Canucks Chances of Making the Playoffs

[Goal:thecup]

Just now, gurn said:

Funny.

But he was right.

Which time he changed his post?

[Gurn]

7 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Which time he changed his post?

@Provost

[Goal:thecup]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

@Provost

Were you always a tattle-tale?

[Provost]

9 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Which time he changed his post?

All the times.  
 

if I post “Canucks unlikely to make the playoffs (10% chance)” one time… and then a month later post and update that the Canucks have a 5% chance of making the playoffs… those are both true.

 

Sorry math continues to be hard for you.

Don’t spend all your paycheques on scratch off tickets.  Regardless of what you think, it probably isn’t going to end well for you.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Provost

[Gurn]

9 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Were you always a tattle-tale?

I can not possibly know everything some one else has posted.

So, if you say he changed something; who do you think  would be be a  source, to see if he did?

[Gawdzukes]

10 minutes ago, Provost said:

All the times.  
 

if I post “Canucks unlikely to make the playoffs (10% chance)” one time… and then a month later post and update that the Canucks have a 5% chance of making the playoffs… those are both true.

 

Sorry math continues to be hard for you.

Don’t spend all your paycheques on scratch off tickets.  Regardless of what you think, it probably isn’t going to end well for you.

What are they at right now?

Edited August 1, 2022 by Gawdzukes

[Tinky-Winky]

we might beable to make playoffs, guess we find out, but on the other hand if we can tank for bedard  would be grand, but the nucks will never do that, so we will make the playoffs, but wont go very far, since our def will fail us, unless we make some upgrades by/on trade deadline

[Provost]

They are only educated guesses at this point since there are too many variables at play and no one even knows what opening rosters will be for sure.

 

Having said that, it seems like a pretty decent guess knowing what we know now and looking at the production histories of the additions we made.    
 

If all goes well, we should be in that pack chasing wildcard spots.  As much as some things went terribly last year, a lot of

guys had career years so a lot went well too and we still weren’t a playoff team.  Some guys going back to career averages or Demko getting an injury and we aren’t likely  a playoff team.   Maybe Miller scores 130 points, and all the young guys progress.. and we lead the division… anything can happen at this point.

 

Watch for me to post a thread in late November-Christmas range with our playoff chances.  That is when there are enough games played in the league to make pretty solid odds.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Provost

[Heretic]

3 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Who knows.

 

Probably depends on Demko. 

I'd say it depends more on how many goals we score than Demko - Demko is just fine.

Canucks main issue ever since 2011 has been scoring.

[Goal:thecup]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

All the times.  
 

if I post “Canucks unlikely to make the playoffs (10% chance)” one time… and then a month later post and update that the Canucks have a 5% chance of making the playoffs… those are both true.

 

Sorry math continues to be hard for you.

 

Your stats 101 course had you believing you were good at math when you made fun of people saying they didn't understand the odds and you couldn't even understand how a sports bet works.

 

You had a good idea, and were right about the low odds of making the playoffs once a certain number of games had been lost and games against teams in your conference were going to be played by the competition that you could not make up points on; in other words teams were going to make points regardless of the Nux performance and the Nux had no control over that.

 

But, you overstepped the thing and dramatized it to a certainty, when it was obviously still unresolved.

 

Math has always been one of my strong points; I taught it; I made a career out of using it; I made a lot of money with math, and in the stock market, and your childish attempts to reduce me and my math reflect very poorly on you.

 

People who say you were right, are misjudging the results of the exercise; i.e. it could have gone in other directions when you claimed we had no chance.

 

Later, when we did not make the playoffs, you claimed a victory, that had nothing to do with the ridiculous original presumption.

 

Also, you admitted you changed your post after getting called out on it.

 

As I said before, if you would quit posting so much, you wouldn't be so sensitive about being wrong.

 

Cheers Provost!

I hope this puts it to bed.

I'd rather have fun and you make good points; just don't rag on people when you're the one who is more poorly educated and jumping to conclusions.

That's what made me point out your deficiencies.

[Goal:thecup]

8 minutes ago, gurn said:

I can not possibly know everything some one else has posted.

So, if you say he changed something; who do you think  would be be a  source, to see if he did?

Provost even admitted he had gone back and changed it; check with him or find the record, I could give a Marchand's rear.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Goal:thecup

[Nucklefuts]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

All the times.  
 

if I post “Canucks unlikely to make the playoffs (10% chance)” one time… and then a month later post and update that the Canucks have a 5% chance of making the playoffs… those are both true.

