Imagine playing an opponent who misses the that wins the game, his "not seeing" is a gift 2 u; it's aka "luck."
That's a lack of skill, by definition...not luck.
You might as well say that swinging a baseball bat and striking out on 3 pitches is bad luck. No, it's a lack of skill on your part.
Baseball is actually a great example of exactly the opposite point. Teams pour millions of dollars into their analytics departments looking to gain an edge in parsing skill from random variation. It's why e.g. a D2 college team beat the Phillies in a spring training game a few years back. Or why back when the draft was 50 rounds, there was tons of excess value to be had outside the high money picks (believe HOFer Piazza and future HOFer Pujols are prime examples); you can't just predict future success by looking at the stat leaders in college.
I'm reminded by the quote, I'm gonna butcher it and forgot who said it, but something like: "when you lose early in the season, they call it a bad start; when you lose in the middle of the season, they call it a cold-streak; when you lose late in the season, they call it choking". Point being that people constantly craft narratives around what's really just random variation. There's a reason the regular season is 162 games long.
Same thing with hitters who are ostensibly struggling at the plate. "He's only hitting .270 this year, last year he was hitting .300!" Ignoring the fact that on a normal curve of performance, one would expect variation like that to happen something like 1/3 of the time, there was also an aha moment a few years back when teams started looking at league-wide BABIP and realizing that most people will regress toward league average on a large enough sample. So for example someone with an exceedingly low BABIP during a stretch is definitionally unlucky. Same thing for the converse
the tales are different but the story is the same: thinking errors in a game of logic.