- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,536
- 11,964
Hockey: Skill vs Luck Comparison between other Sports
- Thread starter x Tame Impala
- Start date
Old video but it's correct
Best player in the world can only play 1/3 of the game and no other sport has a giant goalie in front of the net.
The effect of a star NBA player or an NFL QB has on the game is massively more significant than any NHL player could possibly have.
Best player in the world can only play 1/3 of the game and no other sport has a giant goalie in front of the net.
The effect of a star NBA player or an NFL QB has on the game is massively more significant than any NHL player could possibly have.
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2008
- 3,531
- 979
Some of it is also how much the league values parity. Yes there are parts of hockey that makes it more luck driven than basketball - the % of the game that superstars can play is a HUGE one imo, if Crosby and Malkin could play 80% of the Penguins minutes it would be a lot more like basketball. But there could be a more lopsided version of the NHL if they set up the CBA rules to allow it. And if the NBA's CBA was one where teams couldn't afford to have these super teams like the Warriors and basically every superstar had to be on their own team out of necessity, it would be a lot more level too. In the 1970s for example the NHL was the league with the dominant dynasty teams and the NBA had more scattered champions, so it shows basketball doesn't always have to be more lopsided
Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 5,777
- 5,018
Sounds about right. A puck is much more bounce-prone that a football or basketball, so lucky goals are somewhat common compared to other sports.
As well the physical nature of hockey means more injuries, so team A could beat team B just because team B has a third of their regular players injured.
As well the physical nature of hockey means more injuries, so team A could beat team B just because team B has a third of their regular players injured.
PunkRockLocke
Registered User
I've always viewed it as this, in regards to hockey:
The best skill a hockey player can have is consistency. There will always be luck and bounces determining when pucks go in or do not go in. But if you play consistent over an 82 game season and playoffs, you'll create more chances for the luck to go your way rather than against you. It is a mental battle and a war of attrition.
"Hockey is always just one broken play, and how you are constantly adapting determines how good you are"
The best skill a hockey player can have is consistency. There will always be luck and bounces determining when pucks go in or do not go in. But if you play consistent over an 82 game season and playoffs, you'll create more chances for the luck to go your way rather than against you. It is a mental battle and a war of attrition.
"Hockey is always just one broken play, and how you are constantly adapting determines how good you are"
613Leafer
Registered User
- May 26, 2008
- 12,838
- 3,667
A few things they didn't really mention that I think are big factors:
1) salary cap (NHL has a very strict hard cap that theoretically spreads "skill" around the league quite a bit)
2) goalies are a big contributing factor to the "luck" concept I would imagine. He sort of mentioned how NBA players take a lot of shots, increasing the sample size per game. But they're also taking a lot of shots that have a very high % chance of going in. In the NHL, it's a very low % chance, but that % changes game-to-game, and a single extra goal makes a huge difference on the outcome.
But yea, I've argued this before, that NHL stars have a much lower impact than NBA stars. Interesting to see a more formal video/analysis done.
1) salary cap (NHL has a very strict hard cap that theoretically spreads "skill" around the league quite a bit)
2) goalies are a big contributing factor to the "luck" concept I would imagine. He sort of mentioned how NBA players take a lot of shots, increasing the sample size per game. But they're also taking a lot of shots that have a very high % chance of going in. In the NHL, it's a very low % chance, but that % changes game-to-game, and a single extra goal makes a huge difference on the outcome.
But yea, I've argued this before, that NHL stars have a much lower impact than NBA stars. Interesting to see a more formal video/analysis done.
I've seen that vid a while back. I agree hockey is more random than the others, because of how much time the best players spend on the bench.... HOWEVER, I disagree with the notion that the other sports are more skill-based.... Running around with a ball and throwing it in a hoop is something even I can do, and I'm a cripple, but maybe that's just me taking things too literally. Still, I can't imagine it's easier to skate at such speeds, while having to handle a stick and pay attention to developing plays and worrying about the potential of getting hit....
StrangeVision
Wear a mask.
- Apr 1, 2007
- 24,745
- 9,820
Is it "skill" or more "greatest individual ability to influence the game"?
I get his point, I just don't think "skill" is the right word, here -- it seams a bit misleading.
Maybe it's "lucky" that the puck goes near you, but you still have to have the skill to take advantage of it. You have to be very good to be able to adapt in a fraction of a second to an event on the ice you couldn't have expected, i.e. a bad rebound, the puck bouncing funny off the glass, etc., and not only choose which play is the right play, but do it on a consistent basis.
Randomness is simply a part of hockey and the skills players develop reflect that aspect of the game.
I get that it's easier from a narrative aspect to boil it down to "this vs this," I just think the words he used can be misleading. But then again, I'm not sure I can think of a catchy word that means "greatest individual ability to influence the game."
I get his point, I just don't think "skill" is the right word, here -- it seams a bit misleading.
Maybe it's "lucky" that the puck goes near you, but you still have to have the skill to take advantage of it. You have to be very good to be able to adapt in a fraction of a second to an event on the ice you couldn't have expected, i.e. a bad rebound, the puck bouncing funny off the glass, etc., and not only choose which play is the right play, but do it on a consistent basis.
Randomness is simply a part of hockey and the skills players develop reflect that aspect of the game.
