Why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2017
- A statistical analysis of luck vs skill in sports.
Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO
Sources:
www.amazon.com/dp/B00A07FR4W/...
sportchart.wordpress.com/2014...
www.insidethebook.com/ee/index...
blog.philbirnbaum.com/2013/01/...
harvardsportsanalysis.org/2013...
///
In his book, The Success Equation, Michael Mauboussin places sports on the skill-luck continuum by using a statistical technique earlier demonstrated by sports data analysts. He found that season standings for the NBA reflect skill levels more so than the seasons of other major team sports, with NHL hockey being the sport closest to the luck side of the continuum. In this video we explore the characteristics of the sports that either enhance or diminish the influence of luck on the results, and we'll walk through the method for calculating the contribution of luck.
///
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.
Check out our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
Or on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o - Спорт
This is 10% luck, 20% skill
15% concentrated power of will
5% pleasure, 50% pain
And a 100% reason to remember the name
curious pug Nice one.
Its a song lyric...
nice, real damn nice
AM HD I know it's a song lyric, I was simply saying i was saying he brought it up at the right time
curious pug song lyrics
I love how chess is just chilling at the very top of the skill spectrum while I rely on my opponents making mistakes in my games
In chess when your opponent makes a "mistake" that reflects skills (or lack of skill) not luck. An unskilled player can't luck their way to beating a grandmaster.
@@Meyers1793 unskilled man is another man's luck
one could make the argument that identifying an opponent’s mistake and exploiting it is still on the spectrum of skill
Chess isn't a sport though. It's a competitive game.
A sport requires physical exertion which means sustained elevated heart rate.
@@farhan007 you ever seen pro-level chess? those dudes are SWEATING
Hockey has the quickest shift time in sports and the NHL has Salary caps to make the league more balanced so it would makes sense. I think this is why people are drawn to Hockey including myself. We love the underdog story and the ups and downs. It makes every victory that much more sweeter.
Yes... however baseball has a salary cap too.
NBA has a salary cap too
@@derekdeadlifts2986 Yeah but its ridiculously high considering some of the players aren't even citizens
Derek Johannis and The Great One
But the team can just pay a fee and go over the cap
@@anonymouschange287 and that is what the NBA calls - The Luxury Tax
“Basketball is farthest away from random”
NCAA March madness; am I a joke to you!
Caleb Holliman teams play each other one time, neither play home and people are more likely to go for the underdog to see the upset. And because they play one game the sample size is small so the underdog has a better chance at winning than if it was a 7 game series were the better team would most likely win
He said NBA
single game elimination is the ultimate in small sample size. If UMBC were to play UVA 9 more times, UVA would probably have won 9 out of 10.
Plue the relatively high turnover rate of college players with completely different teams every 4 years and the fact the entire sport is really untested players it makes college basketball very hard to predict
College has players leaving more in their senior season
It's interesting the way the this study works. In reality what is being measured are the leagues and not the sports. NHL due to salary cap will never have a super team, thus increasing his "Luck" factor. But there are people taking this to measure the player skill in the comments, which is wrong. Ice hockey is arguably the most difficult team sport in the world due to speed, physicality and INDIVIDUAL skills such as skating, shooting, reflexes, and passing abilities which are all learned abilities. What makes a sport like basketball more difficult is the fact that we're not all born to be 7ft tall.
I don't mean to take anything away from basketball, because I'd lose to just about anyone, any size in that sport but just to reference the video he mentions that in Football there are few skill positions and the game mainly focuses on the head coach and quarterback. That's because no matter how skilled you are at blocking people, you're not going to be an NFL linemen if you're 5'6" 170lbs it's simply a physical impossibility and this was mentioned briefly about basketball players as well.
uuuummmmYea walter
@@michaeldolan9781 Walter?
I’d put Soccer in there in terms of difficulty. We’re not naturally attuned to use our feet like that.
There is a pretty substantial luck component in hockey, there’s even a stat for it called PDO, goals in hockey are very noisy statistically, there are many goals that are scored through weird deflections and they have a huge impact in comparison to basket ball where, if you get a lucky basket it doesn’t have a huge impact on the score of the game. This is not to say that hockey isn’t the sport with a significant skill curve however.
What is more: hockey as a sport is less dominated by individual efforts, since your best forwards are rarely playing more than 25 minutes of a 60 minute game, and your best defensemen are rarely playing more than 30.
We can all see that Vox are Knicks fans. Showing so many Porzingis highlights and taking shots at the Nets 😂
The AwsmAbdi wait, there's Nets fans?
Gotta hand it to the Nets, heres hoping another crappy season for them next year. Markelle Fultz is gonna be great in Boston.
Bro, you know damn there is nothing such as Nets fans. And i wouldnt degrade myself like that hahah
IIRC they're based out of New York so...
The AwsmAbdi False. I'm a Nets fan. And before you ask, yes, I do hate myself lmfaooo
I think the NHL just has the tightest salary cap which increases the parity in skill between teams.
This study measures the luck in each league, but not the sport inherently
Exactly correct. If you go back before the modern salary cap, the outcomes for hockey aren’t as random. Same can be said for international competition throughout history.
Way late to this, but the Overtime Loser point creates a false sense of parity, too. Without the loser point, the records would have a wider variance, closer to basketball.
@@brandonbryan6551 I cannot stand loser point
Yeah but hockey is the fastest team sport
So players have to make quick decisions while going 40km/hr
Where as in basketball you cam slow down, take your time, setup plays making it a lot more skill based
Because results are all that really matters, anything that foes above whats random can be mainly attributed to skill compared to other players
Ironically the closer to the luck side you get the the more you don’t have to win the genetic lottery, the closer you get to the skill side the more you are winning the genetic lottery.
Soccer though?
@@ObamanableSnowman still
U kidding? U realize how hard it is to pick my roulette numbers.
I see what you did there
Very ironic
But does the continuum explain why Washington always gets eliminated in the second round?! :D
Yeah it's called the Penguins
The Piano Haven cuz Washington is trash
It's not even just the Penguins! The Nationals and Wizards can't get past the 2nd round of their playoffs either! 😂
The Piano Haven Pens are better
The Piano Haven
As a Washingtonian, I'm kind of sad about that
One of the main reasons why there are more underdog stories in hockey is because the NHL does not necessarily have a certain 'stacked' team. The NBA, on GSW for example, out of 5 starters, 4 are all-stars. In the NHL, the most I can see is 5 per 20 men on Pittsburgh (Matt Murray, Phil Kessel, Kris Letang, Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin). Every other team has an average of 1 star per team. The NBA has all of their talent stacked onto 2-4 teams, and it is always those teams competing. The NHL has many teams with good players, so it is not uncommon for an upset to happen, for example, Nashville vs Chicago this year. That is basically the equivalent of the Pacers beating the Cavs in the NBA.
Tonio RickDiaz not a hockey guy so I can't say for sure but usually the teams that win in basketball have their major players being guys they drafted (GSW drafted 3 of their starters this year none of them where top 10 picks either other than Curry and even then he pretty much never stayed healthy long enough to play a full season). But teams like GSW pretty much are impossible to create without good player development and great scouting of potential prospects. No one could have seen curry becoming the greatest shooter ever or Klay being the all star he is now or Draymond even starting.
Durant wasn't drafted by the Warriors, nor was Shaq and Kobe with the Lakers or LeBron and Bosh with the Heat. Your argument has merit just for the wrong sport. The Pens drafted Crosby, Malkin, Letang and Murray, the Hawks with Kane, Teows, Keith and Crawford and there are many other teams I could mention in hockey.
The NBA does a great job at marketing their players and if you as a sports fan are into super-teams that is your sport. We all know it's Lebron vs the Warriors part 4 next year, whereas nobody can say who the two teams are that will be in the Cup final next year.
winterguard, how can you say hockey requires more skill when they literally did a video disproving that
You're not arguing the same point as the video, though. The video is not saying basketball players are more skilled than hockey players at all. It's saying what effect that individual player skill has on results of the games. The video can assume Lebron and Crosby are equally skilled, but Lebrons skill has a much larger impact on a basketball game than Crosby's because he is playing for more often, and hockey is far more chaotic. What sport actually requires more skill is basically irrelevant to this argument.
