TSN's Updated Playoff Predictions for Canadian Teams

[CanadianRugby]

5 hours ago, oldnews said:

"96.7 PDO – The Canucks have the lowest combined shooting percentage and save percentage during 5-on-5 play, with the shooting percentage (6.0 per cent) playing a bigger part. Even if they remain worst, the percentages are likely to get better as the season progresses, so the Canucks may be a little better than their not-so-impressive start. "

 

I'm curious baumermann - how does this translate into a reduction from 25% odds to 20% playoff odds, particularly when their "not-so-impressive start" has them 3 pts from a playoff spot?

 

Would you corroborate that "analysis"?

 

Probably because at the start of the season it wasn't predicted that Eriksson would have such a terrible start and our top pairing being hurt. 

 

As to everyone that says that TSN are IDIOTS for claiming the Canucks are so bad.  Why not put some $$$ on Vancouver making the playoffs, I'm sure Vegas is giving amazing odds. 

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, CanadianRugby said:

Probably because at the start of the season it wasn't predicted that Eriksson would have such a terrible start and our top pairing being hurt. 

 

As to everyone that says that TSN are IDIOTS for claiming the Canucks are so bad.  Why not put some $$$ on Vancouver making the playoffs, I'm sure Vegas is giving amazing odds. 

The team is exceeding the projections of a 65 pt lottery team - and that is despite Eriksson's slow start (it wasn't predicted - and if it were the projections would have been even lower).   

Losing Tanev, Edler, Hansen, Rodin, Dorsett - one would think that would push them even lower - less than 65 pts team.

 

So, the evident point here is that the team is far better than that - even through injuries and the bad fortune of a horrible PDO thus far.   

 

Lottery team projections were what was expected by the "experts" of a heathy Canucks team - and a luckier Canucks team.

 

Cullen is forced to admit that the team  bound to improve - one that is 3pts out of the wildcard spot.

 

There's really no way to finesse around that fundamental contradiction that is in the faces of these "experts" - the Canucks are much better than they expected.

 

I'd love to have heard what their projections would have been had they known that Tanev, Hansen etc would not be healthy, and guys like Erikson (along with a number of other players) snakebitten to start the season.

 

 

Vegas is giving great odds on a Stanley Cup.  Betting on playoffs - where do you that?

 

 

[baumerman77]

5 hours ago, oldnews said:

"96.7 PDO – The Canucks have the lowest combined shooting percentage and save percentage during 5-on-5 play, with the shooting percentage (6.0 per cent) playing a bigger part. Even if they remain worst, the percentages are likely to get better as the season progresses, so the Canucks may be a little better than their not-so-impressive start. "

 

I'm curious baumermann - how does this translate into a reduction from 25% odds to 20% playoff odds, particularly when their "not-so-impressive start" has them 3 pts from a playoff spot?

 

Would you corroborate that "analysis"?

 

Didn't you say yesterday that you only stock me when I say something about Benning? Alas, you can't get enough of me! I'll take it as a compliment. 

 

I love how you flip-flopped on your position re-PDO when the shoe is on the other foot. That gave me a good belly laugh; you're priceless, never change.

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

Didn't you say yesterday that you only stock me when I say something about Benning? Alas, you can't get enough of me! I'll take it as a compliment. 

 

I love how you flip-flopped on your position re-PDO when the shoe is on the other foot. That gave me a good belly laugh; you're priceless, never change.

That's what I thought.

 

1) Unable to answer the question.

2) Doesn't understand / misrepressents my position on PDO

3) sidesteps the fact your own claim was that the Canucks could only be competitive if they have an exceptionally high PDO.  Fundamentally contradicted by actual results.

 

This is precisely why I can't take your content seriously.

Fail on each count.

Is that the best you can do?

 

Do you corroborate Cullen's analysis?

[CanadianRugby]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

The team is exceeding the projections of a 65 pt lottery team - and that is despite Eriksson's slow start (it wasn't predicted - and if it were the projections would have been even lower).   

