Bets I Made Yesterday

[jessejames]

Please give me your feedback on the bets I made yesterday with a co-worker. Each one is for $20, so neither of us will win or lose too much.

1. Steen scores at least 45 goals in the regular season

2. The Blues loses fewer than 20 games in the regular season

3. Hitchcock wins the coach of the year award

4. Two Blues defenseman with at least 50 points and a third with at least 40

I tried to get him to bet that the Blues win the Vezina and the Stanley Cup (that one with a 3-1 odds), but he wouldn't bite.

Those predictions are a little bold maybe, but I'm really pumped about this team -- as most everyone is, I'm sure. I have been a die-hard Blues' fan since its beginning and I don't remember ever being so excited about them. The '80-'81 team was something special, but it was altogether a different sort of team.

Happy Thanksgiving Day for everyone south of the border.

Click to read more...

 

[PocketNines]

I don't think you will win #3, they like to give it to an overachiever. I'd say Roy actually leads that race.

Your best bet is #2, assuming you mean regulation losses only. Otherwise you're in trouble as they're on pace to drop 20 games in total and that's with a blistering win pace.

Your could go either way bets are 1 and 4. Health is the biggest variable.

 

[ExJbeck]

If i were you, I'd taken every bet other than the Jack Adams award. Even if he should win, he probably wont. You look $40 richer to me.

 

[PocketNines]

If Steen misses even ten games or has one serious goal slump he won't win #1 and if any of the top three point dmen get hurt he won't win #3, so those are the two most interesting bets to watch.

 

[ExJbeck]

If Steen misses even ten games or has one serious goal slump he won't win #1 and if any of the top three point dmen get hurt he won't win #3, so those are the two most interesting bets to watch.

Like you said it is going to be completely to do with how many games each player plays in. Not that I need to tell you, but all the 3 dmen have been pretty high in number of game played a season. Steen is who I'd be most concerned with about finishing a season, the good thing is he is only 25 goals away. There is an outside chance he could miss roughly 20 games and still hit 45 goals.

As long as other team don't start taking runs at our player, then everything will hopefully be fine.

 

[jessejames]

Re: Bets

I should have added that the Steen bet is with the caveat that he play at least 70 games

 

[542365]

I don't think you're winning number 3. Everybody knew the Blues were a good team, and they've played that way. If the Blues put up some historic point total in the regular season, you might have a chance. Roy and Tippett are probably leading that race. 1 and 4 need some luck, but are possible. 2 is likely a win if you're just counting regulation losses. If you're counting OT/SO losses, that's probably a loss. The team is very good, but I don't see us winning 62 games this year.

 

[jessejames]

Re:Bets

Another stipulation -- the 19 or fewer losses is counting regulations losses only

Should have stated all this before

 

[jessejames]

Re:Bets

As per Bet #3, if the Blues continue to play as they have I don't see how there is much of a question as to who the coach of the year should be. All the plaudits for Roy, for sure -- what he has done is amazing.

What Hitchcock has done isn't a matter of this year or the last or the one before; instead, it's a product of what he's done over three years cumulatively. Him and Armstrong. The Blues are one powerful hockey team.

 

[Edgar]

I hate to say it, but I think you're going to lose $80.

Steen to hit 45 would be incredible, but I just dont see it as realistic. I would be happy if he broke 40, whereas 45 just seems...

This one would require us to be the best team in the league by a mile. I don't know how many games we will see go into extra time, but it seems really ballsy. I could maybe get behind this one if we still had the bigger goalie pads, but scoring totals have increased meaning we are going to have a lot fewer 1 or 2 goal ties which is where I would have gamble most of the non-regulation losses to come from

Hitch is ****ing fantastic, but like someone said above me, they prefer the overachiever. Unless #2 comes true, I dont think Hitch will win it.

Petro and J-Bo are awesome, and Shatty is solid to, but like someone else said, if one of them gets injured, it probably won't happen.

I will say though, it's awesome that you feel this strong about the team, and I definitely agree that we have a very good shot at lord Stanley this year

 

[Alklha]

I hate to say it, but I think you're going to lose $80.

Steen to hit 45 would be incredible, but I just dont see it as realistic. I would be happy if he broke 40, whereas 45 just seems...

This one would require us to be the best team in the league by a mile. I don't know how many games we will see go into extra time, but it seems really ballsy. I could maybe get behind this one if we still had the bigger goalie pads, but scoring totals have increased meaning we are going to have a lot fewer 1 or 2 goal ties which is where I would have gamble most of the non-regulation losses to come from

Hitch is ****ing fantastic, but like someone said above me, they prefer the overachiever. Unless #2 comes true, I dont think Hitch will win it.

