TSN's Updated Playoff Predictions for Canadian Teams

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, baumerman77 said:

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?

 

23 minutes ago, baumerman77 said:

Exactly my point you assumed something falsely. I never said that I expected them to have a low PDO to start either.

Like I said in at least three or four ways - and I'm sure you understand by now - their performance thus far - despite injury and a league worst PDO - is better than projected - and you have the difficult contradiction to resolve - of expecting regression - and for them to simultaneously fall to near last in the standings.

 

Your convenient revision - ie. that you're expecting them to lose skill (via trade) at the trade deadline is hopelessly grasping at straw.

 

I think your position is actually remarkably similar to Cullen's, if not weaker.

 

"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. "

 

Maybe a little better than their not so impressive start.  Hmmm.   Doesn't explain his logic of reducing their playoff 'odds' from 25% to 20%

 

Likewise, your 'prediction' of regression to the mean doesn't bode well for your contrived projection of counter-analytical results - that they will simultaneously drop in the standings as their PDO increases.

 

Remarkable that you'll continue to try to sell this weak contradiction.

 

Do you have any explanation at all for this?   It's been beyond exhausted at this point - really - for the sake of sparing other posters here any further excruciating tedium - last time I'm going to ask.

[baumerman77]

17 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

Like I said in at least three or four ways - and I'm sure you understand by now - their performance thus far - despite injury and a league worst PDO - is better than projected - and you have the difficult contradiction to resolve - of expecting regression - and for them to simultaneously fall to near last in the standings.

 

Your convenient revision - ie. that you're expecting them to lose skill (via trade) at the trade deadline is hopelessly grasping at straw.

 

I think your position is actually remarkably similar to Cullen's, if not weaker.

 

"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. "

 

Maybe a little better than their not so impressive start.  Hmmm.   Doesn't explain his logic of reducing their playoff 'odds' from 25% to 20%

 

Likewise, your 'prediction' of regression to the mean doesn't bode well for your contrived projection of counter-analytical results - that they will simultaneously drop in the standings as their PDO increases.

 

Remarkable that you'll continue to try to sell this weak contradiction.

 

Do you have any explanation at all for this?   It's been beyond exhausted at this point - really - for the sake of sparing other posters here any further excruciating tedium - last time I'm going to ask.

It is comical how you fail to see the point that I am actually making. You don't understand my argument or position at all. 

 

I think you are understandably upset that I predicted the Canucks would finish near the bottom of the West and you predicted that they would win a playoff series this year. That's fine but don't try to twist my worlds or attribute some random article that I never said I supported to me. 

 

You've yet to answer my question and at this point I really don't care about your answer. I thought perhaps you had matured and could enter into a dialogue but, alas, I was mistaken. I will let you get in the last word as I know you like; I'm just letting you know I won't respond.

[Beary Sweet]

Our boys are actually over achieving and doing better than they have so far early in the young season. Still plenty more games to play. If we make the playoffs, it will a surprise and it's all because of Willie. If we bottom out like we did last season, just pray the lottery balls are on our side and luck go our way. It's make or break basically for this team. Mid way through the season we will really know what direction this team is going

[PrinceGeorgeGoon]

Its like fighting with your siblings, you can do it but noone else better or you will beat the living crap put of them. 

 

I want to be the only one negative about my team. Not the damn talking heads or sports writers.  Shut the heck up TSN. 

[WiDeN]

14 hours ago, baumerman77 said:

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?

How in any way could your prediction be more wrong?  

If you understand what PDO predicts, then you understand that their results should improve from here.  

Unless they stay this decimated by injury their results should improve.

 

They are only out of a playoff spot by 3 points thanks to a weak division.

 

I don't see what you are arguing over.  Oldnews, although combative, has the statistical interpretation bang on.

 

The bolded statement has already proven to be wrong, so that doesn't set the rest of your predictions up as something I'd bet on.