As a hockey fan, I was a little annoyed at first at the assertion that hockey is more luck than skill. But then I realized that the luck factor is what makes hockey so exciting to watch. Your team could be losing, but with enough luck they could pull ahead. A weird puck bounce, an unintentional deflection, a slip on the ice-all of these could make a big difference in a game. There’s no doubt that hockey players are very skilled, as are all these athletes. But it’s the unforeseeable happenstances that keep fans on the edge of their seats. Enough is left to chance that no team is necessarily guaranteed a win (or a loss). Luck kind of evens the playing field (or rink, I guess, lol). Every game is a roller coaster ride. And that’s why I love it. I mean, aren’t all team sports fans there for the ride? To react to what’s happening? To be entertained? This video just made me love hockey even more 🏒
Very well said
The only reason hockey is more luck based is cause it’s way more complex than just throwing a ball around. You’re on skates, on ice, with a stick that bends, and a small cylinder shaped puck that moves around 30x faster than any basketball. All of these are why I say it’s the best sport
Exactly, theres a fun youtube trend where people set up marble races and they commentate on them like its a pro game. The games are truly random and the outcomes do not matter, but some people find them really exciting to watch, and people do start picking certain marbles as their "team". It's weird to think about, but randomness makes the game way more fun, skill needs to be the default. Watching Lebron play has always been spectacular, but its boring to know that they're going to just trounce on most teams
There’s no game requiring more skill than Hockey. I think Luck is a loaded term. They’re trying to account for the lack of variance in season records as compared to basketball which shares the same amount of games. Statistically what they’re calling luck is the seeming unpredictability of winners and losers, but that’s not up to chance. The reason hockey is hard to pick is because of the diverse array of skills needed to win. It’s such a complex recipe of good goal tending, good scoring chances, disciplined, tough, system based play. Hockey players are on the very pinnacle of reaction speed and hand eye coordination. Winners in hockey are selfless and team oriented cause it’s impossible to win otherwise. Basketball players are selfish and star oriented cause it’s a far more simple game.
lmao im here after tampa just got swept😂
Noah Crichton ya i’m pissed about that one
West No. 1 seed Calgary was also knocked out of the first round in five games.
These playoff games are on a whole other level, man.
VieViaPaVria i just got home from that flames game lol
There is much less of a difference between Tampa Bay and Columbus than there is between the top NBA team and the 8th place team in any given season. Hard salary cap = parity and less consistent winners, nothing to do with “luck”
This video was the first thing I thought of when I heard about that for sure!
again Vox making an interesting video about something I didn't think of. Well done
Bas Willemsen well i did but not exactly
If it was a video that was already on your mind and constant or trending in a population, that would be clickbait due to making a video just for views knowing that's what people want to watch or are already thinking about constantly... Vox doesn't do clickbait or not very often.
One other thing to consider is how many points are scored in each game. In the NBA where people score up to 100-ish points, missing one shot 99 times out of 100 won't make that much of a difference. Except in hockey, if you miss one goal, that could mean the difference between victory and defeat.
Adrian Fonseca I hope you're just really bad at showing sarcasm...vox is known to be outstanding..only people I can think who don't like vox are diehard trump supporters who are uninformed because of their truthful coverage of him...
you didn't think about it because it's almost all wrong......
Hi everyone - seeing a lot of misinterpretation, so just want to clarify. This video is NOT making a judgment about which sports require more skill. It's about how well a sport measures skill. In other words, how confident can you be that outcomes in a sport reflect true differences in skill? You can be more sure of that in basketball than in hockey. I know that's not super intuitive, but alas, that's stats for ya. - joss
hey vox, thanks for not totally dissing our home sport.
The video is very misleading. The tighter variance in the win-loss record in the NHL can be simply explained by more equally balanced teams rather than by a greater contribution of luck.The analysis does not allow to distinguish the two. If hockey as a sport is more luck than skill, tighter win-loss record variance should be seen across many different leagues.
Peter, if you watched the description of the method in the video, you'll see that it IS indeed a measure of parity. If you don't like the word luck, you can use a different word for the relative inability to attribute outcomes to skill differences, but it's common among sports statisticians to use the word luck in this context (see links in the description). And yes, you would likely see tighter variance in other professional hockey leagues relative to basketball because so much of the parity is likely to stem from the dynamics of the gameplay itself and the scoring system. In his book, Mauboussin says "the contribution of luck tends to be similar for various professional leagues within the same sport. For example, in the old American Basketball Association, which merged with the NBA in 1976, the influence of luck looked similar to that in the NBA. This is also true in hockey, football, and soccer."
This is not quite true for hockey in 1976 and the seventies in general.. 3 teams dominated in 76 (Montreal Philly and Boston) and a few bottom teams were dreadful. The top three had winning percentages of .794, .738, .706 respectively. Last season the top three win percentages were .671, .609 and .609, Washington Pittsburgh and Chicago respectively. ( I used absolute winning percentage not point percentage because of the current"loser" point system if the game is tied at the end of regulation in which both teams get at least a point.) Factors leading to more parity these days are the salary cap, as well as the 5 minute overtime and shootout which are favorable to weaker teams, especially those with a good goaltender to keep scores low thus increasing the chance of a tie after 60 minutes. Also goaltender padding has bulked up to almost comical proportions in the modern era, thus reducing scoring and making each goal more pivotal and yes, more a matter of luck since it is so hard to score. Legitimate goaltending technique has also significantly improved too.
So you can't say it's merely a measure of gameplay dynamics and the scoring system. In the case of hockey, it's also the salary cap, goaltender "improvements" and no tie games with brief overtimes to decide winners have lead to luck/parity. Being a fan of hockey for 50 years, I know the frustration of a team's talent drain from the tight salary cap in particular which has really been the main source of parity. Every current NHL fan knows that there is a window of opportunity for teams loaded with young talent and a core of quality veterans, which soon closes as the younger players prove themselves and demand much higher salaries and the older vets are forced to move on to other teams, via either trade or free agency. This was simply not the case back in the 70s.
So while it is undeniable that luck plays a comparatively major part in today's NHL, I don't think it is so inherent in the game as is suggested here. It's largely an artificial product of the NHL's obsession with parity in order to help with promotion in weaker markets.
I appreciate the response to my comment. I like Vox because you guys are not afraid of being quantitative. You assume that readers have the capacity to understand data, as long as it is presented in a clear way. Hence, the beautiful infographics. I really think that more media should follow this path and not assume that people do not have the ability to understand statistics. Ultimately, data is very important for informing our decisions and should be more abundant in journalism. However, this video departs from this philosophy. As mentioned above, the word parity is more appropriate
than the word luck here. If sports statisticians are comfortable with interchanging the two terms, that's fine. But this video is not intended just for sport statisticians and therefore should be explicit about its use of the word luck. The below comments definitely show that people did not interpret luck as meaning parity. Moreover, by using the the word luck instead of parity, you arrive at what could be a misleading conclusion, "underdogs do better at hockey than basketball". This statement would be less than satisfying if the explanation is simply that the skill difference between underdogs and favourites is smaller in hockey than in basketball. I don't have the habit of leaving youtube comments and am not particularly opinionated about hockey and basketball. I am simply disappointed that Vox is falling into the trap of over simplifying subject matters in order to create click-bait titles.
I love how every hockey fan got sooooo up in arms over this video saying, "Hockey doesn't take luck! it's all skill" etc. If they actually watched the video, he says, ALL PROFESSIONAL SPORTS REQUIRE AN INSANE AMOUNT OF SKILL. it's just the flow of each sport. Basketball has an insane amount of chances, most of them are converted; in hockey there aren't that many clear cut chances to score. Same with any sport where there is a goal and goaltender. This video isn't a debate on which sport requires the most skill; it's to observe the differences each sport's outcomes result from both skill and luck combined. For team sports vs individual sports, it is easy to say that skill is the obvious factor in winning or losing, and the difference in skill is also more readily apparent. With more people in the game, the predictability of success isn't as clear cut. a really skilled player's contribution is less conducive to their team winning than if it were only him/her vs the other team's best player.
