The shorter the season, the bigger the reason

they all matter just the same. it's possible to miss the playoffs in the MLB or NBA because of one loss. you could argue that their games matter more because you have to be consistent for much longer. in the NFL, you'll know if you're missing the playoffs after only a couple of months. it's a lot less tense, a lot easier to get over.

The ones on the right are the easiest to predict obviously

but a sport being skill oriented means the better team usually wins, it's a luck where everyone can win

as an objective person, basketball is less luck oriented than football soccer, in football most of the time everyone can win. that's what makes the sport entertaining

ok i misread it. sorry for going off

So college football is the most important sport because Alabama only gets to play Chatanooga and Akron 12 games a year before the CFP

Then why does the image say luck and skill?

Soccer is mostly luck which is why you get shock results all the time.

Look at this year’s Pittsburgh Steelers. They were forced to rely on the Browns winning against the ravens in Week 17 in order to make the playoffs because their kicker slipped against the raiders. ONE SLIP cost them the playoffs. In baseball, does one hesitation in game 90 ever cost playoffs? In basketball, does one free throw in game 40 ever cost playoffs?

The nfl playoff system is superior in every way to other sports. One game rounds, win or go home. The playoff games are the best in the sports league because the outcome is all that matters, no second chances.

Pretty sure that's some sort of logical fallacy but either way it's not true.

Yes it is. It’s very difficult to predict a soccer game. At the WC South Korea beat Germany 2-0. Spain lost to Russia etc. Results like that don’t happen as much in other sports. Soccer has a lot of luck in it.

when there's two outs on the board, one hit in baseball can start a chain reaction that changes the outcome of the game. if the ball was half an inch higher or lower the batter would have missed.

Chattanooga?... Do you mean Knoxville?

Baseball through sheer sample size is the least luck.driven sport.

What makes any sport.worth a.shit is that.either team can win, and that is definitely true on any given game, even the worst team vs the best. But over that long season the little differences invariably separate the good from the less good

>hockey is luck when 3 teams have dominated the last 10 years
Yeah sure. Have you ever seen what these guys can do with a puck and a stick? How was this even calculated?

Racing has 0 luck involved

Attached: zonta view.webm (320x240, 1007K)

Expansion teams without any star players would never make the NBA finals

The fucking australian team drew with brazil one time.
Yeah it's totally nothing to do with luck lmao

Ought to be a third branch for corruption, with high points for soccer, nfl, and nba.

>comparing a sport where the average roster is about 15 people to a sport where the average roster is nearly 30
>looking at the team that lost the final
Winning in hockey is about having 4 lines that can compete with the other teams 4, teams that may have 1 or 2 strong lines but awful third and fourth lines get worked in the playoffs. The game is more than just stars. The golden nights have a goaltender that was picked first overall and has three stanley cups by the way. This comparison is ridiculous.

exchange the term "luck" for parity and "skill" for imbalanced teams and this graph makes more sense
still extremely retarded though, theres so much precision by the athletes in all those sports, but apehoopers are the only ones who still miss something so simple in their sport as a free throw

its not "skill" the fact that the golden knights made the stan lee cup final in their first year of existence doesnt really help

first year of existence doesnt matter. they were comprised completely of existing nhl second liners. they had more depth than most of the league by the end of the draft

but the fact that any team can win makes it more "luck" than "skill" according to this chart.

reference the nhl could make it so only 2 teams win every year if they wanted to satisfy the chart, just stack certain teams with the best players and they will be just like the nba
they purposely disperse the talent to make things as even as possible, theres no more "luck" in the sport of hockey than there is in any other sport

Stan lee winners
>09, 16, 17 Stan lee - Pittsburgh
>10, 13, 15 - Chicago
>12, 14 - Los Angeles
Theres consistency, and the players the golden knights took weren't some rookies, the league doesn't work that way

Can basketball be called football? All players in nba have feet.

what people in this thread actually mean by "luck" is "league parity"

chess isnt skill... it is memorization.

>mechanical failures