Get out your pitchforks boys, you ain't gonna like this. It's actually good arguments. We probably got lucky last year, unlucky in the losses to Brady because that motherfucker is the luckiest person alive.
Originally Posted by wazu:
I wanted this video to be compelling, but it wasn't. They repeatedly cite missed field goals and made field goals as some of their main examples of "luck". If that's the case I can see why the Chiefs, with an all-time great kicker, are considered lucky. They also act like a fumble recovery is random and has no correlation to the awareness/reaction time of the players. And dropping passes and INTs? That's also all luck.
I believe there is plenty of luck in sports. I do agree that the limited number of posessions in football mean that one funny bounce of the ball can be massive. Whereas in basketball you get way more possessions and opportunities to overcome. That was probably their best point.
And games. NBA playoff series has minimum 4 games, max 7 games, and NFL playoff series has only 1 game. Thats gonna drive variance down quite a bit. [Reply]
It goes without saying that single elimination games are affected the most by 'luck.' It's the reason MLB/NBA/NHL do best-of-7 series. It's why pro pool tournaments are always race-to-13 or more. Playing more games reduces the luck factor.
However, it's tough to say it was luck when a team wins 3 out of four SBs in a relatively short period like 5 years. Sure, there's going to be some luck involved in any game, but luck isn't usually consistent for one team over another either. [Reply]
This bullshit started with labeling DBs dropping interceptions and WRs dropping passes as being defined as luck. Your DBs or WRs ability to catch a ball isn't luck, it's a lack of skill or concentration.
Is this thing worth watching beyond those two examples? [Reply]
Originally Posted by LoneWolf:
There is certainly "luck" in sports. There is "luck" in almost everything in life that has variation. When people equate luck to not being worthy of the outcome, that it turns into an argument.
The variation evens out in the end. What’s left over time is skill/talent. [Reply]
:-) at this nonsense. I’ve seen us commit more turnovers, penalties, and drop more passes and STILL win the ****ing game. Good luck and bad luck is everywhere… we’re just a better football team than everyone else. [Reply]
The whole "luck" debate kinda reminds me of that scene in Major League, where the fans in the outfield are arguing about the trajectory of the ball, and finally one of them says
"Who gives a shit, it's gone"
Luck, no luck, bad bounce, good bounce, who gives a shit? The Chiefs are the B2B Champions. I don't care why or how. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
I wanted this video to be compelling, but it wasn't. They repeatedly cite missed field goals and made field goals as some of their main examples of "luck". If that's the case I can see why the Chiefs, with an all-time great kicker, are considered lucky. They also act like a fumble recovery is random and has no correlation to the awareness/reaction time of the players. And dropping passes and INTs? That's also all luck.
I believe there is plenty of luck in sports. I do agree that the limited number of posessions in football mean that one funny bounce of the ball can be massive. Whereas in basketball you get way more possessions and opportunities to overcome. That was probably their best point.
While I agree that it's less than other sports, NBA, BUT I think they should talk about SNAPS not possessions. A QB snaps the ball on average 126 a game vs only 25 possessions. That would upset his charts and would make all teams about equal in the "luck" department. [Reply]