Losing Tanev, Edler, Hansen, Rodin, Dorsett - one would think that would push them even lower - less than 65 pts team.

 

So, the evident point here is that the team is far better than that - even through injuries and the bad fortune of a horrible PDO thus far.   

 

Lottery team projections were what was expected by the "experts" of a heathy Canucks team - and a luckier Canucks team.

 

Cullen is forced to admit that the team  bound to improve - one that is 3pts out of the wildcard spot.

 

There's really no way to finesse around that fundamental contradiction that is in the faces of these "experts" - the Canucks are much better than they expected.

 

I'd love to have heard what their projections would have been had they known that Tanev, Hansen etc would not be healthy, and guys like Erikson (along with a number of other players) snakebitten to start the season.

 

 

Vegas is giving great odds on a Stanley Cup.  Betting on playoffs - where do you that?

Wasn't there only 1 prediction that put us at 65 points?  The rest of the predictions were spot on (so far), that the Canucks would suck. 

 

As far as... "that fundamental contradiction that is in the faces of these "experts" - the Canucks are much better than they expected"

Uh... much better than expected?  Vancouver is sitting 3rd last in the NHL.  3rd last is much better than expected? 

 

And if you want to win/lose some money on the Canucks...  http://www.oddsshark.com/nhl/nhl-betting-lines-odds-make-playoffs

[CanadianRugby]

9 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

Didn't you say yesterday that you only stock me when I say something about Benning? Alas, you can't get enough of me! I'll take it as a compliment. 

 

I love how you flip-flopped on your position re-PDO when the shoe is on the other foot. That gave me a good belly laugh; you're priceless, never change.

The guy has 30,000 posts.  I'm pretty sure he lives on CDC, he replies to all my posts too. 

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, CanadianRugby said:

Wasn't there only 1 prediction that put us at 65 points?  The rest of the predictions were spot on (so far), that the Canucks would suck. 

 

Nice try. 

[baumerman77]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

That's what I thought.

 

1) Unable to answer the question.

2) Doesn't understand / misrepressents my position on PDO

3) sidesteps the fact your own claim was that the Canucks could only be competitive if they have an exceptionally high PDO.  Fundamentally contradicted by actual results.

 

This is precisely why I can't take your content seriously.

Fail on each count.

Is that the best you can do?

 

Do you corroborate Cullen's analysis?

Please tell me your position regarding PDO.

 

And no, I think that whole article was garbage and most of Cullen's articles are garbage. 

[baumerman77]

22 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

The guy has 30,000 posts.  I'm pretty sure he lives on CDC, he replies to all my posts too. 

That's crazy. That's averaging over 14 per day for over 5 and half years.

[oldnews]

Just now, baumerman77 said:

Please tell me your position regarding PDO.

 

And no, I think that whole article was garbage and most of Cullen's articles are garbage. 

I criticize you when you do your little thing in relation to Benning.

 

This wasn't a criticism - it was a simple question - which you couldn't answer / sidestepped because the evidence embarrasses your claims regarding this team.

 

You should know what my position on PDO was - you made a weak claim that I flip flopped on it.  No context, no substantiation of course.

 

Posted June 28 (edited) · Report post

1. Canucks miss the playoffs and finish near the bottom of the West(unless they have a very high PDO)

 

Edited August 31 by baumerman77

 

The Canucks should be absolutely bottoming out right now if we took your claim seriously.

 

The team in fact has a very low PDO - and are 3pts out of a Wildcard.  My 'position' was and is that the team did not need a "very high PDO" to be competitive.

 

In fact, if the team had a very high PDO right now, they'd be well into a playoff position.

 

Your claim - like Cullen's - was and is equally garbage.  

[oldnews]

38 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Wasn't there only 1 prediction that put us at 65 points?  The rest of the predictions were spot on (so far), that the Canucks would suck. 

 

As far as... "that fundamental contradiction that is in the faces of these "experts" - the Canucks are much better than they expected"

Uh... much better than expected?  Vancouver is sitting 3rd last in the NHL.  3rd last is much better than expected? 