How does this not have more likes?
@@cedarnichols-barnhart563 yepI
I was upset hockey was so far to the left. Read this comment and I agree with you. Thanks
I will say there is a lot of things you said right but look at the chart in the first 30 seconds of the video Sherlock.
@@samuellemaster5845 What does the chart have to do with my comment? my comment was rebutting hockey fan's misplaced outrage towards this video due to a lack of comprehension with sports and their innate differences. Hockey, as i said, doesn't have as many clear cut chances to score as basketball, thus creating the flow of the game more on the luck side than the skill side, as in "skill it takes to influence said game". If there weren't a goalkeeper in hockey, then yes, skill would play a significantly higher part in scoring. Look at soccer and hockey.....how many goals result from completely unintentional deflections from missed shots? now compare that to basketball. I don't think ANY sports fan can say that a basket happens on accident, unless it's like a Curry random toss as he's getting fouled on the outside, or some player trying to keep the ball in play and scores instead. Those are astronomically rare compared to the usual flow of the game, which is jumpers, threes, layups and dunks, which all require you to athletically overpower your opponent. Hockey goals happen more frequently on accident than any other sport, which makes it be on the left, and basketball has the least, why it's all the way on the right. Huh, i guess it did have something to do with the chart after all lol
4:57
Var haunts us football fans wherever we go.
Don't you dare say the word
😂
blue shell incoming
And steals 1st place
zarif dies inside
BBBBBBBB
That sounds unlucky...
ua-cam.com/video/umDr0mPuyQc/v-deo.html
they need to take into account that fact that NHL is the only one of those sports that has a FULL salary cap and salary floor. you can't have the golden state warriors in the NHL the salary cap won't let that happen and because of the salary floor teams are forced to stay a little more competitive than the NBA.
The Diddler the Warriors formed in spite of a cap. it was kind of a perfect storm. Basketball isn't always like this. There are usually 4 or 5 teams who can truly contend, not one.
what is a salary floor? and whats it meant to do?
420fedoras a salary floor is the minimum team salary you are required to have. It keeps the teams competitive so one team can't trade away all their good/expensive players to tank
Philip Chevrette And as the Jets sell away everything it might be time for the NFL to add one too.
Philip Chevrette hence why in basketball you have teams like the warriors that when they play against a team like the suns it is practically an automatic win cuz there is no balance of talent
In the NHL there is literally A stat called Time of possession lol
And football and others
@Trevor Wilson It's a key stat in football, or at least it was until high powered offenses starting scoring in a few plays. In hockey it's more about offensive zone time and being able to clear the puck out of the defensive zone. Time of possession roughly correlates.
Yes, but not total amount of possessions
He means player not team
Hockey is far too quick to time personal possession, its a team effort anyways.
Vox: makes video about lucky wins in world sport
Leicester City: Am I a joke to you?
that wasn't luck, leicester played out of their skins that season
They won the league with seventy something points compared to when Man City wins it with almost 100.
Anyone Leicester won with 81. Also, the Man City comparison isn't that good because that was a record setting year. No other team has ever reached 100 points. In fact, the average champion only scores 86 points so Leicester were on par with the other champions before them.
@@iwanttoclosethis so? Doesn't change the fact that they played better than any other team that season, besides 100 pointa has been reached only once, not a good standard
ogfridgeman that can be said about every underdog story ever genius
This is true because, before the season even starts you can pretty much guess who will be in the NBA finals, NHL you can't. Also 8 and 7 seed teams can easily beat a 2 or 1 seed in the NHL, in NBA its almost impossible.
Rumboltz can you guarantee the warriors and cavs will make the finals this season. Probably not
95% chance.
Touchy Touchy 21 they're more likely than the top 2 hockey teams
Basim Israr well Celtics look like they are gonna come out the east not the cavs
Touchy Touchy 21 that's what everyone says until they lose in the playoffs. Check their head to head and cavs are probably going to the finals
Am I wrong for saying this might be a scale for what sports are more predictable and not so much about how much skill is involved?
You'd be right.. The only reason I can think of for them to use the term "luck" is because of its negative connotations compared to skill. If they had used "predictability" they wouldn't have generated as many views/book sales.
Tyde Behrend lol that's true they should change the scale from luck and skill to luck and predictability
Tyde Behrend it's about how much skill influences the outcome. Yes the thumbnail is a bit misleading but the study seems very serious and unbiased which is cool.
you are very right. it is absolutely ridiculous to say hockey and soccer require less skill than basketball. as a player of all of them, i can confirm basketball was by far the easier sport
Jake Cyr I think you missed what they said in the video (and in the comments section). They specifically said that they aren't measuring the skill required to play the game, they are measuring how the game allows a person's skill to be measured and to come out.
I think this has to do with hockey having far more variables than chess. The fun part of hockey is watching the players quickly react and deal with unexpected things, like being tackled, slipping on the ice, ect. At the end of the day the most skilled team is most likely to win, but some of the best moments in hockey are when unexpected things happen.
Something else that I find interesting that wasn't really addressed is how in Basketball you are basically always guaranteed offensive opportunities compared to say Hockey.
In Basketball, after every successful field goal or turn over the ball immediately goes to the other team and they go into the opposite end for their chance to shoot. This isn't the case in Hockey where a highly coordinated, defensive team can essentially negate the offensive opportunities of the opposing team and confine them to the neutral zone.
In Hockey you have to "earn" your offense by entering your opponents zone onside to generate your chances.
This is a big part of why Basketball is so star oriented; because the most prolifically talented players are constantly being given offensive opportunities to score. If anything the rules have been adjusted over the course of the game specifically to cater to their skills by making defensive tactics restrictive and mitigating the capacity for defensive players to impede upon the ones attempting to score.
In Hockey you can completely take out the most skilled players with just raw aggression and physicality. So less skilled, but more physical players are often able to have a larger impact on the pace and flow of the game.
This was certainly the case with both the Lightning and the Leafs losing first round. And also an example as to why GS is able to predictably make it to the final year after year.
I find that these two sports get contrasted the most when it comes to their respective styles of play.
Vilim Andrusz That's why hockey is the best sport in the entire world
@@randomhalf-mapplesiruphalf1666 No the point was that basketball requires more consistency to succeed. The comment was proving the videos point more
Hockey does require more skill in the fact that you have to flick the puck up, skate around, move sharply, puck control etc.
Luck and skill aren't mutually exclusive. They lie on a two-dimensional graph, not a one-dimensional continuum. Examples:
low luck + low skill = tic tac toe
low luck + high skill = chess
high luck + low skill = lottery
high luck + high skill = Texas Hold 'Em
Your proposition is either wrong or badly written down: "Luck and skill aren't mutually exclusive"
If you mean, that luck and skill are both needed in a sport, then you are right most of the time. thats what they say in the video, at 1:07 (= all players are of course extremly skilled). But your conclusion is wrong. the video compares players skill to game outcome, and you compare the game skill to the outcome.
example: let's take rocks paper scissors. there is absolutely no skill needed in playing the game, and even with little skill you would win most of the time. how ever, pro players would win by chaining certain patterns to trick you into expecting something wrong. so if you are very skilled, you will win most of the time (5 out of 9). the game outcome indicates that you are a good player.
if you mean, that luck and skill are dependant, it is just statistically wrong. both are needed for the result, but they are independant. example: you take a hard exam, you are almost perfectly prepared. luck would certainly help to have good questions, but even if you are totally unlucky you are still well prepared, your skill is not changed by luck. And on the other hand, if you didn't learn much, with extreme luck, you might even pass. but the luck didn't improve your skill, you still don't have any knowledge of the subject. they are independant by definition.
this is what my dad told me every time the Maple Leafs didnt go to the playoffs
Jibril Osman LOL
they're good now shut up xD
Jibril Osman 😂 omg. I’m a penguins fan and I honestly love what your dad said.
best comment ive seen today. thats great!
