Schedule
Darius Mancini
3-4 games in hand this week.
oh well, enough of the excuses. If they miss the playoffs we can all
look back at their inability to beat St. Louis for even half of the
games, very poor goaltending for at least 10 games, their attrocious
record against alberta prior to January, crawford's inability to
dynamically change the style the team plays: its the same game every
game, and...I have to throw in Nonuts in here....just to make me feel
better.
Colin
"Darius Mancini" <dariusm...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1143475043.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
-------------
Injuries as well seemed to contribute.......and....Bert's lack of play
for whatever reason...... and .......hence the 1st line's
disappearance--Marcus and Morrison.............right now we need to go .700
and we are somewhere around .400...it looks very bleak
realistically.......wish there was a ray of hope....can anyone see any
reason to be optimistic? As opposed to realistic? Not trying to be negative,
but neither do I feel like living in a land of make believe. Of course, I'll
watch the game tonight.
Bob in Kits
"Colin" <c...@net.ca> wrote in message news:uhVVf.188562$H%4.163978@pd7tw2no...
You can be optimistic because they've stopped trying to get the coach fired
and have started to try again. The effort was there in the last three games
against Edmonton.
Colin
"Bob in Kits" <nos...@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:rkVVf.14619$%H.2754@clgrps13...
-----You can be optimistic because they've stopped trying to get the coach
fired
and have started to try again. The effort was there in the last three games
against Edmonton.-------
------------
I was at the game Sat. night. Effort was there, but I don't know if win,
lose, win, win, lose is going to be enough. Seems the other teams are doing
better than that.
monster
"Colin" <c...@net.ca> wrote in message news:IqVVf.190015$B94.82025@pd7tw3no...
The Canucks, with 15 games left, needed to win 10, and lose 5. That's win 2,
lose 1. Since the CBJ win they are 3-2. Win tonight and it's 4-2, right on
schedule. Win two, lose one - repeat - and they make it. Of course win 2
then win 2 more and then 2 more would be even better. The Oiler lose was a
huge mistake - what a difference that one win would have made. But still,
win tonight and it's back on schedule.
monster
"Colin" <c...@net.ca> wrote in message news:uhVVf.188562$H%4.163978@pd7tw2no...
I have no idea why you're wallowing in so much negativity. You're the one
who posted the " last 15, win 10 and we're in " idea. Tell me how they are
.400 since then - they've won 3 times and lost twice. Win tonigth and they
are at .667 since then. there's your .700. And check out the "slumping"
Berts numbers in the Oilers series - he was their best forward. It was
actually a lack of scoring from their secodn line that did them in, not
their first. But the Canucks won 2 out of 3 from the Oilers. That's a good
start. They need 7 more wins starting with tonight. They are a better team
than LA, they are at home - should be a great game to watch. I don't
understand this March of the Damned attitude in here.
joe
>
> The Canucks, with 15 games left, needed to win 10, and lose 5. That's win 2,
> lose 1. Since the CBJ win they are 3-2. Win tonight and it's 4-2, right on
> schedule. Win two, lose one - repeat - and they make it. Of course win 2
> then win 2 more and then 2 more would be even better. The Oiler lose was a
> huge mistake - what a difference that one win would have made. But still,
> win tonight and it's back on schedule.
>
Last 10 games (not in order):
v. LA 2 games
Min 2
Ana 2
SJ 2
Cal 1
Col 1
Eight of 10 are against other teams still in the hunt, and/or scrambling to
retain their positions. We should expect some hard-fought games. Seven of ten
are home games.
Joe
monster
"joe" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:e099ha$so6$1...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Yeah, but the good thing is a w for the Canucks is an l for someone they are
chasing. Minn and LA should be beatable. Same for Calgary and Calarada.
Split with the Sharks and Ducks and - hey ! that's eight.
>
> Joe
joe
>
> Yeah, but the good thing is a w for the Canucks is an l for someone they are
> chasing. Minn and LA should be beatable. Same for Calgary and Calarada.
> Split with the Sharks and Ducks and - hey ! that's eight.
>
Well, the bottom line is, there is still a fair bit of hockey left to play, and
with each game having 4 possible outcomes via a vis points, there are way too
possibilities - about 20 gazillion, according to my rough calculations - for any
of the playoff contenders (that's everyone above Minnesota) to either rejoice or
panic at this stage. I'm characterizing the situation to myself by saying that
the Canucks have to have a "pretty good" 10 game stretch to make the playoffs;
we'll know for sure after that stretch.
