[Edited] Bottom 5 Finish Now in Reach!

[204CanucksFan]

11 minutes ago, Provost said:

... 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 being the same or worse than they were then.  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.

But we are in a better spot, according to your own words...

 

From:

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

Edit:  as of 26 February, the odds sit around 2.5%.  No team has ever come back from under 4%.

To:

 

2 hours ago, Provost said:

As of today:

Moneypuck: 6.7%
Sportsclub Stats: 11.5%
Hockey Reference: 20.2%
Playoff Status: 17%
Power Rankings: 6.2%

I'm not a mathematician but all of the odds from today seem anywhere from marginally to substantially better than the odds you used on Feb 26th

[Provost]

6 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

But we are in a better spot, according to your own words...

 

From:

To:

 

I'm not a mathematician but all of the odds from today seem anywhere from marginally to substantially better than the odds you used on Feb 26th

Not from the time I originally made the thread, which is what I said.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. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[204CanucksFan]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

Not from the time I originally made the thread, which is what I said.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 words "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... 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.

And unless I'm mistaken, the Feb 26th edit is also approximately when you, again according to your own words, edited the title of the thread from 'likely out of reach' to 'now out of reach' so I'm just going based on the moving target of the OP

[Dazzle]

32 minutes ago, Provost said:

... 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.

SMH.

 

I am re-using something from March 29th, exactly one month after you claimed that the Canucks were "out of reach."

 

Below, here is where we stand as of RIGHT NOW.

 

Notice there's a difference. Montreal had 6 games in hand back then. Now we have 5 games in hand.

 

Also, in case you're clueless about the world around us, we have no idea what the effects of COVID are on players. This could have short and long term consequences, hence why I brought up COVID hurting us. So if there are any performance deficiencies (we have yet to see), this WILL hurt us. Most importantly, this threatens players' safety and health.

It was never out of reach then (one month ago), and it's not out of reach now. So that means your statement from TWO MONTHS AGO was wrong. Simply put, there were too many games left to play to make a DEFINITIVE statement that the odds were 'out of reach'. If you actually understood odds/probability, you'd realize that if you run something a thousand times, your chances for something happening (let's say a win for a lottery number) naturally INCREASE. Given that there were so many games left, how could you POSSIBLY say the Canucks were out of reach?

 

 

Look at this. 15 more games left to go. 8 points behind. Do the freaking math.

If it was out of reach before, how do you explain this situation now? Keep in mind, FIFTEEN GAMES TO PLAY. A MAXIMUM OF 30 points (very unlikely) to losing all FIFTEEN (also very unlikely). Also keeping in mind that the other teams are almost finished their games, thus our games in hand ARE difference makers. I am already taking into account that the other teams will be playing each other, thus making our ascent up the standing more difficult. WE STILL HAVE A CHANCE, and fairly reasonable one, thus this is a situation that isn't OUT OF REACH. The chance to make the playoffs isn't statistically irrelevant either.

 

Christ, Provost.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

And unless I'm mistaken, the Feb 26th edit is also approximately when you, again according to your own words, edited the title of the thread from 'likely out of reach' to 'now out of reach' so I'm just going based on the moving target of the OP

You are not mistaken. February 26th was when our 'math whiz' Provost claimed that the Canucks were out of reach.

 

After two months of hockey, his math or his understanding of the term "out of reach" is under scrutiny, and rightfully so.

[204CanucksFan]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You are not mistaken. February 26th was when our 'math whiz' Provost claimed that the Canucks were out of reach.

 

After two months of hockey, his math or his understanding of the term "out of reach" is under scrutiny, and rightfully so.

Yeah. I agree with the original title of the thread 'The playoffs are likely out of reach'. I really hope we do make the playoffs and this stretch run is going to be a lot more fun to watch then it looked like it would 2 months ago.

 

But to say they are 'now out of reach' before we had been mathematically eliminated was a mistake, although I can understand why it was changed.

 

On Feb 26th our team record was 8-14-2. In the two months since we have gone 11-5-1. I can't wait to see how we do with this ultra compressed conclusion to our season. Gonna be interesting and fun. GCG.

[Dazzle]

3 minutes ago, 204CanucksFan said:

Yeah. I agree with the original title of the thread 'The playoffs are likely out of reach'. I really hope we do make the playoffs and this stretch run is going to be a lot more fun to watch then it looked like it would 2 months ago.

 

But to say they are 'now out of reach' before we had been mathematically eliminated was a mistake, although I can understand why it was changed.

 

On Feb 26th our team record was 8-14-2. In the two months since we have gone 11-5-1. I can't wait to see how we do with this ultra compressed conclusion to our season. Gonna be interesting and fun. GCG.

I can understand why it was changed too because Mr. Provost here isn't as rationally sound as he might have you think. He let emotions get the better of him, and now he even has the audacity to standing firm to what he said two months ago (I'm still laughing about this).

 

LOL, even going as far as bending the meaning of "out of reach" to protect his fragile ego. Just embarrassing.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[Provost]

16 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

If you actually understood odds/probability, you'd realize that if you run something a thousand times, your chances for something happening (let's say a win for a lottery number) naturally INCREASE. Given that there were so many games left, how could you POSSIBLY say the Canucks were out of reach?

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.


 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

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.