This is what I told myself every year since 1967... Great minds, eh?
This is actually awesome, when underdogs can surprise in the playoffs it creates a special feeling of excitement
I feel a little differently, are they actually underdogs if it’s random?
@@chairmanofrussia it’s not 100% random chance at who will win every game obviously your players matter a lot. It’s not like a team of 35+ year old veterans could beat a team of all stars 50% of the time
I want to see how the golf and F1 fair in this equation.
I imagine with golf, the sheer number of holes played throughout a year would mean the variance would be pretty low. Sure you get a good bounce every once in a while, but the bad bounces would average out.
Its called a salary cap
Yeah MLB and soccer are the only 2 without it
harris nisar *soccer
Jeffrey Kimball *Bola
Caesar Sebastian fusball
In that case MLB would be on the right end of the spectrum... which it isn't
Two things that are failing to mention about the NHL: Hard salary cap, therefore teams work within a strict budget, less teams head and shoulders above competition.
And the fact that regular season and playoff hockey are completely different. Standings may vary but the cup generally goes to the same teams. Since 2009 - Chicago 3 cups, Pens 3 cups, Bruins 1, LA 2. Not exactly a different underdog team winning every year.
And he is missing the hard work and effort you need during 4, 7 game series to win the cup. An nhl team with a lot skill can't just coast and get wins, you still need to give the effort night in and night out.
La winning 2012 was an upset. Tho in hindsight maybe not so much cus of the status of their team AFTER that 2012 win.
Very good point. The rules of the game may make luck a more important factor because skill is held much more close to constant.
>Hard salary cap
But NBA has one too?
Since 2001 the NHL 8th seed has upset the 1st seed SIX TIMES. The Nashville Predators were the 16th seed last year and made it to the finals! That is GREAT for NHL fans and players. In the NBA 8th over 1st has happened TWICE since 2001, and both teams were eliminated in 2nd. Can you imagine the 16th NBA seed winning one round, much less making it to the finals? The LA Kings were the west's 8th seed when they won in 2012, something that's never happened in the NBA. This is a good thing about hockey - not bad. The NBA may as well give the top-2 seeds from each conference a bye and lose the 7th and 8th seed (They never will b/c of money). The Cavaliers have basically had a bye to the Conference Championship for the last several seasons, losing a total of 2 games in six 7-game series. For the last four NBA playoffs the top-2 seeds from each conference (4 teams x 4 yrs = 16 chances) have made it to their conference finals 15 out of 16 chances. That is AWFUL for NBA fans and players. Lebron James' teams have been in the NBA finals 7 years in a row. No matter how good a hockey player is there is no way he could make that happen like Lebron James has been able to do.
A precis of my earlier long post:
1. You assume that anything that's not luck is skill. However, variables like field dimensions in baseball can have systematic (that is, non-lucky) effects on results without being skills.
2. Goaltenders usually play the entire game in hockey, and often a goaltender's performance will win the game for their team even though the team was outplayed in general.
3. The conventional approach to this issue would be to estimate the effects of skill first, predict results, then calculate error (i. e. luck) as the difference between predicted and actual results.
And keep in mind that huge numbers of games in professional sports are fixed.
There are reasons why the top teams lose sometimes, its cause they were paid to lose.
Luck, skill, and some nights when teams are paid not to try.
With around 20% of games in all professional sports being fixed, you have to add that factor into the calculation.
@@Saugaverse Good point. And there's straight-out cheating, too.
I found it kind of funny that they pointed out that chance comes into the game at more points than just the win-loss level (e.g. number of shots to score, etc.), and then quantified the 'luck factor' entirely as a single 50/50 chance.
@@daidarabotchi3891 Good point. They really should have reviewed this with a statistician.
4:28 As a West Brom fan (WBA) I'm so glad you used this as the example!
But hockey does have a measurement for possession ...called possession
you may be thinking of corsi and fenwick which measure shot attempts as a proxy for possession
They stopped measuring that stat years ago, as agents were using it to negotiate higher wages for defencemen.
Nope, he`s talking about the stat "possession time" which is how long one team possesses the puck
Bruce Wayne you can easily calculate possession by dividing minutes the team held the ball (or puck) by the amount of minutes played. Hockey is tougher to determine this because of how erratic it can become
nimrodery, I believe they were able to measure it when the infamous glow puck was in use (which I covered briefly in this video: ua-cam.com/video/1Oqm6eO6deU/v-deo.html) Sounds like they're working to bring back a similar technology! www.si.com/tech-media/2016/09/03/world-cup-hockey-player-puck-tracking
Vox, one of the best original and useful channel on UA-cam. Please guys, more MORE MORE! The one of the few things I actually do and actually get smarter on UA-cam!
Jordan Tan they should do more informative videos and less political vids
They called football soccer, and 'american rugby' football....
I mean FOOT BALL, it doesn't have any sense!
Hollawar, for what it's worth, we got the word soccer from the Brits www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/why-we-call-soccer-soccer/372771/
yeah yeah I know that's kinda ironic but the brits are just... brits
Actually this is weird... first time a channel answers me... hmm
I think this can be seen as a very positive thing for nhl this shows how evenly matched the teams are and this makes the sport unpredictible and a lot more exciting in terms of wich team will come out on top then in basketball for example
“There isn’t even a way to measure possession in hockey” there is, it’s just not used by the old trusted hockey men.
There's one big factor that seems to have been missed. Parity. Certain leagues have better balanced skill across all the teams. The NHL is a good example of a league with higher parity than say the NBA or the EPL. So most teams are fairly close to each other skill wise which is why it's not surprising when underdogs beat "better" teams.
There's also the issue of injuries which affect all sports and it's hard to measure the exact impact they have and how much of it is due to luck or poor training.
scorpion3128 It's hard to keep a close skill gap in the NBA. Most players are over 6'3 to begin with, which leaves a much smaller player pool size than any other sport (as the % of humans that tall is significantly low) which allows for a higher variation in skill. Not to mention the best players play both offense and defense and play more than 70% of available minutes. On top of that the best players can control the ball as much as they want, there are no "turns" like in baseball. Basketball is the most individual team sport there is. If you put LeBron James on the worst team in the NBA, next year they will probably make it to the Finals. One player has a HUGE impact on a team, with such a variance over individual player skill, it is hard to maintain parity.
all they are doing is subtracting the known variance of the actual games' outcomes and the known variance of random win/losses. they don't even need to think about the games at all. its statistics and they are not concerned with small details just how much luck and skill is involved in determining a winner, not where the skill and luck are in the game.
but to more directly address your comment. if teams have a smaller skill gap then luck plays a larger role in who ends up winning the game. its pretty common sense. as for the injuries being luck or skill based. they do not need to worry about it because they know the distribution of random win/losses so the correct amount of luck or skill attributed to the injury will be seen in the final skill variance value
it wasn't missed. They just didn't focus on it for long.
scorpion3128 premier league isn’t bad tho. west brom can take a 4-0 loss to man city but then beat tottenham 2-1 the following week.
Where is professional fidget spinning?
HAHAHAHAH 100% skill bro
Baker's Bread where people express their autism
Baker's Bread it is illegal as the sport would cause mass hysteria and autism in a radius of 1km around where the activity is played
Baker's Bread I got 200th like
Im proud of you son
I first heard about this phenomenon in Malcolm Gladwell book, “Outliers.” Very interesting book, amazing author
"No way to measure possessions"
Advanced hockey stats: Are we a joke to you?
7:00 lower left guy
What? Huh? Oh, OH MY GOD WE WON!!!
I saw that lol
Omg you’re a mastermind of seeing hilarious expressions
That’s why hockey is the best sport in the world. No super teams. Any team can go all the way🏒
Adrian Right, any mediocre team can win. In basketball mediocre teams don't win championships. When was the last time a great team won the cup? The early 80's Islanders.
Adrian 8 this is completely false, many hockey teams haven't won a Stanley cup
BLAKETHESNAKE24 he Said any team can win not every team have won
@Lord Beasley So the late 80's Edmonton Oilers weren't a great team with their 5 cups? Gotcha. A real Einstein over here folks.
You are smart and I agree
Wow... I get everyone is talking about the stats behind it and simplifying for those who don't understand as well (thank you btw) but can I just commend the creator of this video. So insightful, interesting and graphics were present in a very interesting fashion. Props!
I just love the music fits in the beginning... so perfect 👌 0:32
So u telling me being 7 foot aint luck
It isnt if u watched basketball u would know. It slows u down. And if u don't have skill you'll be ass like Tristan Thompson
See the big differents in kd and Tristan Thompson
Both 7 foot
Well kd like 6 foot 10 lmao but u understand what i mean
rick fox you don't watch basketball
ƙıŋɠ™ nah, he's 7 foot. Check it out
rick fox No, if you're parents are of the same height you're gonna be the same as them
I get what the video is saying, but I feel like skill and luck don't quite translate to a real life explanation of the game. Skill is more than just what Sidney Crosby can do with the puck. The "skill" (as opposed to the entirely random pure dumb luck of a random team winning out of thirty teams) has to do with intense effort and responsible defence as much as it include offensive creativity and control or possession. Skill includes hard hits and gaining the confidence to play a good game. I think management and coaches have hockey down to such a defensive science that it isn't as hard to prevent a superstar like Sidney Crosby from scoring as it is to prevent Lebron James from scoring.
For the record, I'm not trying to say the video is wrong. I'm just explaining how the labelling of the two variables may have pissed off hockey and soccer fans.
That may be true, but that's an analysis of the difference in the nature of skill between the sports, and that wasn't what the video was about. The video never made the claim that hockey requires less skill than basketball, which is how many are misinterpreting it. I think most people who understand both sports appreciate that the skill required to be a good hockey player is harder to develop than the skill of a good basketball player. That doesn't change the fact that the outcome of games and seasons is less directly dependent on the skill of the players in hockey than it is in basketball, due to the variables other than player skill. That's really what this "luck continuum" is pointing out, and there's pretty clear-cut math to support the idea.
Most hockey fans missed the entire point of the vudeo. Maybe the point is that most hockey players are so equally skilled that luck is more likely to be the difference between winning and losing. In basketball the variance in skill between the best players/team and the worst, is so great that the most skilled team is more likely to win. Yes it takes most skill to play play hockey and the least skill to play basketball but the gap between the best and worst nhl play is much smaller than the gap between the best and worst nba player. In hockey players need more rest so variables change more often. In basketball you can ride your best player the entire game if needed. Long story short skill determines the outcome most in basketball simply because of the larger skill gap (and more money to waste). Hope that helps
The idea that hockey players are more evenly skilled than basketball players is ludicrous to anyone that follows both games. If you take the best player and weakest player on each team, the difference would be evident within seconds....and the margin would be broad. There are several key difference between the two sports one being that the superstar in the NBA can play 80%+ of the minutes and have a much larger impact on the outcome than the best hockey player. Goaltending is also a huge impact. There are nights when an opposing goaltender is simply lights out and no amount of skill will win you the game.
Thomas Triarsi yeah, same.
I love both Hockey and Basketball, I have been watching both for over 40 years, I can safely say that NBA basketball has far less of an element of luck... I say this for two reasons, the size of the goal in each sport and the size (and shape) of the object that is scored. In the NHL, it is fairly routine for a crazy carom off the corner boards or side boards to result in a score, we who have watched any amount of hockey have seen these. The other night I saw a goal scored where the shooter wristed a puck that was barely tipped, the goalie went down and the puck hit off his pad and landed between his legs. The goalie was not sure he had stopped the puck so he clenched his knees together which in turn squirted the puck out from between his legs and it slowly trickled over the goal line. If that puck had not been tipped that tiny amount it probably would not have trickled in. To my way of thinking that is sheer luck. On occasion in the NBA a tip in for the other team happens but it is so few as to be negligible. For that matter, because of how often random shots get changed on the way to the net by being deflected, tipped and or redirected it's hard to even quantify them. That is not to say that hockey isn't a sport filled with highly skilled players, in fact hockey is a much more difficult sport to master... it's just has much more randomness associated with it. Luck is not the largest part of hockey even so. Skill, tenacity and hustle comprises most of what makes teams successful in the NHL but it's just a bit more dependent on a lucky bounce than the NBA is.
Love it. As a huge sports fan, this is one of the best VOX videos. I watch it at least once a year :P
this is why I love playoff hockey though. Its pretty cool to always have hope that your team can win as long as they make the playoffs
I actually don't agree with this video at all. They failed to mention salary caps. The reason hockey has such successful underdogs is because the skill variance per team is actually alot lower than basketball due to the NHL's strict salary cap. the GSW stacked there team and went to the NBA final (and will probably win). That is literally impossible in hockey because of a teams salary cap. Each team can only have a certain amount of superstars, so each team has a better chance of competing. Im really dissapointed Vox didn't include this in their calculations
You dont neccesarilly need to mention Salary Cap, the Blackhawks are stacked and couldt win a playoff game, the Sens arent capped and beat the Bruins and Rangers, the Preds are not capped and are playing in the Finals.
Guardians of Aesir the nba also has a salary cap, but the players have decided to take pay cuts so they can make super teams in order to win some rings
Yeah sorry I should have mentioned that the NBA does. But it's not nearly as strict as the NHL. KD may have taken a small pay cut, but it's not like he's making league min.
Warriors built their team trough the draft the only big free agent they signed is kd. The cavs stacked their roster tho
Bob Orson Gaming and Mapping
flashbacks
I love how they use the Premier league and then the MLS for there charts, makes a lot of sense
Jared Doolin like comparing nfl to minor league arena football
Jared Doolin don’t worry, this video is made to convince you that other sports and athletes aren’t as skilled.
@@trapmoneykenny how?
Such a fantastic video!
They do actually have a way to measure possessions in hockey. It's called corsi.
EatSleepIceHockey people these days. Aren't up to date.
That's too much research for them... jk, Vox usually do a great job, this video wasn't as well researched as others tho
Corsi still doesn't perfectly represent possession. But it can be used to get a general idea of who dominates possessions.
VOX usually does a great job......WOW
4:23 That was literally the perfect time to mention Messi
actually, being smaller in that position is more beneficial. You have a lower centre of gravity and thus have better ball control.
Ikr!
It really isn't. Being tall and being small both have pros and cons so that whole "more beneficial" thing is bullshit
Supercvu well physically speaking being taller make you faster at running but lower your cardio and for ball control the smaller player do have a advantage with acceleration but on the other side taller is better for def/goalkeeping sooo i would also say its equal in soccer pretty much
why ? thats what it's called in a lot of countries lol don't be ignorant
“they don’t even have a way to measure possession in hockey” - entirely false.
Is it?
@@aaronmoyer4722 yes
@@eskimo8200 ok
this was very interesting great work
Really what's being said is that hockey is worth watching the most because there is the most chance for luck and underdogs. And in the NBA it's most likely that the best team on paper will win. So it's not a bad thing that hockey is more towards chance it just means that in any season the #1 ranked team has more teams competing against it that have a fighting chance of winning the cup. Where as in basketball you can make a safer bet that the best couple teams will win the championship. (CAVS VS. WARRIORS)
Captain Canada in this season the nba rankings are a lot closer
Thank you, at least one person understands the video. Everyone here is arguing about whether it is more difficult to be good at hockey or basketball, that's not the point of the video at all. Luck has a larger influence in the results of hockey games than it does in basketball games.
This video has nothing to do with how tough it is to play a specific sport.
Right! I think it makes the NBA more predictable. The last time I saw a #8 seed NBA team beat a #1 team was over 10 years ago, and it’s only happened 5 times in history (only one of those 5 teams would go on to win the next round). A couple seasons ago, the #8 Predators SWEPT the #1 Blackhawks, on their way to becoming the 3rd #8 seed since 2006 to go to the FINALS. In 2012, the Kings beat the #1, #2, and #3 seed to get there, and in 2006, ALL FOUR underdogs (5, 6, 7, and 8) won the first round in the West. The 2010 Eastern Conference Final was a 7 vs. 8 seed. There was a stretch from 2004-2012 where there were two different teams every year in the Final, and barring the repeat Red Wings vs. Penguins finals in 2008 and 2009, NO ONE made the final twice in that entire span.