 

And if you want to win/lose some money on the Canucks...  http://www.oddsshark.com/nhl/nhl-betting-lines-odds-make-playoffs

 

Will the Toronto Maple LEafs Make the Playoffs

• Yes +250
• No -325

Will the Vancouver Canucks Make the Playoffs

• Yes +200
• No -260

 

 

[baumerman77]

20 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I criticize you when you do your little thing in relation to Benning.

 

This wasn't a criticism - it was a simple question - which you couldn't answer / sidestepped because the evidence embarrasses your claims regarding this team.

 

You should know what my position on PDO was - you made a weak claim that I flip flopped on it.  No context, no substantiation of course.

 

Posted June 28 (edited) · Report post

1. Canucks miss the playoffs and finish near the bottom of the West(unless they have a very high PDO)

 

Edited August 31 by baumerman77

 

The Canucks should be absolutely bottoming out right now if we took your claim seriously.

 

The team in fact has a very low PDO - and are 3pts out of a Wildcard.  My 'position' was and is that the team did not need a "very high PDO" to be competitive.

 

In fact, if the team had a very high PDO right now, they'd be well into a playoff position.

 

Your claim - like Cullen's - was and is equally garbage.  

So are you saying that PDO is random? And the Canucks are on the short end of the stick right now?

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

So are you saying that PDO is random? And the Canucks are on the short end of the stick right now?

So you're admitting you were wrong?

[baumerman77]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

So you're admitting you were wrong?

How was I wrong? I said the Canucks would only make playoffs if they finished with a very high PDO. I guess we will have to wait until the end of the season for that. 

 

I think you know your wrong about PDO and don't want to admit it now. I'll ask one last time. Do you think the Canucks have been unlucky with PDO so far?

[Jonald]

20% ? Pffff , thats all we need

[combover]

Meh. The description of the team is accurate the chance of them making the playoffs is slim to none. They struggle to score nightly they give up to many goals and top notch chances against the system of chase and dump is horrendous to watch and can't be much fun to play.the deployment of the very few skilled guys on the roster is bizarre at the best of times. 

 

funny how offended so many get on here when a negative article that's not far of the truth is written.

Preseason  prediction - this teams going to be horrible,  huh they were right.

 

 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, baumerman77 said:

How was I wrong? I said the Canucks would only make playoffs if they finished with a very high PDO. I guess we will have to wait until the end of the season for that. 

 

I think you know your wrong about PDO and don't want to admit it now. I'll ask one last time. Do you think the Canucks have been unlucky with PDO so far?

I wouldn't expect the Canucks PDO to "regress to the mean" (which I do) if I thought they'd been "lucky."

 

2016 .973

2015 .991

2014 1.006

 

I'll ask you one last time, in another simple form:

 

Do you expect regression to the mean where the Canucks PDO is concerned?

 

We both know you expect the team to be a lottery pick team - the unintentional stealth tank, whether or not they were healthy, because Benning dudn't know how behind the curve he, the Gudbransons, and Sutters he keeps acquiring are. 

You simply didn't expect the team to suppress shots as effectively as they have.

 

Actually, weren't you the guy that attempted to maintain that Gudbranson is a better offensive blueliner than he is a defensive blueliner?

 

Do I think they were a better team last year?  No, I don't.

 

Which is why they're on pace to finish with more points than last year despite a much worse PDO.  This is the part you have absolutely no answer to.

 

Their recent regression, from .971 to .973 has coincided with a winning record - what does that imply about their future results?

 

So which way would you like to have it  baumermann - finish at the bottom of the West, or regression to the mean?

[baumerman77]

20 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I wouldn't expect the Canucks PDO to "regress to the mean" (which I do) if I thought they'd been "lucky."

 

2016 .973

2015 .991

2014 1.006

 

I'll ask you one last time, in another simple form:

 

Do you expect regression to the mean where the Canucks PDO is concerned?

