Not necessarily true. I assume predictions are based on educated guesses.
Not being a homer. No sports analyst predicted Canucks in 4. Some even predicted Kings to win it.
Anyone that predicted 4 are retarded, and anyone that predicted 6 or 7, either pulled that number by random,
or acknowledged LA not to be a pushover team just because they are number 8, and Canucks are number 1.
So how would predicting winning in 6 or 7 games be as retarded as winning in 4 games.

And "lucky bounces" are part of the game. but not part of sports predictions.
People don't predict lucky bounces, which is why they are considered "lucky"

Otherwise, you're basically saying predictions in general, are retarded, or anyone that makes predictions are retarded.
:suspicious:

I never brought up the lucky bounces, somebody else did....

My point is that if I think the Canucks are the better team, even if that means by just a tiny bit, it's not any more retarded to predict that they will be slightly better in 4 games straight than it is to predict that they will be better in 4 out of 7 games.......and look how it's turned out...We're on pace for Kings in 4.....Would it have been retarded to predict that the Kings would sweep????

The probability of winning 4 straight games due to 4 lucky bounces in a row is slim. I've never heard of a team that swept a series by fluke.

The Vancouver-Chicago series wasn't a lucky bounce away from sweeping them. They won game 4 and 5 convincingly showing that the were just as good. Game 6 was the only game that coulda gone either way in which the Canucks coulda shown that they were the better team by a larger margin. But instead we won by 1 goal in OT in game 7.

We had trouble with LA this season. It was why I was hoping we would get SJ. Knowing this, why would anyone predict a sweep? I don't call anyone retarded based on predictions since ANYTHING could happen in the playoffs but I don't agree it's an educated guess. There's a reason why people predicted Van-NYR/Pitts final right?

Okay sure, but either way we won 3 games straight........You are basically telling me that it would be retarded to predict that that series could've been a sweep, but there they were, 1 game away from completing a sweep........

Well I didn't predict a sweep in that series and yes you're right that they were 1 game away from sweeping. But like I said, anything can happen in the playoffs and it's why I don't call anyone retarded. But before a series begins, you can only predict on how the series will go based on previous events. I didn't see any indication on how the Canucks could sweep the Hawks and the Kings. I'm not saying it COULDN'T have gone that way just saying it wasn't likely.

And does this not apply to other things as well? Stocks, sports gambling, etc.? Unless u use previous information to speculate something, you're just 100% guessing, no?

I think the word "retarded" is the wrong word in this case. When people make predictions, most think of a REALISTIC, LOGICAL outcome.

Yes the Canucks were 1 game away from sweeping Chicago, but prior to the series most people would predict a REALISTIC, LOGICAL outcome such as 6 or 7 games. If someone said "the Canucks will sweep Chicago in 4 games" they're either pulling that number out of their ass or a homer fan.

The same thing can be applied to this series. That's why you don't see professional NHL analysts predicting sweeps. Cause it rarely happens and it isn't a realistic outcome (in most cases).

At the end of the day, the Kings haven't swept the Canucks yet :accepted:

A prediction of either LA sweep or Vancouver sweep would have been an uneducated guess anyway.
There was good indication this was a pretty even match up. And while current events prove otherwise, anything can happen,
Canucks are failing to show up anywhere to their expected potential, and are down 3-0.
But current event can't be taken in account for this.

If Canucks lose tomorrow, and LA does end up sweeping, anyone that predicted LA in 4-0 is still retarded, and just lucky.

It's like someone playing poker and going in All-in preflop with 2,7 and hitting a fullhouse on the flop.

Seems like I have opened a can of worms. :troll:

Who cares? At the end of the day we all hope the Canucks win, whether it be a sweep or ugly series. It doesn't matter.

Well said. Wish I used that poker analogy too :okay:

Kevin Bieksa ‏ @kbieksa3

Good re-group day today for the boys! Lots of team bonding... Got these guys right where we want them!!

They better have a beast of a game. Otherwise, they're just mocking Canucks fans. =/

That poker analogy is great.....and sometimes in poker, people play off hunches as well....so like jeedee later said, the word "retarded" probably wasn't the best one to use....is calling a sweep the most educated guess? no, probably not, but I wouldn't call it retarded....

I called Caps to win over Boston....Is it the most educated guess? No, but I had a hunch that Washington would get their shit together and pull off the upset....that doesn't make my prediction retarded...

Prior to the series, I had the Canucks winning in 6, but I wouldn't have been shocked to see the Kings 'upset' us.

When their top 6 clicks, they are a stacked team
Brown, Kopitar, Williams, Carter, Richards, Penner

vs

Raymond :fuckthatshit:, Henrik, Burrows, Booth, Kesler, Higgins

this just shows how much we need Daniel back

Obviously a horribly delivered jokes as I overestimated the intelligence of the people here. I actually expected someone to call it out when I posted, but nobody did. So I guess they thought I was serious even after expressing my doubts about their chances against the Kings as opposed to the Sharks. In that case, anyone who thought I was serious really is retarded :seriously:

As for "being afraid of fails" :facepalm:

I thought it was pretty clear what my thoughts are on this team, and making a joke/superstitious prediction I thought would be amusing. Maybe I didn't portray it well, maybe people here are just too confrontational, or maybe they are just stupid. My guess is it's a combination of the three for some people, based on previous posts.

In any case, it's clear that people in here are always looking for a fight, so I'll have to watch my words more. I have been trying to do so, but sometimes you can't control what people perceive, I guess.

Before the series started I said Canucks in six. For those that were saying that this series has the most potential to be an upset, I simply classified the people stating this as haters.

:okay:

i said nucks in 6 before start of season as well


now nucks in 7!!

You predicted an outcome of a Playoff series even before the season started? lol...

:troll:

lol i meant series :concentrate:

I can feel the love in this thread.

hahaha thought this was hilarious, playoff headgames

Todd Bertuzzi Would Like The Predators To Get Their Own Ping-Pong Table - Motown Lowdown - SB Nation Detroit

looks like the Kings have made adjustments to their D pairings with Daniel looming

Mitchell paired with Greene

lawls

the real scoop

good ol Bert ahahahah

:bowrofl:

-really hoping that the Canucks will see double again on Wednesday.

A picture of the twins leaving their hotel.

Daniel may be taking a risk to play and help get his team back in the series. Its not up to AV as someone posted earlier. If it were, Daniel would be there game 1.

Henrik plays an over 3 minute shift right after getting his bell rung.

These guys have no heart. We need North American leadership. :speechless: