[Edited] Bottom 5 Finish Now in Reach!

[Provost]

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.
 

On 2/18/2021 at 12:33 PM, Provost said:

It is nice to live in hope, but the unique way the league is set up this year means that we are practically unlikely, even if we are not mathematically eliminated from playoff contention.

Assuming around 63 points to make the playoffs that means we would have to play .640 hockey the rest of the way out (23-13 record).  The teams we are chasing only need to crack .550 the rest of the way out to stay ahead of us and reach that 63 points plateau.  Specifically, only two of them need to hit that mark for us to not make the playoffs even if we went on a huge hot streak.  Refer back to the above point where they play each other a lot and at least one team is going to get points and it will be harder for them all to drop to lower than .500 since they are sharing so many guaranteed points between them.

So, unlike most seasons... we have only a few paths to the playoffs now and they are much more limited and unlikely than in normal years.

1.  Toronto and Montreal basically run the table when they play at least 2 of Calgary, Winnipeg, and Edmonton.. but Toronto and Montreal don't dominate us in similar fashion so we can make up points in those games.
2.  Ottawa steals a bunch of points from two of those three teams we are chasing (but not so much that Ottawa passes us as well), but doesn't steal points from us in similar fashion.
3.  We win around 3/4ths of our remaining games against two of the three teams we are chasing

All of those are possible, but not terribly likely.  Our current odds of making the playoffs sit at 15-17% according to sites like Moneypuck.
 

 

On 2/18/2021 at 12:42 PM, Provost said:

Ya, I don't think we need to be making any rash decisions... any team including ours can go on a 10-0 run and entirely change the conversation.

I don't know that necessarily waiting until Mid March is going to be the answer as we will likely know our fate within a week or two.

If we plan on selling some rentals, doing it earlier rather than later lets us leverage more potential suitors by including US teams that would want to make moves earlier due to quarantine rules and have those players in their lineup for a while before the end of the season and knowing the systems.

 

 

On 2/18/2021 at 1:05 PM, Provost said:

Your nonsense counterpoint that "well occasionally there are outliers against the odds" doesn't alter the stated post that it is highly unlikely already.  Of course we could go on a 10 game run (as I also stated).

Some people win the lottery each week... it doesn't negate the fact that winning the lottery is unlikely.  That is a ridiculous point and in your terms just "WADR".

 

On 2/18/2021 at 1:41 PM, Provost said:

That is exactly the scenario I laid out and you are spot on.

There is a path, but it is much more narrow than in other years since there are no other teams to help us out that we aren’t competing against.

 

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

People have been trying to tell you that there were lots of games to be played, so your thread was flawed and premature. This whole thread, not just you, illustrates how emotional and irrational this fanbase is. As for your other point, the possibility was always there because the season was far from 'over'. You just assumed - not correctly - that it was over.

 

There were some classic nuggets that didn't age very well at the start by Buzzsaw, who thought the Canucks handed Calgary the cup at about 10 percent of the season.

At least you're willing to reflect on a thread you made. Some people like Buzzsaw will continue to think that the Canucks handed the cup to Calgary long after we've made the playoffs... There are some other posters that won't even dare to reappear because they KNOW they were wrong. It's annoying for people to make 'bold' statements, but be unable to take responsibility for them.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[Devron]

You look at the trajectory of the teams battling for a playoff spot, the games in hand. 20%? nah! I say it’s pretty even playing field. I guess that’s why I skipped math in high school 

[BCNate]

5 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

It looks like we have a chance but we are playing an awful lot of games.

I think every remaining game is either every other night or back to back. 

 

Players may hit the wall at one point. Hope they prove me wrong

Lots of games coming up for sure, i will be a grind no doubt.  Having two goalies playing well is critical.  I also think we have a fair bit more depth than we did at the start of the year.  Getting EP back would be massive, but appears unlikely.

 

We have a top 10 record in the league over the past two months, MTL bottom 10.  We are at the very least trending in the right direction.  MTL plays a brutal schedule down the stretch--4 left against Toronto, 2 against the Oilers, 1 against the Jets left out of 10.

[CanucksJay]

Yeah, I think I saw the flames play 9 games in the next 24 days. 

Much more reasonable. 

 

I just hope we don't suffer an injury with so little rest. 

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

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.
 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not what "out of reach" means, so either you don't know what that phrase means, or you're trying to defend the indefensible - that you erred.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out of reach

 

Out of reach doesn't mean "less than 20 percent"

 

Out of reach means mathematically eliminated, which was a wrong position to take so early in the season.

 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Devron44 said:

You look at the trajectory of the teams battling for a playoff spot, the games in hand. 20%? nah! I say it’s pretty even playing field. I guess that’s why I skipped math in high school 

It's fine. Some people skipped school too because they think the term "out for reach" is a synonym for highly unlikely.

 

Cough, Provost.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

That's not what "out of reach" means, so either you don't know what that phrase means, or you're trying to defend the indefensible - that you erred.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/out of reach

 

Out of reach doesn't mean "less than 20 percent"

 

Out of reach means mathematically eliminated, which was a wrong position to take so early in the season.

 

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%

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

That 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 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%

Not self righteous. Just a simple question about your usage of an English phrase that a fluent speaker like yourself should know.

 

If you think that's self righteous, simply for questioning your post, that's awfully haughty of you.

 

My primary issue is your phrase "now out of reach", which is false. It's just hilarious that you see no issue with it. Or the fact that you won't admit it, even when proven otherwise. I have a hard time believing that the dictionary is less correct on what the term "out of reach" means.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[Gurn]

[Provost]

36 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

My primary issue is your phrase "now out of reach", which is false. It's just hilarious that you see no issue with it. Or the fact that you won't admit it, even when proven otherwise. I have a hard time believing that the dictionary is less correct on what the term "out of reach" means.

