[Edited] Bottom 5 Finish Now in Reach!

[DSVII]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

sorry, but it's not open to interpretation. and past results don't have any bearing on future results. 

"Controlling your own destiny" is an oxymoron to begin with that was invented by sports media, it is purely subjective and extremely open to interpretation. There is no agreed upon threshold in any metric here on what that means.

 

And the studying of past results to find patterns on future outcomes is the basis of empirical statistical laws....(i.e regression to the mean, 80/20 etc...)

Edited April 26, 2021 by DSVII

[tas]

9 minutes ago, DSVII said:

"Controlling your own destiny" is an oxymoron to begin with that was invented by sports media, it is purely subjective and extremely open to interpretation. There is no agreed upon threshold in any metric here on what that means.

 

And the studying of past results to find patterns on future outcomes is the basis of empirical statistical laws....(i.e regression to the mean, 80/20 etc...)

no, it's not subjective. it's a term to describe a situation where if one team wins all of its remaining games, another team can't catch them even if they win all of theirs. period. 

[AK_19]

24 minutes ago, DSVII said:

I agree with you with a slight caveat.

 

You control your own destiny if it means you just need to win your games at the average rate you have been all season and it doesn't matter what the other teams do. So if you win 50% of your remaining games and make playoffs, you control it, barring a historic collapse. You have control of your destiny if you require a late game collapse to not make it.

 

If any team just wins 100% of their games then its true no matter what, they don't need to care about what other teams do. The concern here is that they need to be winning at an 80% clip starting today, which is unlikely for a team that's batting 0.500 so far (empirically speaking)

 

Anyways this is just semantics, of course i agree with you if we run the table then it doesn't matter what the other teams do.

 

You can invent whatever definition you want but that's simply not what "controlling your own destiny" means. Whether it's a useful phrase is an entirely separate discussion and I'm likely inclined to agree with you that it isn't.

[khay]

3 hours ago, DSVII said:

What I'm getting the feeling of so far in this thread, are posters trying to convince a person who still has an 80%+ chance of being correct that he's wrong  a lot of our fates still depends on the performance Montreal and Calgary as much as it does us. If we do miss out then the prediction 2 months ago of being out of reach is still correct.

 

Reminds me of arguments I've had with posters about how they said our 1st round pick in 2016 was worthless and tanking wasn't worth it anyway because it dropped to 5th, but it doesn't change the fact the real value of having that pick before the lotto draw in the first place was the 13.5% chance of having 1st overall and the extra value of tanking was the additional 2% of odds that increased during the way before the draft occured. (in this case, before the games played out)

 

In any case it'll be an exciting race to a finish line. I wouldn't discount as well the three weeks covid has played in not just affecting our performance, but also the performance of our opponents who had to adjust their schedule for us. 

@Dazzle touched up on it but basically, the post was written too soon.

 

It was written on Feb 18th, and assumed that Montreal/Calgary would avoid any major slide whereas the Canucks would just suck the rest of the way. And the post overemphasized that there are too many 4 point games which meant either Montreal or Calgary would always stay ahead of us barring the Canucks going on an improbable run.

 

At the time of writing, Montreal held 9-4-1 record on 14 games out of 56 were played. The timing of the post was akin to declaring the playoffs "unreachable" at 25-30% mark in a regular 82-game schedule. Their record also included 4-0-1 against the Canucks so 5-4-0 record against the rest of the NHL.

 

I don't think the OP was completely off; the playoffs were unlikely if everything remained same, that the Canucks never go on a run and that Montreal never slide. But in an NHL season, teams almost always go through ups and downs and a team like Montreal, who was only masquerading as a contender at our expense, such slide was very likely to occur. Ours just came earlier in the season, Montreal's came later in the season.

 

Calgary is also on a bit of a surge now and if we can maintain a good point percentage for the rest of the season, the final 3 games against the Flames could very well turn into a play-in series. And we may face Toronto and get a chance to hand them yet another 1st round exit. That would be sweet. And the last time we faced Toronto and beat them in the playoffs... 

 

 

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, tas said:

worry about the things you can control. 

LOL I'm not worried. 

It's just hockey

[DSVII]

31 minutes ago, tas said:

no, it's not subjective. it's a term to describe a situation where if one team wins all of its remaining games, another team can't catch them even if they win all of theirs. period. 

