GAME DAY - Ottawa Senators @ New Jersey Devils, Saturday, April 7, 2012, 3:00 PM EST

Also, do you not think that the players and coaches would like to use the pre-playoff games to get motivated? Is going into a series on a losing streak good for a team psychologically?

Riprock wrote:Then the same logic can be used to say that games featuring teams with no chance at winning are all meaningless games for that team, and they are better off strategically losing to secure a better position for their team (in one case it is dropping to 8th to avoid playing 2nd place team; in the other it is dropping into the lottery rather finishing out of playoffs and out of lottery).

No, LOL, I don't see how that follows, at all.

You never set out to lose. Sometimes, tho', you do show up not prepared to do what it takes to win -- that's not a plan, that's a psychological state ("we clinched they playoffs! Yay!"), that's human nature. Let down games happen all the time, and they're very predictable -- i.e., the first home game after a road trip, the games after you clinch a playoff spot, the game after you are eliminated from the playoffs, etc., etc., etc.

Big, big difference there between setting out to lose and not coming fully prepared, mentally, to do what it takes to win.

Riprock wrote:Also, do you not think that the players and coaches would like to use the pre-playoff games to get motivated? Is going into a series on a losing streak good for a team psychologically?

I agree, that's a huge concern, and no, I don't think it's particularly good for the team. I don't think anyone wanted these final three games to unfold the way they did -- but I don't think the team was sufficiently motivated to strive to win out, either, and that takes its toll.

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:Then the same logic can be used to say that games featuring teams with no chance at winning are all meaningless games for that team, and they are better off strategically losing to secure a better position for their team (in one case it is dropping to 8th to avoid playing 2nd place team; in the other it is dropping into the lottery rather finishing out of playoffs and out of lottery).

No, LOL, I don't see how that follows, at all.

You never set out to lose. Sometimes, tho', you do show up not prepared to do what it takes to win -- that's not a plan, that's a psychological state ("we clinched they playoffs! Yay!"), that's human nature. Let down games happen all the time, and they're very predictable -- i.e., the first home game after a road trip, the games after you clinch a playoff spot, the game after you are eliminated from the playoffs, etc., etc., etc.

Big, big difference there between setting out to lose and not coming fully prepared, mentally, to do what it takes to win.

I didn't say set out to lose, it's the same thing as going into a game with the attitude that the result is meaningless. First of all, the Sens final games were not meaningless - they had something to gain, which was a higher seeding. If they wanted to finish 8th, then they purposely went in not prepared to do what it takes to win.

If a team has no chance at making the playoffs - what motivation do they have to win? If a team in the playoffs benefits from strategically winning or losing to benefit them in terms of who they face, that is the same as a team strategically losing to benefit their standings to secure a higher pick. If it is acceptable to lose to lower your seeding in the playoffs to purposely play a team that you think you have a better chance at, than it is acceptable to lose to lower your standing to secure a higher pick. Both scenarios involve strategically losing to benefit your teams outcome.

This says nothing about a team's start to the season as it does more about what they decide to do when faced with "meaningless game" situations.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:Then the same logic can be used to say that games featuring teams with no chance at winning are all meaningless games for that team, and they are better off strategically losing to secure a better position for their team (in one case it is dropping to 8th to avoid playing 2nd place team; in the other it is dropping into the lottery rather finishing out of playoffs and out of lottery).

No, LOL, I don't see how that follows, at all.

You never set out to lose. Sometimes, tho', you do show up not prepared to do what it takes to win -- that's not a plan, that's a psychological state ("we clinched they playoffs! Yay!"), that's human nature. Let down games happen all the time, and they're very predictable -- i.e., the first home game after a road trip, the games after you clinch a playoff spot, the game after you are eliminated from the playoffs, etc., etc., etc.

Big, big difference there between setting out to lose and not coming fully prepared, mentally, to do what it takes to win.

I didn't say set out to lose, it's the same thing as going into a game with the attitude that the result is meaningless. First of all, the Sens final games were not meaningless - they had something to gain, which was a higher seeding. If they wanted to finish 8th, then they purposely went in not prepared to do what it takes to win.