2004: Flames/Lightning
2006: Oilers/Hurricanes
2007: Ducks/Senators
2008: Red Wings/Penguins
2009: Red Wings/Penguins
2010: Blackhawks/Flyers
2011: Canucks/Bruins
2012: Kings/Devils
In hockey, we EXPECTED two different teams every year and it felt like they were running out of new options. Compare that to basketball, where we get Cavs/Warriors 4 years in a row.
Not that I’m saying the best teams shouldn’t win (they should!), but it’s a lot more exciting as a fan to have no idea what to expect!
The formula really just measures the skill variance between teams. I guess if all teams are equal in skill then any variance in win rates could be said to be luck. More accurately though, this is just a rating of how closely matched the teams in a league are.
5:21
By the way, the reason it's called the Pythagorean Theorem of Statistics is that the variance of a random variable is the square of its standard deviation, so when written out in terms of standard deviations it actually looks like the Pythagorean Theorem.
Appreciate the detailed analysis you guys put forward. Thanks for sharing teh sources as well!
Mayur their info is false
Just becuase a team which is an underdog wins , doesnt mean its pure luck. For example, when leicester won the premier league, it wasnt luck. They played a good style of football that worked all year round whilst simultaneously other top clubs were failing. Thats not luck.
... I understand your point but luck isnt the best word. What you decribes is the likelyhood of and underdog to win a game...
if it worked all year round then they're not the underdog for the season!
Individual games, not seasons
Anonymous Killer Destroyer I agree. The former Atlanta Thrashers beat the Pittsburgh Penguins EVERY TIME I went to a game. The Thrashers were the laughing stock of the NHL and they beat one of, if not, the best team multiple times. Unfortunately, it was only the 3 times I attended a Thrashers game.
The video leaves out the effect of a hard salary cap. It's the reason why Hockey has so much parity
Exactly, before the salary cap, the same team would win year after year, 76,77,78,79 Montreal Canadiens, 80,81,82,83 New York Islanders, 84,85,87,88,90 Edmonton Oilers. Penguins back to back 91,92 Red Wings back to back 97, 98. Ever since the salary cap, the league has become a parity league.
Pittsburgh is easily the best team though. Every other team is a parity.
My question is how many basketball players are there that can play hockey compared to how many hockey players are there that can play basketball? 🤨
I would pay to see that 👀!
Chattahoochee Choochee not everyone is going to bother to spend hundreds of dollars in equipment and trying to find an open ice to try hockey thus making basketball a more skilled sport because everyone has played it and by going to the NBA you are better the everyone compared to a lebron james who could prob dominate in hockey if he was ever passionate for it
@@georgecatubay802 I highly doubt that
The same amount. Nobody.
There is some overlap but you usually can't be the best at both Bo Jackson will not happen again or at least its a very rare thing. Especially in modern day athletes.
3:18 let's just take a moment to appreciate Sidney Crosby embarrassing and undressing Spezza behind the net. 😂
Hockey all day everyday, coolest sport on earth, most brutal playoffs to be in, hardest trophy to win. And I respect other sports but hockey man...
MrCdub88 football is in fact the most unpredictable. The champions league is the biggest annual sporting event in the world. Football is played by over 3 billion people around the world. Best sport in the world and always will be
Legendaire football is too corrupt though, champions league isnt even worth watching anymore
Legendaire I don't see how just because the majority of people playing means it's the best sport
Legendaire oh I hear you. I'm not talking about the popularity of the sport, I'm taking the nature of it, on ice at high speeds, sharp things that can cut you,bruise u, fights and line brawls, the drama, the toughness, and I can go on, it is a sport which has soo many aspects of other sports put into one.
Legendaire oh and hockey players have to take mad beating to get to the cup, all it takes is 4 games for the Super Bowl, I know there's other football events but I'm talking mainstream. Don't want to put football down but even some of my football buddies admit that hockey is a more brutal sport then there own which is football.
In hockey a single lucky bounce can score a goal which could be all a team needs to win on a certain night while in basketball a single lucky bounce scores 2 out of 80/90 points, that’s what this luck boils down to.
then the video should be labeled what the luckiest sport is. not that basketball is more skillful
The video is labeled, "why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball" it doesn't even mention luck or skill until it actually starts. And even when is does, it says that all the athletes in these sports are extremely skillful, but skill predicts the outcomes of games better in basketball than hockey.
PK Subban I agree with the video, I love hockey I just wanted to calm down some people who were angry because they think Vox is pretty much saying you aren’t as talented if you play hockey
I agreed with your comment. I was referring to the person who replied to you first. Brandon moore seems to think that the video was said basketball was more skillful which me and you both agree is not what the video implied.
My problem is they are saying that random = luck. I don't follow that logic. A less skilled team using a better tactic is a better team. It has nothing to do with luck in most cases.
Great 👍 book great reporting
this was such a well made video
It's hard to keep a close skill gap in the NBA. Most players are over 6'3 to begin with, which leaves a much smaller player pool size than any other sport (as the % of humans that tall is significantly low) which allows for a higher variation in skill. Not to mention the best players play both offense and defense and play more than 70% of available minutes.
On top of that the best players can control the ball as much as they want, there are no "turns" like in baseball. Basketball is the most individual team sport there is. If you put LeBron James on the worst team in the NBA, next year they will probably make it to the Finals. One player has a HUGE impact on a team, with such a variance over individual player skill, it is hard to maintain parity.
DynamicUnreal I would bet you everything I own that if Lebron went to the nets, or the suns, or any other trash team, they would be at best average. Lebron has many superstars around him that afford him success. He is impactful, but this is a gross over-estimation.
Joe Tec
Remember the 2007 Cavs?
They wouldn't have even come close to the playoffs without LeBdon.
MadmanGoneMad2012 Lmao Daniel Gibson was decent, Hughes was decent, Ilgaulskas was good but that's it.
Goatbrook they were solid team bro. Dont just look at their names and assume they were completely garbage just because you dont know them. They completely choked in the finals that includes Lebron but they were an okay team.
What we see in basketball is forming teams to support a single player or maybe even two. That's not too unusual considering other team sports have defined roles for team members and their relative impact on the team.
you got it all wrong.
basketball is more about individual skills.. 1 very skilled player can make a difference on a team.
hockey is not about luck. it's about team play. 1 skilled player can make a difference but can't do everything on it's own like in basketball. it's about how a whole team can play together.
..so u need to get lucky by having a team with more then one good player
Actually nope.. i tend to watch hockey and basketball. And basketball requires alot more skill than hockey. Reason being is that in hockey defense is always at a disadvantage to to the ice. In basketball both offense and defense are on equal footing.
You obviously know absolutely nothing about basketball😂
Put LeBron on the Suns team and let's see how far they'd go. My guess not to far from where they are right now.
kilAcez21 Basketball is boring, defense is non-existent.
Why did you talk about every other sport way more than soccer
You didnt mention how soccer has very few goal opportunities but its still the second most skilled based game
This is why hockey is the best. You need a great team to win, not just a superstar
TheVolourn those teams didn’t just win because of those players, goalies and other defensive players took part in their victory, orlov, oshie, kessil, Backstrom, murry, and holtby, just to name a few are players that have been part of helping their team win
@TheVolourn Luck has nothing to do with it. U cant win 16 games against 4 different teams because of luck. A superstar cannot carry a team. Depth and leadership does. Nba can easily be carried by superstars and thats why the same team goes to the finals every year. U cant win a cup by having the best 1st line in hockey and having bad depth but the nba is slower paced and star players can play almost whole games. Not in hockey.
Simon the Warriors should have won this year if all you need is superstars?
@@ScottGaming100 They can't win every year.
