a hint of a possibility. Furthermore, you made this statement on February 26th. Fast forward two months of hockey, we are suddenly in a better spot than what we thought the Canucks would do. How is that possible when it was "out of reach"? That idea invalidates your understanding of statistics. Two months of hockey and we are, what, 10 points behind Montreal? Yeah we sure are out of reach.... Unlikely? Sure. Out of reach? Wrong. Give it up, Provost.
-
Unlikely is not the same as out of reach. Thanks for proving my point. https://www.lexico.com/definition/out_of_reach https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/out of reach You know what's out of reach? Your rationality skills. Just because you see a word as a synonym doesn't mean it's correctly used. But honestly, I am not surprised that you don't understand basic concepts of stuff, Provost. You should take your ego out and think for a bit. Out of reach is not the same as unlikely. Just visualize it. Jesus.
-
1) Not only have I shown links that demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term, you've also failed to address what "out of reach" means when visually understood. Specifically, I mentioned that a short power cord would prevent you from reaching a long distance. It's not that it's difficult to do it, but you'd have to find some kind of connector to do it. Out of reach is literally what it means - unreachable. So no, February 26 was very very premature when you made that statement. Also, if it was out of reach to begin with, how are we in this position now? COVID actually hurt us because everyone else played games while we were out, plus we needed time for recovery. Just laughable. 2) Your math is weak. Out of reach should only refer to something that has less than 1 percent chance with no other factors that could change that situation. You should not have used the term in February 26 where two months of hockey could have a serious effect on the numbers. This is where we're at now. Did you screw up your math, or did you use the wrong term? Take your pick. Don't be obtuse, Provost. Defending about something you said two months ago shows how little you care about the many factors that are involved in analyzing a situation. Canucks are not in a playoff spot, but they certainly aren't mathematically eliminated. There's still 15 games of hockey for the Canucks, and the other teams like Montreal and Calgary have been trending downward for quite some time.
-
It's still not out of reach. The fact that you brought this up when there was still 40 plus games to play is laughable. Laughable. So I get it. You have weak math skills. You used a small sample to gauge the likelihood of a Canucks entrance into the playoff, despite the fact that there was still lots of hockey to play. Understanding this will help you realize that the usage of the phrase "out of reach" is inappropriate or incorrect. Then you also have a poor understanding of English. Out of reach when understood from an imagery point of view means that no matter what you do, you cannot reach it. Example: your power cord is too short, and the grass that you want to cut is too far away. That is out of reach. This is seriously embarrassing, Provost. I really love how your perverted understanding of out of reach would mean that Buffalo has just as likely of a chance of making the playoffs as us. No, their chances of doing so had basically been out of reach from near the beginning, but was only finalized toward the half way point. Are you seriously telling me that the Canucks are still out of reach, especially when compared to a team like Buffalo? Like I get that you don't want to admit your stupidity, but you've just demonstrated that you'll do it to protect your invalidated point. Just laughable.
-
Not self righteous. Just a simple question about your usage of an English phrase that a fluent speaker like yourself should know. If you think that's self righteous, simply for questioning your post, that's awfully haughty of you. My primary issue is your phrase "now out of reach", which is false. It's just hilarious that you see no issue with it. Or the fact that you won't admit it, even when proven otherwise. I have a hard time believing that the dictionary is less correct on what the term "out of reach" means.
-
It's fine. Some people skipped school too because they think the term "out for reach" is a synonym for highly unlikely. Cough, Provost.
-
That's not what "out of reach" means, so either you don't know what that phrase means, or you're trying to defend the indefensible - that you erred. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out of reach Out of reach doesn't mean "less than 20 percent" Out of reach means mathematically eliminated, which was a wrong position to take so early in the season.
-
Yeah, the playoffs were never out of reach, but this thread does serve as a time capsule to see which posters made silly posts.
-
Agreed with your points that are embedded in the other post. It's clear that a good portion of this fanbase doesn't actually know what they're talking about because they've let emotion take over their rational parts of the brain. I thought making a thread like this was pretty damn premature. If we go back later and see some of the posts made, we can just laugh.
-
People have been trying to tell you that there were lots of games to be played, so your thread was flawed and premature. This whole thread, not just you, illustrates how emotional and irrational this fanbase is. As for your other point, the possibility was always there because the season was far from 'over'. You just assumed - not correctly - that it was over. There were some classic nuggets that didn't age very well at the start by Buzzsaw, who thought the Canucks handed Calgary the cup at about 10 percent of the season. At least you're willing to reflect on a thread you made. Some people like Buzzsaw will continue to think that the Canucks handed the cup to Calgary long after we've made the playoffs... There are some other posters that won't even dare to reappear because they KNOW they were wrong. It's annoying for people to make 'bold' statements, but be unable to take responsibility for them.
-
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs Ottawa Senators | April 24, 7 p.m. | CBC, SNP
Dazzle replied to -SN-'s topic in Canucks Talk
I don't disagree with you. Maybe this was the first time I noticed this, but I thought Virtanen showed A LOT of regret for taking dumb penalties. His body language wasn't really happy. -
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs Ottawa Senators | April 24, 7 p.m. | CBC, SNP
Dazzle replied to -SN-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Scratched for a second game in a row. In three games, if I'm not mistaken, he has a whopping 7 minutes of playing time. Chicago being the bottom feeding team that they are this season, couldn't even make space for Gaudette. Really doesn't look good on him. -
So, YOU made the argument that you hadn't seen Podkolzin laser shots on KHL goalies. I gave you three examples of those (two really), and instead of being a man and admitting you were wrong, you decide to double down on your original position. You're right. I'm losing it (my patience with this stupid board).
-
We'll see how wrong you are.
-
This isn't a 'shot', per se, but it shows the kind of hands that he has. His shot will get even better than it is. Look at Horvat's improvement. You really have to be kidding yourself if you think Podkolzin doesn't have a good foundation to be an NHL player. Anyway, I just wanted to prove a point that you were so wrong. Let's leave it at that.
-
KHL goalie. Now, sit down pls.
-
So your reasoning for gauging that his shot is NOT NHL CALIBRE is the fact that he hasn't played in an NHL game where he has scored on an NHL goalie. Are you listening to yourself? I guess Pettersson's shots in the SHL/WJC tournaments weren't NHL calibre either when we watched them. Like, seriously, you should rethink about how you are coming to these conclusions. I get that you want to be critical, but your METHODOLOGY for measuring someone's quality of shot is flawed. You can have an NHL calibre type shot without yet having played an NHL game. This is TOTALLY possible. Look at the AHL players. Some of the snipers are on the cusp of making the NHL.
-
Oh yeah? I guess Boeser's shot is not NHL calibre then using your logic. Talking about the clip where Boeser had space and time to score on Price in his first season. Your methodology of gauging whether someone's NHL calibre or not is deeply flawed.
-
The moment I linked is exactly where his shot came in. And that's not a one timer. That was a snap shot. 1:18 something. Also, there's been English speaking commentators (can't remember which one), that say his shot is NHL calibre, FWIW.
-
You don't know that. Pod's shot is severely underrated. Just look at this. You're telling me that this shot is "nowhere near the calibre" of all those players? I'd say you're lying.
-
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks vs Ottawa Senators | April 22, 7 p.m. | SNP, RDS2
Dazzle replied to -SN-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Kind of feels like what Buffalo is going through... Except some Canucks fans will pretend that having a losing mentality is no big deal...