HFBoards Will the Flames make the playoffs?
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Calgary Flames Prospects:    Sean Monahan, C   » Johnny Gaudreau, LW   » Sven Baertschi, LW   » Max Reinhart, C   » Corban Knight, C   » Mark Jankowski, C   » Tyler Wotherspoon, D   » Patrick Sieloff, D   » Emile Poirier, RW   » Jon Gillies, G   »

# Will the Flames make the playoffs?

01-25-2011, 10:14 AM
#101
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple Lol. This is almost humorous. Just to let you know i have a degree in advanced relativistic geometry. Your math is brutal. Just sayin....
Could you elaborate how your degree influences the play-off odds of any team? Theory of relativity always scared me a little, so I just assume that there must be a link between these two, cause why would you bring it up otherwise?

Quote:
 Ninth place points is irrelevant. If you want in, you need more than eighth place. Last year Colorado had 95. Irrelevant they only needed 92, because they had 95. So were a team, oh lets say like Calgary, to take that away, they would need 96. Get it yet?
Actually, it would have been sufficient for the Flames to win two more games against the Avalanche, woudn't it? Which gets your magical number down to 94.

The Flames dropped four of the six games last season, so it is not that I am asking for a sweep here.

01-25-2011, 10:18 AM
#102
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple edit: ps Snoil I predict Anaheim to fall out of contention. So you can negate their games. And yes, its perfectly logical that Phx, La and SJ or Colorado all end up around 100 points.
But I assume Anaheim still takes 95+ points, cause otherwise Colorado would not up in 10th place in the scenario you depicted above (not this post, the earlier one).

Edit: There are still quite a few points in post #87 that you haven't adressed so far.

 01-25-2011, 10:22 AM #103 BurnEmUp Registered User     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 682 vCash: 500 Another internet chest puffer, bragging about degrees and accomplishments yada yada. Guess what? Nobody here gives a ****. You are talking about PASSING the 8th place team, I am talking about BEING the 8th place team. To make the playoffs you only have to BE the 8th place team.....and last year to BE the 8th place team Colorado would have only needed 91 points.
01-25-2011, 10:24 AM
#104
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by BurnEmUp Another internet chest puffer, bragging about degrees and accomplishments yada yada. Guess what? Nobody gives a ****. You are talking about PASSING the 8th place team, I am talking about BEING the 8th place team. To make the playoffs you only have to BE the 8th place team.....and last year to BE the 8th place team Colorado would have only needed 91 points.
But they had 95. So eighth place was 95. Not 91. In the magical land of make believe they may have had 92, but in reality they had 95.

 01-25-2011, 10:30 AM #105 FLAMES666 Retrofit not Rebuild     Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Calgary Country: Posts: 3,346 vCash: 50 Lets make this simple, as said when Feaster took over this team needs to win 2/3 of their game to make playoffs, which they have been. With 32 games left the team needs to go about 21 - 11 without OT losses. Very much achievable. And there is no way it takes over 98 points to make playoffs, ya the West is really competitive but that makes the amount of points you need to make playoffs drop. As it stands if everyone kept this pace up 95 points would get you in playoffs.
01-25-2011, 10:33 AM
#106
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Snoil11 But I assume Anaheim still takes 95+ points, cause otherwise Colorado would not up in 10th place in the scenario you depicted above (not this post, the earlier one). Edit: There are still quite a few points in post #87 that you haven't adressed so far.

That was a hypothetical example (colorado) intended to prove a point. Which appears lost. Actually, i expect Anaheim to fall below 95, and end up around 10th. However, i also expect La to end up around 100. SJ probably 95-98. Same for Colorado.

As for post 87, i dont see much that needs addressing. It is entirely possible that the stars align and Calgary plays with a record equivalent to Detroit the rest of the way. I just dont see how, with their roster, that is feasible.

01-25-2011, 10:39 AM
#107
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple That was a hypothetical example (colorado) intended to prove a point. Which appears lost. Actually, i expect Anaheim to fall below 95, and end up around 10th. However, i also expect La to end up around 100. SJ probably 95-98. Same for Colorado.
Nothing was lost here. I just try to pin down your prediction as much as possible and fill in the gaps.