[1] If a team has no chance at making the playoffs - what motivation do they have to win? If a team in the playoffs benefits from [2] strategically winning or losing to benefit them in terms of who they face, that is the same as a team strategically losing to benefit their standings to secure a higher pick. If [3] it is acceptable to lose to lower your seeding in the playoffs to purposely play a team that you think you have a better chance at, than it is acceptable to lose to lower your standing to secure a higher pick. Both scenarios involve [4] strategically losing to benefit your teams outcome.

This says nothing about a team's start to the season as it does more about what they decide to do when faced with "meaningless game" situations.

[1] What's to gain? Not succumbing to or developing a permanent culture of losing. Losing teams have to fight against that if they ever want to get out of it. Winning teams who lose a few games don't face that same situation because, well, they're winning more often than not.

[2] I don't think teams ever set out to lose strategically. That's my whole point. Instead, given the circumstances and human nature being what it is, the players just aren't as "up" for some games as for others. They lose not because they want to lose, but because they're not mentally prepared to do everything it takes to win. There's a world of difference there.

[3] It's not, and I really don't think that that's what happened here. See [2].

[4] = an oxymoron in hockey. See [2].

I'm a little confused about what you're debating here, TBH. I take issue with your first premise, which is that the Sens (or any team) set out to lose. I don't think that's what happened, at all. I think OTT instead, for whatever psychological / human nature reasons, just didn't get up for these games and wasn't ready to do everything it took to win them. I also take huge exception to your equating tanking with a three-game slide that can largely be explained by human nature. Comparing winning and losing teams like this, too, is comparing apples and oranges -- the losing team has to dedicate to building a winning culture from the ground up, and it start right away; the winning team, well, they've done some winning and think/know they have that culture in place. The situations aren't anything alike; you're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole here.

Really, this is you grinding that old axe, i.e., that tanking is a good and sound strategy for building a team. I have already debated that one with you, and I just don't buy it, at all. For a losing team, there is nothing more important than building and establishing a winning culture, and you don't do that by continuing to lose.

But you are also not representing my arguments charitably nor the way that I am representing them - again, I never said any team sets out to lose. I also never said tanking.

You can disagree with my argument, but it's still valid and sound.

You say that psychology and/or human nature has an effect on a player or teams' motivation.

For the record, Evan is the one that uses the "meaningless game" argument, so I am using that to show how it is silly, but if it is acceptable and true as he makes it out to be, then I am showing how it can be applied to a team that has nothing to gain.

Like I said, you can disagree on a personal level, but the truth is:

If a team purposely loses a game in order to strategically finish in a lower position in the playoffs to gain an advantage by avoiding facing a certain opponent, then it is the same for a non-playoff team to purposely lose in order to gain the advantage of a higher draft pick.

You are interpreting "purposely lose" as "tanking" - which is a negative connotation. To me, tanking infers purposely setting out to lose from the beginning. I am not suggesting that - in fact, I am suggesting that when a team finds itself out of the playoffs, the beneficial thing from a utilitarian perspective is to do what is best for the team's future and try again next year.

Of course this is all contingent on players actually adopting a mentality to lose - which we do not know to be true or not. But it is either true or it is not. Also, a team (the people above the players) can do things to lessen their likelihood of winning.

I can't find the mid-season standings, but a lot of teams that find themselves at the bottom start off strong - but they cannot sustain winning.

As far as high draft picks = sound strategy for building a team, it is certainly one way to do so. You cannot deny that a team benefits from having a young, exciting, talented player to build a team around and to draw fans. While not all franchise players are drafted in the top 5, the odds of a player becoming one is more likely than not.

And if you argue that the Sens' human nature is what made them lose, how does human nature account for the other team winning? What was the difference between Ottawa's players and New Jersey's players? If it was a meaningless game, how do you explain one team playing better than the other (assuming [A] it was a meaningless game, and [B] both teams are in the playoffs)?

Riprock wrote:But you are also not representing my arguments charitably nor the way that I am representing them - again, I never said any team sets out to lose. I also never said tanking.

You can disagree with my argument, but it's still valid and sound.

You say that psychology and/or human nature has an effect on a player or teams' motivation.

For the record, Evan is the one that uses the "meaningless game" argument, so I am using that to show how it is silly, but if it is acceptable and true as he makes it out to be, then I am showing how it can be applied to a team that has nothing to gain.

Like I said, you can disagree on a personal level, but the truth is:

If a team purposely loses a game in order to strategically finish in a lower position in the playoffs to gain an advantage by avoiding facing a certain opponent, then it is the same for a non-playoff team to purposely lose in order to gain the advantage of a higher draft pick.