 

22 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

You can invent whatever definition you want but that's simply not what "controlling your own destiny" means. Whether it's a useful phrase is an entirely separate discussion and I'm likely inclined to agree with you that it isn't.

Sure, I'm fine with taking the L on this, it's not worth our time. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by DSVII

[Bertuzzipunch]

Playoffs without petey uggh idk if i even want that. 

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, DSVII said:

What I'm getting the feeling of so far in this thread, are posters trying to convince a person who still has an 80%+ chance of being correct that he's wrong  a lot of our fates still depends on the performance Montreal and Calgary as much as it does us. If we do miss out then the prediction 2 months ago of being out of reach is still correct.

 

Reminds me of arguments I've had with posters about how they said our 1st round pick in 2016 was worthless and tanking wasn't worth it anyway because it dropped to 5th, but it doesn't change the fact the real value of having that pick before the lotto draw in the first place was the 13.5% chance of having 1st overall and the extra value of tanking was the additional 2% of odds that increased during the way before the draft occured. (in this case, before the games played out)

 

In any case it'll be an exciting race to a finish line. I wouldn't discount as well the three weeks covid has played in not just affecting our performance, but also the performance of our opponents who had to adjust their schedule for us. 

But this is the not the interpretation to be taken from our discussion. I don't think ANYONE, including myself, disputes that this playoff chase will be a difficult one. Of course the math is against the Canucks.

 

The problem is that Provost was conflating phrases that have vast differences in meaning. For example, "Out of reach" is NOT the same as "unlikely". If you can just imagine the idea of something being out of reach, you'd realize that it's completely different than saying something is unlikely. Given how Provost had interchangeably used both terms in his old posts, as well in his most recent posts, it seems to me that he doesn't know the difference between the two, or he doesn't care.

 

When he was called out on it, he tried to defend his position from TWO MONTHS AGO. His title "now out of reach" means or implies impossible, even though there was still two months worth of hockey that could have changed the outcome, which is exactly what happened.

 

From how I see it, he is more about protecting his ego than actually trying to make sense of things.

In short, Provost was wrong and he doesn't want to admit it, as usual.

 

 

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, DSVII said:

What I'm getting the feeling of so far in this thread, are posters trying to convince a person who still has an 80%+ chance of being correct that he's wrong  a lot of our fates still depends on the performance Montreal and Calgary as much as it does us. If we do miss out then the prediction 2 months ago of being out of reach is still correct.

 

Reminds me of arguments I've had with posters about how they said our 1st round pick in 2016 was worthless and tanking wasn't worth it anyway because it dropped to 5th, but it doesn't change the fact the real value of having that pick before the lotto draw in the first place was the 13.5% chance of having 1st overall and the extra value of tanking was the additional 2% of odds that increased during the way before the draft occured. (in this case, before the games played out)

 

In any case it'll be an exciting race to a finish line. I wouldn't discount as well the three weeks covid has played in not just affecting our performance, but also the performance of our opponents who had to adjust their schedule for us. 

But this is the not the interpretation to be taken from our discussion. I don't think ANYONE, including myself, disputes that this playoff chase will be a difficult one. Of course the math is against the Canucks.

 

The problem is that Provost was conflating phrases that have vast differences in meaning. For example, "Out of reach" is NOT the same as "unlikely". If you can just imagine the idea of something being out of reach, you'd realize that it's completely different than saying something is unlikely. Given how Provost had interchangeably used both terms in his old posts, as well in his most recent posts, it seems to me that he doesn't know the difference between the two, or he doesn't care.

 

When he was called out on it, he tried to defend his position from TWO MONTHS AGO. His title "now out of reach" means or implies impossible, even though there was still two months worth of hockey that could have changed the outcome, which is exactly what happened.

 

From how I see it, he is more about protecting his ego than actually trying to make sense of things.

In short, Provost was wrong and he doesn't want to admit it, as usual. Funny how Provost liked your post.

 

 

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, DSVII said:

What I'm getting the feeling of so far in this thread, are posters trying to convince a person who still has an 80%+ chance of being correct that he's wrong  a lot of our fates still depends on the performance Montreal and Calgary as much as it does us. If we do miss out then the prediction 2 months ago of being out of reach is still correct.