Quote:
 As for post 87, i dont see much that needs addressing. It is entirely possible that the stars align and Calgary plays with a record equivalent to Detroit the rest of the way. I just dont see how, with their roster, that is feasible.
So it seems, that there is a way that the Flames make the play-offs, eh?
As for points that could be adressed: looking at the results of the MC-simulation, there are quite a few outcomes which would net the Flames a PO-spot with less than 98 points.

01-25-2011, 10:46 AM
#108
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Snoil11 Nothing was lost here. I just try to pin down your prediction as much as possible and fill in the gaps. So it seems, that there is a way that the Flames make the play-offs, eh? As for points that could be adressed: looking at the results of the MC-simulation, there are quite a few outcomes which would net the Flames a PO-spot with less than 98 points.
The statistical probability says that unless the Flames win every single game against teams competing for the eighth spot, and all competing teams play below expectations, those scenarios are highly unlikely. Simple fact of the matter is flames will need to win, as someone already mentioned, 66% or 2/3 of their remaining games. This does not guarantee them a spot, but gets them to 94 points. I predict they will need bare minimum 96, but hey, lets be positive here.

Your hypothetical situation under which you launch this haughty vapidity is one wherein 6 teams all play below .500 hockey so that a relatively mediocre winning pct can get the flames in. This is grossly improbable.

Last edited by Nachoman AlfieSavage*: 01-25-2011 at 10:52 AM.

 01-25-2011, 11:03 AM #109 bigchief12 Registered User     Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Calgary Country: Posts: 146 vCash: 500 Mod-edit: deleted. You seem to be trying to prove the impossibility of the Flames being able to close a 5 point gap with only 64 potential points remaining, your main argument being the other teams are just clearly superior and you are bringing up your mathematical superiority as additional evidence? Look at the schedule. See the teams we are playing? The very teams we are trying to catch account for 26 of the remaining 32 games. Take the Avs for example. We have three games remaining against them. If we keep pace and then beat them in that 3 game series, getting into the playoffs could be just that easy. I know, I know, the teams ahead of the Flames are all superior to the Flames but as the last three Flames games have shown, the sun even shines on a dog's butt somedays so it is not impossible to achieve those monumental upsets on occasion. Mod-edit: deleted. Last edited by Snoil11: 01-25-2011 at 11:12 AM. Reason: qdp
01-25-2011, 11:10 AM
#110
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple Your hypothetical situation under which you launch this haughty vapidity is one wherein 6 teams all play below .500 hockey so that a relatively mediocre winning pct can get the flames in. This is grossly improbable.
Another blatant exaggaration and a poor try to let the Flames play-off chances look like the chance to win a lottery. For the Flames to reach the play-offs with 92 points, it would actually be sufficient, if starting from Anaheim, four-out-of the eight teams ahead of the Flames played exactly .500 hockey. (To make it with 90 points (and neglecting the possibility that a team currently behind the Flames catches up), starting from Phoenix, three-out-of the seven teams ahead would need to play exactly .500 hockey or worse).

No six teams playing under .500 hockey, it is sufficient if four teams play exactly .500 hockey.

Is that likely? Hell no.
But it shows once again that you use whatever argument (be it correct or wrong) to support your claim that the Flames won't make the play-offs, although the actual odds are slim enough.

01-25-2011, 11:15 AM
#111
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by bigchief12 You seem to be trying to prove the impossibility of the Flames being able to close a 5 point gap with only 64 potential points remaining, your main argument being the other teams are just clearly superior and you are bringing up your mathematical superiority as additional evidence? Look at the schedule. See the teams we are playing? The very teams we are trying to catch account for 26 of the remaining 32 games. Take the Avs for example. We have three games remaining against them. If we keep pace and then beat them in that 3 game series, getting into the playoffs could be just that easy. I know, I know, the teams ahead of the Flames are all superior to the Flames but as the last three Flames games have shown, the sun even shines on a dog's butt somedays so it is not impossible to achieve those monumental upsets on occasion. lol, I guess we should all start listing our curriculum vitae in a signature to prove who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't?
I listed that in response to someones poor math saying that somehow colorado actually had 91 points last year. It was completely nonsensical.

