(Official) 2019-2020 NHL Magic Number Thread

[Arrow 1983]

For Nashville it is the same thing. Slightly different,

 

They have 3 games in hand so to make the Margin zero you would award them with 3 of the 6 possible points. Which is doable.

 

But this is where it gets interesting

 

Nashville has a greater pt % then Winnipeg already at .541 so lets see what the math says

 

.541*164=88.72 rounded up 89pts plus 3 equals 92pts. 

 

Now how many pts does it take to clinch

 

still 90 but now the tie breakers have to be used. between Ari and Vegas

 

42 minutes ago, Shaelon said:

Pt% is the exact same as point pace

 

nsh has a .540 pt%=88 pts rounded

 

same logic applies. If you’re 1-8 already, then as long as pt% >.540 at year end, you make the playoffs, aka 89 pts

 

nsh needs to be above .548% to make the playoffs and beat arizona out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

 

28 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

For Nashville it is the same thing. Slightly different,

 

They have 3 games in hand so to make the Margin zero you would award them with 3 of the 6 possible points. Which is doable.

 

But this is where it gets interesting

 

Nashville has a greater pt % then Winnipeg already at .541 so lets see what the math says

 

.541*164=88.72 rounded up 89pts plus 3 equals 92pts. 

 

Now how many pts does it take to clinch

 

still 90 but now the tie breakers have to be used. between Ari and Vegas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

before someone catches my mistake the real way to take the 3 games in hand for Nashville to a margin of error of zero, is to take the possible pts (6) and divide them by the pt %.

 

6*.541=3.246 rounded down is 3pts still

 

sorry I cheated a little to simplify the equation  

Edited January 30, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[Saved_by_Jesus]

26 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

 

before someone catches my mistake the real way to take the 3 games in hand for Nashville to a margin of error of zero, is to take the possible pts (6) and divide them by the pt %.

 

6*.541=3.246 rounded down is 3pts still

 

sorry I cheated a little to simplify the equation  

No offence, but you are ruining this thread.

[Arrow 1983]

4 minutes ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

No offence, but you are ruining this thread.

I disagree it was ruined when he said 88 pts to clinch a playoff spot

 

But for curiosity how am I ruining it

 

in my mind if someone is going to do this thread at least get the math right after all it is no more then grade 7 math

 

add subtract divide and multiple 

 

I'm just showing him how to do it

Edited January 30, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[cleowin]

7 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I disagree it was ruined when he said 88 pts to clinch a playoff spot

 

But for curiosity how am I ruining it

 

in my mind if someone is going to do this thread at least get the math right after all it is no more then grade 7 math

 

add subtract divide and multiple 

 

I'm just showing him how to do it

Look at the front post, it had been corrected already. Lets keep the topic moving

[Saved_by_Jesus]

7 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I disagree it was ruined when he said 88 pts to clinch a playoff spot

 

But for curiosity how am I ruining it

 

in my mind if someone is going to do this thread at least get the math right after all it is no more then grade 7 math

 

add subtract divide and multiple 

 

I'm just showing him how to do it

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.

[Tre Mac]

Nerds

 

 

Spoiler

 

[Saved_by_Jesus]

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).

[Viper007]

12 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I disagree it was ruined when he said 88 pts to clinch a playoff spot

 

But for curiosity how am I ruining it

 

in my mind if someone is going to do this thread at least get the math right after all it is no more then grade 7 math

 

add subtract divide and multiple 

 

I'm just showing him how to do it

This isn't the first year that @Shaelonhas been doing this.  I trust him more than you. 

Mods can we have this topic pinned please. 

Thanks for your work Shaelon.

[cleowin]

35 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

This isn't the first year that @Shaelonhas been doing this.  I trust him more than you. 

Mods can we have this topic pinned please. 

Thanks for your work Shaelon.

And for all of those who doubt 88-89 pts is the cut off, i understand that, it will probably rise, but not higher than 91-92 pts. The east will be 97-99 pts.

[Goal:thecup]

I don't understand it.

I may be too old, but I used to be very good at math and used it throughout my career.

 

As I recall, this 'magic number' was a late season exercize.

As we approached the playoffs, it was kinda like, "if we win the next 2 and the Flames lose 1 of their next 2, we're in".

So the magic number was (maybe) 3?

 

But this thing you do every year cannot imo be of any meaning until we are much closer to the end of the regular season.

