It's better to be lucky than good

[DegenFarang]

-Robert Horry as 'Mr. Clutch'
-Kirk Gibson's legacy
-Carlton Fisk
-"The Catch"
-Peyton's Q4 pick-6
-Bill Buckner

How much of these events, and others like them, can we attribute to skill - and how much to luck? Obviously to be in this position in the first place, these people needed to be skilled athletes and they needed to be cool under pressure (or maybe uncool in Peyton and Buckner's case) to pull them off. Setting all of that aside, I assert that if we were able to go back in history an infinite number of times and replay these exact situations, the result would be different on many of those occasions - and thus, some of the greatest moments, and indeed players, in sports history, happened by chance and not by destiny or because the best team or player prevailed.

[Dunder]

Luck does play a part but is it a coincidence that the very best pretty much always have 'luck' going their way?
As Gary Player said, "The more I practice, the luckier I get".

Michael Schumacher in his pomp always seemed to be a lucky driver in Formula 1.
Germany and Italian teams have won the soccer World Cup despite not having the best players/team and on many occasions escaping defeat in what appeared to be lucky circumstances.

As mentioned, chance is a factor but the psychology and dedication of serial winners is a bigger one, IMHO.

[jjgold]

As far as point spread covers most come down to luck, money lines are different.

[DegenFarang]

is it a coincidence that the very best pretty much always have 'luck' going their way?

Absolutely not and this was not what I was addressing. I am referring to a single given event - not an entire career, season or even game. Just one single play.

Kobe is not (one of) the greatest because of luck. Robert Horry on the other hand...

[INVEGA MAN]

Luck comes into play more than bettors want to admit

[Karayilan9]

The old luck argument, the main topic of discussion in losing circles.

People who bet against champions and elite teams are always going on about how 'lucky' the other team or player is, when you win league after league, cup after cup, championship after championship people should start realizing its not down to 'luck'.

Luck often helps out the best teams and players due to a number of factors, they try harder, create more chances which leaves the door open for a moment of luck to help them out, they also are more creative and willing to try something different and teams/players can be intimidated.

For example, this season in the English premier league, Manchester United have been fortunate to have alot of the teams they played this season score own goals against themselves. Now is this luck? is it just luck that Man U consistently finish in the top 4 in their domestic league? when a team barrels another team in for most of the game, when teams defend deep against them and are intimidated and on top of that if you add a cocktail of a bad defense, shaky goalkeeper and the home crowd effect its not surprising that alot of their goals come from the opposing teams defensive errors and own goals.

The act of an own goal occurring in a game is 'lucky' but when you bet on teams like Man U at home you get that advantage of having that extra bit of luck on your side.

[OmgUrMom]

I certainly agree about robert horry, he wasn't a great player and wouldn't be know at all if he had been drafted to a shiatty team and didn't make all those huge shots in the playoffs, so some degree of luck and some degree of skill (he still made all the big shots)

[DegenFarang]

I certainly agree about robert horry, he wasn't a great player and wouldn't be know at all if he had been drafted to a shiatty team and didn't make all those huge shots in the playoffs, so some degree of luck and some degree of skill (he still made all the big shots)

My point was the big shots themselves were lucky shots. He had a 40-45% chance of making his big shots and he made 85%+ of them. That is luck.

[OmgUrMom]

Did he really make 85%+ though? You never remember the missed ones.......Although it is a small sample so a large % is possible.

[DegenFarang]

Did he really make 85%+ though? You never remember the missed ones.......Although it is a small sample so a large % is possible.

Yes results oriented small sample size bias is precisely what I'm getting at. Not whether great teams are actually great. Whether "clutch" performance is actually clutch, or more likely just good timing (luck)

[rm18]

Memories are bad, Kobe is one of the worst clutch shooters in history and is considered the best.

[French Tickler]

A Lot of really bad poker players rely on luck more then skill

[OmgUrMom]

Memories are bad, Kobe is one of the worst clutch shooters in history and is considered the best.

If you are gonna make this statement you should at least back it up with some stats or something. I doubt his percentage is AMAZING but i would be very surprised if it was under 35-40%.

[OmgUrMom]

and it certainly would have to be under that % for it to be considered "one of the worst"

[THE PROFIT]

Memories are bad, Kobe is one of the worst clutch shooters in history and is considered the best.

he has been pretty good this year. I dont follow NBA all that closely, as far as individual stats, etc.. But hasn't he won 4-5 games on his last minute clutch shot this year? I know what you mean, I'm not talking over his career, but just this season.

[DegenFarang]

So if he takes 10 game-deciding shots and makes 4-5 how is that special?

If he makes 8 how is that evidence of anything other than luck and the fact that he clearly does not get rattled under pressure?

[OmgUrMom]

So if he takes 10 game-deciding shots and makes 4-5 how is that special?

If he makes 8 how is that evidence of anything other than luck and the fact that he clearly does not get rattled under pressure?

making your typical fg % on game winning shots is pretty good considering the D is usually better on the last shot plus you have the extra pressure.