I get that it's easier from a narrative aspect to boil it down to "this vs this," I just think the words he used can be misleading. But then again, I'm not sure I can think of a catchy word that means "greatest individual ability to influence the game."
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,536
- 11,964
Not at all the argument he was making. I addressed that in the OP as well
This is one of the key things that makes me enjoy hockey more than other sports. It's the same enjoyment I get from poker.
Skill and consistency will always get you far, but you never know when a bad beat will destroy you. You can never predict anything too far, in other words, the ending is shrouded until the actual end. And THAT is enjoyable.
Skill and consistency will always get you far, but you never know when a bad beat will destroy you. You can never predict anything too far, in other words, the ending is shrouded until the actual end. And THAT is enjoyable.
D Wakaluk
Registered User
Atleast it's the sport with least random stuff. Like how many times have team USA lost in basketball when they have most of their best players? Yeah.. virtually unbeatable
Now take ice hockey and footy (yes, soccer), anytime the #1 ranked team can lose because the nature of those sports is just so different.
That's true. Like I said, it was a while ago I watched the video, so I did not remember the particulars, but I recalled it being more focused around the teams themselves, yes...Still, I don't like the framing of it as skill versus luck, since that's what most people probably think about anyway, ESPECIALLY given the fact that hockey is less natural than the other games, probably, meaning that there is more of an adjustment for the body to make.
I'd rather have alluded to randomness somehow, but that probably wouldn't be as catchy a title. Still, I like being clear from the outset. Hate when, for example, academic articles have a REALLY nice and interesting title and then the content doesn't reflect that, so I'm probably a bit jaded.
I get it. Because you can't goaltend. So if you get the shot off its going in based on skill. Players know how hard to shoot and practice weird angles all the time so there is only skill involved if the shit comes off clean. That's why shooting % in basketball is so much higher then hockey. If in hockey there was no goalie and it was only based on getting it past 1 defender that would be more skill oriented but because the chance of scoring lowers with someone in net because you can' really always factor exactly where they will be it' a best guess because they can obviously move it involves more randomness this luck.
Same with baseball. I'd say baseball is by far the most skilful based on reaction time in the field and at bat and pitching is a rediculous skill to learn at top level. But you can only control so much in baseball. You can' only aim or hit to a certain area so accurately. Your bat can break. You normally only get 3 at bats a day. So even though you need skill there's luck.
I'd agree basketball is the least determined by luck.
Yeah I've always felt this way too. Seems obvious to me from watching it and playing it compared to other sports, funny bounces go your way or they don't a lot in hockey, no other sport will have a bigger contrast between performance and results than hockey can over fairly long periods.
TheAngryHank
Expert
- May 28, 2008
- 18,100
- 6,731
I watched a tv show that proved the smaller the ball (or puck) the greater the skill.
Baseball tennis ,small ball hard to hit.
Baseball tennis ,small ball hard to hit.
The players themselves may have as much or more skill than a lot of basketball players, but the way the game is played allows for a lot more luck to decide games.
The speed at which hockey is played is completely different than any other sport. Football is the next closest. You have next to zero time to think when playing hockey, and I think that's why it appears much more luck based. Basketball is a great example of players getting plenty of time to set up a specific play or isolate/etc. It's not more skill based, players just have more time, and therefore are less prone to mistakes and bounces.
Also the basketball can't just bounce in the net, off of multiple bodies (i guess there are some odd or lucky bounces but not nearly as much as in hockey), etc., there is also the factor of having a human goalie who can have off nights or extremely good nights despite a team or player severely outplaying another. Skill players play less of the game, some nights you will see favourable matchups that you likely don't see in basketball as well, there are a number of reasons why hockey is much more luck based in general.
Hockey is probably the hardest sport of the big 4 in North America to actually quantify and therefore has the most statistical noise which is attributed to the "luck" factor. It isn't actually luck and more random variance that somewhat balances out over 200 or so games.
It is without a doubt more luck based than the other major pro sports though. Not that anyone is lucky to be good in the NHL or anything, it's just the nature of the game.
Soliloquy of a Dogge
I love you, Boots
You can apply your faulty logic to anything.
Lacing up a pair of skates and shooting a puck is something anybody can do. Strapping on pads and a helmet and throwing a football is something anybody can do. Hitting the golf club on the weekend and hacking it around is something anybody can do. Taking a couple years of a crash course learning how to pilot a space shuttle is something anybody can do (okay, maybe that's outside the scope of this argument). Doesn't mean you're good at it or comparable to professionals who compete at the highest level.
NBA players combine freakish genetics with unparalleled athleticism and the amount of cardio required to perform at the high level they do for 30 or 40 minutes a night is ridiculous. That game of pickup you're playing with buddies at the rec center isn't in the same universe. Each sport has its own unique physical requirements and individual skill sets that must be honed, that doesn't make any of them less impressive than the other but the fact is that in football and basketball you see star players who are able to dominate because of the importance of the positions they play, the amount they play and the importance of unique skill sets among them.
A bit misleading as the video has nothing to do with skill at all but rather use the term for a lack of randomness. That being said, I think they did a decent job of categorizing randomness between the major sports. My only issue is I think they put too much weight on the NFL playing only 16 games as I would rank them to have less randomness than MLB
It is just saying that skill alone decides games more than in hockey, and hockey is decided by luck more often because of the way the game is played and not because the players themselves are less skilled or talented.
