"Look at his winning % as relates to luck article. Basically, he treats winning a hockey game like a coin toss, and since with a small sample size you can get lucky and get heads 60% of time, then this is used as evidence that luck plays a 38% role in winning%. But that's when only chance is involved, which is not true in hockey. When there is both skill and chance, the effect of chance is much lower. His use of teams that are completely even is an attempt to force hockey into this chance-only mode, but this is the only scenario where the coin analogy makes sense and it is a scenario that will never happen."

Anybody know what the hell this guy is talking about?