 

 

No, I misused the term "running"

 

If you ENTER a lottery many times, as in you buy tickets, you DO increase your chances of winning. That is the point.

 

Because we have games in hand, we DO have the chances to go up the standings. Once we lose those games in hand, it'll be over. Calgary and Montreal both had games in hand, but they both squandered them. Hence, we 'lucked' out.

Still invalidates what you said about "out of reach" though haha.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[JDLax16]

Do those models factor in that they’re about to play the remaining 15 games in only three and a half weeks?

Edited April 25, 2021 by JDLax16

[Provost]

Just now, JDLax16 said:

Do those models factor in that they’re about to play the remaining 15 games in only three weeks?

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.

[Dazzle]

Provost, I know you're going to double down on what you said TWO MONTHS AGO, but let's bring this back to your thread:

 

Your term "out of reach" was being used in place of "unlikely", which you yourself confirmed earlier. That is wrong. You are conflating the two meanings of it. Out of reach, visually, means you CANNOT GET IT. It's beyond what you can do. In short, linguistically, you erred.

 

There are still many games left to play (15), thus questioning your math/probability skillzz when you said something was "out of reach". In short, mathematically, you erred. Remember, you declared something was out of reach two months ago.

 

By defending something you said two months ago, while wilfully downplaying the significance of 30-40+ hockey games, shows you cannot be reasoned with. No matter how you twist and turn in your next future posts, you'll never be able to address the above points, which was why you hadn't bothered.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, JDLax16 said:

Do those models factor in that they’re about to play the remaining 15 games in only three weeks?

It doesn't really matter. Maybe the Canucks will lose all 15 games, or maybe not. No one will have the answer. Only a foolish person would declare something to be out of reach before the calculations are finalized.

 

Provost reminds me of Trump who declared he "won the election".

 

What a joke.

[Provost]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Provost, I know you're going to double down on what you said TWO MONTHS AGO, but let's bring this back to your thread:

 

Your term "out of reach" was being used in place of "unlikely", which you yourself confirmed earlier. That is wrong. You are conflating the two meanings of it. Out of reach, visually, means you CANNOT GET IT. It's beyond what you can do. In short, linguistically, you erred.

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.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Provost

[IBatch]

15 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

Hey everyone makes mistakes.   The guy who started the Burrows thread did too. lol ok that's a joke.  Kind of.   To me it was almost a certainty we wouldn't make it either.   But this  is hockey and you just never do know.   St. louis won a cup after years been a second tier contender and starting off really bad.   CHI won a cup and so did PIT with their young stars close enough to their ELCs running or just running out.   We aren't out yet.   Under normal circumstances we'd have gone one game away from the final last season.    So who the heck knows is what i'm trying to say.   Odds smodds.  If we do get in TO is in big trouble.   Don't think we'd get past the second round, but i didn't we would last year either.   This team has a special feel to it that's hard to pin down...but it's being noticed.  By quite a few hockey writers with no skin in it ( not canucks fans)... A little IT factor would suffice.   Nobody thought LA was special yet they repeated.  I still don't think they were all that special. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by IBatch

[-DLC-]

I get a kick out of this whole "prediction" nonsense/arguing.

 

Anyone who's watched hockey over the years knows nothing's a given.  Hell, one star player or goaltender sustaining an injury can change the forecast a whole lot.

 

They play the games for a reason....because the guys with the most points get in.  Not who should, did last year, looks the best, etc. 

 

Wins-losses-in-out.  That won't be determined until it is.  The rest is just same ol', year after year.  I remember last year we had no hope in hell.  Until we did.   I don't care why or how...because that doesn't matter in the end.  Who wins/who loses.

 

Momentum and confidence are HUGE.  Goaltending too.  That can really change the face of things leading into the playoffs.  Some people never learn...it ain't over till it's over.

 

Until you're mathematically eliminated, you're not.  That's the beauty of it all and why they play.  

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

I vote that after every win, this thread title should get changed to “The Playoffs are Now within Reach” and then after every loss, change it back to “The Playoffs are Now out of Reach.”

 

Just keep going like that until we either make the playoffs or get eliminated.

 

EDIT: Or do the reverse, to ensure maximum chaos.  

Edited April 25, 2021 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[iinatcc]

Kind of crazy how Montreal and Dallas only has 1 more win than Vancouver but seem to be in a much safer spot than Vancouver in their respective divisions. 

 

 

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

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.

You still going to back peddle when we do make playoffs? 

[Provost]

28 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Hey everyone makes mistakes.   The guy who started the Burrows thread did too. lol ok that's a joke.  Kind of.   To me it was almost a certainty we wouldn't make it either.   But this  is hockey and you just never do know.   St. louis won a cup after years been a second tier contender and starting off really bad.   CHI won a cup and so did PIT with their young stars close enough to their ELCs running or just running out.   We aren't out yet.   Under normal circumstances we'd have gone one game away from the final last season.    So who the heck knows is what i'm trying to say.   Odds smodds.  If we do get in TO is in big trouble.   Don't think we'd get past the second round, but i didn't we would last year either.   This team has a special feel to it that's hard to pin down...but it's being noticed.  By quite a few hockey writers with no skin in it ( not canucks fans)... A little IT factor would suffice.   Nobody thought LA was special yet they repeated.  I still don't think they were all that special. 

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.