Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Provost

Members
  • Posts

    11,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Provost

  1. Yep, I could see it shaking out like that eventually. I think we can find a cheap veteran winger in the offseason and start Podkolzin on the 3rd line and see how he does against lesser competition.
  2. My Mother is dead... but nice try. You are probably too young to consider that as a “thing”. The great thing about looking at the big picture is that I don’t get all worked up and hysterical based on one game winning or losing streaks like some of you folks seem to do. The Canucks probably weren’t going to make the playoffs for a long time, tonight doesn’t change that.
  3. They are just warm bodies to finish out the string, I don’t think we should expect much. The hope is that one of them shows something worth having around next year. Highmore may be a 4th liner for us. We should get playing the kids soon to get a look at them though. One thing that really has to be considered though is whether we should consider moving Miller to 3rd line centre permanently. It is easier to find wingers than centres and we could end up with three solid duos. Even as the 3rd line centre, Miller would still get high end minutes as he would play on both special teams. Hoglander-Petterson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-XX Motte-Miller-Podkolzin Roussel-Beagle-Lind Highmore It depends on who we can shake out of the trade market or value free agency signings... but having Miller as a possible centre is helpful and gives more possible options
  4. Ok... here is some more black magic witchcraft for you. I predict that when the Canucks miss the playoffs (which they most likely will), you are going to keep ranting about your incorrect English. Dazzle in May : “Just because Provost turned out to be right... it doesn’t mean he was really right! The word ‘right’ doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it does!”
  5. I think your record is on skip and stuck in the same groove as you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over. I edited your post above for clarity and if you are going to be wrong it should at least be entertaining.
  6. I agree they would likely want a non eligible guy back. I would do Woo but not Rathbone.
  7. I literally copy and pasted the definition explaining that several times, as well as providing various links where it came from. You are coming across as really sad and desperate by trying to ignore it repeatedly. Words have more than one definition. You are pretending that isn’t true and you are either wrong or lying. Here is an elementary English lesson for you. “Your posts are getting increasingly dumb.” Before you start jumping up and down and blathering about how I am wrong because you actually have the power of speech.... Your assignment is to go use Google and try to use context to figure out which definition I could possibly be using of the word “dumb” You not understanding the math doesn’t make it not true.
  8. Zadorov is an established 2nd pairing D with size who as a shut down guy is still doubling Virtanen’s offensive contribution this year. Virtanen maxed out as a 3rd line winger on an expensive contract for his production and not even 4th like level this year. Those things don’t have the same value, not even remotely. Adding Juolevi realistically doesn’t get it done compared with other offers that would be out there.
  9. I would add Juolevi to that... if we added Zadorov it probably pushes Juolevi off the protection list anyways (assuming Benning isn't planning on exposing Myers).
  10. Yep, and the point of the thread wasn't that we couldn't possibly make it or that we shouldn't cheer on our team. It was that once the odds get really low, the smart money is on sending out rentals before the deadline to get assets back. The edit was made at the point where the odds were so stacked against us, it would be a historical level comeback that had never happened in the league before. If we are sitting at that point, then it is smart to try to move pieces and move the realistic horizon for winning into further seasons. If you manage a team like that, then you come out ahead. Too many GMs get caught up in the faint hope races and end up behind. A more "insurance" type calculation is risks/rewards puts you ahead far more often than not. An example would be, take the 1 in 6 chance we had to make the playoffs when the OP was made (which is about what we have now). 1 time in 6 we will make the playoffs in that situation, 5 times in 6 we won't. It is math and "shouldn't" be controversial to say that. The calculation has to be whether the reward for the 1 in 6 time you make the playoffs is worth more than the opportunity to leverage assets 6 times that you are in that situation. So the reward in that 1 in 6 chance is making the playoffs once. That isn't winning the Cup, that is making the playoffs in a year that your team hasn't been very good and isn't really a contender, so you chance of winning the Cup in that year you manage to squeak in is pretty small... maybe a 1 in 30 chance (pretty accurate for a fringe playoff team compared with a top contender who might have a 1 in 8 chance). So you have a 1 in 6 chance of a 1 in 30 chance of winning the Cup, and 5 out of 6 times you won't even make the playoffs.. Not a big chance of a reward. If you instead decided to move rentals out in all 6 of those years and got a 2nd rounder half of the time and a 3rd rounder the other half of the time (this year for example we could have probably gotten both a 2nd and a 3rd if we had have moved Pearson and Sutter... some years you might not get either because you don't have a decent vet on an expiring contract to trade.. though you should be planning contracts to expire in a way that you maximize your chances). 