[Edited] Bottom 5 Finish Now in Reach!

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Canucks fans have become so hysterical they are now debating the nuance of the English language instead of the team.

 

It truly is the darkest of times.

Nah.   That was Messier era.   What the teams gone through is close though.  

[-DLC-]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

aren't just made up throwing darts at a board or crossing their fingers and wishing really hard which seems to be your methodology. 

Insults aren't really proving that you're listening.  My methodology reflects the facts that "odds" used to predict something as being "out of reach" have to factor in that variables come into play that may change that forecast.  If a star goaltender gets hurt and they're a team we're battling against, your "out of reach" doesn't leave room for that.

Quote

 

 

If you bet on longshot horses with them only giving you even odds... you would deserve to lose your money. 

But you're doing that same thing for the Canucks.  Betting "against" them without considering...what they did show last year?  That counts.  How our goaltending compares to some others.  That counts.  Etc.

Quote

That is the analogy you are trying to make here.  If someone bet me 20 to 1 odds of the Canucks making the playoffs, I would take it. 
 

Even though they're "out of reach" in your statement?  I don't bet on longshots that are "out of reach" because that indicates they don't have a chance of getting there.  And your title doesn't really reflect your betting on them "if".  It kind of suggests that there's no point.

 

Done.  Your insults are enough to tell me you're the one missing the point by having to do that and deflect.  I know how odds work.  I know how even if there's a slim chance, there's a chance.  I know that your title missed the mark.  Have a great day because this thread is not really even worth the energy.

[higgyfan]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

It's a massive cliff they have to climb without EP for sure.   That said they will try anyways, and so far it's been more then admirable, truly an incredible record without him and now Demko too.   It was always going to be a tough road.   Win the next game and back on track.   Said it near the start of this thread, just have to win 2/3.   Do that next game and we are back to 2/3 since the covid re-start.   Also managed it before without EP.   Truly admirable for sure.   And yes this could be the beginning of the end for our playoff hopes.  But i've still got hope.   

So true, Batch.  Especially when you include the 3 weeks off and COVID-19, as well as the horrendous schedule ahead of them.  Fans really need to take a moment to reflect on all of this.  The players are doing the best they can under these mind-boggling circumstances.  Pro hockey is such a high energy, physically demanding game and the odds are stacked against them.  They will win some and they will lose some; whatever happens, I will never doubt their character.

[Provost]

48 minutes ago, IBatch said:

How in the name of god, does Out of Reach apply to being able to reach something with your hand mean anything in this context?  Again - something that is impossible to do, is what people with a basic understanding of the english language see.   Might as well just say" Nobody on the team can stretch their arms far enough to reach the playoffs"  it means the same exact thing.   Out of reach means it's unattainable.    Wow.  Semantics for sure.    I'm sorry bro, i said it too.   After a loss way back, you can go back and see this.  I prompted you to say it's impossible too and sorry for that it was reactive.   But your going never win this one.   There is zero gain by becoming a lightning rod by being captain obvious.   Hope matters and is something the team needs, fans need and our future needs.   The most ironic thing is your wrong bust seemingly can't stand the idea of not being right.    Who the heck reads :  The teams arm is not long enough to reach the playoffs?    Wowzer's.  Apologies for being a dick about this but i'd suggest you just let it go.   Your right.   100%.  If that helps, and again apologies.  Really like your posts.   And maybe this is also cathartic for some folks.   In this context when folks get their hackles up, which for sure they have, they don't see an arm reaching for a banana that's out of reach, they see the actual definition, which they have learned, it's  impossible to get done, or attain.    Funny or ironic  thing is, they both mean the same thing. 

You literally made a post saying I was wrong because the first definition of the phrase is really the right one, and then proceeded to NOT use the first definition because it didn't make sense to use it... if you can't see how that entirely invalidated your entire point, I don't know how I can explain it more.

I was pointing out that, against the actual point you were making, you had the capability to entirely ignore the first (and most common definition) to use one that suited the context more for your purposes... so you are using a "less right" one too in order to illustrate that my definition is wrong because it isn't the first one listed either?  Now you are mad because of course the first definition doesn't make any sense and it is silly for me to have brought it up?  It was your entire point!!!

Using your logic, if people were mad because they thought I meant "the team couldn't reach out and physically touch the playoffs with their hands"... I guess that could be true.  You aren't even using your own logic though because that isn't how you defined the term either.

