Which sport has the biggest luck factor?

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, one occurrence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeezus christ, there are more examples, I just chose the first one that came to mind.

Bears vs Cardinals: fumble recovery for touchdown (twice)
Jets vs Bills: fumble recovery for touchdown
Titans vs Texans: fumble recovery for touchdown

In each of those games, the team who scored a fumble-six won the game by less than seven points. And I found those with a quick search, there are probably more from this season.

Not to mention fumbles that are not returned for a touchdown, but still have a huge effect on the game. Steelers - Cincy comes immediately to mind.

Enough yet?

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, one occurrence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeezus christ, there are more examples, I just chose the first one that came to mind.

Bears vs Cardinals: fumble recovery for touchdown (twice)


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be a nit, there was only one fumble-6 in Bears/Cardinals in which the ball bounced. The other was a strip in which the ball never bounced.

If you want a Cardinals example, try Rams/Cardinals. Twice in the final two minutes, a team fumbled the ball away.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up the line from a basketball game last year with the Pistons playing the Hawks, then compare that to the Yankees playing KC in baseball. The bookies are willing to pose much bigger odds on the basketball game than the baseball game, so the reason has to be that when a strong team plays a weak team, basketball has more 1 game predictability than baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there might simply be a greater "true" differential between the Pistons and the Hawks than between the Yankees and the Royals. It's not uncommon for the best team in the NBA to have a .700+ winning % and the worst to be below .200, whereas these numbers are almost impossible to achieve in baseball. How much of this is due to accumulated "lucky wins" versus actual team superiority/inferiority?

Plus, home court advantage is a much bigger factor in the NBA than in MLB, so that also contributes to those big money line numbers.

I agree it seems likely that luck is more pervasive in a baseball game than a basketball game, but it's difficult to measure, and shorter odds of an upset aren't necessarily proof.

[THAY3R]

So you think their are bigger talent differences amongst teams in the NBA than the MLB?

[Yads]

For those of you saying basketball has a low luck factor, why are the playoff series best of 7? Is it just because of revenue?

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think their are bigger talent differences amongst teams in the NBA than the MLB?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Maybe there's something in the sport- less players, easier for a superstar(s) to dominate a game, a wider gap of coaching and execution among teams, etc.- that makes a great basketball team more superior to its field of competition than a great baseball team.

Or maybe it's the luck factor inherent in a baseball game. Tough to say, and probably more complex than a single answer.

If I were trying to win one game with a team that was completely outclassed- say a high school squad against the best professional team- I would choose to play basketball over baseball.

You could play the tightest zone (or hack-a-Shaq) on defense, then use the whole shot clock and bomb three-pointers on offense, and hope they're cold and you're hot. You *might* get lucky and eventually win a game, whereas a high school baseball team versus the best MLB team, especially with a dominant pitcher on the mound, would have virtually no chance; it's much harder to increase the role of variance (you could try to guess every pitch- but I still think you lose soundly).

But if I had a mediocre professional team (or good college team) against the best team in the league, I'd obviously rather take my chances with baseball. So I think the question isn't so simple.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you saying basketball has a low luck factor, why are the playoff series best of 7? Is it just because of revenue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... duh. And that's the reason the first round went from 5 games to 7.

The reason is when you get to the playoffs, the talent gap closes. If two evenly talented teams go head to head, then the outcome is essentially a coin-flip, but that's true for any sport. With basketball, though, as the talent differential increases, the predictability of the outcome icreases at a greater rate than it does for any other sport.

I think one major reason for this is that each team has essentially the same time of possesion.. or at least same # of possesions, which is equatable to TOP in sports like football, soccer, and hockey.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, one occurrence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeezus christ, there are more examples, I just chose the first one that came to mind.

Bears vs Cardinals: fumble recovery for touchdown (twice)
Jets vs Bills: fumble recovery for touchdown
Titans vs Texans: fumble recovery for touchdown

In each of those games, the team who scored a fumble-six won the game by less than seven points. And I found those with a quick search, there are probably more from this season.

Not to mention fumbles that are not returned for a touchdown, but still have a huge effect on the game. Steelers - Cincy comes immediately to mind.

Enough yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. A fumble taking a strange bounce and deciding a game is a rarity. It certainly does not factor into a significant luck event.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Bears vs Cardinals: fumble recovery for touchdown (twice)
Jets vs Bills: fumble recovery for touchdown
Titans vs Texans: fumble recovery for touchdown

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw, a fumble itself is not a luck event.

[PokerFink]

I like how you provide no evidence of any kind for your argument, and simply say, "I am right and you are wrong."

Nice job.

Causing a fumble (ie the strip) is not random. Recovering fumbles is completely random. Considering that turnovers are, you know, a little bit important - I would say that random fumble recoveries are pretty important and lead to a significant amount of luck. Go read outsiders.