Brett Monarch Heat lost twice, Boston big 3 lost etc all these “super teams” eventually are going to lose for one reason or another but it usually has to do with lack of depth which is why you don’t only need superstars
weird how they have the premier league in the chart but don't mention it once
+Jed Jod cuz you know nothing about soccer
Jed Jod lol except for almost every country besides the U.S
Eric Cruz I live in the US and I love soccer. It's just that not as many people play it here compared to other countries and I only have like 2 friends that want to play it with me besides the team that I play on.
the gourd king pumpkin because the videos on the NBA finals and the NHL. final that's happening right now
champions league final was on Saturday and it one of the biggest fixtures in football sooooooooo null point
its simple. with high scoring games less luck is involved. low scoring games involve more luck. by the way american footbal inflates scores really its a low scoring game.
HolyMaryFullOfShit No clue how you think that works but okay 👌
Yeah in hockey, you can do a million things right on a play and still not score. In basketball, it's not that hard to convert your skill into actual points, so the difference in skill level is going to become obvious over time.
Imagine if basketball was played on the same court but with shooting a marble into a 3-inch wide basket. That'd basically be like making it more similar to hockey in terms of the difficulty of scoring and having your skill make a difference.
What you state about hockey is why I've long thought there was a lot of luck. Some have proposed increasing the net size to increase scoring, but another effect might be to allow the better teams to win more often.
Well you are dumb. Have you ever watched soccer?
The American i'm surprised to hear that from "the American" as they are usually the only ones to call it soccer. But in America its soccer and everywhere else its football, end of discussion.
And if it would be that simple that everytime the team who played better always wins, i wouldn't watch sports anymore. So no "the better team" doesn't always wins. Like in hockey you can outshot your opponent 40 to 20 and still lose only because opponent goalie had some god mode on and your only goal was some lucky rebound.
Shows MLS on the scatter plot and proceeds to show a clip from the EPL
Answer: Because Hockey is more of a team sport.
Team sports are harder and require a TEAM effort, not 2/5 players on the court for 45 minutes and getting 50-70 of the team's points every game
It's the salary cap. There are no super teams, instead every team has relatively equal amount of "good" and "bad" players (in NHL terms that is). In sports like soccer where there are no such requirements the best teams might spend over 100 million just to buy a single player. This means that if an athlete wants to win in soccer, he needs to be in one of the best teams in the world, meaning he also has to be one of the best players in the world in his position. In NHL you might be the player with lower salary and luck into the correct team.
Bosseking but in the nba they have a salary cap yet the best teams are still WAY better than the worst ones. So that point doesn’t make sense
Bosseking Either way it won't make a difference, in the NBA you really only need one great player and some decent... Lebron carried an 8th seed (at best) cavs team to the finals for years, and now look at them. They sit in the top 3 WORST teams in 1 season, like get real
Conner Kovach to be fair that’s in part of Lebrons greatness. Not every superstar can do that. Also it’s in the weaker East
Conner Kovach that doesn’t quite work as the answer cuz American football is twice as intricate a team sport as hockey and it’s closer to the skill part of the continuum.
"they don't even have a way to measure possession in hockey..."
ughhh yes they do
they can estimate with proxies, but they don't measure possession
They keep track of giveaways and takeaways, individual teams measure possession (so they can analyze games).
Vox yes they do measure possession the stat is literally called time of possession
Vox have you ever heard of time on attack or corsi or fenwick
Time of possession in hockey is almost always bs because there are long stretches of any game where the puck is never really in either teams control.
MLS and Premier league are poor examples of soccer leagues compared to the national leagues. Something like the champions league would more accurately reflect the comparison at the the elite levels of other sports.
Daniel Domínguez or the world cup
Oliver Robinson not really. there’s still shitty teams that made it like peru and iran that aren’t going anywhere
diego luna peru only qualified on a technicality and Iran are getting better
It's really easy in basketball for the best player to hoard the ball and be involved in every single play. In hockey you can level the best player into next week if he doesn't frequently pass off the puck to his teammates. The top players also spend a much shorter time on the ice as compared to playing time in basketball where they can play over half the game. That combined with the much more strict salary caps in hockey forces all teams to be more even
Lowest seed to win the Stanley Cup: #8 (most recently 2014 Los Angeles Kings)
Lowest seed to win the NBA Finals: #6 (1995 Houston Rockets).
Has a team ever completed a reverse sweep in a 7 game series (win a series when down 0-3)?
NHL - Yes. 1942 Toronto Maple Leafs, 1975 New York Islanders, 2010 Philadelphia Flyers, 2014 Los Angeles Kings.
NBA - Never.
@@noname-hf9ty Those teams weren't down 3-0, they were down 3-1.
Seeing that Capitals fan at the end cry brings back so many bad memories ROCKTHERED
Blues fan - Can relate
Haha, feelings are high now!
Not anymore...
RIP Pens and Sydney Crosby-fapping sports announcers 2018
I bet those memories have faded tonight, eh?
Leicester City?
Kranbone ikr
They had 5000:1 odds. It was an extreme outlier.
That's called lots of competition, not luck. Although that is incorporated with the amount of games and stuff
That wasn't luck. The Premier League is a 38 game season, and football is a minute per game sport. 90 (1h 30m) x 38 = 3420 minutes of football over the course of 8 months is not luck.
+ you also have the leagues whilst competing in the prem league, either champ league / europa and the FA Cup.
Don’t let this post fool you. This chart doesnt reflect luck vs skill.. it refects the level of “control” players have over the sport. Just because basketball allows players to “control” the flow of the game, doesn’t mean they are more “skillful” than hockey players. Its two different sports. Put those NBA players on skates and tell me what the outcome would be. But, give a basketball to a hockey player and he’d be able to put the ball in the hoop. Period.
I dont really think this is luck vs skill in the sport itself, what all this really says is the ability of a teams to put together a powerhouse and create discrepancies. Really just the range of skill level is much larger in these sports like basketball. While in hockey it is "more luck" because the range of skills is closer
I'd be interested in a more updated version of this because analysts now consider possession in hockey. For a couple years now things like Corsi have been an important indicator for puck possession, at even strength and with the man advantage. I'd also be interested to know what role special teams play in luck v skill in hockey.
Crystal Pritchard It was only posted today. . . either you mean more in-depth or you think some of the info isn't accurate anymore because by the time they put the video out, some changes have been made so some info literally has to be updated.
Yeah, I wanted a larger sample size than "5 seasons"
Have you heard of Zdeno Chara he is 6'9"
Have you heard of Gheorghe Muresan? He's 7'7"
PK Subban bruh way is you’re name pk subban
Yet Martin St-Louis won two scoring titles at 5'8"
Yesterday I was discussing the luck vs skill factor in football vs test cricket with my dad and now I am recommended this.
Very interesting - would be curious to see if this is consistent with Test cricket (last up to 5 days) and T20 cricket (lasts ~3 hours).
This video totally misrepresents hockey and the NHL. Before the salary cap, the NHL had dynasty after dynasty, the same team winning year after year: Montreal Canadiens champions (76, 77, 78, 79) the New York Islanders (80, 81, 82, 83) The Edmonton Oilers (84, 85, 87, 88, 90) Pittsburgh Penguins (91, 92), (Pittsburgh surely would've been another dynasty if Mario Lemieux had a healthy career). That's more predictable than the NBA was during those years. Basically, the best team in the league who had the best player at the time would win almost every year. Guy Lafleur, Mike Bossy, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux were all the best goal scorers in the league when they won championships in the examples I've given. Detroit Red Wings made the playoffs 25 consecutive seasons, one of the longest streaks in any sport. Wow, what luck :P . It's only changed since the hard salary cap's been instituted. The salary cap is the reason why there's a better chance now of upsets because there's so little disparity between each team in skill. Even with the Salary cap, the Chicago Blackhawks have won 3 championships this decade, the LA Kings won in 2012, went to the conference final in 2013 and won the cup again in 2014. OMG, so random LOL
How about individual players. Sidney Crosby, the best player in the NHL for about the last dozen years was 1st in the league in points-per-game for 5 straight years. What luck, what randomness. Has been Top 5 in points-per-game in the league every year since he's been in the league. His team would've been another dynasty if his career had not been plagued by concussions. Skill still overrides luck significantly in hockey, no different than any other sport, except maybe the ridiculously overly-predictable NBA. Why do underdogs do better in the NHL than the NBA? Easy, the NHL has a hard salary cap, the NBA doesn't. Look at the NHL before the cap, completely disproves this video.