If anyone has/had an issue with the definition I used, they could simply click on the OP and read it where it made it very clear what definition I was using.  They could look it up for themselves and also see that they way I used it is also proper.  Instead they are arguing I said something I explicitly didn't and ignoring the fact it is a proper definition.

If I said "bear with me, this is going to take a while"... and folks started going hysterical that I was about to be eaten by a huge Grizzly, and then I pointed out that "bear" has more than one meaning, and I meant the other one (and showed links and proof).  If they continued arguing and yelling "YOU SAID YOU WERE ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY A BEAR" , that would be ridiculous.

That is what is happening here. 

I said I didn't mean literally completely impossible. 
My original post very clearly said that I didn't think it was literally completely impossible... I even laid out the specific paths that showed how it could be possible, however unlikely. 
I also have since showed clearly and repeatedly that the phrase doesn't always mean literally completely impossible
The entire intervening two months has shown that what I posted was actually right, and that we STILL haven't made up enough ground to make the playoffs

.... but here we are.

People hanging onto that little nugget because they have zero substance or counter my ACTUAL post and position and have so heavily invested themselves emotionally, that they keep doubling down.

People are still pretending otherwise because as you say... they feel they need hope, and they will yell and scream in impotent rage against anyone who presents information that affects that hope, however false that hope is.  They do it because it makes them feel better, not because they are right.
 
In my books, you can be a fan, cheer the team on, and still understand reality at the same time.  You can still have hope for the future of the team without having much hope at all for the current season.  I would have more hope if they played the kids the rest of the way out... because I think that would pay dividends in future years when it is far more likely to matter.  I would have traded away rental players before the deadline because that would have had a chance of paying dividends in future years when it is far more likely to matter.

Also not sure how I can be Captain Obvious and also wrong at the same time.  Pick a lane.  I am so right that I shouldn't be posting because it is obvious... oh but also I am wrong.


 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Provost

[oldnews]

On 4/25/2021 at 10:22 AM, 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

I think that wall was to be expected.

I'm surprised they didn't hit a wall right from the restart. 

 

But at this point you can see the exhaustion creeping back into their game.

Last night - the signature poor puck moving decisions were back - lots of high risk, cross-ice passes - attempting to 'force' the play - or simply just not making the kind of decisions you'd expect under 'normal' circumstances.  I really wasn't surprised at all that they struggled out of the gate this year (with such a young group) - and Ottawa to an even greater extent struggled to deal with the particularly challenging lack of preseason preparation.  That really compact start 'should' have meant a remainder of the season that was not as gruelling as the rest of the teams faced...but....again (covid).

 

The Canucks have another ridiculously compact stretch ahead of them - and I suspect that the majority of the roster doesn't have a great deal of reserve in the tank.

 

So my 'expectations' are very low - but that said - had they not ran into this M.A.S.H. situation with so many guys out multiplied by the covid outbreak - I think they may have stood a reasonable chance of inching back into it.

 

Whatever  - I'm pretty impressed with their resilience - I expect their to be nights like last night where they're flat, lack energy and make mental errors - and I suspect the stretch run is going to be more of that = very difficult to get on any kind of (necessary) run under the circumstances.

Edited April 27, 2021 by oldnews

[IBatch]

20 minutes ago, Provost said:

You literally made a post saying I was wrong because the first definition of the phrase is really the right one, and then proceeded to NOT use the first definition because it didn't make sense to use it... if you can't see how that entirely invalidated your entire point, I don't know how I can explain it more.

I was pointing out that, against the actual point you were making, you had the capability to entirely ignore the first (and most common definition) to use one that suited the context more for your purposes... so you are using a "less right" one too in order to illustrate that my definition is wrong because it isn't the first one listed either?  Now you are mad because of course the first definition doesn't make any sense and it is silly for me to have brought it up?  It was your entire point!!!

Using your logic, if people were mad because they thought I meant "the team couldn't reach out and physically touch the playoffs with their hands"... I guess that could be true.  You aren't even using your own logic though because that isn't how you defined the term either.

If anyone has/had an issue with the definition I used, they could simply click on the OP and read it where it made it very clear what definition I was using.  They could look it up for themselves and also see that they way I used it is also proper.  Instead they are arguing I said something I explicitly didn't and ignoring the fact it is a proper definition.

If I said "bear with me, this is going to take a while"... and folks started going hysterical that I was about to be eaten by a huge Grizzly, and then I pointed out that "bear" has more than one meaning, and I meant the other one (and showed links and proof).  If they continued arguing and yelling "YOU SAID YOU WERE ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY A BEAR" , that would be ridiculous.

That is what is happening here. 

I said I didn't mean literally completely impossible. 
My original post very clearly said that I didn't think it was literally completely impossible... I even laid out the specific paths that showed how it could be possible, however unlikely. 
I also have since showed clearly and repeatedly that the phrase doesn't always mean literally completely impossible
The entire intervening two months has shown that what I posted was actually right, and that we STILL haven't made up enough ground to make the playoffs

.... but here we are.

People hanging onto that little nugget because they have zero substance or counter my ACTUAL post and position and have so heavily invested themselves emotionally, that they keep doubling down.

People are still pretending otherwise because as you say... they feel they need hope, and they will yell and scream in impotent rage against anyone who presents information that affects that hope, however false that hope is.  They do it because it makes them feel better, not because they are right.
 
In my books, you can be a fan, cheer the team on, and still understand reality at the same time.  You can still have hope for the future of the team without having much hope at all for the current season.  I would have more hope if they played the kids the rest of the way out... because I think that would pay dividends in future years when it is far more likely to matter.  I would have traded away rental players before the deadline because that would have had a chance of paying dividends in future years when it is far more likely to matter.

Also not sure how I can be Captain Obvious and also wrong at the same time.  Pick a lane.  I am so right that I shouldn't be posting because it is obvious... oh but also I am wrong.


 

Let it go man.   It's not worth it.   Both definitions, the first and the second mean the same thing.   Unattainable. 

[Provost]

20 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Let it go man.   It's not worth it.   Both definitions, the first and the second mean the same thing.   Unattainable. 

Yet here you are...

Definitions of out of reachout of reach

adjective

 inaccessibly located or situated

synonyms:unapproachable, unreachable, unreached

inaccessible, unaccessible

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

Edited April 27, 2021 by Provost

[Provost]

On 2/24/2021 at 5:47 AM, IBatch said:

Think it was a safe prediction at the start, and optimistic folks knew that too. At this point might as well change the title too " The Playoffs are out of Reach". Or  " What players should management be targeting with their top 10 pick?"

Pick a lane... when I changed the title (at your behest), I modified the OP with an edit clearly stating our chances at the time were 2.5%... not impossible, not zero, not unattainable.  Just only capable of being reached with great difficulty as per the above definition which is the only definition that could have fit in that context... you know 2.5% being more than zero and all.
 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Provost

[drofssalg]

I moved the playoff bar from 63 down to 61 points.

Toronto is in.

Ottawa is out.

Edmonton and Winnipeg are in (barring epic meltdowns). 

Calgary pretty much eliminated (8 games left and have to win them all).

Montreal has to go 5 and 4 with their remaining 9 games.

Vancouver has to go 10 and 4 with their remaining games.

 

So the Canucks still are not officially eliminated. But 5 games left against the Oilers, 2 each against Toronto and Winnipeg certainly pushes the odds not in their favour. This is the same story for the last couple month. Playoffs have been a possibility but the record required to make up the ground is not something this team is capable of (playing at a 60% or higher win rate for all remaining games). 

 

[Provost]

1 minute ago, drofssalg said:

I moved the playoff bar from 63 down to 61 points.

Toronto is in.

Ottawa is out.

Edmonton and Winnipeg are in (barring epic meltdowns). 

Calgary pretty much eliminated (8 games left and have to win them all).

Montreal has to go 5 and 4 with their remaining 9 games.

Vancouver has to go 10 and 4 with their remaining games.

 

So the Canucks still are not officially eliminated. But 5 games left against the Oilers, 2 each against Toronto and Winnipeg certainly pushes the odds not in their favour. This is the same story for the last couple month. Playoffs have been a possibility but the record required to make up the ground is not something this team is capable of (playing at a 60% or higher win rate for all remaining games). 

 

That is pretty much it.  The initial predictions based on history were that the cut off would be 63 points plus or minus a couple depending on the division and how much parity there was.  Maybe it ends up being 60 points or still 63 points...heck, even 64 is still possible.