[RetroCanuck]

Haha after reading this thread I now understand why people say that the Canucks can't handle a full rebuild. We are too focused on us we don't look around. Look at the teams around us and the players they have and then look at us. We have the legendary Sedins but they aren't as effective as they used to be and then a lot of younger guys that haven't showed enough to be called the future core (excluding Horvat). Miller old and declining, Markstrom younger and not proven and then a good prospect in Demko. That same scenario goes up and down the lineup. This is a rebuild but not labeled thus. Canucks are going to suck the next few years but in the end we may have a good team again in 5years.

[CeeBee51]

1 hour ago, RetroCanuck said:

 Canucks are going to suck the next few years but in the end we may have a good team again in 5years.

Or sooner, the good lord willing.   

[baumerman77]

3 hours ago, WiDeN said:

How in any way could your prediction be more wrong?  

If you understand what PDO predicts, then you understand that their results should improve from here.  

Unless they stay this decimated by injury their results should improve.

 

They are only out of a playoff spot by 3 points thanks to a weak division.

 

I don't see what you are arguing over.  Oldnews, although combative, has the statistical interpretation bang on.

 

The bolded statement has already proven to be wrong, so that doesn't set the rest of your predictions up as something I'd bet on.

Oldnews is saying that I am arguing something that I am not. 

 

Yes, I believe the Canucks PDO will regress up. Yes that will likely lead to an increase in their points per game. However, I think there play (that is skill indicators independent from PDO swings) will decrease. As the season progresses I expect more injuries (more games = more opportunity for injuries). Moreover, I expect injuries to hurt us more than a good team having similar injuries because we lack depth (good teams can weather injuries better). Are top offensive players (Sedins) are older and even if they don't miss games from injuries I suspect nagging ailments will affect them in the latter half of the season. Lastly, because I think we will be out of a playoff position come trade deadline I expect some of our skill to get traded away then leading to a further decline at the end of the season.

 

In sum, yes I expect PDO to increase and regress as it should. Does that mean more points for the Canucks, perhaps but I think those increase of points will be offset by man games lost to injuries, decline in play by a long season, and skill traded away on deadline. Will that offset the points gained by PDO perhaps. We will have to wait until the end of the season. I expect the Canucks to finish bottom three in the west. Oldnews attacks whatever I say, but he's on my ignore list (and I hope he adds me to his) so I won't be able to see nor do I care about his rebuttal.

 

 Now if you think the Canucks will be healthier as the season progress (not just man games lost but also playing through injuries) I can see your point but I disagree. We have a tough schedule (as always due to geography), the Sedins are another year older yet still playing a lot against tough competition. But you could be completely right and I could end up being wrong. I just don't see how we can make a definitive statement about who is right and who is wrong right now as much as oldnews would like to say I'm wrong. 

[LaBamba]

On 2016-12-02 at 1:18 PM, oldnews said:

At least your projection is based on more honest 'analytics'

 

I think their odds would be more in the 50-60% range if reasonably healthy.

However, with their current roster, 25-30% is probably not that far off.

If they lose another player or two as opposed to regain guys not on the roster, they could be worse.

But those fairly pivotal factors don't seem to enter the TSN 'analytics'. 

And, of course, I'm just pulling arbitrary numbers out of my ass - like TSN is.

 

 

Stop using health as an excuse. We are playing better with injuries than we were totally healthy. If we don't have the depth to deal with injuries than we aren't a playoff team. How many teams aren't playoff teams if they stay totally healthy? Like 3?! If you exclude us. Every single year it's all about the injuries. 

[oldnews]

34 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

 

Stop using health as an excuse. We are playing better with injuries than we were totally healthy. If we don't have the depth to deal with injuries than we aren't a playoff team. How many teams aren't playoff teams if they stay totally healthy? Like 3?! If you exclude us. Every single year it's all about the injuries. 

Stop drinking warm Canadian LB.

