What do you think about the random factor in hockey?
- Thread starter Sztroga
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
TheDawnOfANewTage
Dahlin, it’ll all be fine
- Dec 17, 2018
- 13,484
- 20,142
Doesn’t reduce my enjoyment, just makes me view outcomes differently than “best team wins.” Not to throw shade, but I think the Blues are a good example of a team that just had the right hot streak, right bounces, etc. Habs weren’t even close to being the best during their recent run to the final. Just two examples, and individual regular season games can be even more random. The lower score (compared to basketball) and variability of a goalie’s night makes those lil bounces much more important.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 29,260
- 14,649
Randomness is entirely overblown in this sport. Theres more of it than in the other sports but to imply it plays a major factor in outcomes is absurd.
banks
Only got 3 of 16.
- Aug 29, 2019
- 4,054
- 6,070
I think the random factor (as you call it) is higher in hockey than in most major sports. But I actually like that a lot of the time. There's lots of NFL or NBA games where you know one team doesn't really have a chance. But bounces and luck mean either team can win a hockey game.
I don't think that I agree when you say "the best team does not win the championship because of the high randomness." The best team does win the Cup because they won it. You can win a game with randomness and luck, but not 16 playoff games. Every Cup win is earned. They don't call it "the randomest trophy in sports".
I don't think that I agree when you say "the best team does not win the championship because of the high randomness." The best team does win the Cup because they won it. You can win a game with randomness and luck, but not 16 playoff games. Every Cup win is earned. They don't call it "the randomest trophy in sports".
emptyNedder
Not seeking rents
- Jan 17, 2018
- 3,920
- 8,732
This line of thought leads to madness. A recent episode of "Hidden Brain" did a great job of arguing that almost everything in life has multiple random pre-cursors. One of the appeals of any sport is that it gives us a sense that the outcome is based on talent and effort. We have evolved a psychological trait that allows us to see/feel intention in a random universe.
qc14
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2024
- 921
- 1,529
More enjoyable. I think along with the NFL it's the perfect balance of randomness/skill to where on any single game any team does have a legitimate shot of winning but at the same time over the course of a season the better teams do win out.
In the NBA, for example, you probably don't need to watch all but one or two first round series. The bad teams are also so bad that it's difficult to watch them at all. The Wizards have 9 wins on the season, the Sharks have almost double that at 17.
I definitely still enjoy skill and "sports" that are almost all skill and no randomness -- I am a massive chess fan for example -- but it's a feature and not a bug of the NHL to me
In the NBA, for example, you probably don't need to watch all but one or two first round series. The bad teams are also so bad that it's difficult to watch them at all. The Wizards have 9 wins on the season, the Sharks have almost double that at 17.
I definitely still enjoy skill and "sports" that are almost all skill and no randomness -- I am a massive chess fan for example -- but it's a feature and not a bug of the NHL to me
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,880
- 30,622
As a Kraken fan, randomness is all I have going for me right now. Don't take that away.
(And Shane Wright is pretty neat.)
(And Shane Wright is pretty neat.)
filinski77
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2017
- 2,745
- 4,617
I wouldn't say it's 'random' - more so that the gap between the best team in the league and the worst team in the league is significantly smaller than most other sports.
tfwnogf
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2013
- 2,173
- 3,719
I disagree. Every team has to put up with the "randomness" of the sport, and the best of 7 series each round basically ensures that you need to be the best team to win the series. Would anyone say that any cup champ was not the best team that year? There may have been better teams in the regular season, but they weren't better when it counted the most.
GeeoffBrown
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2007
- 6,421
- 4,552
It's extremely underrated by general hockey fans in their analysis of players and teams.
Figgy44
A toast of purple gato for the memories
- Dec 15, 2014
- 14,455
- 9,876
Depends on what you mean by randomness. Randomness to us typically doesn't mean no one knows what is going on. Randomness to us means that the momentum can swing a lot easier. Although there's a specific expectation of statistical outcome over a season for who will win more games, individual games can be a lot closer and more exciting due to "randomness".
If my math is not mistaken...
2/32 NHL teams <.400 or 6.25% of teams in the cellar.
7/30 NBA teams <.400 or 23.33% of teams in the cellar.
18/32 NHL teams .400 to .599 or 56.25% of teams in the middle
15/30 NBA teams .400 to .599 or 50.00% of teams in the middle
12/32 of NHL teams over .600 or 37.5% of teams who are dominant; 2 teams over .700
8/30 of NBA teams over .600 or 26.66% of teams who are dominant; 3 teams over .700
NBA Team Standings & Stats | NBA.com
Easier to be a fan of any team when there's less teams that are considered cannon fodder (<.400).
As much as sometimes we think our own NHL team sucks, the difference between only winning 1/3 of your games (really sucks), half your games (in the mix), and 2/3 of the games (elite) isn't that big in the NHL. The difference between .500 (41/82 games) and ~.600 (49/82 = .597) is just 8 games over the entire season. Slightly more teams are typically regularly in the mix (56.25% vs 50% right now which is comparable to NBA) and far less teams are just straight out out of it (6.25% vs 23.33% which pretty big gap between NHL and NBA).
If my math is not mistaken...
2/32 NHL teams <.400 or 6.25% of teams in the cellar.
7/30 NBA teams <.400 or 23.33% of teams in the cellar.
18/32 NHL teams .400 to .599 or 56.25% of teams in the middle
15/30 NBA teams .400 to .599 or 50.00% of teams in the middle
12/32 of NHL teams over .600 or 37.5% of teams who are dominant; 2 teams over .700
8/30 of NBA teams over .600 or 26.66% of teams who are dominant; 3 teams over .700
Easier to be a fan of any team when there's less teams that are considered cannon fodder (<.400).
As much as sometimes we think our own NHL team sucks, the difference between only winning 1/3 of your games (really sucks), half your games (in the mix), and 2/3 of the games (elite) isn't that big in the NHL. The difference between .500 (41/82 games) and ~.600 (49/82 = .597) is just 8 games over the entire season. Slightly more teams are typically regularly in the mix (56.25% vs 50% right now which is comparable to NBA) and far less teams are just straight out out of it (6.25% vs 23.33% which pretty big gap between NHL and NBA).
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,880
- 30,622
I'd recommend making an adjustment to account for the fact that 0.500 is "average" in the NBA but far from average in the NHL.
I agree with others that randomness is underrated. Scoring a goal can be so fluky. I've seen a lot of games decided by a point shot from the corner that bounced off a defenseman's foot. The chance of those shots going in might be 1% if it's not a 1 timer or from an elite goal scorer. But if that 1% goes in, it completely changes the complexion of the game.
If you believe that goal scoring has a random factor, and combine that with the fact that teams score about 3 goals a game, you can see that there is a great variance of how many goals you will score in a particular game.
Even in lacrosse, where teams can routinely score 10 or more goals, the randomness less important.
A sport like soccer feels less random to me because goal scoring feels more skill-based and less fluky. I'd love someone to confirm or deny my bias here. My intuition is that the ball is bigger and moves slower across the huge soccer field, which makes it take more predictable paths than a tiny rubber disk.
If you believe that goal scoring has a random factor, and combine that with the fact that teams score about 3 goals a game, you can see that there is a great variance of how many goals you will score in a particular game.
Even in lacrosse, where teams can routinely score 10 or more goals, the randomness less important.
A sport like soccer feels less random to me because goal scoring feels more skill-based and less fluky. I'd love someone to confirm or deny my bias here. My intuition is that the ball is bigger and moves slower across the huge soccer field, which makes it take more predictable paths than a tiny rubber disk.