Colorado is not the only team one needs to worry about. As i said its currently a 6 team race for eighth, and all teams have games in hand. If in theory Calgary wins every game against the Blues, Jackets, Kings, Sharks, Wild and Avs the rest of the way, that would indeed reduce the winning pct required to make it. But not by as much as you would think. Calgary still needs to win at a 60% clip for all other games. Simple fact is , Calgary will need 95 points (lets be generous). Thats over 66% or 2/3 of their remaining games they need to win. All other scenarios involve 6 teams crapping the bed simultaneously. Its just not very likely people. Man alive, it makes no sense to me how people can so desperately try to cling to something despite any reason or logic the contrary.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Snoil11 Another blatant exaggaration and a poor try to let the Flames play-off chances look like the chance to win a lottery. For the Flames to reach the play-offs with 92 points, it would actually be sufficient, if starting from Anaheim, four-out-of the eight teams ahead of the Flames played exactly .500 hockey. (To make it with 90 points (and neglecting the possibility that a team currently behind the Flames catches up), starting from Phoenix, three-out-of the seven teams ahead would need to play exactly .500 hockey or worse). No six teams playing under .500 hockey, it is sufficient if four teams play exactly .500 hockey. Is that likely? Hell no. But it shows once again that you use whatever argument (be it correct or wrong) to support your claim that the Flames won't make the play-offs, although the actual odds are slim enough.
We are talking about different things. In fact, you dont even know what it is you are talking about. If Calgary wishes to make it at their current point pct, 6 teams will need to play below .500 (to varying degrees)

Last edited by Nachoman AlfieSavage*: 01-25-2011 at 11:24 AM.

01-25-2011, 11:20 AM
#112
BurnEmUp
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 682
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Snoil11 But it shows once again that you use whatever argument (be it correct or wrong) to support your claim that the Flames won't make the play-offs, although the actual odds are slim enough.
Uses whatever argument, and a whole pile of ridiculous words that he probably spent half the morning googling.

This is all pointless anyways. The games are played on the ice, and I for one am just glad the Flames have played well recently, and have climbed back into the log jam of teams that are attempting to land themselves one of the last few playoff spots.

It should make for exciting hockey down the stretch, which is a far better option than watching the standings and praying for losses so we can watch our GM shuffle up to the podium as soon as possible on draft day.

01-25-2011, 11:27 AM
#113
bigchief12
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary
Country:
Posts: 146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Quote:
 Man alive, it makes no sense to me how people can so desperately try to cling to something despite any reason or logic the contrary.
Irony? No.

01-25-2011, 11:30 AM
#114
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by bigchief12 Irony? No.
What does that even mean? Please elaborate as to how its ironic.

I will be bumping this thread at the end of the regular season to show that indeed 96 points was the bare minimum, and that the delusional belief of the team with the second worst point pct in the west conf can somehow "turn it around" was indeed lacking any rational though. As, clearly, them making it in is nothing short of a statistical anomaly.

I object, because of the delusional nature of flames fans. I argued years ago about the need for a rebuild. To many rebuttals. I was ridiculed and insulted. Turns out, i was right.

I argued that Sutter shouldve been fired last year and that this team would not be anywhere near a playoff spot. To which many laughed at and ridiculed me for. Even posters in this form saw a well below average lineup and convinced themselves that somehow it would make the playoffs.

And now, there are Flames fans arguing that the Flames can win at a clip equivalent to Detroit the rest of the way.

I dont get you people. If the pen is blue, its blue. Stop trying to convince yourself its not.

01-25-2011, 11:33 AM
#115
BurnEmUp
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 682
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple What does that even mean? Please elaborate as to how its ironic. I will be bumping this thread at the end of the regular season to show that indeed 96 points was the bare minimum, and that the delusional belief of the team with the second worst point pct in the west conf can somehow "turn it around" was indeed lacking any rational though.
Oooooh, now I'm really worried.

If the Flames do end up making the playoffs, you give yourself a permanent ban from this site, and spend your free time reading a thesaurus and attending mensa meetings?