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

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

23 minutes ago, Provost said:

“capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all”.

 

... Pretty much exactly how I explained it in my OP, “practically unlikely, even if not mathematically out of reach”

 

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).

 

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

It's still not out of reach. The fact that you brought this up when there was still 40 plus games to play is laughable.

 

Laughable.

 

So I get it. You have weak math skills. You used a small sample to gauge the likelihood of a Canucks entrance into the playoff, despite the fact that there was still lots of hockey to play. Understanding this will help you realize that the usage of the phrase "out of reach" is inappropriate or incorrect.

 

Then you also have a poor understanding of English. Out of reach when understood from an imagery point of view means that no matter what you do, you cannot reach it. Example: your power cord is too short, and the grass that you want to cut is too far away. That is out of reach.

 

This is seriously embarrassing, Provost.

 

I really love how your perverted understanding of out of reach would mean that Buffalo has just as likely of a chance of making the playoffs as us. No, their chances of doing so had basically been out of reach from near the beginning, but was only finalized toward the half way point. Are you seriously telling me that the Canucks are still out of reach, especially when compared to a team like Buffalo?

 

Like I get that you don't want to admit your stupidity, but you've just demonstrated that you'll do it to protect your invalidated point. Just laughable.

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[stawns]

 

what the f*** is going on in here?

[Provost]

16 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

It's still not out of reach. The fact that you brought this up when there was still 40 plus games to play is laughable.

 

Laughable.

 

So I get it. You have weak math skills. You used a small sample to gauge the likelihood of a Canucks entrance into the playoff, despite the fact that there was still lots of hockey to play. Understanding this will help you realize that the usage of the phrase "out of reach" is inappropriate or incorrect.

 

Then you also have a poor understanding of English. Out of reach when understood from an imagery point of view means that no matter what you do, you cannot reach it. Example: your power cord is too short, and the grass that you want to cut is too far away. That is out of reach.

 

This is seriously embarrassing, Provost.

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.


 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

Just now, Provost said:

1.  You based your entire argument on my using a phrase incorrectly.  I provided a bunch of links showing I used the phrase correctly.  So you are simply wrong.
2.  My math is not weak, and is supported by a bunch of other links to various models by statisticians working directly in the sport
3.  My OP has literally been borne out by history to be correct with our continued very low playoff odds even with a bunch of things going right for us that I outlined needed to go right for us to have a 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.

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.


 

1) Not only have I shown links that demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term, you've also failed to address what "out of reach" means when visually understood. Specifically, I mentioned that a short power cord would prevent you from reaching a long distance. It's not that it's difficult to do it, but you'd have to find some kind of connector to do it. Out of reach is literally what it means - unreachable. So no, February 26 was very very premature when you made that statement.

 

Also, if it was out of reach to begin with, how are we in this position now? COVID actually hurt us because everyone else played games while we were out, plus we needed time for recovery.

 

Just laughable.

 

2) Your math is weak. Out of reach should only refer to something that has less than 1 percent chance with no other factors that could change that situation. You should not have used the term in February 26 where two months of hockey could have a serious effect on the numbers. This is where we're at now. 

 

Did you screw up your math, or did you use the wrong term? Take your pick.

 

Don't be obtuse, Provost. Defending about something you said two months ago shows how little you care about the many factors that are involved in analyzing a situation.

 

Canucks are not in a playoff spot, but they certainly aren't mathematically eliminated. There's still 15 games of hockey for the Canucks, and the other teams like Montreal and Calgary have been trending downward for quite some time.

[Provost]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

... 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)

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

Just now, Provost said:

... 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.

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)

 

Unlikely is not the same as out of reach. Thanks for proving my point.

 

https://www.lexico.com/definition/out_of_reach

 

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/out of reach

 

You know what's out of reach? Your rationality skills.

 

Just because you see a word as a synonym doesn't mean it's correctly used.

 

But honestly, I am not surprised that you don't understand basic concepts of stuff, Provost. You should take your ego out and think for a bit. 

 

Out of reach is not the same as unlikely. Just visualize it. Jesus.

[Provost]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Unlikely is not the same as out of reach. Thanks for proving my point.

 

https://www.lexico.com/definition/out_of_reach

 

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/out of reach

 

You know what's out of reach? Your rationality skills.

 

Just because you see a word as a synonym doesn't mean it's correctly used.

 

But honestly, I am not surprised that you don't understand basic concepts of stuff, Provost. You should take your ego out and think for a bit. 

 

Out of reach is not the same as unlikely. Just visualize it. Jesus.

 

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

 

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

[Dazzle]

Just now, Provost said:

 

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

The first definition should give you a freaking clue, buddy.

 

None of the other dictionaries I have shown you say there is even a hint of a possibility.

 

Furthermore, you made this statement on February 26th. Fast forward two months of hockey, we are suddenly in a better spot than what we thought the Canucks would do. How is that possible when it was "out of reach"?

 

That idea invalidates your understanding of statistics. Two months of hockey and we are, what, 10 points behind Montreal? Yeah we sure are out of reach.... Unlikely? Sure. Out of reach? Wrong.

 

Give it up, Provost.

[canuck73_3]

Out of reach with 35-40 games to go was a laughable at best premise. Time to just take the L. 

[Provost]

20 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

Furthermore, you made this statement on February 26th. Fast forward two months of hockey, we are suddenly in a better spot than what we thought the Canucks would do. How is that possible when it was "out of reach"?

 

... 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.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost