Everyone other than you has determined luck exists (actually even you said luck exists when you said you got lucky). So that has been determined already.
Which was too illustrate that it is impossible for anyone but the shot taker to know whether the goal (attempt) was a matter of luck or not. Which is not even taking into account all the other factors that could be deemed 'luck' or not. In other words: answering Yankeeroyal's question is impossible, unless we have a definition to work with, so we can determine whether we are dealing with luck or not... So AGAIN: What is your definition of luck?
How can you not understand that you defined luck for all of us? His question is actually easy to answer, and he even answered on he following statement he made. That a low scoring game is more prone to chance participating on the result, than a game which generates a higher scoring. It's the same correlation between a league being able to produce over a long season a clear cut best team than a knockout tournament, where a team might have 1 bad day and lose to a worse team.
You call that a definition? It's not exactly something we can apply to any situation other than by asking the goal scorer if luck was involved. In other words, there's no way for us to find out if Zamora's goal involved luck. (Obviously I'm not talking about Zamora's goal in particular here. But any goal/point scored/conceded. In any sport.) Really? So if we extend a soccer game from 90 minutes to 900 minutes, it's still more likely for the soccer game to be decided by chance?
opinions won't change. The opposite would happen, maybe that's why you're not getting it, you're thinking it backwards. if you extend a game from 90 to 900 minutes, chance would be less of a factor deciding the game, and the superior team would come out on top.
Meaning what? Maybe you can point out how this is relevant to what I pointed out. Not getting what exactly? Huh? You just claimed that "a low scoring game is more prone to chance participating on the result, than a game which generates a higher scoring." I just presented you with a case of a low scoring game vs. a high scoring game, and all you can say is that "the superior team would come out on top.". Doesn't this contradict with and disprove your claim that low scoring games are more likely to be influenced by chance? Give it some thought... And until you do, I'm done with discussing anything with you. You just keep posting mindless one liners and no original thought or reasoning whatsoever. At least yankeeRoyal comes up with an interesting hypothesis. You on the other hand simply keep repeating "luck exists because it does, can't you see?".
Meaning your opinion will never change, and I won't waste my time discussing if you believe luck exists or not, clearly you don't so me trying to prove to you that things can happen which cause unexpected results is a reality is pointless. You'll just never accept that. Statistics Mathematics is your friend. No it would actually prove it.. if a team avgs 3 goals per game over the course of a season and another avg 2.5 gpg, the team with the higher avg will over a long extended season have more wins than the team with the lower avg. But in a smaller sample size (like 1 game) the team with 2.5 gpg avg might beat the team that has 3 gpg by the score of 5 x 0... It's math... I'm putting data in front of you, you come back with a philosophical point of view.. and you ask me to ignore data? you must be out of your mind.
I am a little surprised how some people here have attempted to derail the conversation. I dont want to get into a semantic argument, but I do agree with the point you are trying to make. The problem with football is that, during a single game, an event takes place a very limited number of times so that the statistical probability of the event taking place in a single game, seems lopsided when compared to the statistical probability of the event taking place at all. So for example, a referee calls a non existent PK 1 out of every 9 correct PK calls (i made up this number). Since the average goal differencial in this sport is around 1 goal and a PK is scored about 85% of the time, then yes, that bad call is probably going to affect the score. Was your team unlucky? Well yes and no, yes because you were victim of an event that takes place only 10% of the time and no, because the event actually happening is right in line with its probability taken from many games put together. The way we usually use the word unlucky, then yes, you were unlucky. In basketball, while a bad call may have the same probability of happening, it doesnt affect the end result because at the most it will end up being 2 points for one team, which is about 1% of the total points scored in a game. In football, one bad call can lead to 100% of the points scored in a game. This is why I find it absolutely mind boggling that Fifa doesnt feel the urge to do everything possible in order to improve refereeing.
excellent post. so if something happens within the probability of luck, it's not luck. What about tennis doubles or volley ball or baseball: there's many point deciding decisions made by Referees in those sports, so even though they're high scoring sports aren't they much more likely to Be decided by 'luck'?
Once again, this is all semantics. Do you call a guy who gets struck by lighting and killed unlucky? Most people would, even though the probability of the event happening falls within the expectation. What about a child who gets cancer? Same thing applies. This is all semantics, but even things that happen within their probability are said to be lucky/unlucky. About your second point, not at all. There is less than 1 PK call a game and therfore, if a bad one is made, it will probably only affect one team. There are many fouls called in an average basketball game, so the bad calls are probably going to be distributed evenly amongs the teams. Once again, a referees decision in football, can determine 100% of the points scored (just one single decision), a single decision in basketball cannot determine more the 2% of the points scored.
First of all, I don't think I've mentioned basketball. Which is not a sport heavily influenced by referees' decisions. Second. How do you know they're "probably" called "evenly"? Third. A referee's decisions in volleyball, baseball or tennis, etc. - as they make up for such a big portion of the points in those sports - are much more likely to influence the results of those games. And seeing as how in those sports it's impossible to lure the referee into making a bad call by play acting or foul play (which are skills btw and not a matter of 'luck'), the probability of the final score being the result of 'luck' might even be higher than in a low scoring game like soccer. Makes sense right?
We could still have the conversation with luck defined loosely. For me the difference is between the intentional and the unintentional for players. If I try to play a cross and I mishit it for a goal. My team and I are lucky, my opponents are unlucky. Poor officiating can also be lucky or unlucky.
This definition doesn't work as I've pointed out before. One of the reasons why: Messi's first goal vs. Milan was luck. It was the goalkeeper's intention to keep his goal clean but he made a mistake of not being in the right spot to stop Messi's shot from going in. He was unlucky. Therefor Messi was lucky. Messi also aimed his shot at the bottom left corner - where the goalkeeper was positioned. But Messi mishit it. It still went in. He was lucky.
Agreed Guigs. The better team is far more likely to win a 9 game series than a one game playoff....which is little more than throwing dice. And winning a 38 game league title is better yet. But just as we increase time and get a more accurate result. Does increasing points work the same way? Does basketball have a better gauge (more finely calibrated) for judging the better team?
A point in Basketball because of it's high lvl of scoring and the ease to score, it devalues each of it's point scored. A goal in football because it takes so much longer to score the value of a goal is a lot higher. But because of the ease of scoring in basketball you still get situations where luck is a part of the game as much as in football. And you also see a lot of buzzer beaters and games that go down to the wire when the teams are balanced, just like football. Since points can easily be traded. So does increasing the number of scores per game give you a better gauge? No I don't believe it does, it might have some effect but it's almost negligible. Now increasing the time to me it would allow luck to be less of a factor. It's one thing for a basketball team to have 1 bad shooting night, to have 4 bad shooting nights, it shows superiority of the other team to hold them way below their avg over 4 games. But it's funny because my original reaction was.. of course it makes a difference, but after thinking about it, and observing how easily they trade points between each other, I noticed that the game is more based on the rate of failure of each team instead of the rate of success.
Buzzer beaters are not 'luck'. First: by "better team" I guess yankeeRoyal means 'the team that is supposed to be considered the better of the two, based on the final league standings'. Second: does a high scoring, high accuracy (small hoop/big ball, small court/big players), high repetition (small court/few players), time pressure (one direction/narrow court, shot clock) game like basketball provide a more accurate gauge for judging which team is the "better team" when compared to soccer? Yes of course. Open door. Meaning the rate of failure is a matter of 'bad luck' and the rate of success would be 'skill'?
I disagree, the two factors are absolutely linked. In other words, the reason that playing 900 minutes decreases the chance of luck playing a factor is precisely because there is more scoring in 900 minutes as opposed to 90 minutes. When I say more scoring, I dont mean that there are more points on the scoreboard, because different sports have different values for individual scores, I mean that there are more individual scoring plays where luck can play an advantage. Even though soccer is a fluid sport, you have to see at as individual plays where every offensive possession can be compared to an at bat in baseball ( or a possession in basketball). There are probably the same number of at bats in every sport, the only difference is that in basketball, you get points for every time you make contact with the ball, in baseball for every time you get a runner to cross homeplate and in soccer, for evey time you hit a home run. All things being equal, if there is a 10% chance of scoring because of luck, the more scoring involved the less likely that the worse team will win because even though there might be more "luck scoring" it is more likely to be distributed between teams. This is the same reason that investors have diversified portfolios. Luck plays a big part in the growth or decline of a business. A good investor will take all of their money and invest it in many different businesses, knowing that in several instances luck will make them win or lose them money. By investing in 50 businesses, even though luck might cause him to have loses in 20, because of the sample size, it will also lead to gains in 20, which leaves 10 other gains based on good investment knowledge. If he invests all his money in one business, it might be the case that he loses everything because he got unlucky, even though the probability is the same as before.
Luck is subjective. Perhaps Messi isn't good, he just happens to be lucky that he has good genes. He's also lucky he was discovered at a young age and given PEDs. Pure luck. Spain is lucky that their best players don't play baseball, otherwise they'd be playing Japan tonight instead of being World Cup champs. Iniesta at 3rd base, of course. Trying to quantify luck is a futile endeavor. Even proving its existence is. You can say Maradona earned his hand of god goal, he did happen to put himself in a position where the ref couldn't see him punch it in. So you don't know if it was blind luck. His hand didn't involuntarily do that. So it wasn't luck. The 900 minutes hypothesis is spastic. Games do not last 900 minutes. You can't assume what will happen in a 900 minute game. Nor are people specifying what kind of game. A friendly is very different to an official match. An FA Cup match is very different to a CL match. Let's suppose a "lucky" occurence occurs in a 90 minute game. Who's to say it won't happen 10 times in this imaginary 900 minute game? More time can equal more "luck". You have no idea. Or the players will get dead tired, leading to more "luck". A team will get lucky that the opposing defense collapsed from exhaustion. But of course, you have to prove the existence of luck in the first place, which hasn't been done yet in this thread. So all hypotheses based on that are thrown out the window.
Knock off tournaments usually have random results, while leagues the best team wins 90% of the time, it leaves very little room for luck. You can say that a league is pretty close to a 900 minute game.