It's not an "excuse" - it's reality.  With Tanev, Edler, Hansen - my hopes/expectations would be higher.  I don't expect the same level of execution out of Larsen, Skille.  Without those guys their youth and depth are stretched thinner and I don't really consider competing for a playoff spot quite as realistic.  I couldn't care less about 'excuses' - they're irrelevent.

 

There is a reasonable level of injuries a team can sustain - I'd argue that the top pairing and a top 6 is pushing this team  at this point - but at the same time, their depth is better than it's been in a long time, so the drop off probably isn't as dramatic as last year.  Add much more though (or a suspension or two) and I'm not sure they can sustain.  Get those guys back and I think they'll be right in the hunt.

[LaBamba]

25 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Stop drinking warm Canadian LB.

It's not an "excuse" - it's reality.  With Tanev, Edler, Hansen - my hopes/expectations would be higher.  Without them, their youth and depth are stretched thinner and I don't really consider competing for a playoff spot as realistic.  I couldn't care less about 'excuses' - they're irrelevent.

 

Have better record without them. If it wasn't for injuries we wouldn't have Stecher. Without him we would probably already have a new coach and still talking about not scoring. It's probably the worse example of injuries hurting a team in the history of organized sports. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, LaBamba said:

 

Have better record without them. If it wasn't for injuries we wouldn't have Stecher. Without him we would probably already have a new coach and still talking about not scoring. It's probably the worse example of injuries hurting a team in the history of organized sports. 

The irony that Stecher has a lot to do with WD still having his job.  

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, baumerman77 said:

Oldnews Oldnews  oldnews

"I'm ignoring oldnews".  

 

[numb3r 16]

Wrong topic

[oldnews]

15 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

 

Have better record without them. If it wasn't for injuries we wouldn't have Stecher. Without him we would probably already have a new coach and still talking about not scoring. It's probably the worse example of injuries hurting a team in the history of organized sports. 

Nice story friend.

Stecher leapfrogging Larsen was/is pretty much inevitable in hindsight.  The absence of those guys puts Larsen not Stecher in the lineup - and regardless I'm looking forward, not backwards. 

With Tanev or Edler I see them having a reasonable shot.

Did you watch the last game by any chance?   Big drop off from those guys  and Larsen.  Just the reality.

Yeah, great job by guys like Chaput, Megna, Stecher - but the fact remains that they're on the edges of their depth at this point.

[oldnews]

25 minutes ago, Alflives said:

The irony that Stecher has a lot to do with WD still having his job.  

'WD's just lucky that he's still here - cause of injuries!'

Do you guys hear yourselves?

 

 

 

 

[LaBamba]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Nice story friend.

Stecher leapfrogging Larsen was/is pretty much inevitable in hindsight.  The absence of those guys puts Larsen not Stecher in the lineup - and regardless I'm looking forward, not backwards. 

With Tanev or Edler I see them having a reasonable shot.

Did you watch the last game by any chance?   Big drop off from those guys  and Larsen.  Just the reality.

Yeah, great job by guys like Chaput, Megna, Stecher - but the fact remains that they're on the edges of their depth at this point.

 

I blane the ducks for that loss. If you look at the game overall the defence played fine. We gotta stop making excuses all the time. Excuses are a sign of weakness. 

[oldnews]

11 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

 

I blane the ducks for that loss. If you look at the game overall the defence played fine. We gotta stop making excuses all the time. Excuses are a sign of weakness. 

Wrong thread.

[WiDeN]

The Canucks are 6-3-1 in their last 10 games.  Injuries haven't hurt our record, in fact it has been improving.

After the All-Star break we should have most of our guys back, and as long as they can stay competitive in the meantime they have a good shot at making the playoffs.

 

I think it is arguable that playing meaningful games and getting a playoff series or two is equally good or better for the long term success of our team than a crappy finish to the season and the resulting high draft pick.

 

 

[Neko]

HAHAHA TSN, should be renamed to CSN: Comedy Sports Network.