Petro and J-Bo are awesome, and Shatty is solid to, but like someone else said, if one of them gets injured, it probably won't happen.

I will say though, it's awesome that you feel this strong about the team, and I definitely agree that we have a very good shot at lord Stanley this year

The Blues regular season record under Hitch is 90-35-16, which is an 82 game average of around 52-20-10. 17 of the 35 losses came last season, which shouldn't be a big surprise considering that our style of play should have suffered more than most under the compacted scheduling.

Factor in that we are a significantly better team than we were in the past 2 seasons and I think than under 20 regulation losses is pretty likely.

 

[PocketNines]

Pietrangelo, Bouwmeester and Shattenkirk will win him bet #4 if they stay healthy. They're easily on pace to win that bet. It's just a greater risk having all three guys stay healthy. As for Steen, he needs 25 goals in 58 games to reach 45. I see him doing that if he's healthy and even if he slows down. But taking that bet is like #4, fading the injury risk.

Since we don't need 63 wins for him to win bet #2, we probably need something like 53-19-10. That means 35-16-7 the rest of the way. I think this team is definitely good enough to reach that record.

 

[DeuceNine]

Think OP means the Jennings, because no keeper on our team is getting voted best at his position.

 

[topnotch]

If history is any indication, you probably lose all 4 bets.

#1. In the past 4 years the only players to hit 45 goals (or be on pace in 2013-14) are Crosby, Stamkos (4), Ovechkin (2), Perry, Malkin, Tavares. Even with Steen's incredible pace I doubt he hits 45 goals. This is probably the closest bet and probably still not 50/50.

#2. Losing 19 or fewer games in regulation would mean that St Louis would have a historic year or have a ridiculous amount of OT losses. Two years ago when St Louis was 2 pts shy of the President's trophy they came 3 losses short of this mark. Washington (2010), Vancouver (2011), and Chicago on pace (2013) did so in the past 4 years. 2 of those (Was and Van) were in horrendously poor divisions which St Louis is not, and Chicago was having a history record season. Possible if St Louis has 15+ OT losses.

#3. Like others have said, usually the Jack Adams goes to a coach with an overachieving team. Unless St Louis blows everyone out of the water AND TB, Car, Pho, and Col all fall I don't see it happening. Very unlikely.

#4. This one is ridiculous. Even though all 3 are on pace for surpassing their totals the chance of it happening is worse than remote. Last year only 5 defensemen were on pace for 50 points. 2012: 5 hit 50+; 2011: 9; 2010: 7; The idea that two would come from 1 team and then that team would have another 40 point defensman is absurd. There just won't be enough points to go around. Not a chance of happening.


If the Blues have an absolutely remarkable season you may break even. Most likely you lose $40 or even $80.

 

[PocketNines]

Re #4. There are 57 games left. Petro needs 32 points in that time, Bouwmeester needs 31, Shattenkirk needs 22. To say there's no chance of that happening given the way Hitchcock has designed the attack I think is wrong. Basically it's about health. All three guys even with slumps should hit those numbers if they stay healthy. It's a health bet.

 

[PocketNines]

Re #2. 53-19-10 is 116 points, or a cumulative points pct of .707. Right now the Blues are at .780. Need a .675 the remainder of the season that include a fair number of OT losses. The fewer the OT losses in the remaining games, the higher the pts pct needs to be. Technically they could go .500 the rest of the way, lose all 57 games in OT, and still win this bet with 4 regulation losses. So each OT loss lowers the needed winning percentage the remainder of the way.

In fact, with the remaining 57 games, here's how it breaks out for needed records:

60-19-3 = 42-15-0 = .728
59-19-4 = 41-15-1 = .719
58-19-5 = 40-15-2 = .719
57-19-6 = 39-15-3 = .711
56-19-7 = 38-15-4 = .702
55-19-8 = 37-15-5 = .693
54-19-9 = 36-15-6 = .684
53-19-10 = 35-15-7 = .675
52-19-11 = 34-15-8 = .667
51-19-12 = 33-15-9 = .658
50-19-13 = 32-15-10 = .649
49-19-14 = 31-15-11 = .640
48-19-15 = 30-15-12 = .632
47-19-16 = 29-15-13 = .623
46-19-17 = 28-15-14 = .614
45-19-18 = 27-15-15 = .605
44-19-19 = 26-15-16 = .596

IMO all doable with the quality of this team. I like his side of the bet.

 

[topnotch]

Re #4. There are 57 games left. Petro needs 32 points in that time, Bouwmeester needs 31, Shattenkirk needs 22. To say there's no chance of that happening given the way Hitchcock has designed the attack I think is wrong. Basically it's about health. All three guys even with slumps should hit those numbers if they stay healthy. It's a health bet.