You are interpreting "purposely lose" as "tanking" - which is a negative connotation. To me, tanking infers purposely setting out to lose from the beginning. I am not suggesting that - in fact, I am suggesting that when a team finds itself out of the playoffs, the beneficial thing from a utilitarian perspective is to do what is best for the team's future and try again next year.

Of course this is all contingent on players actually adopting a mentality to lose - which we do not know to be true or not. But it is either true or it is not. Also, a team (the people above the players) can do things to lessen their likelihood of winning.

I can't find the mid-season standings, but a lot of teams that find themselves at the bottom start off strong - but they cannot sustain winning.

As far as high draft picks = sound strategy for building a team, it is certainly one way to do so. You cannot deny that a team benefits from having a young, exciting, talented player to build a team around and to draw fans. While not all franchise players are drafted in the top 5, the odds of a player becoming one is more likely than not.

And if you argue that the Sens' human nature is what made them lose, how does human nature account for the other team winning? What was the difference between Ottawa's players and New Jersey's players? If it was a meaningless game, how do you explain one team playing better than the other (assuming [A] it was a meaningless game, and [B] both teams are in the playoffs)?

^ That above is the basic premise of your entire argument, and it's the thing that I'm saying is false and untrue. I don't think teams set out to lose on purpose, ever. That is why the argument is faulty -- because the first premise is faulty, and I don't see how we reach "the truth" through a faulty first premise. I also think it's hugely misrepresentative to compare a losing team's season of losing to a winning team's 3-game losing stretch, in any sense, or to argue that their situations are at all similar, in any way.

Again, teams don't set out to lose, they show up unprepared to do everything it takes to win. That's my whole point, and that's what you're not getting here.

On the tanking thing: I've said this a 100 times, but -- drafting high is at best a 50/50 gambit, and a losing culture in the long run hurts the team. The best way to win is to build a winning culture, game in and game out. Drafting great players is great, but if it comes at the cost of a winning culture, it's bad. See CLB, FLA, NYI, etc., etc.

On why NJ won: literally, someone had to win the game. They were not exactly playing stellar hockey, either.

Anyways, as we both know we can go on forever about this, but I feel I presented solid argument to show how the logic applies, but if you disagree, we can leave it at that until next time it comes up. Afterall, I'm just winging my responses and not really taking the time to write out a full, multi-page essay argument in which I have time to figure out possible cirticisms and address them as many philosophers do. But this isn't an academic environment, so

FYI, I found the mid-season stats for the final bottom 5 teams (based on the each team's record at the 41 game mark):

TEAM GP/W/L/OTL/PTS [41/82]

TORONTO 41/21/15/5/47 [16th/26th]
NY ISLANDERS 41/15/20/6/36 [27th/27th]
MONTRÉAL 41/16/18/7/39 [24th/28th]
EDMONTON 41/16/22/3/35 [26th/29th]
COLUMBUS 41/11/25/5/27 [30th/30th]

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:But you are also not representing my arguments charitably nor the way that I am representing them - again, I never said any team sets out to lose. I also never said tanking.

You can disagree with my argument, but it's still valid and sound.

You say that psychology and/or human nature has an effect on a player or teams' motivation.

For the record, Evan is the one that uses the "meaningless game" argument, so I am using that to show how it is silly, but if it is acceptable and true as he makes it out to be, then I am showing how it can be applied to a team that has nothing to gain.

Like I said, you can disagree on a personal level, but the truth is:

If a team purposely loses a game in order to strategically finish in a lower position in the playoffs to gain an advantage by avoiding facing a certain opponent, then it is the same for a non-playoff team to purposely lose in order to gain the advantage of a higher draft pick.

You are interpreting "purposely lose" as "tanking" - which is a negative connotation. To me, tanking infers purposely setting out to lose from the beginning. I am not suggesting that - in fact, I am suggesting that when a team finds itself out of the playoffs, the beneficial thing from a utilitarian perspective is to do what is best for the team's future and try again next year.

Of course this is all contingent on players actually adopting a mentality to lose - which we do not know to be true or not. But it is either true or it is not. Also, a team (the people above the players) can do things to lessen their likelihood of winning.

I can't find the mid-season standings, but a lot of teams that find themselves at the bottom start off strong - but they cannot sustain winning.

As far as high draft picks = sound strategy for building a team, it is certainly one way to do so. You cannot deny that a team benefits from having a young, exciting, talented player to build a team around and to draw fans. While not all franchise players are drafted in the top 5, the odds of a player becoming one is more likely than not.

And if you argue that the Sens' human nature is what made them lose, how does human nature account for the other team winning? What was the difference between Ottawa's players and New Jersey's players? If it was a meaningless game, how do you explain one team playing better than the other (assuming [A] it was a meaningless game, and (B) both teams are in the playoffs)?

^ That above is the basic premise of your entire argument, and it's the thing that I'm saying is false and untrue. I don't think teams set out to lose on purpose, ever. That is why the argument is faulty -- because the first premise is faulty, and I don't see how we reach "the truth" through a faulty first premise. I also think it's hugely misrepresentative to compare a losing team's season of losing to a winning team's 3-game losing stretch, in any sense, or to argue that their situations are at all similar, in any way.

Again, teams don't set out to lose, they show up unprepared to do everything it takes to win. That's my whole point, and that's what you're not getting here.

On the tanking thing: I've said this a 100 times, but -- drafting high is at best a 50/50 gambit, and a losing culture in the long run hurts the team. The best way to win is to build a winning culture, game in and game out. Drafting great players is great, but if it comes at the cost of a winning culture, it's bad. See CLB, FLA, NYI, etc., etc.

On why NJ won: literally, someone had to win the game. They were not exactly playing stellar hockey, either.

I know I said I was done, but:

I wrote:If a team purposely loses a game in order to strategically finish in a lower position in the playoffs to gain an advantage by avoiding facing a certain opponent, then it is the same for a non-playoff team to purposely lose in order to gain the advantage of a higher draft pick.

That above is the basic premise of your entire argument, and it's the thing that I'm saying is false and untrue. I don't think teams set out to lose on purpose, ever. That is why the argument is faulty -- because the first premise is faulty, and I don't see how we reach "the truth" through a faulty first premise. I also think it's hugely misrepresentative to compare a losing team's season of losing to a winning team's 3-game losing stretch, in any sense, or to argue that their situations are at all similar, in any way.

The premise isn't faulty just because you disagree with it. It's also neither false, nor true - but if it were true, the argument is still valid. The problem is neither of us can prove it's truth value. That's why it is a deductive argument.

Again, teams don't set out to lose, they show up unprepared to do everything it takes to win. That's my whole point, and that's what you're not getting here.

No, I absolutely do comprehend it. My argument is contingent on the possibility of the Sens (or any team) purposely losing. You claim teams do not, yet you also suggest some teams develop a losing culture, which can interpreted as teams showing up to lose because that is what they are accustomed to. So even these losing teams as you say do infact show up to win, but are unprepared to win.

On the tanking thing: I've said this a 100 times, but -- drafting high is at best a 50/50 gambit, and a losing culture in the long run hurts the team. The best way to win is to build a winning culture, game in and game out. Drafting great players is great, but if it comes at the cost of a winning culture, it's bad. See CLB, FLA, NYI, etc., etc.

You can make the claim that losing hurts a team - but many teams have overcome this so called "losing culture". It can't explain a team that has undergone player overhaul and still losing, unless it is beyond the players' control. Then it lie with the management and coaching staff. We both acknowledge the truth that some teams have consistently finished at the bottom despite high draft picks as much as we acknowledge the truth that some teams have gone from bottom to top in a matter of years by combining franchise players with team building (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Washington [to some extent]). And we also acknowledge the teams that have neither and still win (Detroit, Nashville, San Jose).

On why NJ won: literally, someone had to win the game. They were not exactly playing stellar hockey, either.

I've used that as an argument too - that someone has to lose. And sometimes the team that "has to lose" is the same team more than not.

At this point, I'm not even convinced that you know what you're arguing. Seriously. What is your point?

All I know is, I'm clear on my position: 1) players don't set out to lose (for a pick or for a spot), 2) there's a huge difference between losers losing and winners not showing up for a game, 3) losing is no guarantee of building a winner, and 4) developing a winning culture within an organization is more important than any, any other consideration.

