Awesome stuff as always, GingerPapa. It's sure nice to see the rogue's gallery seated around the table, albeit virtually
To answer the question asked in the prior PGT:
There absolutely is SOME skill. Like yes, Patrice Bergeron (who is a generational talent in the face-off circle) DOES win more than he loses. Just.. not that much more. This year he took 1,147 faceoffs in the regular season, but only won 62.2% of them. Of the players in the NHL favored to take faceoffs (i.e. they take them not by accident), he's head-and-shoulders the best.. and is still only about a 3:2 favorite.
Among the top 62 (which I picked cause 31 teams times 2 guys), only one other person is above 60% (Glendenning, 60.9% on 859 attempts). By the time you get to Vincent Trochek in 10th, its already 56.0% of 769.
And to give an example that I hope puts in some perspective of how much variance there is in "62.2%": Let's say we're playing a heads-up no limit hold'em freezeout. We each have 10,000 in chips. Blinds will be 100-200 the whole way, small blind on the button.
Now let's assume that I'm drunk ("Assume away." - Max Bialystock) and I am going to bet everything all-in preflop, every hand, without looking. Like, guaranteed. Like my chips are all in before the start of the hand, before card one comes out.
You, in this example, represent Patrice Bergeron. Obviously, all the skill is on your end, none in mine.
Yet through nothing but sheer variance alone, you still only have a 65%-ish chance of winning.
So yeah. Not that there's no skill. There IS some skill, and it IS sustainable (being good at FOs last year correlates to being good in subsequent years). And I know the physical chaos in athletics isn't quite (in most eyes) the same as 'pure' random chance in a card game, but hopefully this illustrates just what 'that much' variance looks like.