Wild Card Race (Western Conference)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Robbob

32% voted for Calgary in that poll, while another large portion called shenanigans because Edmonton made it through 2 rounds somehow. I am sure all those people you voted Calgary feel a great deal of shame now.

Agreed but Calgary was a consensous bottom 5 team regardless. Holding anyone's Calgary is in the McDavid sweepstakes predictions against them now is pretty ridiculous.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GGG

Agreed but Calgary was a consensous bottom 5 team regardless. Holding anyone's Calgary is in the McDavid sweepstakes predictions against them now is pretty ridiculous.

Those that should shame are those who thought Edmonton would be better than Calgary. TBQH I thought Calgary would finish in the 5-7 range, so they are exceeding all my expectations this year, but worse than Edmonton? Never!

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Nothing "catches up" to Winnipeg. It's symptomatic of always being the worst.

Your comment made before they totally shut down the highest scoring team in the league in their building 16 shots on goal !

They were down to 4 d-men trailing 1-0 with 12 minutes left.

Enstrom was out with a head into the boards and Trouba out for 2 plus 10 for stepping in. Postma, Harrison, Stuart and Pardy.

They were able to do what the Flames couldn't do for 3 years is win an important playoff type game with Stempniak in the line-up.

They kind of made me think of the 2004 Flames with Yelle and Nilson and Donovan and Clark carrying a heavy load. They are able to throw out AHL d-men sort of like Commodore and Montador and keep on going.


If Hartley does not win Coach of The year Maurice will... should be no one else close.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Mike Babcock should win coach of the year as he should basically every damn year.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Mike Babcock should win coach of the year as he should basically every damn year.

He got a team that spent to the cap and had Franzen out for most of the season to a 7-8 point lead on Calgary who has 18M in cap space and are missing their 2 best players from last year (Gio/Glencross)

Hartley still has them in the hunt.


The Jets have their best player quit on them, force a trade, miss significant time from their 5 best d-men and then lose 2 of their top 6 forwards, start the season with the worst regular goalie in the NHL and are 8M under the cap

Maurice has them still in the hunt.

I guess that Babcock gets the nod because of his history.

Over the last 5 years he has taken a cap team to the playoffs. (Note almost all teams that pay to the cap make the playoffs..... the Flames under Feaster were an exception.)

He has beaten the Coyotes in 09-10 in the first round in 7 games with a 15M cap advantage and then followed that up with another 1st round win against Anaheim in 11-12.

2 play series wins out of his last 7 playoff series with a cap team

Babcock was pretty good at not benching Lidstrom.

[heep223]

Why are we talking about Babcock?

There are three clear nominees this year: Hartley, Maurice and Laviolette. If someone had to come out of the East Capuano is ahead of Babcock no question.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm actually on board with the Maurice nomination. But I feel Babcock is consistently overlooked because of his consistency. The guy could get the Grand Rapids Griffins a playoff spot. The Red Wings are playing like a top team in the East and based on their roster there's really no reason they should be anything but a bubble team. I like their chances better than Montreal's to come out of the EC (though not as TBL's so depending on how the Atlantic shapes up they may still lose in rd 1). It's the only team I can look at and think the coach is the most important guy in the organization - and I say that while praying at the church of Pavel Datsyuk who I think should win the Selke this year (or at least end a close 2nd in votes).

[fuffalo]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

I believe your signature is an attempt to explain to people who want to say "See! This goes against statistics, so statistics are wrong!". The problem is, your example does the exact same thing you're trying to dismiss.

If you assume that because you're alive a finite time then you can only bet a finite number of times. You will not "end up ahead in the long term". This is false, and not what statistics are suggesting. Statistics are suggesting that you are most likely to come out ahead. Because you aren't betting an infinite number of times you could still indeed come out losing money.

I'm sure you understand this, it just bugged me a bit when I read it.