Joe
foamy
"monster" <itisther...@home.com> wrote:
>The Canucks, with 15 games left, needed to win 10, and lose 5. That's win 2,
>lose 1. Since the CBJ win they are 3-2. Win tonight and it's 4-2, right on
>schedule. Win two, lose one - repeat - and they make it. Of course win 2
>then win 2 more and then 2 more would be even better. The Oiler lose was a
>huge mistake - what a difference that one win would have made. But still,
>win tonight and it's back on schedule.
* nudges Lonnie * 10 games left. I'd feel a lot better if there were 15. :-)
Jim
Darius Mancini
monster wrote:
. They are a better team
> than LA, they are at home - should be a great game to watch. I don't
> understand this March of the Damned attitude in here.
I have been keeping track of the odds for the canucks to make the
playoffs on this site that someone posted a few days ago:
Its interesting how the odds go up and down by about 10% for every
win/loss. Don't know how accurate this is but its kinda neat to keep
an eye on.
foamy
>Last 10 games (not in order):
>
>v. LA 2 games
> Min 2
> Ana 2
> SJ 2
> Cal 1
> Col 1
>
>Eight of 10 are against other teams still in the hunt, and/or scrambling to
>retain their positions. We should expect some hard-fought games. Seven of ten
>are home games.
This takes me back to most of the Canucks history, where at this time
of year we were looking at their games left and thinking we can get in
the playoffs if.....
The funny thing is, I was much more optimistic then with less reason,
than I am today.
I would think the best we can hope for is winning 2 games each against
Minny and LA, and splitting the remaining 6. Even with those 14 pts
giving us 96 pts, it most likely won't be good enough without the collapse
of at least one of SJ, Edmonton, Colorado or Anaheim.
Jim
joe
>
> Its interesting how the odds go up and down by about 10% for every
> win/loss. Don't know how accurate this is but its kinda neat to keep
> an eye on.
>
The weak link is the very large uncertainty in stating the odds for
the outcome of any given game. If possible, the author of the program should
tell us how well his methodology works for "predicting" the net outcomes for
some similar set of already-played games. (Unless he has used all of these
previous results to tune his algorithm, in which case it will not be an unbiased
test...)
Joe
foamy
>, bomb...@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:
Oh I get it. Never mind. Now where did that bear go ?
Jim
Darius Mancini
joe wrote:
> Darius Mancini wrote:
> >
> > Its interesting how the odds go up and down by about 10% for every
> > win/loss. Don't know how accurate this is but its kinda neat to keep
> > an eye on.
> >
>
> The weak link is the very large uncertainty in stating the odds for
> the outcome of any given game. If possible, the author of the program should
> tell us how well his methodology works for "predicting" the net outcomes for
> some similar set of already-played games.
Hey Joe,
I wonder if he is just using 50% as the probability?
>
> Joe
Terrence Chan
>The weak link is the very large uncertainty in stating the odds for
>the outcome of any given game. If possible, the author of the program should
>tell us how well his methodology works for "predicting" the net outcomes for
>some similar set of already-played games. (Unless he has used all of these
>previous results to tune his algorithm, in which case it will not be an unbiased
>test...)
From the comments he says he's using some adjusted goals for/against
formula.
--
"The problem with unemployment is that the moment you wake up, you're on the job."
Grande Mal
"monster" <itisther...@home.com> wrote in message
news:mMVVf.10048$K11.3418@clgrps12...
Remember the heady days before Christmas when the term 'elite' was bandied
about here? Remember when Ottawa came west? Remember before Clouts got
injured and folks wondered how far into the playoffs he'd take us? Remember
when Crow was still the 'quintessential western-conference coach'?
Now, I'm hoping they squeeze into the playoffs in the number eight spot.
Now, I'm hoping that if they don't beat LA at least Matt Cooke will beat up
Sean Avery. Now, I'm looking at the farm and the draft and wondering (again)
how long the rebuilding might take.
Hey, I'm still on the bandwagon. I'm one of the voices in the chorus at the
back, cursing the driver and throwing stones at the horses asses.
joe
>
> From the comments he says he's using some adjusted goals for/against
> formula.
