travel_dude Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Hmmm.. Are the Cancuks aging at a greater rate than other teams in the league? Oh dear... this is bad. Yes, it is all that sun and salt air in the winter. Pre-mature aging. My comment was actually that stamina is harder to maintain with older vets. It's not so much can you get it up, but can you keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Hmmm.. Are the Cancuks aging at a greater rate than other teams in the league? Oh dear... this is bad. Yes.... Yes they are growing older at a much faster rate than other teams...... You seem to think that your team is faster and greater than all other teams so why not at aging too??? The problem is you just refuse to see this part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyromancer Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Ottawa with a furious finish making the East interesting again. The Bruins may be hibernating come April. Wild card West still projecting to 97 pts. I am still thinking that the points required to make 3rd Pacific will be around 95. Therefore we need to go 6-5-0 at the absolute minimum. I think 7-4-0 guarantees playoffs. 31383 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invin Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Things are getting mighty interesting. So stressful watching the scores every night, but I guess that's better than meaningless games, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketdoctor Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 So tight in the West where East is all but done. Nervous times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kehatch Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 If Calgary misses the playoffs with 96 points that would be SUPER disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulstad Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 That Sportsnet talking head during the game last night (John Shannon?) last night said that it would be considered a failure if the Flames don't make the playoffs this season, given all that they've accomplished this year. Personally, I think that ANY success the team has for the remainder of this season, even if that does or does not include the playoffs, is gravy. I am as proud of this current team as I was of the 2004 squad at the end of the SCF, if not moreso. I would love to see this city kick it into overdrive for the boys in the playoffs, but to consider missing them a failure I think is malarkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 It would be a disappointment. Not a failure. To be in the second year of a rebuild, predicted to be in the McDavid lottery, survive an 8 game losing streak, to be missing our Captain for the last quarter of the season.... To even be in the race is a success. Making the playoffs would be even more impressive. Is it a disaster if we don't? No. But it would be frustrating to be THAT close and miss. We need to get 1 more point than LA and/or Winnipeg the rest of the way to get in. Hopefully we can manage that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 It's basically 5 teams fighting for 4 spots. According to sports club stats, http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL.html Canucks 89.6% Wild 85.3% Flames 78.9% Kings 67.3% Jets 64.4% All 5 teams have over 50% chance to make the playoffs from here on in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 That Sportsnet talking head during the game last night (John Shannon?) last night said that it would be considered a failure if the Flames don't make the playoffs this season, given all that they've accomplished this year. Personally, I think that ANY success the team has for the remainder of this season, even if that does or does not include the playoffs, is gravy. I am as proud of this current team as I was of the 2004 squad at the end of the SCF, if not moreso. I would love to see this city kick it into overdrive for the boys in the playoffs, but to consider missing them a failure I think is malarkey. As darth said it would be a disappointment but not a failure. We went through & survived hardships. @ times our forward crew was largely teenagers & AHL callups. I admitted my hopes plummeted when Gio went down but the Flames are managing to tough even that out. I'm definately not conceeding the season but if we do barely miss out I'll still be proud of what this group has accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpsoFacto Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 We have the easiest schedule down the stretch, facing 5 playoff and 6 non-playoff teams (total of 5 at home) Vancouver and LA both face 7 playoff and 5 non-playoff teams (total of 6 at home). Both Winnipeg and Minny are in tight, playing 9 of 11 and 10 of 11 against playoff teams respecitvely (total of 6 at home each). This is counting LA as a playoff team even though they're not in a spot right now. Given that all three teams are within 3 points, the strength of schedule really matters. So does winning games you're supposed to win... Should have read all four teams... ...er...five