I was only reacting to CloutierForVezina's comment, that kind of jokingly suggests that it's either luck or he miraculously forgot how to play hockey/lost his talent. There's alot of middleground between those two extremes.
I have no doubt he was unlucky on top of playing absolutely terrible hockey.
You are right that doing better, by itself, is not proof that the previous year was luck-based (could have been bad play the previous year, improved play the current year, bad luck the last year, good luck the current year - most likely, a combination of all 4).
However we already had evidence from looking at his numbers last year that his unusually poor year was an anomaly and at least partially due to simple bad luck. In the last few pages
tc23 has done some excellent work digging through the numbers, and Edler's on-ice sh% last year was significantly below
any other defenseman since they've been tracking those stats (of defensemen who played at least 1000 minutes). Yes, he played awful for long stretches last year, but he was not so bad that everyone on the ice forgot how to shoot the puck when he was on it.
And that's ignoring all the supplemental stuff that was going on that could be considered bad luck. Getting suspended because a rookie didn't have his helmet on tight, playing for a God awful coach that brought out the worst in all his players, being asked to play well over his head for long stretches of time and I'm sure there's more.
My only argument is with the people who refuse to attribute even an ounce of a player's poor performance to bad luck. It's infuriating. Of course luck plays a role! Usually it's pretty balanced over the course of the season, but it's definitely not impossible for someone to put together an unlucky or lucky campaign where the bounces either go his way or they just don't. That's not absolving him of his poor play, and he did have poor play, but he was not -39 bad last year.