O.K., thanks. Using that instead of W/L should reduce the bias of the test,
but we we still don't have any information that shows how well we should expect
the projection to work.
F.W.I.W., I have made a simplistic Monte Carlo model that projects the final
point totals for the 7 "bubble" teams (Cgy, Ana, Col, Edm, SJ, Van, and LA) as
of today, taking into account all of the specific match-ups vis a vis (possible)
3-point games. The assumptions are:
0. Only games with at least one of the above 7 teams matter
1. Probability of OT game: 237/1061 (i.e. the cumulative fraction of OT games
right now.)
2. In any given game, weather OT or regulation, each team has the same odds of
winning. Based on the above OT probability, this gives the following odds per
game for each team:
Regulation win: 38.83%
Regulation Loss: 38.83%
Overtime win: 11.17%
Overtime loss: 11.17%
With this in mind, I get the following point totals after a large number of trials:
Cgy 98
Ana 97
Col 97
Edm 95
SJ 95
Van 92
LA 91
Alas, under this simple scenario the Canucks miss the last playoff spot by 3
points. But of course, there are major deficiencies in the model, like how well
in reality any given team plays against any other given team, slumps, winning
streaks, etc. Those considerations add a lot of uncertainty.
Joe
mad-dog
> Remember when Crow was still the 'quintessential western-conference coach'?
>
Colin
>I have no idea why you're wallowing in so much negativity. You're the one
who posted the " last 15, win 10 and we're in " idea. Tell me how they are
.400 since then - they've won 3 times and lost twice. Win tonigth and they
are at .667 since then. there's your .700. And check out the "slumping"
Berts numbers in the Oilers series - he was their best forward. It was
actually a lack of scoring from their secodn line that did them in, not
their first. But the Canucks won 2 out of 3 from the Oilers. That's a good
start. They need 7 more wins starting with tonight. They are a better team
than LA, they are at home - should be a great game to watch. I don't
>understand this March of the Damned attitude in here.
-----------
Canucks are 3-6-1 in the past 10 games. What percentage is that? I post
the facts and the facts are they needed to win 10 and lose 5. Last night it
was reported they need to win 7 of their remaining 10 games. They lost badly
to Detroit, and then impressed everyone by winning a game in Edmonton. And
won in O/T against Edmonton Thurs but Edmonton got a point in that game.
Saturday they got one point and gave up 2 to Edmonton.
I seriously hope that they can begin to win a lot of games. I don't see
a trend of this yet. Have you noticed the other teams that are also in
contention are winning more games than Vancouver? Anaheim is 9-1-1
San Jose is 8-1-1 LA is 5-5-0
Negative? Hardly. I'm a Canucks' fan. Got a right to express myself and
I am being realistic this season. Matching expections with their
performance. The Canucks are a so-so team. They will probably not make the
playoffs. They don't deserve to. And if they make the playoffs they will go
out first round probably in 4 games.
I'm watching the game tonight. I hope they win.
Pick the 7 wins:
Mon vs LA ?
Wed vs Min ?
Fri vs Min ?
Sun at Ana ?
Mon at LA ?
Sat vs Clg ?
Mon vs Ana ?
Wed vs SJ ?
Thu at SJ ?
Sat vs Avs ?
monster
"Colin" <c...@net.ca> wrote in message news:qj_Vf.188945$H%4.120747@pd7tw2no...
>
> "monster" <itisther...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:mMVVf.10048$K11.3418@clgrps12...
>
>>I have no idea why you're wallowing in so much negativity. You're the one
> who posted the " last 15, win 10 and we're in " idea. Tell me how they are
> .400 since then - they've won 3 times and lost twice. Win tonigth and they
> are at .667 since then. there's your .700. And check out the "slumping"
> Berts numbers in the Oilers series - he was their best forward. It was
> actually a lack of scoring from their secodn line that did them in, not
> their first. But the Canucks won 2 out of 3 from the Oilers. That's a good
> start. They need 7 more wins starting with tonight. They are a better team
> than LA, they are at home - should be a great game to watch. I don't
>>understand this March of the Damned attitude in here.
> -----------
> Canucks are 3-6-1 in the past 10 games.