01-25-2011, 11:38 AM
#116
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple We are talking about different things. In fact, you dont even know what it is you are talking about. If Calgary wishes to make it at their current point pct, 6 teams will need to play below .500 (to varying degrees)
Is it your latest strategy to make up points, nobody ever used brought up in their argumentation?
Please show me, where anybody argued that the Flames could make it at their current point percentage?

I spare you the time: nobody did. People were looking at scenarios, where the Flames would sneak in with about 92 points for which it does not require six teams to play under .500 hockey.

01-25-2011, 11:40 AM
#117
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple I object, because of the delusional nature of flames fans. I argued years ago about the need for a rebuild. To many rebuttals. I was ridiculed and insulted. Turns out, i was right.
Where did you argue all this?

01-25-2011, 11:51 AM
#118
Roughneck
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country:
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple No. Were i actually making a prediction, i could be one of those people.
Oh, what's this then?

Quote:
 Im just saying 22-6-4 isnt happening.
?

Quote:
 edit: I also said give or take a win. 98-100 is the region wherein most people project eighth spot to be at. Does 21-7-4 sound more realistic? How about 20-8-4. Heck, how bouts 19-8-5. Any of these really make it much more likely?
You do realize that in order to finish ahead of Calgary, a lot of teams would have to maintain such a pace as well, right? If Calgary finishes 20-8-4, Colorado would need to finish with at worst 18-10-5 to stay ahead, same with LA, Minnesota and San Jose. Of course, an 18-10-5 record would only give the Avs 97 points, one less than what will apparently take to make the playoffs this year (according to most people).

So its impossible for Calgary to win 20 games, but Colorado winning 19 is expected (in fact, required)? As well as LA, San Jose, Minnesota, Chicago and Phoenix just to maintain the current standings? Hell, for the Ducks to make the playoffs they'd have to win 20 of their last 31 games, that's Detroit pace!

A lot of playoff teams need 60% of their points down the stretch (which is a higher rate than most have achieved to this point in the season), why is it possible for all of them to do so, but impossible for the Flames?

01-25-2011, 12:01 PM
#119
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Snoil11 Is it your latest strategy to make up points, nobody ever used brought up in their argumentation? Please show me, where anybody argued that the Flames could make it at their current point percentage? I spare you the time: nobody did. People were looking at scenarios, where the Flames would sneak in with about 92 points for which it does not require six teams to play under .500 hockey.
Not true. Such a case still requires a winning pct of .65 which is what i have said from the beginning. Since i made no attempts to say otherwise (other than those projections are well short of what will end up being the case), it was logical to presume your statements were one wherein calgary could get in with a lesser percentage, given the highly improbable nature of Calgary playing like Detroit the rest of the way. I simply made a statement that at current pace, 6 teams would need to play below .500 in response.

Regardless, i still do not understand flames fans here. The pen is blue. Blue. Nothing is gained by attempting to convince oneself otherwise.

edit to person above: Valid point. Which i have addressed. Its not that improbable that one or two teams will drop off in point pct. Its highly unlikely that 6 will while Calgary increases. If Calgary does increase, some teams may remain stagnant relative to the increase, even regress a little and calgary still misses. If Calgary significantly increases, then yes, some will need to produce more. But relative to the differential between calgarys current pace and the hypothetical increase. All said, its not very likely.

Its not logical that all will regress. In fact, its more than probable that some teams (la and sj) will increase. Presuming current point pct is held by at least 2 of the 6 teams is not in any way a stretch.

Last edited by Nachoman AlfieSavage*: 01-25-2011 at 12:07 PM.

01-25-2011, 12:04 PM
#120
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Next door
Country:
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple I listed that in response to someones poor math saying that somehow colorado actually had 91 points last year. It was completely nonsensical.
I believe that you were referring to my "lucid voice" in which I did respond in post #100. Either you missed it or you ignored it.

01-25-2011, 12:15 PM
#121
Snoil11
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Country:
Posts: 3,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NewtonsApple Not true. Such a case still requires a winning pct of .65 which is what i have said from the beginning. Since i made no attempts to say otherwise (other than those projections are well short of what will end up being the case), it was logical to presume your statements were one wherein calgary could get in with a lesser percentage, given the highly improbable nature of Calgary playing like Detroit the rest of the way. I simply made a statement that at current pace, 6 teams would need to play below .500 in response.
It would have been logical to actually read what other people wrote, rather than presume stuff that fits your point of view.
If you go through this thread, nobody argued at any point that the Flames could make it with the current pace. What people are trying to argue is that your 98-point scenario is not set in stone.

You, however, tried to make people look like fools in stating that for their scenarios to come true, it would take an (almost) impossible turn of events. Try to save your face all you want, but the people who read the thread will have an easy time to figure out what you did.

 01-25-2011, 12:20 PM #122 Roughneck Registered User     Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Calgary Country: Posts: 8,627 vCash: 500 BTW, if all teams simply maintain their point pace until the end of the season, 94 becomes the magic number to qualify. Which still requires the Flames to get 42 points from 32 games (21-11 to finish the year, the '4 points in 3 games' pace Butter acknowledged they'd need to be in the hunt), but that's doable. If you don't think it is, what's the point of watching? If one has given up surely taking any active role in watching a team with no present and no developing future is just masochism.
01-25-2011, 12:23 PM
#123
Nachoman AlfieSavage*

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eating nachos up top
Posts: 2,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Snoil11 It would have been logical to actually read what other people wrote, rather than presume stuff that fits your point of view. If you go through this thread, nobody argued at any point that the Flames could make it with the current pace. What people are trying to argue is that your 98-point scenario is not set in stone.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Roadrage I believe that you were referring to my "lucid voice" in which I did respond in post #100. Either you missed it or you ignored it.
To both of you. I feel there is much i have missed. Trying to work and keep up with this cluster**** of a thread is not easy.

Snoil. Of course its not. 98 points is not anywhere near set in stone. In fact, that is made under the assumption that Sj and La pick up their point pct. As it sits now, you need 95 points assuming current trends continue. My 98 is just a prediction. I cant keep up with all this, i need to go. Much to many delights im sure.

 01-25-2011, 08:12 PM #124 sem1 Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2010 Country: Posts: 616 vCash: 50 holy crap. this thread has so much i dont give a flying **** about. do we need to start a scientific study on it or something to make some people happy? yes it was a HUGE leap to say the flames would make the playoffs a month ago. only thing they could have done to change that is play REALLY REALLY well, and guess what? they have. they have been racking up the points latley, even losing efforts are coming in overtime/shootouts. who cares about odds, bs degrees (that nobody cares or is impressed with btw), probabilities and likely scenarios. fact of the matter is they are a couple winning streaks away from being in 8th spot. theres no science to disprove that. what do you think the odds could have been on the flames beating the canucks, stars and preds all within 4 days?? i imagine if i put \$100 down on that i would have quite a large lump of cash in my pocket right now. point iam making is that yea, the odds of it happening are pretty large but it is very very possible. flames have 3 more very winable games ahead of them now, a 6 game winning streak is the type of thing that gets these "no chance" teams back in it, were half way there. iam always optimistic until the teams mathematically out. until then theres nothing that will change my mind. well talk again in march GO FLAMES GO!!
 01-25-2011, 08:13 PM #125 saillias Registered User     Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Calgary Posts: 1,939 vCash: 50 I think the math favors Newton's Apple on this one. From a pure number to number comparison, yes, 91 is more than 90. Realistically, if Colorado had 4 less points, those points have to go somewhere too. You can't wipe those games off of the earth. Who do they go to? Since determining this is impossible, it's ridiculous to go and say "Well since St. Louis had 90 Colorado only needed 91 even though they had 95." Hell no. Secondly, say for the sake of simplifying this, lets say they lost 2 games that they actually won against the Eastern Conference. It's still only COLORADO this 4 less points for playoffs applies to, because they were in 8th. So to say, "You only needed 91 points to make the playoffs last year." No. COLORADO only needed 91 points to make the playoffs last year. And that's only if they didn't give up those 4 points to St. Louis or us. Mod: deleted. Last edited by Fugu: 01-25-2011 at 08:42 PM. Reason: now he'll have more time to do it :)

Forum Jump