teams... And LA only has 4 home games left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_People1 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 We still play the Wild, Kings, and Jets one more time. We can't let those be 3-point games. And when these teams go up against one another, we hope they aren't 3-pointers too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 We have the easiest schedule down the stretch, facing 5 playoff and 6 non-playoff teams (total of 5 at home) Vancouver and LA both face 7 playoff and 5 non-playoff teams (total of 6 at home). Both Winnipeg and Minny are in tight, playing 9 of 11 and 10 of 11 against playoff teams respecitvely (total of 6 at home each). This is counting LA as a playoff team even though they're not in a spot right now. Given that all three teams are within 3 points, the strength of schedule really matters. So does winning games you're supposed to win... Should have read all four teams... ...er...five teams... And LA only has 4 home games left The playoff - non-playoff team thing is overplayed. It has no relevence, you can't count on wins based on that, as I'm sure you'd agree. The heads like to talk it up, but they talk a lot of crap to fill air space anyways, even 5 games in. Columbus, our next opponent and non-playoff team, just spotted Van 2, then ripped off 6 in retaliation. Non-playoff doesn't equal bad team, no point in pretending it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 The playoff - non-playoff team thing is overplayed. It has no relevence, you can't count on wins based on that, as I'm sure you'd agree. The heads like to talk it up, but they talk a lot of crap to fill air space anyways, even 5 games in. Columbus, our next opponent and non-playoff team, just spotted Van 2, then ripped off 6 in retaliation. Non-playoff doesn't equal bad team, no point in pretending it does. Agree, anybody can rise up to play spoiler, or a powerhouse can falter, ie St Louis vs Winnipeg yesterday. The head to heads will be absolutely critical as well as the 3-pt issue. Flames guarantee playoffs by winning out, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. One game at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpsoFacto Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 The playoff - non-playoff team thing is overplayed. It has no relevence, you can't count on wins based on that, as I'm sure you'd agree. The heads like to talk it up, but they talk a lot of crap to fill air space anyways, even 5 games in. Columbus, our next opponent and non-playoff team, just spotted Van 2, then ripped off 6 in retaliation. Non-playoff doesn't equal bad team, no point in pretending it does. Obviously there are no guarantees. But to say that those games are not more likely to be wins ignores the reality that those teams win less often than teams in the playoffs. It's not like I'm sitting there saying that we'll win all our games against the non-playoff teams. But it's a simple fact that, over a large enough sample size, we are more likely to win against teams that are worse (aka that don't win as much). I'll put it differently. If you were in a do or die game to make the playoffs, do you want to be playing columbus or anaheim? We have 11 do or die games. I (and pretty much anyone on here) wants more of those games against teams like Edmonton, Phoenix, Colorado, Columbus, etc. Because we are more likely to win those games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Obviously there are no guarantees. But to say that those games are not more likely to be wins ignores the reality that those teams win less often than teams in the playoffs. It's not like I'm sitting there saying that we'll win all our games against the non-playoff teams. But it's a simple fact that, over a large enough sample size, we are more likely to win against teams that are worse (aka that don't win as much). I'll put it differently. If you were in a do or die game to make the playoffs, do you want to be playing columbus or anaheim? We have 11 do or die games. I (and pretty much anyone on here) wants more of those games against teams like Edmonton, Phoenix, Colorado, Columbus, etc. Because we are more likely to win those games. Probably Anaheim, now that Bobrovsky is back, and Columbus is as big as Anaheim. There are zero "more likely wins" this time of year. The concept WILL falter somewhere, because, well, it lends itself to imperfect statistics. That the talking heads present as sensible. They aren't. Statistics are statistics, there is no "why" in them. They are given relevence on a scale I don't comprehend. They aren't future realities, as in, our current immediate future. Currently, they mean zero. Edit Didn't we just put a beat down on Anaheim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpsoFacto Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Probably Anaheim, now that Bobrovsky is back, and Columbus is as big as Anaheim. There are zero "more likely wins" this time of year. The concept WILL falter somewhere, because, well, it lends itself to imperfect statistics. That the talking heads present as sensible. They