Vox has a small feature on the subject and it is interesting from an analytics perspective. Basically, it comes down to luck having a bigger factor in hockey due to the fact there is less variance among skill levels of individual players, and that star players need more rest due to the nature of the game.
Probably not a groundbreaking assertion, but well articulated by the speaker I think.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
although I am not a student of basketball, I would also assume it has something to do with star basketball players playing a much greater % of a given game (don't the stars routinely play 40 minutes or so) - where as a top d-man would log a little less than 50% of the game and a forward even less.
aslo with BBall, it seems to me that any given basket is rarely that crucial because lots of the time the teams are taking turns sinking baskets.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Luck seems to play a bigger part in Hockey than any other sport. Baseball probably right there too. How often do you see goals off defensemen's shin pads or skates go in or a shot blocker tipping it past his goalie? How often does a pass get missed because it bounces due to bad ice? I would say this makes winning in hockey as a Fav a bit harder
Injuries are a bigger part in hockey too. Cav vs GSW in NBA finals as expected and neither team is missing a player. Letang, Ry Jo, Fiala, Bonino all key players out
3rd part and most important is the impact of star players. Not only the time on the floor but the of plays that get called for them. Cleveland really could run every play for an entire game through Irving and James and it would make sense and increase chances to win. Hockey shadowing a star player can slow that player up and in Basketball if you trap a star player it usually leads to wide open shots for other players and good teams have average players that are deadly when open
The other factor is in Hockey we allow lessor players who just can't keep up with our elite players cheat, hook, hold, cross check, interfere with our star players at no cost to there team. Basically we call this a skill for our average players to close the gap in talent vs our elite players
In hockey we have seen more than a few times a goaltender playing lights out can be a great equalizer and enable less talented teams to upset better teams. Basketball doesn't have that key position that can nullify elite offensive talent.
Luxury tax vs hard salary cap. To me it purely comes down to that.
The luxury tax and NBA free agent system affording teams BIRD rights to retain their own free agents (and the ability to pay them more than market value) gives more opportunity for dynasties to be formed.
That, and the stars are now all playing on the same teams and no #8 seed has a prayer to take out Golden State/Cleveland.
The Following User Says Thank You to howard_the_duck For This Useful Post:
I was just thinking about this the other day actually while playing NHL vs FIFA video games.
I think hockey might have the most luck involved out of any sport. The variance in what can happen (deflections off players, uneven surface, very subjective rules, likelihood of freak injuries, etc...) and the speed at which these events happen makes them almost impossible to accurately predict.
There is also a "full team necessary" aspect to hockey that I don't think is as prevalent in other sports.
I think soccer sees statistically the most "upsets" at least among major team sports.
It would make sense that luck is a bigger factor in lower scoring games.
I don't follow soccer so can't comment on how often good or bad luck plays happen in a game and it does make sense that luck plays a bigger part in low scoring games so I can see soccer having 1 play changing the entire game when it is 1-0
When you watch hockey and baseball vs football and especially basketball how often do you even see bad or good luck plays? I do recall Irving hitting a 3 that hit the rim and bounced way up and still go in. Some shots of the backboard from 3 are luck, half court shots are luck imo. Maybe dribbling the ball off your foot is bad luck but you could make a case that is sloppy and not bad luck
In hockey luck is non stop. Just most of the those plays don't result in goals or even scoring chances and both teams have to deal with it. But if you look at this finals. Nashville loses a goal on a lame offside call. Pens gets 5 on 3 score and then score a nice one after then with 17 seconds left one goes off Ekholm pads and in. They dominate the game after tie it up and Guentzel scores one that deflects top shelf
How about Josi goal in game 3? He was shooting far side off forward stick short side Murray looks lost. This doesn't even factor in passes in a game that miss due to inconsistent ice. This happens I would guess 10+ times a game
In Baseball you can hit a frozen rope right at a guy and go out and then pop one up that drops in shallow outfield. Then there are grounders that don't bounce the way they should
From my 30 years of watching no question NHL, MLB have more luck involved than the NBA. If an NBA player shoots the ball and it goes in it goes in. Not like you see Jose Canseco off his head for home runs or Steve Smith plays or Patrick Stephan missing a wide open net plays near as often
i wonder what would happen if hockey were played with only 15 players
9 forwards, 4 defensemen and 2 goalies.
Shifts would have to be longer and slower and would favor the superstars.