Yes because what happens in the first 1/4 of the season is what must play out in the last 3/4.

You don't think the that maybe the Blues might slow down offensively? Their current pace is 3.44 goals per game. Or in other words, it's higher than all other teams have finished in the past 6 years except the 2008 Red Wings and the 2009 Capitals. The Blues will slow down offensively and the points pace of Petro, Bouwmeester and Shattenkirk will drop considerably.

Last year, Montreal had Subban and Markov who were on pace to hit 50 points each. Their 3rd defenseman was on pace for 24 points. Even when Detroit had Lidstrom (62), Rafalski (48), and Kronwall (37) scoring 3.13 goals per game in 2011 they couldn't accomplish this feat. They did do it in 2009 with an absolutely stacked team.

I just don't see it happening even if all 3 defensemen stay healthy.

 

[PocketNines]

Yes because what happens in the first 1/4 of the season is what must play out in the last 3/4.

You don't think the that maybe the Blues might slow down offensively? Their current pace is 3.44 goals per game. Or in other words, it's higher than all other teams have finished in the past 6 years except the 2008 Red Wings and the 2009 Capitals. The Blues will slow down offensively and the points pace of Petro, Bouwmeester and Shattenkirk will drop considerably.

Last year, Montreal had Subban and Markov who were on pace to hit 50 points each. Their 3rd defenseman was on pace for 24 points. Even when Detroit had Lidstrom (62), Rafalski (48), and Kronwall (37) scoring 3.13 goals per game in 2011 they couldn't accomplish this feat. They did do it in 2009 with an absolutely stacked team.

I just don't see it happening even if all 3 defensemen stay healthy.

If you were being intellectually honest you would OBVIOUSLY understand that #1, #2, #4 would be bets won EASILY if "what happened in the first 1/4 of the season is what must play out in the last 3/4."

I said #4 is clearly a health bet. Which it is. They'd all have to slow down dramatically to end up at 50, 50, 40, as the math clearly shows. They're on pace for 62, 59, 52 right now. Can you defend your assertion that I'm saying they MUST stay on pace? Literally the entire post I made about bet #2 is an array of outcomes every single one of which represents a statistically significant slowdown.

The heft of your post says "they will slow down because they will slow down; their paces will all fall dramatically off because they will fall dramatically off." Color me unimpressed with such a tautology for analysis. Tautologies are easy, anyone can come up with them.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

If you were being intellectually honest you would OBVIOUSLY understand that #1, #2, #4 would be bets won EASILY if "what happened in the first 1/4 of the season is what must play out in the last 3/4."

I said #4 is clearly a health bet. Which it is. They'd all have to slow down dramatically to end up at 50, 50, 40, as the math clearly shows. They're on pace for 62, 59, 52 right now. Can you defend your assertion that I'm saying they MUST stay on pace? Literally the entire post I made about bet #2 is an array of outcomes every single one of which represents a statistically significant slowdown.

The heft of your post says "they will slow down because they will slow down; their paces will all fall dramatically off because they will fall dramatically off." Color me unimpressed with such a tautology for analysis. Tautologies are easy, anyone can come up with them.

I see what you did there.

 

[topnotch]

If you were being intellectually honest you would OBVIOUSLY understand that #1, #2, #4 would be bets won EASILY if "what happened in the first 1/4 of the season is what must play out in the last 3/4."

I said #4 is clearly a health bet. Which it is. They'd all have to slow down dramatically to end up at 50, 50, 40, as the math clearly shows. They're on pace for 62, 59, 52 right now. Can you defend your assertion that I'm saying they MUST stay on pace? Literally the entire post I made about bet #2 is an array of outcomes every single one of which represents a statistically significant slowdown.

The heft of your post says "they will slow down because they will slow down; their paces will all fall dramatically off because they will fall dramatically off." Color me unimpressed with such a tautology for analysis. Tautologies are easy, anyone can come up with them.

I'm saying they are likely to slow down because history tells us they are likely to slow down.

Despite the fact that Steen already has 20 goals, history tells us that few players hit 45+ and those that do (in the recent past) are generational talents, of which Steen is not.

#2 is possible if St Louis wins the President's trophy and likely has a very high number of OT losses. If St Louis has fewer than 10 OT losses than for #2 to happen the team is looking at a 117+ point season. Forgive me if I don't believe that St Louis has a great shot at matching or beating some of the best seasons post 05 lockout.