Look at StL last year; what would you have said was their magic number last January?

 

Surely there are still too many variables to come up with a reasonable number, are there not?

And then, if you are entering qualifiers, like # of home games vs # of away games, or easy teams vs more difficult, doesn't that take it out of the realm of mathematics and into a subjective prognostication?

 

And if  using a subjective analysis, rather than a strict mathematical one, wouldn't you at least have to give the expected deviation from your 'magic number'?

Last, we used to have to 'show our work' which does not seem to be very eloquently presented herein.

 

I am confused.

Please help me understand.

I would like to join others in commending your work.

 

 

[Viper007]

5 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

I don't understand it.

I may be too old, but I used to be very good at math and used it throughout my career.

 

As I recall, this 'magic number' was a late season exercize.

As we approached the playoffs, it was kinda like, "if we win the next 2 and the Flames lose 1 of their next 2, we're in".

So the magic number was (maybe) 3?

 

But this thing you do every year cannot imo be of any meaning until we are much closer to the end of the regular season.

Look at StL last year; what would you have said was their magic number last January?

 

Surely there are still too many variables to come up with a reasonable number, are there not?

And then, if you are entering qualifiers, like # of home games vs # of away games, or easy teams vs more difficult, doesn't that take it out of the realm of mathematics and into a subjective prognostication?

 

And if  using a subjective analysis, rather than a strict mathematical one, wouldn't you at least have to give the expected deviation from your 'magic number'?

Last, we used to have to 'show our work' which does not seem to be very eloquently presented herein.

 

I am confused.

Please help me understand.

I would like to join others in commending your work.

 

 

I think the magic number in this case is the wins needed to make the playoffs for the Canucks.

[Gaudette Celly]

On 1/29/2020 at 12:21 PM, Provost said:

The Moneypuck site does a lot of stuff in the background like comparing how competitively tough schedules are for the teams going forward.  It is easy to have a slightly higher chance of winning the division when having a slightly lower winning %.  Even something as simple as looking at home and away records, it can mean a couple more or less expected wins if you have more or less road games remaining.

 

here is a little text on their model.

http://moneypuck.com/about.htm

They claim 83.5% chance of being in the playoffs, yet have the Canucks at 21st in their power rankings, below even the Sabres?  They claim "each factor is weighted to give more recent games more importance", yet the Canucks have won 13 of their last 16 games, probably better than any other team in the league.  lol, the Habs are 11th and LA Kings 7th!

[Saved_by_Jesus]

2 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

I don't understand it.

I may be too old, but I used to be very good at math and used it throughout my career.

 

As I recall, this 'magic number' was a late season exercize.

As we approached the playoffs, it was kinda like, "if we win the next 2 and the Flames lose 1 of their next 2, we're in".

So the magic number was (maybe) 3?

 

But this thing you do every year cannot imo be of any meaning until we are much closer to the end of the regular season.

Look at StL last year; what would you have said was their magic number last January?

 

Surely there are still too many variables to come up with a reasonable number, are there not?

And then, if you are entering qualifiers, like # of home games vs # of away games, or easy teams vs more difficult, doesn't that take it out of the realm of mathematics and into a subjective prognostication?

 

And if  using a subjective analysis, rather than a strict mathematical one, wouldn't you at least have to give the expected deviation from your 'magic number'?

Last, we used to have to 'show our work' which does not seem to be very eloquently presented herein.

 

I am confused.

Please help me understand.

I would like to join others in commending your work.

 

 

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.

[Arrow 1983]

3 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

I don't understand it.

I may be too old, but I used to be very good at math and used it throughout my career.

 

As I recall, this 'magic number' was a late season exercize.

As we approached the playoffs, it was kinda like, "if we win the next 2 and the Flames lose 1 of their next 2, we're in".

So the magic number was (maybe) 3?

 

But this thing you do every year cannot imo be of any meaning until we are much closer to the end of the regular season.

Look at StL last year; what would you have said was their magic number last January?

 

Surely there are still too many variables to come up with a reasonable number, are there not?

And then, if you are entering qualifiers, like # of home games vs # of away games, or easy teams vs more difficult, doesn't that take it out of the realm of mathematics and into a subjective prognostication?

 

And if  using a subjective analysis, rather than a strict mathematical one, wouldn't you at least have to give the expected deviation from your 'magic number'?

