Speculation: Will the Wild make the playoffs this upcoming season?

[f7ben]

We have 5 bonafide first-liners/top-pair guys in Kap, JEE, Boldy, Faber & Brodin

Secondary scoring is a bit weak, but Rossi, Zuccarello, Hartman are all clear 2nd line players.

Spurgeon is back. Hunt looks like an upgrade over Merrill.

Foligno, Khusnutdinov, Trenin, Lauko look like solid bottom 6 role players

Goaltending remains a big question mark but we have 3 possible guys to get hot and steal the job. Due for a progression to the mean as far as team SV%.

100+ point season and 1st round loss is coming. Book it.

All of this ^^^^

Except I don’t think you can progress to the mean lol

 

[Digitalbooya]

Just was wondering if there was any sort mental placing of teams is all.

1. Dallas
2. Nashville
3. Winnipeg
4. Minnesota
5. Colorado
——Playoff teams——
6. Arizona
7. St. Louis
8. Chicago

Colorado is the weakest playoff team that finished above Minnesota last year IMO.

Arizona should be better.

St. Louis I’m not sold on.

Winnipeg’s season depends on Hellebuyck.

Nashville will have a nice uptick from adding Stamkos/Marchessault/Skjei. Probably 1-2 good years for them before age really sets in on their roster.

Dallas lost Pavelski, but added Stankoven.

Poor Bedard in Chicago… I hear he loves Minnesota and wants to come here in 2030… sorry, I mean Minnesota would love to have him in 2030.

 

[NHL1674]

1. Dallas
2. Nashville
3. Winnipeg
4. Minnesota
5. Colorado
——Playoff teams——
6. Arizona
7. St. Louis
8. Chicago

Colorado is the weakest playoff team that finished above Minnesota last year IMO.

Arizona should be better.

St. Louis I’m not sold on.

Winnipeg’s season depends on Hellebuyck.

Nashville will have a nice uptick from adding Stamkos/Marchessault/Skjei. Probably 1-2 good years for them before age really sets in on their roster.

Dallas lost Pavelski, but added Stankoven.

Poor Bedard in Chicago… I hear he loves Minnesota and wants to come here in 2030… sorry, I mean Minnesota would love to have him in 2030.

Arizona?

 

[GordieGallant]

Most Central Division teams are better. 7 of our 1st 9 games on the road. A good start would be great. A 3-6 start will be hard to make up.

 

[saywut]

I think its unlikely. I don't see lines in this forward group that instill enough confidence to win games on a consistent basis, and with our goaltending situation I think that is required.

Yurov coming over would've moved the needle for me, needed 1 more player in the "upper" group of forwards to balance the lines out.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Arizona?

Utah, I guess.

 

[keppel146]

1. Dallas
2. Nashville
3. Winnipeg
4. Minnesota
5. Colorado
——Playoff teams——
6. Arizona
7. St. Louis
8. Chicago

Colorado is the weakest playoff team that finished above Minnesota last year IMO.

Arizona should be better.

St. Louis I’m not sold on.

Winnipeg’s season depends on Hellebuyck.

Nashville will have a nice uptick from adding Stamkos/Marchessault/Skjei. Probably 1-2 good years for them before age really sets in on their roster.

Dallas lost Pavelski, but added Stankoven.

Poor Bedard in Chicago… I hear he loves Minnesota and wants to come here in 2030… sorry, I mean Minnesota would love to have him in 2030.

Is Landeskog coming back?

 

[Sweetnut]

Is Landeskog coming back?

I think so.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Is Landeskog coming back?

He’s been out of the game for so long, it is basically a lose-lose situation for Colorado.

 

[GordieGallant]

Goaltending was mediocre last year. PK was terrible. I think a better PK with the players added plus Spurgeon and possibly Boldy the Goaltending will be better.

 

[DANOZ28]

im glad your optimistic, im not. other teams improved we didn't.

 

[f7ben]

im glad your optimistic, im not. other teams improved we didn't.

We absolutely may have improved , there are several young kids on this team making strides. Kap is healthy and that is the biggest factor right now.

 

[BagHead]

All of this ^^^^

Except I don’t think you can progress to the mean lol

Very true. "Regression" is sort of a funny word, in that it can be used for positive or negative movement toward the average outcome, where "progression" means getting farther away from the mean.

I think it's pretty clear that when he says "progression to the mean" he means "positive regression to the mean". The latter phrase sounds weird in English, even though it's more accurate mathematically, so I have a hard time blaming anyone for using it. It's kind of like how something slowing down in physics-lingo is "negative acceleration", not "deceleration".

Sorry, kind of nerded out for a minute there. How long was I out?

 

[f7ben]

Very true. "Regression" is sort of a funny word, in that it can be used for positive or negative movement toward the average outcome, where "progression" means getting farther away from the mean.

I think it's pretty clear that when he says "progression to the mean" he means "positive regression to the mean". The latter phrase sounds weird in English, even though it's more accurate mathematically, so I have a hard time blaming anyone for using it. It's kind of like how something slowing down in physics-lingo is "negative acceleration", not "deceleration".

Sorry, kind of nerded out for a minute there. How long was I out?

I thought we had a discussion on mean regression here but it could have been another forum I argue on.

Is the difference between negative acceleration and deceleration simply the force being required to constitute deceleration vs just energy loss causing negative acceleration? Never heard that

 

[AKL]

I thought we had a discussion on mean regression here but it could have been another forum I argue on.

Pretty sure we have. And complimentary vs complementary.

 

[BagHead]

I thought we had a discussion on mean regression here but it could have been another forum I argue on.

Is the difference between negative acceleration and deceleration simply the force being required to constitute deceleration vs just energy loss causing negative acceleration? Never heard that

It kind of depends on how you set up the acceleration problem. The typical way is to have positive numbers indicate a forward direction (though the opposite can be done), Khan academy has a really great image that shows this in a simple way:

Pretty sure we have. And complimentary vs complementary.

I hate that one, since it was my ignorance that led to it.

 

[Arturia Pendragon]

I voted yes. I think we have a better season than last year no question. Without the same injuries, improvement/bounce back years from certain players (Rossi, Foligno, Marjo), I feel confident in saying so.

But. And has been mentioned before, the goaltending will tell all.

 

[Wabit]

Is the difference between negative acceleration and deceleration simply the force being required to constitute deceleration vs just energy loss causing negative acceleration? Never heard that

No. Deceleration is just slowing down. You cover less distance per time unit (mph, f/s, m/s, etc.) than you were before.

A variation of negative acceleration is the old negative velocity (speed) 2 trains math questions.

It kind of depends on how you set up the acceleration problem. The typical way is to have positive numbers indicate a forward direction (though the opposite can be done), Khan academy has a really great image that shows this in a simple way:

View attachment 912569

I prefer to use an intersection with a stop light to explain this. A game of chicken works better, but I don't want to put any ideas into the heads of the tide pod/check fraud "I saw it on tiktoc" generation.

Basically you and the guy coming at you are both accelerating at a similar rate.
-from your perspective you are accelerating and he is negative accelerating.
-from his perspective he's accelerating and you are the one the is negative accelerating.