 

Reminds me of arguments I've had with posters about how they said our 1st round pick in 2016 was worthless and tanking wasn't worth it anyway because it dropped to 5th, but it doesn't change the fact the real value of having that pick before the lotto draw in the first place was the 13.5% chance of having 1st overall and the extra value of tanking was the additional 2% of odds that increased during the way before the draft occured. (in this case, before the games played out)

 

In any case it'll be an exciting race to a finish line. I wouldn't discount as well the three weeks covid has played in not just affecting our performance, but also the performance of our opponents who had to adjust their schedule for us. 

But this is the not the interpretation to be taken from our discussion. I don't think ANYONE, including myself, disputes that this playoff chase will be a difficult one. Of course the math is against the Canucks.

 

The problem is that Provost was conflating phrases that have vast differences in meaning. For example, "Out of reach" is NOT the same as "unlikely". If you can just imagine the idea of something being out of reach, you'd realize that it's completely different than saying something is unlikely. Given how Provost had interchangeably used both terms in his old posts, as well in his most recent posts, it seems to me that he doesn't know the difference between the two, or he doesn't care.

 

When he was called out on it, he tried to defend his position from TWO MONTHS AGO. His title "now out of reach" means or implies impossible, even though there was still two months worth of hockey that could have changed the outcome, which is exactly what happened.

 

From how I see it, he is more about protecting his ego than actually trying to make sense of things.

In short, Provost was wrong and he doesn't want to admit it, as usual. You can see him twisting the definitions of things to fit 'his' definition/understanding. That's a dishonest way of conducting yourself.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Edited into English by Provost:
Hi, My name is Dazzle and I have no actual intelligent or meaningful arguments about the substance of the topics being discussed so I am going to continue drone on over and over again about a semantic English issue.  I am also wrong about that semantic issue, but that shouldn't matter because I can hold my breath and stamp my feet a lot. 

I am going to repeatedly ignore the many posts and links from dictionaries proving that I am wrong because that makes me sad.  I think if I repeat lies often enough that some folks will believe me.

I also don't understand math.  I consider anyone is a witch who understands these things and I want to burn them at the stake.  There is no way they can know these things ahead of time unless they are using dark magic. 

As you can also see from my previous posts, I believe lottery odds give me a really good chance of winning a jackpot... .because math.  The only reason I haven't won so far is that the aforementioned witches are cheating me.

I think your record is on skip and stuck in the same groove as you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.  I edited your post above for clarity and if you are going to be wrong it should at least be entertaining.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Provost

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I think your record is on skip and stuck in the same groove as you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.  I edited your post above for clarity and if you are going to be wrong it should at least be entertaining.

No thanks on the edit.

 

Almost everyone here knows you're the one in the wrong.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

No thanks on the edit.

 

Almost everyone here knows you're the one in the wrong.

Ok... here is some more black magic witchcraft for you.

 

I predict that when the Canucks miss the playoffs (which they most likely will), you are going to keep ranting about your incorrect English.

 

Dazzle in May :  “Just because Provost turned out to be right... it doesn’t mean he was really right! The word ‘right’ doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it does!”

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Provost

[Chris12345]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

No thanks on the edit.

 

Almost everyone here knows you're the one in the wrong.

Both of you are wrong now either shut up or act like old school boys and square up I'm tired of reading this trash.

[DownUndaCanuck]

It's incredible how much 24 hours can change things...before last night we were in the driver's position with 2 seemingly-winnable games against Ottawa, then Montreal beat Calgary and we put in an embarrassing display.

 

You still never know, lots of hockey to be played, but we now need to do the unthinkable and win 10 out of 14 games. More realistically, we basically need two stretches of 5-2-0. Maybe cut that into 4-2-1 and it seems more do-able if Montreal struggle against Toronto/Edmonton.

 

Playing at a rate of 4-2-1 for the rest of the season can be done, even against these strong teams, especially if we continue to get good goaltending and Montreal continue to lose. 

 

Montreal have:

4 against Toronto

1 against Winnipeg

2 against Ottawa

2 against Edmonton

 

They basically need to play these games below 0.500 for us to have a chance and that's certainly possible. They've got 4 wins and 8 losses in their last 12. If they continue at that current rate, that's about 3 wins and 6 losses in those final games, giving them a record of around 24-23-9...1 game above .500.

 

We would literally just have play .500 hockey plus win 1 or 2 games extra to make the playoffs in that case. Certainly possible but looks pretty farfetched at the moment.

[RU SERIOUS]

14 hours ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Playoffs without petey uggh idk if i even want that. 

