Saved_by_Jesus

There it is! That's what I was hoping for. Thanks Shaelon.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

No offence, but you are ruining this thread.

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.

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.

Shaelon, you're the guy who used to do the magic number threads, right? Are we lucky enough to get one this year?

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.

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.

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?

I always love these kinds of complaints. The Canucks are having great success and people are still saying we should fire the coach? And who are we going to replace him with - the flawless coach out there whom no one else has hired? Who exactly would that be? People forget that if you fire the coach, you have to replace him. Who do you have in mind that hasn't just been fired for underachieving?

Oilers fans answer Flames fans’ Tkachuk billboard in Edmonton by donating to Calgary charity https://www.bardown.com/oilers-fans-answer-flames-fans-tkachuk-billboard-in-edmonton-by-donating-to-calgary-charity-1.1427877 I am totally in support of Kassian on this - love what he did and loved his response after being suspended. Of course, Flames fans, being classless as usual, are putting a Tkachuk billboard in Edmonton. In response, Oilers fans are donating to a Calgary charity "in honour of Zack Kassian". I just donated. If you hate Tkachuk, and love what Kassian did, I encourage you to do the same. Let's drown out this billboard junk with something positive (and hilarious). The charity is "BrownBaggingIt".

This is the first time we have at least 50 points in our first 42 games since 2014-15. That year we had 51 points after 42 GP and ended up finishing 2nd in the division with 101 points. Since that season, after 42 games: 2015: 16-16-10 (-16 goal differential) 2016: 20-19-3 (-19 goal differential) 2017: 17-18-7 (-27 goal differential) 2018: 19-19-4 (-9 goal differential) 2019: 23-15-4 (+16 goal differential)

I hear you, and looking at the standings, I can see how you would say that. But then again, our goal differential is 24 goals better than both of those teams (we are +13, they are -11) - I actually think that says more about the sustainability than just the current records.

I always like the 40 game mark because you can usually separate the teams into tiers and usually those tiers remain stable for the rest of the season. The number of tiers changes from season to season (e.g. this year Detroit is in a tier of its own given how hopeless they are), but I assess the Canucks to be in the second tier in the "contender" category: ELITE BOS; PIT; WSH; COL; STL; CAR CONTENDERS NYI; TBL; TOR; VAN; PHI BUBBLE ARI; DAL; VGK; FLA; NSH; MTL; WPG SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THERE'S A CHANCE NYR; BUF; MIN BAD CBJ; CGY; EDM; CHI; ANA; OTT REALLY BAD LAK; SJS DISGUSTING NJD EXCEPTIONALLY DISGUSTING DET

First time in five years that we have at least 20 wins in the first 40 games. Also the first time we have a positive goal differential at the 40 game mark. After 40 games: 2015: 15-16-9 (-16 goal differential) 2016: 19-18-3 (-19 goal differential) 2017: 17-17-6 (-23 goal differential) 2018: 18-18-4 (-6 goal differential) 2019: 21-15-4 (+13 goal differential)

The last time the Canucks won a playoff series, my 5 year old son was a young calf grazing in a pasture. Ultimately the calf grew up, I ate him, and the protein from it became the sperm that created my boy.

Haven't done this in a while (because it was becoming depressing) but 24 games into the season there are still promising numbers when compared to where we were in previous seasons: After 24 games: 2016 (13 home games): 10-12-2 (-18 goal differential) 2017 (11 home games): 11-8-5 (-3 goal differential) 2018 (9 home games): 10-12-2 (-15 goal differential) 2019 (10 home games): 12-8-4 (+9 goal differential)

I'm pretty sure he is saying "my hair!" Which is not at all a surprising thing for "the Flow" to say.

Maybe not quite as impressive a comparison as it was earlier this season, but here is what the Canuck's record has looked like through 19 games. The goal differential is still hugely improved. After 19 games: 2016 (11 home games): 7-10-2 (-20 goal differential) 2017 (10 home games): 9-8-2 (-6 goal differential) 2018 (7 home games): 10-7-2 (-3 goal differential) 2019 (8 home games): 10-6-3 (+13 goal differential)

9-1-2 with Horvat as Captain After 14 games: 2016 (7 home games): 5-8-1 (-14 goal differential) 2017 (8 home games): 7-5-2 (+2 goal differential) 2018 (6 home games): 8-6-0 (-4 goal differential) 2019 (5 home games): 9-3-2 (+19 goal differential)

8-1-1 since Bo became Captain. Also, because it continues to be interesting, and it appears to be good luck, I am going to compare our pace to the last three years when we also had "hot starts": After 12 games: 2016 (7 home games): 4-7-1 (-14 goal differential) 2017 (6 home games): 6-4-2 (+1 goal differential) 2018 (4 home games): 6-6-0 (-9 goal differential) 2019 (5 home games): 8-3-1 (+17 goal differential)