2nd and 3rd rounders move a lot at trade deadlines historically. That is three 2nd rounders and three 3d rounders in 6 years weighed against a single 1 in 30 chance of winning the Cup. Lets look back at Bennings picks in those rounds 2nd rounders: Hoglander, Woo, Gadjovich, Lind, Lockwood, Demko, Tryamkin 3rd rounders: Jurmo, Madden, DiPietro, Brisebois, How does the team's future look with another 6 of those pieces? A full pipeline of cheap talent on ELCs. Weigh that against just a chance of squeaking into the playoffs every 6 opportunities you are in that position. I pick the math. Layer on the fact that sending out those rentals doesn't actually reduce your chance of making the playoffs that 1 in 6 times down to zero. That is harder to follow, but you probably only slightly reduce your chance to make the playoffs by making that move. Does moving out Sutter and bringing up Lind mean you suddenly can't make the playoffs? It might slightly decrease your chance overall a little... but also may increase your chances some years because the kid has fresh legs/energy and gives the team a different look (a team that has been losing badly in these scenarios to get down to such low playoff odds). If you want to be dramatic and say that switching Pearson or Sutter out for a kid halves your chance of making the playoff in that 1 in 6 year you would otherwise make it (no way it is that high).... then really you are only losing one playoff appearance every 12 years by moving out the veteran for an asset... more likely it isn't that dramatic a difference between the veteran and the kid, so you are looking at maybe losing 1 playoff round in 24 years compared with keeping them and trying to make a push. That may seem like a boring way to look at things, but I don't find it so at all. There are huge efficiencies to be had at the trade deadlines because GMs value picks really lightly then compared with how they value them at the actual draft. This is because many GMs are more worried about short term and their jobs to think about the long term success of the team, and they get caught up in the "if I can just make the playoffs". I am not talking about fringe teams with a 30-60% chance of making it, I am talking the teams with the faint hope chances of under 20% like we were/are. Accruing picks at the deadline and then using making the picks or using them as currency in trades at the draft is just smart.
  11. OK, I am tapping out because you can't be bothered to read the many times I literally linked the definition... or just choose to ignore it because it makes you look foolish. You don't have any actual valid argument or anything to back up your smarmy rantings, so you are choosing to purposefully lie about a grammatical issue to try to obscure the fact you are (yet again) wrong. I literally said "unlikely" in my OP and the title literally means "capable of being reached only with great difficulty"... you know.... unlikely... exactly like our chances of making the post-season.
  12. Probably not... do you think that increases our chances? Personally I am hoping for more hail Mary kinds of things coming out of the blue like all of Price, Allen, and Markstrom going out with injuries for the rest of the season.
  13. That may rank as one of the dumbest things said on this board and it has some stellar hardcore competition on that front. WAY ironic that the sentence starts out "if you actually understood odds/probability". If you run something a thousand times, it doesn't change the odds at all... that is literally how odds work. The more often you run it actually, makes it more likely that the results are exactly what the odds say (the law of large numbers) If you have a 1 in a million chance of winning the lottery... you have a 1 in a million chance each time that lottery draw happens, even if you have a 1,000 draws. For every increase in chance to win, the chance to lose increases at the exact same rate as the odds indicate. 1 in a million chance to win the lottery... if you run it 1,000 times you don't get a 1,000 in a million chance to win. That is honestly spectacularly dumb to suggest. You get 1,000 in 1 billion chance to win the lottery by running it 1,000 times. If you roll a dice 3 times, it isn't huge odds that you get a 6 three times in a row is pretty good. The odds of doing that 1,000 times in a row is REALLY bad. You REALLY don't understand probabilities or odds.... like I mean REALLY don't understand even the basic idea of the math.
  14. Not from the time I originally made the thread, which is what I said. You are quoting the edited odds from after the original post (as can be noted by the big word "EDIT:" in front of them). The odds got substantially worse AFTER I made the thread, and have then come back to somewhere approximating what they were when I made the original post... and that is at the most optimistic selection of the models. The apples to apples comparison was 15-17% on Money Puck when I made the original post... and that model currently shows us at 6.7%. Materially worse than when I made the post. The odds go up and down with each game us or our opponents play... but they haven't improved overall.