aren't. Statistics are statistics, there is no "why" in them. They are given relevence on a scale I don't comprehend. They aren't future realities, as in, our current immediate future. Currently, they mean zero. Edit Didn't we just put a beat down on Anaheim? This is absurd. You're relying on single instances to justify a faulty position. Obviously any team could beat any team on any given night. Obviously no game is a given. Obviously no one is counting games against non-playoff teams as wins. I (and I don't think anyone else) is saying otherwise. But to say that a bad team is just as likely to win as a good team because that bad team has won before is just plain wrong. They have won a lot less and are a lot less likely to win again because (with exceptions) the reason they weren't winning before hasn't changed (or at least not significantly). What I stated was a general rule....generally, it's better if we are playing teams lower in the standings because they are worse and we are more likely to be able to beat worse teams more frequently. There may be specific circumstances for specific teams that change that (ie: trades, injuries, etc). But you're not being honest if you disagree with that principle. You shot down my Columbus vs Anaheim example, but I could pose a dozen more...would you rather play... Edmonton or St Louis? Phoenix or Chicago? Toronto or Pittsburgh? etc. These are obviously extreme examples, but they illustrate the point. Could we beat St Louis? Yes. Could we lose to Edmonton? Yes. But would you rather play Edmonton or St Louis? If you're honest with yourself, it's Edmonton. And the same applies as a general rule to all playoff vs non-playoff teams. Yes, there are individual exceptions (as mentioned, injuries, trades, etc, and, not mentioned, match-up problems). But it's just silly to say that you don't care whether we play bad teams or good teams because bad teams win games too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 This is absurd. You're relying on single instances to justify a faulty position. Obviously any team could beat any team on any given night. Obviously no game is a given. Obviously no one is counting games against non-playoff teams as wins. I (and I don't think anyone else) is saying otherwise. But to say that a bad team is just as likely to win as a good team because that bad team has won before is just plain wrong. They have won a lot less and are a lot less likely to win again because (with exceptions) the reason they weren't winning before hasn't changed (or at least not significantly). What I stated was a general rule....generally, it's better if we are playing teams lower in the standings because they are worse and we are more likely to be able to beat worse teams more frequently. There may be specific circumstances for specific teams that change that (ie: trades, injuries, etc). But you're not being honest if you disagree with that principle. You shot down my Columbus vs Anaheim example, but I could pose a dozen more...would you rather play... Edmonton or St Louis? Phoenix or Chicago? Toronto or Pittsburgh? etc. These are obviously extreme examples, but they illustrate the point. Could we beat St Louis? Yes. Could we lose to Edmonton? Yes. But would you rather play Edmonton or St Louis? If you're honest with yourself, it's Edmonton. And the same applies as a general rule to all playoff vs non-playoff teams. Yes, there are individual exceptions (as mentioned, injuries, trades, etc, and, not mentioned, match-up problems). But it's just silly to say that you don't care whether we play bad teams or good teams because bad teams win games too... Bottom line is we just need to win. Yes I like our schedule but you still play the games on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conundrumed Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 This is absurd. they illustrate the point. .. There's a point? Is that point not like getting my palms read? Are you trying to "illustrate" a point that we "should" get in? Welcome to my point. Stats mean jack right now. Shall we get angrier with one another, or enjoy what looks like a bit of a ride together? We've clobbered the statistician's, why listen to them now? Just kick butt...let everyone else try to explain it! Edmonton or LA, do I care? Not really, we don't need to back in to anything. We'll kick everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darth_henning Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Obviously there are teams that are theoretically "easier" to play against because they haven't been as good this year. Would I rather have those? sure. But to count that as strength of schedule is misleading. As Colorado just proved even if they aren't in the playoff they are still capable f taking those points off you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob1974 Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Exactly! In the end, they have to be ready for everyone because if you take your foot off it's the difference between a win and loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IpsoFacto Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 