#4. So I get chastised for saying that I believe the Petro, Bouwmeester, and Shattenkirk are likely to slow down because one, the Blues as a team are scoring much higher than most top teams score, and two that it's unlikely for 3 defensemen on one team to put up 140+ points? But you claim that it will happen if the 3 stay healthy because they are on pace to do so?

No I don't believe many of the 4 items will happen because they violate historical norms. Despite the fact that 3 of them are on pace to occur does not dissuade me from believing that St Louis (along with many other teams) is playing over their head and will likely slow down. It's not a tautology to state that for #1, 2, and 4 to happen would require unprecendented years from both the team and players' perspectives and therefore I find it unlikely to happen. It is ridiculous to believe that in scenario #4, is ONLY a "health bet" by not recognizing how rare such an outcome would be even if all 3 stay healthy.

Betting on the averages is not a tautology.

 

[topnotch]

Re #2. 53-19-10 is 116 points, or a cumulative points pct of .707. Right now the Blues are at .780. Need a .675 the remainder of the season that include a fair number of OT losses. The fewer the OT losses in the remaining games, the higher the pts pct needs to be. Technically they could go .500 the rest of the way, lose all 57 games in OT, and still win this bet with 4 regulation losses. So each OT loss lowers the needed winning percentage the remainder of the way.

In fact, with the remaining 57 games, here's how it breaks out for needed records:

60-19-3 = 42-15-0 = .728
59-19-4 = 41-15-1 = .719
58-19-5 = 40-15-2 = .719
57-19-6 = 39-15-3 = .711
56-19-7 = 38-15-4 = .702
55-19-8 = 37-15-5 = .693
54-19-9 = 36-15-6 = .684
53-19-10 = 35-15-7 = .675
52-19-11 = 34-15-8 = .667
51-19-12 = 33-15-9 = .658
50-19-13 = 32-15-10 = .649
49-19-14 = 31-15-11 = .640
48-19-15 = 30-15-12 = .632
47-19-16 = 29-15-13 = .623
46-19-17 = 28-15-14 = .614
45-19-18 = 27-15-15 = .605
44-19-19 = 26-15-16 = .596

IMO all doable with the quality of this team. I like his side of the bet.

Literally the entire post I made about bet #2 is an array of outcomes every single one of which represents a statistically significant slowdown.

No they do not represent statistically significant slow downs. Even in the extremely unlikely scenario where St Louis has 19 OT losses the points rate of 39/25 compared to 68/57 is not statistically significant.

 

[Thisnotes4u]

Good bets. #1 is the only one I would worry about.
Just injuries and a few minor slumps could impact that as others stated.

I agree this team is the best overall I have seen to compete for the cup.( win it )
And I have seen them all.

 

[PocketNines]

No they do not represent statistically significant slow downs. Even in the extremely unlikely scenario where St Louis has 19 OT losses the points rate of 39/25 compared to 68/57 is not statistically significant.

Honestly if you don't think .596 represents a statistically significant slowdown from .780 then really, why are we even talking? Come on, that's absurd. Every single one of those scenarios represents a slowdown. This is dumb.

 

[PocketNines]

Your argument is: history mandates dramatic slowdowns of pace intrinsically because history is the most important factor in all these bets because I (topnotch) define history as the most important factor. Tautology. Your footnote about history was both noted and never objected to nor even challenged in any of the posts I made.

Alex Pietrangelo on pace for 32 in 57 is obviously a health bet. If he stays healthy, I bet on him reaching 32 in 57 every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Come on man, do you watch Alex Pietrangelo play hockey? Shattenkirk 22 in 57 is WAY below his historical rate. Bouwmeester in this system, 31 in 57 ... this is a health bet. And he plays every game.

The Blues finishing the season with a cumulative record a hair above .700 is TOTALLY within historical bounds so your history footnote about this one isn't even a footnote, it's just wrong.

 

[PocketNines]

Halfway through the season.

– Steen needs 21 goals in the second half and is still out. Health bet.

– Hitchcock isn't winning the Adams

– Blues are well on pace to win the 19 regulation losses bet. Have 7, can fade 12 more. Are at .768 and lead the league.
29-12-0 (.707)
28-12-1 (.695)
27-12-2 (.683)
26-12-3 (.671)
25-12-4 (.658)
24-12-5 (.646)
23-12-6 (.634)
22-12-7 (.623)
all very attainable records.

– The defensemen bet is still a health bet. As I said. Shattenkirk has 31 points, Pietrangelo 28, Bouwmeester 27. Shattenkirk needs 19 in 41, Petro needs 22 in 41, the always-healthy Bouwmeester needs 23 in 41. That's to hit 50 and one of them can fail to reach 50 as long as they hit 40. Health bet all the way. Always was, still is.