Not to worry cause there will be no playoffs for us this year thanks to TG being unable to prepare the team out of the gates back in Jan/Feb.   That's why were in the position we're in now and why Green needs to go.   Canucks the 30th worst team in the beginning of the season - and nobody to blame for that but TG.  He FAILED and must now pay the price.  Send him back to ECHL where he belongs and find us a real NHL Caliber coach.

[Provost]

6 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

 

We would literally just have play .500 hockey plus win 1 or 2 games extra to make the playoffs in that case. Certainly possible but looks pretty farfetched at the moment.

It is amusing seeing people try to come up with inventive ways to parse out the odds in ways to make them look better

 

”We would literally need to play .500 plus win 1 or 2 games” is a pretty entertaining way to avoid saying we need to go 9-5 (if Montreal also only goes no better than 3-5-1

 

Artificially picking Montreal’s last “12” games (not 10, not 13) as representative is also an amusing way to try make things look as uneven as possible.  

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Provost

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

It is amusing seeing people try to come up with inventive ways to parse out the odds in ways to make them look better

 

”We would literally need to play .500 plus win 1 or 2 games” is a pretty entertaining way to avoid saying we need to go 9-5 (if Montreal also only goes no better than 3-5-1

 

Artificially picking Montreal’s last “12” games as representative is also an amusing way to try make things look as uneven as possible.  

 

 

 

it is pretty funny tho that Montreal is at an actual risk of not making the playoffs after all of the so-called brilliant moves by that arrogant wiener Bergevin. 

 

Of course things have to line up perfectly now for it to happen for us, but if Calgary takes advantage of our situation they could knock Montreal out too. 

 

Makes me chuckle anyway. 

[-DLC-]

14 hours ago, Provost said:

Ok... here is some more black magic witchcraft for you.

 

I predict that when the Canucks miss the playoffs (which they most likely will), you are going to keep ranting about your incorrect English.

 

 

 

 

I haven't read the thread...I see no need to because these predictions are nonsense unless a team is eliminated.

 

"Now out of reach" does not mean "out".  So I feel that people having an issue with the title (as I do) have a valid reason to be.  An apple that's out of reach on the tree can easily be grabbed using a ladder.

 

But I'm not willing to invest 27 hours of springtime weather arguing it.  It ain't over till it's over.  Even IF the chances are very slim and teach loss pushes us further away.

 

This:

Quote

And the studying of past results to find patterns on future outcomes is the basis of empirical statistical laws

 

Also doesn't really guarantee anything.  Past results cannot accurately determine who will get into the playoffs/win the cup because the rosters change every year.  You're not comparing the same things each year.  Especially this year, when it's anything but following a pattern with the schedule, COVID aftermath, etc.  Injuries and goaltending factor in.  Officiating.  Slumps/hot streaks.   You really can't put that on a chart with any accuracy because "it's anyone's game".

[Provost]

4 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I haven't read the thread...I see no need to because these predictions are nonsense unless a team is eliminated.

 

"Now out of reach" does not mean "out".  So I feel that people having an issue with the title (as I do) have a valid reason to be.  An apple that's out of reach on the tree can easily be grabbed using a ladder.

 

But I'm not willing to invest 27 hours of springtime weather arguing it.  It ain't over till it's over.  Even IF the chances are very slim and that increases with each loss.

 

This:

 

Also doesn't really guarantee anything.  Past results cannot accurately determine who will get into the playoffs/win the cup because the rosters change every year.  Injuries and goaltending factor in.  Officiating.  Slumps/hot streaks.   You really can't put that on a chart with any accuracy because "it's anyone's game".

You are welcome to choose not to believe how words are defined in the dictionary... even when presented with proof of those definitions.  If, as you say yourself, you can’t be bothered to read the thread to inform yourself... then it is totally uncalled for to come on and make this post.

 

You are welcome to believe math doesn’t exist and that odds or probabilities can’t be measured.

 

You just choosing to believe those things doesn’t make you right though.

 

It certainly doesn’t give you any moral authority to tell people who do actually believe in objective reality that they are wrong... which is what a coupe of posters here have been doing to try to derail a valid thread with nonsense.

 

Understanding that our odds are slim and posting that shouldn’t be controversial... yet a couple of people have gotten so invested in pretending that isn’t true, they have been making pages of ad hominem personal attacks against me that should have been shut down by moderators as against the forum rules.