ItWasJustified
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2015
- 4,415
- 5,550
I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.So you don't believe in lucky bounces?
I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.So you don't believe in lucky bounces?
LolI believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.
So if play roulette and hit my number 6 times in a row it's not luck, its my hard work over time and doing the right things. Good to know.I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.
You're entire argument is predicated on the idea that ability is perfectly quantifiable. You over achieve on the basis of your ability being unknown to some degree.I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.
You are missing a glorious opportunity for self-reflection here. Your response is proof that you did not understand the definition, but please, Dunning-Kruger all over the thread.No, it would not.
Nope. Your ability is your individual and team peak.
Your dictionary link didn't render my argument irrelevant. You can't measure expectations.
Yes. Because there's always the factor of an individual mistake or an individual not being good enough/having enough ability.
So you've never encountered a person who worked hard and did the right things but ended up being unsuccessful or unlucky?I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.
His entire worldview would be in shambles after 1 day of a high school level statistics classSo you've never encountered a person who worked hard and did the right things but ended up being unsuccessful or unlucky?
At this point, I'm wondering whether you've actually lived life or are some sort of an Android that was started up yesterday.
K, so if it's possible for a team to win a game they deserve to lose, then it's possible for a team to win 5 more than they deserve, or 10, or 15. What word would you use to describe such a team that is winning more than they deserve to?No, it would not.
Nope. Your ability is your individual and team peak.
Your dictionary link didn't render my argument irrelevant. You can't measure expectations.
Yes. Because there's always the factor of an individual mistake or an individual not being good enough/having enough ability.
Were you homeschooled by a hamster? No idea where these definitions are coming from but it's entertainingNo, it would not.
Nope. Your ability is your individual and team peak.
Your dictionary link didn't render my argument irrelevant. You can't measure expectations.
Yes. Because there's always the factor of an individual mistake or an individual not being good enough/having enough ability.
Roulette is a game of chance, not luck.So if play roulette and hit my number 6 times in a row it's not luck, its my hard work over time and doing the right things. Good to know.
If you think someone is overachieving, that's not overachieving, it's just peak, or close to peak performance.You're entire argument is predicated on the idea that ability is perfectly quantifiable. You over achieve on the basis of your ability being unknown to some degree.
The only thing that can be luck or bad luck when it comes to sports are injuries.So you've never encountered a person who worked hard and did the right things but ended up being unsuccessful or unlucky?
I would call such a team a good team. Then I would question whoever thinks that team is winning more than they deserve and on what basis.K, so if it's possible for a team to win a game they deserve to lose, then it's possible for a team to win 5 more than they deserve, or 10, or 15. What word would you use to describe such a team that is winning more than they deserve to?
Everything is a game of chance, the only question is how much chance is involved. I think someone is overachieving based on a baseline ability. If you point to them simply hitting peak performance, then are all other instances of non-peak performance underachieving?Roulette is a game of chance, not luck.
If you think someone is overachieving, that's not overachieving, it's just peak, or close to peak performance.
The only thing that can be luck or bad luck when it comes to sports are injuries.
I would call such a team a good team. Then I would question whoever thinks that team is winning more than they deserve and on what basis.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get." ~ Lakers Coach Pat RileyI believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.
I believe that ''luck'' comes from hard work over time and doing the right things in the right situations.
This thread demonstrates pretty well the problem of stats people calling things they don’t currently have a stat for or cannot explain “luck” and causing the non stats people to repeat nauseating cliches about how hard they work and adding in the just world fallacy for fun.
Both sides are wrong in different ways but the argument mostly stems from using a poor term for variance.
Luck, by definition, is pretty much just elements you can't control.
If you want to create a new stat that incorporates other elements that cant be controlled, like bad/missed calls by the refs or injuries, go for it.
As far as raw on-ice play, PDO is a very good proxy for luck.