Post-Game Talk: [GM18] Canucks lose 4-3 to the Kracken

[bobbyb2009]

One of the poorer, if not worst defensive efforts we've seen from Hughes-Hronek this season.

Canucks' play has been slipping of late. Tocchet had them firing hard from the start of the season but it's tough to sustain. But it's just the mental/casual mistakes that did them in tonight. Hopefully Tocchet will correct that.

.... Regression

 

[bossram]

.... Regression

It's not really regression. Regression would be their PDO and record coming back to Earth despite playing the same way, because that's what happens.

They're just playing worse in the last handful of games.

 

[bobbyb2009]

It's not really regression. Regression would be their PDO and record coming back to Earth despite playing the same way, because that's what happens.

They're just playing worse in the last handful of games.

Hope you have a good rest, but this is incorrect. Yes, it was me playing with words from all the talk of PDO regression; however:

Regression: "a return to a previous and less advanced or worse state, condition, or way of behaving"

I was having fun with the PDO discussion AND at the same time pointing to the possibility that the team may have regressed to a former playing style, more realistic level of performance, and/or more common results.

G' Night

 

[PuckMunchkin]

You think teams would have taken a single season playing along side of Pettersson with his sh% and though yes lets trade a 1st plus for a RFA who might just walk and hasn't even played a single playoff game?

Kuzmenko is worth more to us than on the market.

Who is your kind of player you would have gone after?

Remind me what his cap hit was back then and I'll get back to you with an answer.

Hope you have a good rest, but this is incorrect. Yes, it was me playing with words from all the talk of PDO regression; however:

Regression: "a return to a previous and less advanced or worse state, condition, or way of behaving"

I was having fun with the PDO discussion AND at the same time pointing to the possibility that the team may have regressed to a former playing style, more realistic level of performance, and/or more common results.

G' Night

Their play has regressed.

Their luck has also regressed a wee bit.

 

[bossram]

Hope you have a good rest, but this is incorrect. Yes, it was me playing with words from all the talk of PDO regression; however:

Regression: "a return to a previous and less advanced or worse state, condition, or way of behaving"

I was having fun with the PDO discussion AND at the same time pointing to the possibility that the team may have regressed to a former playing style, more realistic level of performance, and/or more common results.

G' Night

I'm talking about statistical regression. Which is the definition that is primarily used when we're talking about these statistics.

As @PuckMunchkin accurately stated, their luck is regressing in the statistical sense. And their actual play is regressing in the colloquial sense.

You may want to understand the definition of a word (or that words have multiple meanings!) before telling someone they're incorrect for stating what is frankly a very banal point.

 

[bobbyb2009]

I'm talking about statistical regression. Which is the definition that is primarily used when we're talking about these statistics.

As @PuckMunchkin accurately stated, their luck is regressing in the statistical sense. And their actual play is regressing in the colloquial sense.

You may want to understand the definition of a word (or that words have multiple meanings!) before telling someone they're incorrect for stating what is frankly a very banal point.

Oh the irony
(Irony: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning).

You may have been speaking of statistical regression, but I wasn't. I was not even really talking about statistics (but at the same time, I was), which is the entire point. Or rather, I was playing using words to express something other than what everyone was talking about much earlier in a frantic way to describe what I always believed in that everyone was playing well at the same time and eventually they would not play as well (outside of statistics). It is as simple as you win some and you lose some over time, and rather than argue about statistical luck and if that makes this team elite, I was having fun with the fact that performance is never linear and everyone in the media and online was obsessing about statistics and arguing about it one way or the other; all while pointing out that, regardless, here we are.

I was doing exactly what Punchmunchkin suggested (which is why I clicked LIKE for his comment), pointing both of these things out at the same time while suggesting it doesn't have to be a statistical argument- it is just simply a fact that we were not going to keep winning 12 out of every 16 games. But I did it with one word.

And you made a choice to challenge my one word expression (....Regression), which was "frankly a very banal point" in its own.

No offence intended, or to be clear, I meant no offence to you at all. I think I understand and understood perfectly well, but maybe you missed the purpose of my original comment? No issue on my end. I sincerely hope you have a totally awesome day!!

 

[I am toxic]

So . . . everyone agrees the stats have regressed, and the team's play has regressed, but are arguing with each other.

 

[bandwagonesque]

If you're worried about a bit of regression ... what are you doing in this business? No disrespect