Regardless of the exact cutoff it still doesn't really affect the odds greatly.  Montreal can't win much in their remaining games and we can't lose much in our remaining games. Depending on tiebreakers that Montreal currently holds a huge advantage on us (6 more regulation wins right now), we have to get one more point than them... so if if both teams got the results you mentioned, they almost certainly get in instead of us.  We have to not just win our all those games, but win almost all of them in regulation

Really tough sledding....

[alt kilgore]

Just checked the betting odds.   Payout of +15,000 now on a $100 bet for Canucks to win the Cup this year.

 

would you do it?

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

 

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Pick a lane... when I changed the title (at your behest), I modified the OP with an edit clearly stating our chances at the time were 2.5%... not impossible, not zero, not unattainable.  Just only capable of being reached with great difficulty as per the above definition which is the only definition that could have fit in that context... you know 2.5% being more than zero and all.
 

Yes you did and i admitted/reminded you of my culpability , so we are in this to the end together.   And basically kicking each other in the balls while doing it.   So peace.   I imagine a universe where we can hold hands and witness greatness together going forward.  No matter the odds.   

[IBatch]

10 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Just checked the betting odds.   Payout of +15,000 now on a $100 bet for Canucks to win the Cup this year.

 

would you do it?

It's only 100$.    Send me your bookies number 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

That is pretty much it.  The initial predictions based on history were that the cut off would be 63 points plus or minus a couple depending on the division and how much parity there was.  Maybe it ends up being 60 points or still 63 points...heck, even 64 is still possible.

Regardless of the exact cutoff it still doesn't really affect the odds greatly.  Montreal can't win much in their remaining games and we can't lose much in our remaining games. Depending on tiebreakers that Montreal currently holds a huge advantage on us (6 more regulation wins right now), we have to get one more point than them... so if if both teams got the results you mentioned, they almost certainly get in instead of us.  We have to not just win our all those games, but win almost all of them in regulation

Really tough sledding....

Yes the RW wins have bugged me for awhile.   There loser points inflate what they have actually accomplished, same with playing us.   At the same time if we do catch up a lot of points have to occur so it's a bit of a wash.   Personally, i'm not a fan at all of the  shootouts. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by IBatch

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

25 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Just checked the betting odds.   Payout of +15,000 now on a $100 bet for Canucks to win the Cup this year.

 

would you do it?

I’ve blown $100 in much stupider ways, so I wouldn’t begrudge anyone taking their shot at that kind of payday, however unlikely. Definitely a smarter use of money than my usual Saturday night, back in the day. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Arrow 1983]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

That is pretty much it.  The initial predictions based on history were that the cut off would be 63 points plus or minus a couple depending on the division and how much parity there was.  Maybe it ends up being 60 points or still 63 points...heck, even 64 is still possible.

Regardless of the exact cutoff it still doesn't really affect the odds greatly.  Montreal can't win much in their remaining games and we can't lose much in our remaining games. Depending on tiebreakers that Montreal currently holds a huge advantage on us (6 more regulation wins right now), we have to get one more point than them... so if if both teams got the results you mentioned, they almost certainly get in instead of us.  We have to not just win our all those games, but win almost all of them in regulation

Really tough sledding....

When did you lose your hope, when did you lose what it meant to be a fan.

The Canucks are making the playoffs until they aren't it really is that simple 

 

Your a fan of the wrong team if you are willing to give up already

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

30 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Just checked the betting odds.   Payout of +15,000 now on a $100 bet for Canucks to win the Cup this year.

 

would you do it?

Yes all day long what's a hundred dollars. I will do that bet and give $100 to charity.

When I win I'm keeping all of it

[Arrow 1983]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

That is pretty much it.  The initial predictions based on history were that the cut off would be 63 points plus or minus a couple depending on the division and how much parity there was.  Maybe it ends up being 60 points or still 63 points...heck, even 64 is still possible.

Regardless of the exact cutoff it still doesn't really affect the odds greatly.  Montreal can't win much in their remaining games and we can't lose much in our remaining games. Depending on tiebreakers that Montreal currently holds a huge advantage on us (6 more regulation wins right now), we have to get one more point than them... so if if both teams got the results you mentioned, they almost certainly get in instead of us.  We have to not just win our all those games, but win almost all of them in regulation

Really tough sledding....

The Canucks win next game 100-0 that the league rewards the Canucks 4 points. Did you account for that in your math

[Arrow 1983]

Provost is no fun

He wants to kill hope and break hearts

[Arrow 1983]

Well Provost you can't kill my hope been a Canuck fan to long