Players don't set out to lose, but when teams rest players and play their backup in games down thee stretch, they couldn't care less if they win or not. They also don't get up for games when they already have a playoff spot locked in with a chance of only moving up or down one spot. The games at the end of the year are brutal pre-season like games, it's no wonder why teams don't get up for them. If you lose them, big deal. New York just lost to Washington, so they are going into the playoffs with a loss as well. So what, there's a 5 day break. Not a big deal for either team. They could have won 10 in a row and their momentum would be gone with that big layoff. I laugh when people are so shocked that teams like Columbus beat powerhouses at the end of the season

Didn't Pittsburgh tank their last game of the season so they could face Ottawa 4 years ago?

rooneypoo wrote:At this point, I'm not even convinced that you know what you're arguing. Seriously. What is your point?

All I know is, I'm clear on my position: 1) players don't set out to lose (for a pick or for a spot), 2) there's a huge difference between losers losing and winners not showing up for a game, 3) losing is no guarantee of building a winner, and 4) developing a winning culture within an organization is more important than any, any other consideration.

You know what? You're just an arrogant Donkey. Surely an intelligent person like you can see what I am clearly arguing - you just choose to pretend not to understand a very clearly laid out argument. Or perhaps I overestimate you because you like to flaunt your academia - but I guess PhD's mean nothing when you can't understand simple philosophical arguments.

All I KNOW is that I can present MY argument, and comprehend and acknowledge the validity of YOUR points, but you can't seem to acknowledge other people's points and just stick to your dogmatic opinions.

Seriously, if you are going to discuss and debate anything you might want to respect and understand other people's opinions and arguments. Otherwise why bother? You are just repeating yourself and sticking with your same arguments.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:At this point, I'm not even convinced that you know what you're arguing. Seriously. What is your point?

All I know is, I'm clear on my position: 1) players don't set out to lose (for a pick or for a spot), 2) there's a huge difference between losers losing and winners not showing up for a game, 3) losing is no guarantee of building a winner, and 4) developing a winning culture within an organization is more important than any, any other consideration.

You know what? You're just an arrogant Donkey. Surely an intelligent person like you can see what I am clearly arguing - you just choose to pretend not to understand a very clearly laid out argument. Or perhaps I overestimate you because you like to flaunt your academia - but I guess PhD's mean nothing when you can't understand simple philosophical arguments.

All I KNOW is that I can present MY argument, and comprehend and acknowledge the validity of YOUR points, but you can't seem to acknowledge other people's points and just stick to your dogmatic opinions.

On all that ad hominem stuff: .

On your crystal clear argument: no, at this point, I really have no idea what your point is anymore.

Big Ev wrote:Players don't set out to lose, but when teams rest players and play their backup in games down thee stretch, they couldn't care less if they win or not. They also don't get up for games when they already have a playoff spot locked in with a chance of only moving up or down one spot. The games at the end of the year are brutal pre-season like games, it's no wonder why teams don't get up for them. If you lose them, big deal. New York just lost to Washington, so they are going into the playoffs with a loss as well. So what, there's a 5 day break. Not a big deal for either team. They could have won 10 in a row and their momentum would be gone with that big layoff. I laugh when people are so shocked that teams like Columbus beat powerhouses at the end of the season

Yep, pretty much this.

Riprock wrote:Seriously, if you are going to discuss and debate anything you might want to respect and understand other people's opinions and arguments. Otherwise why bother? You are just repeating yourself and sticking with your same arguments.

Do you hear yourself? Pot, meet kettle.

Big Ev wrote:Players don't set out to lose, but when teams rest players and play their backup in games down thee stretch, they couldn't care less if they win or not. They also don't get up for games when they already have a playoff spot locked in with a chance of only moving up or down one spot. The games at the end of the year are brutal pre-season like games, it's no wonder why teams don't get up for them. If you lose them, big deal. New York just lost to Washington, so they are going into the playoffs with a loss as well. So what, there's a 5 day break. Not a big deal for either team. They could have won 10 in a row and their momentum would be gone with that big layoff. I laugh when people are so shocked that teams like Columbus beat powerhouses at the end of the season

I agree but then how the Diddle did Boston manage to beat Ottawa? From an Ottawa perspective, I can see there being more of a letdown and then u gotta ask simply 'why??' I know the answer and it's partially due to scrubs playing who want to impress the bosses, so same reason Carolina and Columbus were winning games.

But why is it that new jersey played their top players and got the effort they wanted but not Ottawa?