 

Sorry math continues to be hard for you.

Don’t spend all your paycheques on scratch off tickets.  Regardless of what you think, it probably isn’t going to end well for you.

You are one salty bot.

[iceman64]

4 hours ago, allegend said:

Correction: The odds listed were for winning the Stanley Cup. My apologies.

Ok your fired!  ;). Sticking with the original post, as per usual we don't have enough depth for a deep cup run but it's being worked on.

Our chances in the post season, if we can stay healthy enough look pretty damn good! 

 I know we only added a few players BUT they were the right ones. 

 We're better defensively, faster, and tougher than this time last year. 

And that's not even counting Kuzzybear..  hope he and Huggybear get along ok, 2 bears could be trouble, you know how territorial they can be! 

[iceman64]

4 hours ago, Playoff Beered said:

Under Boudreau, the Canucks posted a record of 32-15-10, a 106-point pace over a full 82-game season. Petey is supposedly completely healthy, we have added a few pieces and lost some dead weight. I will be very surprised if we don't make the playoffs.

Thanks, someone with a brain and using it. 

 I think people forget when you have better defence done by the forwards, then we don't have to rely on the defense and Demko ANYWHERE near that much like last season to get in.

And we're tons better than last year by that alone, nevermind additional scoring punch. 

Then there's toughness that we need to provide push back and players who are tough and tough in puck battles. 

This is sooooo in the right direction but if we lag out of the gate because of new players on the roster then catch fire, people will be screaming for a tear down before we get going. 

Typical...

Edited August 1, 2022 by iceman64

[Provost]

25 minutes ago, Nucklefuts said:

You are one salty bot.

... you mean not the butthurt guy who months later is still whinging about being wrong about the Canucks making the playoffs?

I guess I will take being a "salty bot" over that alternative.

[Nucklefuts]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

... you mean not the butthurt guy who months later is still whinging about being wrong about the Canucks making the playoffs?

I guess I will take being a "salty bot" over that alternative.

Lucky for you you're in the toxic click and can't be banned regardless of how much you harass. 

[Provost]

7 minutes ago, Nucklefuts said:

Lucky for you you're in the toxic click and can't be banned regardless of how much you harass. 

You might want to slow your roll there sparkie.

Go back and read the thread.  Dude that you are fawning over (unless you are just one of his other accounts) is the one who keeps bringing up lies and insulting nonsense about something from months ago that he is salty about being wrong about. 

I don't even know or care who he is, but he regularly keeps bringing up my name out of nowhere in completely unrelated threads I haven't even commented in.... spouting nonsense whinging about me that doesn't actually add any content to the threads. 

You might want to go look at the work "harass" in the dictionary.  Words actually have meanings which you don't seem to be aware of.

Also, I think you meant "clique"

Edited August 1, 2022 by Provost

[Nucklefuts]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

You might want to slow your roll there sparkie.

Go back and read the thread.  Dude that you are fawning over (unless you are just one of his other accounts) is the one who keeps bringing up lies and insulting nonsense about something from months ago that he is salty about being wrong about. 

I don't even know or care who he is, but he regularly keeps bringing up my name out of nowhere in completely unrelated threads I haven't even commented in.... spouting nonsense whinging about me that doesn't actually add any content to the threads. 

You might want to go look at the work "harass" in the dictionary.  Words actually have meanings which you don't seem to be aware of.

Also, I think you meant "clique"

Point proven

[Goal:thecup]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

You might want to slow your roll there sparkie.

Go back and read the thread.  Dude that you are fawning over (unless you are just one of his other accounts) is the one who keeps bringing up lies and insulting nonsense about something from months ago that he is salty about being wrong about. 

I don't even know or care who he is, but he regularly keeps bringing up my name out of nowhere in completely unrelated threads I haven't even commented in.... spouting nonsense whinging about me that doesn't actually add any content to the threads. 

You might want to go look at the work "harass" in the dictionary.  Words actually have meanings which you don't seem to be aware of.

Also, I think you meant "clique"

What he is saying, and what I have been trying to help you with, is take out the attitude and the derogatory comments and people will not be calling you out.

I am not lying and you need to grow up.

[Provost]

1 minute ago, Nucklefuts said:

Point proven

Ahh... I see you think "harass" means when you post crap about someone and then they have the temerity to respond.

It is all coming clear now.... good luck with life there sparkie.