Who cares what they've done the last 10 games. Are you completely missing my
point ? You stated the Canucks needed to win 10 of their last 15 to make the
playoffs. Win tonight and they are right on the schedule you said they
needed to be to make them. Yet you now you say they don't even deserve to
make them, and if they do they'll just go out in 4 straight. I don't
understand that sort of pessimism - it certainly isn't based on how the team
has been playing since you made your initial post 6 games ago. Did you think
they'd win 10 straight?
have a chance. What percentage is that? I post
Colin
>Who cares what they've done the last 10 games. Are you completely missing
my
point ? You stated the Canucks needed to win 10 of their last 15 to make the
playoffs. Win tonight and they are right on the schedule you said they
needed to be to make them. Yet you now you say they don't even deserve to
make them, and if they do they'll just go out in 4 straight. I don't
understand that sort of pessimism - it certainly isn't based on how the team
has been playing since you made your initial post 6 games ago. Did you think
>they'd win 10 straight?
--------------
Your point is that they are 'almost' on schedule.
Just because they are "almost" on schedule the past few games does not
translate into going 7 wins in 10 games. They haven't done this all year,
and odds are they will settle down to a 5-5 finish. Wish they were going to
somehow begin to dominate....haven't seen it so far.
Another reason I have shifted my opinion recently is because I have
begun to watch the other teams' games on TV. I have Center Ice and watched
and Edm--Avs yesterday as well as Calgary--Dallas and SJ--Chi. These teams
who are in the race are not folding. And Saturday when Vancouver managed 1
point every team we needed to lose won that night. The other teams are not
helping out the Canucks.
That's all I'm going to say on this. I've been on both sides of this
every year, usually on the optinistic side. This year it doesn't look very
good realistically. In order for Vancouver to make it we need to see
something which has not developed so far this year at all, except perhaps a
spark of it the past week. A spark is a far cry from domination.
Let's see what happens tonight? LA outplayed Nashville the other night.
Sopel is in town. Remember a few years ago when he helped the Canucks to win
almost every game at the end of the season in order to make the playoffs?
Ray Ferrero: TEAM 1040 am radio 4 pm 7 teams for 5 playoff spots.
Lots of guys out for LA tonight. Very physical game tonight. Lost 7-3 to
Det. and had a little meeting. What was message? Simplify. Commit
defensively. Short shifts. Bert is one guy who can lift the team. He had a
good week. He has to do it again.
scott stephens
"Colin" <c...@net.ca> wrote in message news:9c%Vf.190834$B94.84518@pd7tw3no...
Very generous of you, but they managed exactly zero points on Sat.
Dave Logan
> > performance. The Canucks are a so-so team.
Kings have allowed 20 goals in the last 5 games and are one of the
teams that have allowed more goals than they have scored this year.
They have only 1 game left against a team not in the playoff hunt
(Coyotes). They are a wounded dog.
The Canucks have to beat out 1 of Anaheim, Colorado, San Jose and
Edmonton.
Edmonton is the only other competitor in the group that has allowed
more goals than they've scored, but mainly due to pre-Rolosan
goaltending. The Oilers have some soft teams left to play (Chicago,
Wildx2) while the Canucks have the Wildx2 and LA. Both have 10 games
left. With Salo and Jovo out, the Canucks aren't getting much offensive
help from the D. All in all, it looks grim.
It's all well and good if the Canucks can suck it up and make the
playoffs, and if they are that hot, they might surprise someone in the
early rounds but if the team had been prepared against some weak teams
earlier in the year they would not be in this fix, and that's a black
mark against the entire organization -Nonis for not making a deal
earlier, Crawford for ...well being Crawford the Unready, and
some(many) key players for underperforming over the whole season.
Injuries are no excuse, it was obvious at the start of the season that
the Canucks only had 3 go-to D-men and a lot of question marks,
including injury histories for Salo and Allen, and less so, Ohlund..
Canucks by Month
Oct 8W-4L
Nov 8-6
Dec 5-7
Jan 9-6
Feb 4-3
Mar 4-8 30W-30L since October!!!!
Pretty disappointing to me, watching a team that can play a lot better
than it has since Nov-1.
DAve L
Colin
"scott stephens" <smac...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:XE%Vf.11078$B_1.8752@edtnps89...
---------
I'm getting old. Keep screwing up on a regular basis.