[Tsawwassen]

After Sunday's games:

1. Minnesota (38-23-7) 35 ROW, 83 pts
Vancouver (39-25-4) 35 ROW, 82 pts--second in the Pacific Division
Calgary (38-26-5) 34 ROW, 81 pts--third in Pacific Division
2. Winnipeg (34-23-12) 28 ROW, 80 pts
3. Los Angeles (33-22-13) 31 ROW, 79 pts--and fourth in Pacific Division
4. San Jose (34-27-8) 31 ROW, 76 pts--and fifth in the Pacific Division
5. Colorado (32-26-11) 23 ROW, 75 pts
6. Dallas (32-28-10) 29 ROW, 74 pts

Stars lost in regulation

[Tsawwassen]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Looking more and more like 96 points to get in after last night. Teams would need the following records for that:

Chicago: 4-10 IN
Wild: 6-6-1 Likely IN
Canucks: 7-7 Likely IN
Flames: 7-5-1 Battling for 2 spots
Jets: 8-4-1 Battling for 2 spots (really 8-5, but they have a low ROW)
Kings: 8-5-1 Battling for 2 spots
Sharks: 10-3 ALMOST DONE
Avalanche: 10-2-1 ALMOST DONE
Stars: 11-2-0 ALMOST DONE

Originally Posted by polak

At this pace, Two losses in a row by any team will change your entire chart around.

Yep, polak's right with a 2 game losing streak. The Canucks and Wild are battling for spots too. You have the Canucks likely in but they are only 1 point up on the Flames who are battling for 2 spots? That doesn't make sense. It really is 5 teams battling for 4 playoff spots.

[EldrickOnIce]

Flames could well lose Tuesday.
It's not the end of the world at all.
What they must do is not panic and take care of Business on the rest of the home stand.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by fuffalo

I believe your signature is an attempt to explain to people who want to say "See! This goes against statistics, so statistics are wrong!"

It's meant to address people who seem to think that anyone who thinks analytics or the statistics they rely on are valuable must somehow think they're the only thing that matters and a complete code to understanding what happens on the ice.

This sentence misses the point spectacularly: "Statistics are suggesting that you are most likely to come out ahead. Because you aren't betting an infinite number of times you could still indeed come out losing money."

Yes. Exactly. That's the whole point. You can still lose. You're just trying to give yourself an improved chance of winning long-term. Tools do not need to be perfect to be worth using.

[normtwofinger]

I liked this thread when it was about the playoff race.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by fuffalo

I believe your signature is an attempt to explain to people who want to say "See! This goes against statistics, so statistics are wrong!". The problem is, your example does the exact same thing you're trying to dismiss.

If you assume that because you're alive a finite time then you can only bet a finite number of times. You will not "end up ahead in the long term". This is false, and not what statistics are suggesting. Statistics are suggesting that you are most likely to come out ahead. Because you aren't betting an infinite number of times you could still indeed come out losing money.

I'm sure you understand this, it just bugged me a bit when I read it.

...and we JUST got him to stop talking about advanced stats.

[trumpethead]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Mike Babcock should win coach of the year as he should basically every damn year.

That chart makes absolutely no sense at all. How could you possibly suggest the Kings have a 30% higher possibility (and the Jets have a 26% higher possibility) than the Flames to make the playoffs??

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by trumpethead

That chart makes absolutely no sense at all. How could you possibly suggest the Kings have a 30% higher possibility (and the Jets have a 26% higher possibility) than the Flames to make the playoffs??

It's looking at advanced analytics.

The Flames have awful advanced stats (like Corsi). I think this graph takes that into account.

[Hells Bells]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It's looking at advanced analytics.

The Flames have awful advanced stats (like Corsi). I think this graph takes that into account.

In others words, it's useless.

You can't just assume the Flames will lose games they've been winning all year. That's ridiculous.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

In others words, it's useless.

You can't just assume the Flames will lose games they've been winning all year. That's ridiculous.

It is not assuming the Flames "will lose", it is assuming that the teams who are possessing the puck more (as determined by a rolling 25-game average Fenwick and adjusted for schedule) are more likely to win. On this model, yes, we will be rated far lower. There really is no reason to be upset by that. All it is is one model, no more or less valid than the sportsclubstats model is.

[Enoch Root]

Also, stats require time to settle out.

Projecting who is going to win more over the last 15 games, based on Corsi or any other statistic, is a complete waste of time.

[Hells Bells]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is not assuming the Flames "will lose", it is assuming that the teams who are possessing the puck more (as determined by a rolling 25-game average Fenwick and adjusted for schedule) are more likely to win. On this model, yes, we will be rated far lower. There really is no reason to be upset by that. All it is is one model, no more or less valid than the sportsclubstats model is.

Not upset by it at all, its laughable.

Any chart with the Jets and Kings having a 26-30% higher chance at making the playoffs is certainly less valid IMO.