  15. ... but we aren’t really in a better spot, that is your error. I pointed that out quite a number times showing the current odds (as produced by professionals and not me) being the same or worse than they were when I originally posted. I am just more hopeful because randomness/special cause variation is more at play with fewer games remaining than it would have been with more games to play and more time for things to average out. You “feeling like” we are in a better spot doesn’t make it true. Also, odds/probability isn’t the same as statistics, so don’t conflate the two. The thread was about how difficult it would be to make up ground with so many teams ahead of us (due to only having divisional play). Fast forward two months, and we haven't made up any ground. That is objective, verifiable fact. It is almost like I understood the math that I presented and it actually worked out like I said it would likely work out... Yet, here you are trying to say how wrong I was, even though it turned out to be true.
  16. Adj. 1. out of reach - inaccessibly located or situated; "an unapproachable chalet high in the mountains"; "an unreachable canyon"; "the unreachable stars" unreachable, unreached, unapproachable inaccessible, unaccessible - capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all https://www.thefreedictionary.com/out+of+reach https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/out of reach https://www.definitions.net/definition/out+of+reach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reach
  17. ... more flailing and making strawman arguments. I did in fact address what "out of reach" means repeatedly while providing links, I did not misunderstand the term and used it correctly. Now you are coming up with some sort of modifier that regardless of what the actual definitions of words are that doesn't matter... it means something different when "visually understood"? What does that even mean? Most words have more than one single definition of what they mean, go look in any dictionary. "beyond reach" does not only mean literally beyond what you can reach with your hand. The context used is pretty much clear in that we can't actually reach the playoffs with our hands. "Accessible only with great difficulty, or not at all"... pretty darn clear definition you continue to ignore. How has Covid hurt us exactly in the odds? We are 3-1 since we got back. Our winning percentage is significantly better than our pre-Covid season average, it has actually increased our current odds to this point. It may hurt us down the road, but that only furthers my point, not yours. I never said that we were mathematically eliminated, just that it was practically unlikely for us to make the playoffs. Depending on the major statistical models, we have anywhere from a 1 in 16 all the way up to a 1 in 5 chance to make the playoffs. Even the most optimistic of those means it is "unlikely" that we make the playoffs just like I said...or "only with great difficulty" as the title phrase is defined. unlikely adjective UK /ʌnˈlaɪ.kli/ US /ʌnˈlaɪ.kli/ unlikely adjective (NOT PROBABLE)
  18. 1. You based your entire argument on my using a phrase incorrectly, and were quite smarmy about it. I provided a bunch of links showing I actually used the phrase correctly. So you are simply wrong. Objectively wrong. 2. My math is not particularly weak. Even if you believe that to be the case, I didn't actually come up with the math I used in the thread... I provided a bunch of links to various models by statisticians working directly in the sport that also showed the odds. It wasn't my math, it was theirs... 3. My OP has literally been borne out to be correct by history and the intervening time since the OP. Our playoff odds continue to be really low (haven't moved materially since the OP two months ago) even with a whole bunch of things going right for us (things that I outlined in the OP that needed to go right for us to have any chance.) 4. You keep ignoring each of these posts where you get shown to be wrong and then just move onto some other random argument, entirely unsupported by fact. I know you want to continue to believe it is coincidence that I turned out to be right, but you not understanding the math and what odds mean, doesn't make it wrong in reality. That is the great thing about facts... they don't care about your opinion.