A shrewd guess! That is pretty much how the game was when the three-line system was first developed, in the 1930s and thereabouts. Shifts originally lasted as long as two minutes, and star players (as far as we can determine without accurate stats) got considerably more ice time than they do today.
The fourth line and third defence pairing appeared decades later, as rosters gradually expanded, and even in the 1980s there were old-school purists who thought the game would be better off without them. (Maybe they were right, as the fourth line was often made up of goons at that time.)
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
try to imagine which NHL teams would be at the top if games were played as follows:
- remove all bottom 6 forwards from the roster as well as bottom defense pair
- every possession change results in the team automatically getting to start in the offensive zone
- there is no goalie, instead there's a net 2 feet across by 1 foot high. if any defender tries to stand/lie down in front of the net to block a shot, it's an automatic goal
- a player that draws a penalty gets a free uncontested shot on goal, middle of the ice about 5 feet inside the blue line
I'm thinking with these changes, you would see just as little parity in the NHL as you would the NBA
Last edited by Inglewood Jack; 06-05-2017 at 01:44 PM.
If you have a 10% chance of scoring on any shot and 30 shots per game your variance per game is higher than if 50% of shots go in and you have 100 shots per game.
So if in hockey one team scores on 9% of their opportunities and the other 10% the underdog has a much higher chance of upset than the the team that scores on 45% of there shots vs the team scoring on 50%.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
To me it is summed up as:
1) in basketball, your 'starters' (stars) play >75% of the game. Whereas in hockey, other than the backup goalie, everyone else on the dressed roster is playing anywhere between 10% (4th line forward) to a few playing 40-50% (top pairing Dmen). The highest skilled players that are typically generating goals (top line forwards) are typically only playing 30% of the game. the elite players of the NHL, though important, have less impact on the games net result than in the NBA, simply due to the fact that they aren't on the ice long enough to determine the outcome themselves. In my view, in the NBA, the team with the best player, will usually win a series. Last year's NBA final was a prime example of that. The interesting thing is a team like the warriors who just have so many elite players, that they are able to offset this. The spurs were potentially an outlier to this, but i think tim duncan, despite the fanfare he recieves, is still a grossly underrated player over the last decade or 2.
2) Shot blocking (and goalie equipement)! I firmly believe goals are down more so in the style of defending than the goaltender equipement (though that has helped also, as it's so rare to see a great shot flat out beat a goaltender in today's game). Defense has become so much more about getting in front of any shots, so in essense, there are 6 goalies on the ice if a team is defending well (ie. not giving up rushes). More and more goals are scored off tips and lucky deflections. "throwing the puck on the net" is a cliche we hear all the time, which in itself indicates just how much lucky goals are a reality in the game. So any team can play a strong defensive game, they can hope to get some luck offensively, to win a game. The 'great' teams have enough offensive players to higher the odds of scoring as they are able to generate higher number of scoring chances (likely higher quality chances also) which give them a higher probability to win.
When you watch hockey and baseball vs football and especially basketball how often do you even see bad or good luck plays? I do recall Irving hitting a 3 that hit the rim and bounced way up and still go in. Some shots of the backboard from 3 are luck, half court shots are luck imo. Maybe dribbling the ball off your foot is bad luck but you could make a case that is sloppy and not bad luck
Not all lucky plays are obviously lucky like that.
When playing soccer I can make a long pass from the sidelines exactly to the right position at the front of the goal maybe once in 50 tries (because I suck). However, if you see me try it once in a game and succeed, it will look like skill and not luck. (Well, until you see my other passes, but I think you get the point )
How did they not even mention goalies? That's what changes everything compared to other sports.
Also don't like the idea that regular season success equals skill. Completely negates trades, coaches, injuries, ect. Plus the fact that playoffs are almost a different game with different rules.
Ridiculous to suggest that Nashville being the 17th ranked regular season doesn't have high end skill.
How did they not even mention goalies? That's what changes everything compared to other sports.
Also don't like the idea that regular season success equals skill. Completely negates trades, coaches, injuries, ect. Plus the fact that playoffs are almost a different game with different rules.
Ridiculous to suggest that Nashville being the 17th ranked regular season doesn't have high end skill.
But that is exactly what they are saying. Since luck is a big factor in hockey, sometimes high skill teams don't end up with a really good regular season record. So while Nashville is likely much better than the 17th best team in the league based on skill, they were ranked 17th best team in the regular season due to bad luck.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
Why underdogs do better in hockey than basketball