There's a point? Is that point not like getting my palms read? Are you trying to "illustrate" a point that we "should" get in? Welcome to my point. Stats mean jack right now. Shall we get angrier with one another, or enjoy what looks like a bit of a ride together? We've clobbered the statistician's, why listen to them now? Just kick butt...let everyone else try to explain it! Edmonton or LA, do I care? Not really, we don't need to back in to anything. We'll kick everyone. There is a point. We have an easier schedule. That is preferable. It is better than the alternative. It does improve the odds of us winning the number of games we need to to make the playoffs. It does not mean we will do it. It doesn't predict anything. It doesn't guarantee anything. It doesn't mean we are entitled to anything. I never said we "should" get in or that the easier schedule predicts anything. It was merely an observation that we have an easier schedule than the teams we're competing with and that makes the odds a little bit better for us. You somehow make a connection (that I or no one else seems to be making) that better odds means some kind of prediction or guarantee. I don't know that I could have been more clear on that with my string of "obviously" sentences. Obviously we have to actually win the games. Your point of having to actually play it out and having to win enough games is completely valid. But come on, man. You can't seriously say you wouldn't prefer to have an easier schedule to get into the playoffs. Your argument loses all credibility when you say that it doesn't matter whether we play Edmonton or LA. Obviously either team could beat us. Obviously we have to win enough games to get into the playoffs. But it is obviously way easier to beat Edmonton. Knowing that we need to win 7 games (give or take) out of our next 11, it is insane to say that it wouldn't make a difference if all 11 games were against Chicago, St Louis and Anaheim, instead of being against Edmonton, Phoenix, and Toronto. Neither schedule would guarantee anything. Neither schedule would predict anything. But one of them is definitely more appealing... Obviously there are teams that are theoretically "easier" to play against because they haven't been as good this year. Would I rather have those? sure. But to count that as strength of schedule is misleading. As Colorado just proved even if they aren't in the playoff they are still capable f taking those points off you. It's not misleading to count it as strength of schedule. For some reason people here are conflating strength of schedule with guaranteed wins. Any team in the NHL can beat any team on any given night. But Colorado is less likely to do what they did the other night than St Louis. The fact that you would rather have the easier schedule sums up that whole point. You want the easier schedule because it means wins are more likely, not because it guarantees them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstrike Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 So Calgary has one more ROW than Chicago (they have one game in hand though). I'm impressed as CHI is a good team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstrike Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 I was curious how the west standings would look if you changed the point system. Here's what I got. W L OTL SO Total points Rank 3 0 1 2 ANA 114 7 16 137 #1 STL 108 6 18 132 #2 NASH 111 8 12 131#3 CHI 102 6 18 126#4 MIN 108 7 6 121 #5 VAN 108 4 8 120#6 CGY 105 5 8 118 #7 LAK 96 14 4 114 #8 WIN 87 12 14 113 #9 SJS 96 8 6 110 #10 DAL 90 10 6 106 #11 COL 72 12 18 102 #12 ARI 48 8 10 66 #13 EDM 42 13 10 65 #14 The only major difference is LA is in, WIN is out (and EDM is a better oil tanker). I think this point system would give incentive to win in OT. Bigger advantage in an additional point than in a tie breaker. What do you think? Given the standings haven't changed much is it worth it or would it even make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccsberg Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 I was curious how the west standings would look if you changed the point system. Here's what I got. W L OTL SO Total points Rank 3 0 1 2 ANA 114 7 16 137 #1 STL 108 6 18 132 #2 NASH 111 8 12 131#3 CHI 102 6 18 126#4 MIN 108 7 6 121 #5 VAN 108 4 8 120#6 CGY 105 5 8 118 #7 LAK 96 14 4 114 #8 WIN 87 12 14 113 #9 SJS 96 8 6 110 #10 DAL 90 10 6 106 #11 COL 72 12 18 102 #12 ARI 48 8 10 66 #13 EDM 42 13 10 65 #14 The only major difference is LA is in, WIN is out (and EDM is a better oil tanker). I think this point system would give incentive to win in OT. Bigger advantage in an additional point than in a tie breaker. What do you think? Given the standings haven't changed much is it worth it or would it even make a difference? There is a huge change, and that is Calgary is safely in 6th place, 9 puts up on LAK and SJS. In any case, I believe this a better system as it FAIRLY represents reality for all games, versus some games only worth two points, and others worth three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.