  19. Out of Reach definition: inaccessibly located “capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all”. ... Pretty much exactly how I explained it in my OP, "we are practically unlikely, even if we are not mathematically eliminated from playoff contention." You are welcome... I have a hard time believing that you have chosen to take one single (self-serving) definition of one phrase from the title to base an entire argument on while ignoring the other existing definitions and the dozens of detailed posts explaining what was meant by it (and is correct usage as the native English speaker I am). I used a phrase in the title, explained exactly how I defined the phrase in the OP... and my definition is supported by its proper usage in dictionaries. ... and you are still flailing around trying to change the goalposts and distract from your many badly informed posts in the thread. Adj. 1. out of reach - inaccessibly located or situated; "an unapproachable chalet high in the mountains"; "an unreachable canyon"; "the unreachable stars" unreachable, unreached, unapproachable inaccessible, unaccessible - capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all https://www.thefreedictionary.com/out+of+reach https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/out of reach https://www.definitions.net/definition/out+of+reach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reach
  20. Ahh... so your self righteous position is that you are one of those people that only read an article's title so you shouldn't be expected to actually inform yourself by clicking on the link because that is too much work? Yet you feel that commenting out of a self-professed position of ignorance is totally valid. That is silly in itself as a position, but even more ludicrous when you have actually responded to the reams of posts within the thread which go into painstaking explanatory detail...so presumably you read them and decided to ignore them anyways? Some other posters requested that I change the title from the original "likely out of reach" to "now out of reach", they odds were really low so I did. If we, at some point, become more likely to make the playoffs again, I will edit it again. The MoneyPuck odds went down by 10% from the time of the OP. Our odds materially increasing hasn't happened. As I noted, I artificially inflated our chances by taking the most optimistic model... because I am a fan and want to be hopeful. The odds are still way less than that using an average of the different models As of today: Moneypuck: 6.7% Sportsclub Stats: 11.5% Hockey Reference: 20.2% Playoff Status: 17% Power Rankings: 6.2%
  21. Umm go back to my posts and actually read them... I said we had a low chance of making the playoffs, we had a low chance of making the playoffs (you know... actual math and reality).... pretty much everything since then has gone really well for us (both Calgary AND Montreal falling badly of the pace AND we had a big winning streak, AND Ottawa has been strategically winning games against our opponents and stealing points from them).... AND WE STILL ONLY HAVE A REMOTE CHANCE OF MAKING THE PLAYOFFS of only slightly more than when I made the thread. The most optimistic model shows a 20% chance, and most of them are still in the low teens at best. People (like Dazzle and a couple others) having an emotional and irrational response to actual math and objective reality are just being ridiculous. It is also amusing how they get really quiet on this thread when we lose one game and things look worse... then get all puffy and mouthy when we win one game and feel some hope again. How irrational and emotional is that for a response when one win or one loss doesn’t change our fortunes materially at all. The entire season has literally illustrated the exact point of the thread, showing that I was correct... and yet people are still being butt hurt about it. Almost everything going right for us has barely moved the needle on our odds LITERALLY BECAUSE of what I outlined in my OP about all the teams ahead of us having guaranteed points between them. If you have under a 20% chance of something... don't bet on it happening. If you bet on it, you are going to lose at least 4 out of 5 times. Almost the entire season is gone and we have moved from a 1 in 6 chance to a 1 in 5 chance. Even that is giving a huge benefit of the doubt because the original Moneypuck model I quoted that HAD us at 15-16% when I started the thread currently has is at 6.7% chance. A number of the other models have also dropped substantially in that time. Talk about “premature”.... some folks taking a weird victory lap about us making the playoffs when our odds haven’t really changed at all and are still a huge long shot. Heck, if you go back through the posts, I even predicted that it would be very "Canucks like" for us to make a late push that would be enough to just miss the playoffs but also make our draft position much worse. We are trending exactly towards that right now.
  22. Zadorov is better, younger, and cheaper than Myers.... it would be nuts to not make moves that would result swapping out Myers for Zadorov. He is a legit #3D and still young enough that he could keep getting better. He was coming off arm surgery before this season so was probably a little behind with his preparation. Even at his worst he was a solid top 4 guy. You can protect Schmidt, Zadorov, and either Juolevi or Myers. If Juolevi gets picked up, then you trade one of Schmidt or Myers after expansion to teams needing to replace top 4D they lost. Our D looks pretty solid with: Hughes-Hamonic Zadorov-Schmidt Edler-Tryamkin Juolevi-Bowie or: Hughes-Hamonic Zadorov-Tryamkin Edler-Myers Juolevi-Bowie
  23. The KHL rinks got smaller a few years ago and moved away from the International size ones. He has been playing on a Finnish sized rink which probably contributed to a player of his size having more impact. He always had fine mobility, and doesn't have to be as quick when the ice is smaller, especially with his reach.
  24. That isn't what you said... you are making a statement that he doesn't play special teams, when he has been doing exactly that for three years. He can only play in the league he is in.... and he has been doing that really well. We don't have information on how he would be used or how effective he would be in a return to the NHL, so saying that he isn't a top 4D because he doesn't play special teams is just making stuff up. If he did come back to the NHL, I can't imagine that a coach wouldn't be trying him on the PK as he is really experienced at it.
×
×
  • Create New...