No, it really doesn't. You just failed to understand the mathematical approach to the discussion. Your point about the salary cap is completely accurate, and the same thing applies to the NFL. It achieves parity and prevents dynasties, and that's fantastic for the sport because more teams have comparable skill levels. But if disparity in team skill in the past allowed certain teams to dominate, parity in skill allows the variables independent of skill (i.e., luck) to have greater impact. Because hockey and soccer both have such low scores, one fluke goal is much more likely to alter the outcome than a lucky shot in basketball. The one-and-done aspect of NFL playoffs reduces the sample size and allows a single surprise upset to happen more often than it will in the 3-7 game series of other sports. All the hockey fans getting butt-hurt by the analysis are completely missing the point. Hockey clearly takes a lot of skill, certainly more than is required in most positions in football, but there's no getting around the random chance element of the game, and frankly, since you prefer lower predictability, it seems you are in favor of that.
Arch Stanton I wish Basketball had a harder cap, hopefully that would make for better games.
Agree, Vox's analysis somehow left off this variable (skill differential between teams), maybe because it's tough to quantify? But it's obvious that if the top team isn't much more skilled than the bottom team, their results won't be that different either.
How did the analysis leave out that variable? Anything that affects the outcome that isn't related to skill qualifies as luck. It's obvious and implicit that skill affects the outcome.
My guess is the data analysis for the "observed" aka known stats, W/L, etc, didn't go back as far as the 70's and 80's, dynasty days for the NHL. Also they did mention that the analysis was based on regular season stats only, that could definitely be a factor
Maybe because 2 players in the nba on the same team can carry the whole season, while in hockey you NEED depth in order to ATLEAST make the playoffs. Why is it that the same players have the best stats each year and the same teams make the playoffs each season (chicago has 3 cups in the last 8 years with playoff runs in the others). Very much not 60/40 luck/skill as your visual showed. All sports and games involve a tremendous amount of luck in reality. But luck doesn't win championships.
Also, very misleading title as i was expecting a rookie comparison between the sports, not point after point on why basketball is more skillful the hockey lol.
just to add one point i missed. if we are talking about which teams are easier to predict winning/losing, the nba and epl are the most predictable as the salary caps are ridiculous. This is why in hockey we have strict salary caps to prevent dynasty's. Just do research before the nhl salary cap. teams winning over and over again each year in a row. this isn't determined about the amount of luck vs skill, but the LITERAL AMOUNT OF SKILL one team has. For instance, the pens won the cup this year, as was a very likely possibility as they have 2 of the best players in the nhl (crosby/malkin). But if you look at the teams playoff stats... they have the depth and defensive core + goalie to be one of the best teams... same thing goes for 90% of the playoff teams. Only example i can think of, of a player carrying their team is edm and mcdavid, but his lack of experience caused poor playoff performance.
So please vox, don't take a shitty study that proves the best players on a team make the sport more skillful. Sports are in fact.. Team Games..Right?
Hutch So could an Elite hockey player take a pay cut to allow the team to bring in better players?
then how come an 8th seed can beat a 1st seed in hockey but in basketball thats nearly impossible
... but that's what the video says... More players = more interactions = more unknowns = more influence of chance.
Exactly, there are plenty of great players in the NHL that are on god awful teams. They can't carry their team, you need a lot of good players to provide depth. That's something that this video completely forgets about
Amazing! More plz
What about this game called life 😂
How much luck and skill
90% luck
@@josh-cg8tz You 90% bad luck??
Nah ur just trash at sports
The Premier League has quite some random results, but look at the Champions Leagues or big strong leagues in Europe and tell me if it's not skill.
Premier League is the least skilled,but most competitive league out of big 5.Champions League is most skilled,I agree
Manuel Sousa I'm wondering if Leicester proves or disproves this video
Leicester had 3 very stand out players (Mahrez, Kante and Vardy) and a coach who the players loved and listened to. So, skill was high in that squad but they did have their lucky and unlucky moments (Danny Welbeck scoring with the last kick of the game to make Leicester lose).
Premier league is the best in the world just look at this season ''least skilled'' my ass
Robz Sarmy 1 season makes a league bad ?
Hockey is the best!
Yeah and its only skill
said no one ever
floopyjoe500 the Stanley cup is the HARDEST championship to win FACTS basketball basketball is a complete joke & an embarrassment to even be considered sport
Dude, basketball takes a lot of physical and mental skill. It's a sport. It's not golf. Chill.
(Even golf takes mental and physical ability but it's not played actively in real time so if we're going to argue something called a sport isn't a sport, it's golf.)
Hockey is my favorite sport to watch, but blowing up on basketball like that is just ignorant.
Dude Lebowski lol just mad that the nhl has more luck involved versus skill involved. Why have the warriors and cavs made the finals every year
0:35 that's a pretty sick beat
Skill? Let’s see 99% of athletes couldn’t stake at full speed on 1/8” blades on ice while handling a puck, controlling a stick, passing super fast and receiving, while being checked or hit at full speed. I would say that’s pretty skilled compared to almost any sport. Let’s face it, most other sports the general population can participate in at some level. Hockey takes major skill just to step in the field of play without falling in your face. So yeah, there’s that. The reason you see s basketball hoop on every driveway and playground is exactly because it doesn’t take too much skill/practice to throw a ball - doing it well obviously does but let’s see most people shoot baskets while skating on ice and then we can talk about skill/luck. To the uneducated, skill can appear “lucky”.
No where do they say it doesn't take skill to play the game. It's saying that luck plays a much bigger factor in the outcome of games. If a team gets a weird deflection or something and scores a lucky basket, the impact on the game is normally not that great because we are talking about 1 basket out of how many through out the game. In hockey I lucky goal plays a huge role in the game.
Underdogs do better in hockey you say... *Puts on Preds jersey*
EpicMe3 hello
You sure you want one of those jerseys now?
Hell, the LA kings won the cup a few years ago, anything can happen
Same thing with poker. Skill is a big part of it, but the more you play the more the skills show. That's why the best players win in the long run.
MentallyReacted Poker: lying, the card game.
The intro montage deserves a like
So can somebody help me use this equation to determine if I’m actually trash at fantasy football or just unlucky?
This made sense to me when I imagined the likelihood of an "accidental" goal in hockey versus an "accidental" field goal in basketball. We see own goals and "desperate" hacking and slashing type goals in NHL games way more than "let me just flail my arms at this rebound and it's got a chance to deflect into the basket" in basketball. Same thing with baseball. You see home runs that would have been pop-ups under calmer winds or in (I'll say) better parks, but probably not as many "lucky" home runs as their are goals in hockey. Scoring is just one part of the entire game, I admit. Football is a hard one for me to pin down as far as scoring. Is blown coverage a "luck" touchdown? Is a wide out pulling in what was actually an over-thrown pass and getting the toes down a "skill" touchdown for the receiver but a "luck" touchdown for the qb? Fun stuff to discuss anyway.
Sure, but NHL playoffs are a 7 game series for a reason, the luck generally balances out and the better teams wins.
Umm... that is why there are 82 games in a season. Not only that, but just waving your stick at the puck will not give you a goal. Let me teach you something. In hockey, we have whistles. Goalies can cause these whistles to occur when they cover the puck and freeze the play. You can’t slash the goalies glove trying to get the puck out. Zero goals have happened because of that. And the amount of luck goals in hockey occur the same as the amount of fade away buzzer beaters and own end three point buzzer beaters that occur. Same thing as missing an easy catch in baseball, or some communication issue. What I am trying to say is that it isn’t only hockey that gets lucky bounces.
Or is relying on 1 or 2 super stars to not get hurt or have a bad game really skill? Or are they lucky that they don't get hurt or have a bad game and lose because of it?