Last, we used to have to 'show our work' which does not seem to be very eloquently presented herein.

 

I am confused.

Please help me understand.

I would like to join others in commending your work.

 

 

Your completely correct the more games remaining there is the less likely these numbers are correct, this can't be done start at game 10,20 or 30 and the truth is it only really starts mattering when the first team cliches the playoff. When it is statistically impossible for the first team to be kicked out is when you actually have a hard number. Otherwise, this is just playing with odds.

Many things can still destort these numbers. winning streaks and losing streaks really distort these numbers. If the Canucks lose 5,6,7 in a row they could easily be 6-8pts out of a playoff spot. If they win 5,6,7 games in a row people could say they are absolutely going to make the playoffs only then to lose 10 games and miss by 2 or 3 spots.

It's hockey which means no guarantees,

The best teams can lose and the worst teams can win.

 

 

[Saved_by_Jesus]

1 hour ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Your completely correct the more games remaining there is the less likely these numbers are correct, this can't be done start at game 10,20 or 30 and the truth is it only really starts mattering when the first team cliches the playoff. When it is statistically impossible for the first team to be kicked out is when you actually have a hard number. Otherwise, this is just playing with odds.

Many things can still destort these numbers. winning streaks and losing streaks really distort these numbers. If the Canucks lose 5,6,7 in a row they could easily be 6-8pts out of a playoff spot. If they win 5,6,7 games in a row people could say they are absolutely going to make the playoffs only then to lose 10 games and miss by 2 or 3 spots.

It's hockey which means no guarantees,

The best teams can lose and the worst teams can win.

 

 

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.

[Arrow 1983]

17 minutes ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

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.

I really don't think I quoted you, nope just looked back it wasn't you I quoted when I wrote that

 

I was just responding to some ones post and answering his question, yup not your question I just double checked

 

It wasn't your question ask the guy I answered if my post was helpful or not he can determine if what I posted was relevant  to his question or not

 

clearly you didn't asked the question I just triple checked it wasn't you I quoted nor the answer I posted posed to you so the answer wouldn't be relevant to you

 

Get the not so subtle hint here I couldn't give a rats arse what you think this is posted to you

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[cleowin]

As of the end of the nsh game, the west playoff bar for the canucks has increased to 91 pts.

 

if arizona loses in regulation, it’ll drop back to 89, and if they get a single point, or win, itll stay at 91.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Shaelon

[Arrow 1983]

23 minutes ago, Saved_by_Jesus said:

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.

you posting to me and me posting back to you on this topic is the Actual spam of this thread therefor, in respect of the OP I will stop posting to you if it isn't relevant to the post.

 

Also know that I don't think you are the relevant police and based on the post you have sent me in this Thread you are not the standard or gauge for relevance 

 

And you only need to look in a mirror to see who has hijacked this thread with useless post as you put it.

 

Sorry to the OP this post is spam

 

 

[Arrow 1983]

32 minutes ago, Shaelon said:

As of the end of the nsh game, the west playoff bar for the canucks has increased to 91 pts.

 

if arizona loses in regulation, it’ll drop back to 89, and if they get a single point, or win, itll stay at 91.

Here is a suggestion, this might give it some context 

 

Columns are TEAM by current rank, Point %, Points on pace equation (164 being the most possible pts)

 

 

STL  .686     .686*164= 112.50

 

Col  .633       .633*164= 103.8

 

Van .608       .608*164=  99.7  That's right the Canucks are currently on pace for 100pts this season, and you see this Clearly 3rd in the conference

 

Dal .600       .600*164=  98.4

 

Edm .580     .580*164=  95.1

 

Cal .577       .577*164= 94.6

 

Nash .550      .550*164=90.2

 

Ari   .548       .548*164=89.9

 

Vegas .548    .548*164= 89.9

 

Win  .529       .529*164=86.8

 

Chi .529       .529*164=86.8

 

Min .520      .520*164=85.3

 

Those are the Current 12 teams that have a decent shot of making the playoffs, unless one of the other 3 go on a massive run. This also helps put into perspective if all of a sudden we see Min sitting in 8th spot even a decent run of 3-4 games puts them right back into the playoff picture.

 

Furthermore, it shows us where the Canucks sit as In reference to pts on pace

 

Feel free to copy and paste this to the OP. I won't sue you for copy infringement, then each day it will be easy for you to update after each nights games played.