Why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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!

Don't you dare say the word

😂

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......

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.

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

And steals 1st place

zarif dies inside

BBBBBBBB

That sounds unlucky...

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-umDr0mPuyQc.html

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.

And football and others

possession is only big in soccer

@@trevorforever242 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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Anita Gofradump or the speed an physicality of hockey

Dan M yeah i of course wouldnt like it if the game was 100% luck, i too am a hockey fan because i see it as the highest paced sport out there and i enjoy the lower scoring games because each goal feels like so much more. But i can understand that fans of basketball would love to watch their skilled plays simply dominate

I have been always wondering why basketball is the sport I least interested in, and this might the reason. Simply, I would say, the result is just easier to be predicted and that is not fun.

Its a flawed conclusion, as they dont account for the rampant tanking, aka intentional losing in the NBA.

The thing I like about the sport of basketball is that you can enjoy dominance or parity. If you enjoy watching your favorite team and favorite players straight up dominate, you watch the NBA. If you want more parity and unpredictability, you watch college basketball.

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?

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.

I saw that lol

Omg you’re a mastermind of seeing hilarious expressions

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Oqm6eO6deU.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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

... 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.

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!

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.

The NBA also has a salary cap and various financial rules to attempt to maintain parity. What you’re saying is possible but you’d have to show why that would be true Anyway their conclusion is definitely right at least. Once you really think about it, it’s pretty apparent that the basketball would have much more skill-based outcomes than hockey. With the possessions and higher scoring

@@voltaire6062 Technically, I don't have to show anything, they would have to show it since they're the ones making the claim. I'm just pointing out a potential flaw in their analysis.

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"

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.

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

+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

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

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.

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?

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

@@noname-hf9ty Those teams weren't down 3-0, they were down 3-1.

Is it?

@@aaronmoyer4722 yes

@@eskimo8200 ok

MentallyReacted Poker: lying, the card game.

no it hurts me, but i gotta give it to him, that was insane

Cam ross i subscribed to you

*series winner

Seeing Ovi hit that goal at 1:02 is the best.

Living in portland my whole life yes, it is very satisfying hahaha

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.

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 ?

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.

Mayur their info is false

Gator the ref also has to deal with the players dives

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"