 

We both know you expect the team to be a lottery pick team - the unintentional stealth tank, whether or not they were healthy, because Benning dudn't know how behind the curve he, the Gudbransons, and Sutters he keeps acquiring are. 

You simply didn't expect the team to suppress shots as effectively as they have.

 

Actually, weren't you the guy that attempted to maintain that Gudbranson is a better offensive blueliner than he is a defensive blueliner?

 

Do I think they were a better team last year?  No, I don't.

 

Which is why they're on pace to finish with more points than last year despite a much worse PDO.  This is the part you have absolutely no answer to.

 

Their recent regression, from .971 to .973 has coincided with a winning record - what does that imply about their future results?

 

So which way would you like to have it  baumermann - finish at the bottom of the West, or regression to the mean?

You know how you think I don't understand your position? Well the same is true the other way around, yet I haven't heard you try to understand my position by seeking clarification. 

 

The Canucks are actually playing right about where I expected them to be. Right now they are about the 5-6th worst in the west. That's what I expected from them at the 1/3 mark. See the part I believe you are failing to understand is that I didn't/ don't think the Canucks will be bottom 3 all year rather I think that is where they will end (which I stated). I expected them to do best in the first 1/3 of the season (because they would be the healthiest) and do worst in the last 1/3 because injuries and by losing players on trade deadline (by 'best' I mean skill-wise not necessarily points-wise). Thus, I expect their "performance" to decrease off-setting their regressing PDO (which I think their expected PDO going into the season to be around 99-99.5). Thus, I expect them to finish the season bottom 3 in the west unless they have a total reversal of fortune and finish with a very high PDO.

 

Now that I have answered your question will you answer mine? Why did you say that PDO had nothing to do with randomness before the season started? You mocked me when I said they would have to have a fortunate PDO to make playoffs now when they have a very unfortunate PDO you are using it as evidence that their points don't reflect their true performance because of the randomness of PDO. So which one is it?

[oldnews]

34 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

That's what I expected from them at the 1/3 mark. See the part I believe you are failing to understand is that I didn't/ don't think the Canucks will be bottom 3 all year rather I think that is where they will end (which I stated). I expected them to do best in the first 1/3 of the season (because they would be the healthiest) and do worst in the last 1/3.

That's an interesting story - I'd like to see where you told that story beforehand.

 

But regardless, what I find very "interesting" is that you expected both their best performance in the first 1/3, and a low PDO that would later regress.  That part is quite curious, borderline fascinating. 

 

I think you're outsmarting yourself again, even in hindsight.   High PDO generally equates with better results - and yet here you're claiming you were expecting their better results early in the season, and for their PDO to regress to the mean.   That's how to ride both sides of a contradiction.  Well done. 

 

Regression in their PDO - and progressively worse performance, to fall to bottom 3 by the end of the year. That's quite a counterintuitive claim.  It'll be interesting to track your "prediction" now that you're flushing it out/down a bit more.

Tell me - what made you predict a low PDO over the first 1/3 (simultaneous to their best results).

 

[baumerman77]

18 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's an interesting story - I'd like to see where you told that story beforehand.

 

But regardless, what I find very "interesting" is that you expected both their best performance in the first 1/3, and a low PDO that would later regress.  That part is quite curious, borderline fascinating. 

 

I think you're outsmarting yourself again, even in hindsight.   High PDO generally equates with better results - and yet here you're claiming you were expecting their better results early in the season, and for their PDO to regress to the mean.   That's how to ride both sides of a contradiction.  Well done. 

 

Regression in their PDO - and progressively worse performance, to fall to bottom 3 by the end of the year. That's quite a counterintuitive claim.  It'll be interesting to track your "prediction" now that you're flushing it out/down a bit more.

Tell me - what made you predict a low PDO over the first 1/3 (simultaneous to their best results).

 

Exactly my point you assumed something falsely. I never said that I expected them to have a low PDO to start either. So I guess you are refusing to answer my question?