Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Betts given identical situations and could run that play a million times without coughing up the football once, then it would be completely a function of skill.
|
How then can you explain the HUGE difference between the number of fumbles Tiki had before and after he changed his technique. That HAS to be a skill based function not a luck based one?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
I think by virtue of definition, anything that isn't lucky would have to be a repeatable, predictable and at least remotely probably occurance. Anything that wouldn't be predictable, or remotely probable would have to be considered luck.
|
No! No matter how immprobable something may be that doesn't mean that its occurance is based on luck! Especially when there are two opposing forces involved. Betts carries the ball loose or doesn't focus on his handling, another player thrusts his helmet into Betts hands, knocks it free, there is no luck there. It a great play or a bad play, depending upon which team you follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
When I say best team on the field, I mean best team on the field that DAY. 98% of the time, that also would be the most talented team that year. But that remaining 2% includes occurences in which a coach's gameplan (usually not a huge factor) gives a hard and decisive advantage to one team or the other. The result is that said team, who on most weeks of the season would be the underdog, comes out and outplays the favorite. Since they are playing better football than the favorite, I would consider them the best team on the field that day.
But make no mistake about it, you don't have to be the best team on the field, or even close to it, to have the ability to win that game, as the Pats proved this year.
|
But surely the ultimate measure of who the best team on the day was, is who wins the game! As much as it may be hard to believe before the game, if the worst team (by record) beats the best team (by record), then on that day they were the better team. 99.9% of the time the team with the better record might win and therefore be the better team but should they lose they weren't the better team that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
The simplest way to sum this all up is just to admit that "shit happens", and that sometimes you just don't have the time to overcome it. On a single game level, luck is a decisive and undeniable factor that makes picking games nothing more than playing the percentages. On a seasonal level, it won't affect most teams more than a win or two in either direction--but every year you get those outliers who just simply had an entire season made or broken by stupid bounces of the ball (4-5 wins in either direction). Happens every year to someone.
|
I agree that the unpredicatability of football is what makes it so exciting. However unpredicatbility does not equal luck! There are so many legitimate factors which do affect the outcome of matches, that luck shouldn't and doesn't effect. E.g. Coaching and player execution. What does effect these things are motivation, fatigue, concentration, etc. But not luck.
It seems we will have to agree to disagree on this one, it doesn't seem either of us will be convinced otherwise. Lets just hope that the luck, no matter how significant is with the Burgundy and Gold in 07!