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

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?

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Yeah because you never put down other people's arguments because you look down on them. If you must, go back and re-read, 'cause it looks pretty understandable to me.

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Do YOU hear yourself? I have agreed with most of what you say - but you haven't listened to a thing I have said. Nice try.

Michallica wrote:

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?

Boston beat them because they beat them. Somebody had to win that game. New jersey didn't even play that well yesterday, they just won. It happens. Somebody has to win in the pre-season as well. It is what it is, and it's in the past now.

Michallica wrote:

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?

Good luck getting an answer. The truth is he doesn't have one. He lives in a world of fantasy and statistics. If something haeppened in the past it is a guarantee it will happen in the future. Induction, my friend - not a valid argument.

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Actually I'll defend dash here. From what I've read he's not dismissing your arguments whereas you are completely dismissing his. Unless your talking about the bolder part

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:

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?

Boston beat them because they beat them. Somebody had to win that game. New jersey didn't even play that well yesterday, they just won. It happens. Somebody has to win in the pre-season as well. It is what it is, and it's in the past now.

If somebody has to win, then somebody has to lose, right? And the teams that lose are labeled perennial losers that encourage a culture of losing. And once a loser always a loser, and no loser team has ever become a winner.... same old arguments.

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:

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?

Boston beat them because they beat them. Somebody had to win that game. New jersey didn't even play that well yesterday, they just won. It happens. Somebody has to win in the pre-season as well. It is what it is, and it's in the past now.

Sure, but it's a disturbing trend to go out on and like Rooney said, hopefully they didn't pick up bad habits. They didn't throw the game but it they did play a suspiciously uninspired game or 3

Michallica wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Actually I'll defend dash here. From what I've read he's not dismissing your arguments whereas you are completely dismissing his. Unless your talking about the bolder part

Thanks for understanding Michallica, I'm glad someone can see it.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Yeah because you never put down other people's arguments because you look down on them. If you must, go back and re-read, 'cause it looks pretty understandable to me.

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Do YOU hear yourself? I have agreed with most of what you say - but you haven't listened to a thing I have said. Nice try.

Hey, look, YOU'RE the one getting all personal and throwing the insults, etc.

I offered a 1 sentence, 4-point summary of my position. That's because I know what my position is. I just want you to do the same for me. What is it, really, that you're trying to convince me of? One sentence. I'm genuinely confused about what it is exactly that you're trying to convince me of, and I think that's because you're a bit confused yourself -- at least, that's what I'm getting from your posts.

Michallica wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Actually I'll defend dash here. From what I've read he's not dismissing your arguments whereas you are completely dismissing his. Unless your talking about the bolder part

If the entire argument hangs on the premise that "teams strategically lose," then yes, I am dismissing the argument. Otherwise, I'm listening.

Michallica wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:

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?

Boston beat them because they beat them. Somebody had to win that game. New jersey didn't even play that well yesterday, they just won. It happens. Somebody has to win in the pre-season as well. It is what it is, and it's in the past now.

Sure, but it's a disturbing trend to go out on and like Rooney said, hopefully they didn't pick up bad habits. They didn't throw the game but it they did play a suspiciously uninspired game or 3

I agree. I don't find it suspicious, tho' -- in fact, it was kind of predictable.

Riprock wrote:

Michallica wrote:

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?

Good luck getting an answer. The truth is he doesn't have one. He lives in a world of fantasy and statistics. If something haeppened in the past it is a guarantee it will happen in the future. Induction, my friend - not a valid argument.

By the way, a bunch of analysts (yes, the same ones who picked us last ) were concerned that Tortorella was pushing the Rangers too hard the whole year, and that come playoff time they wouldn't have that "extra gear" that teams generally need in the playoffs. All of the Bingo boys have demonstrated that extra gear already last year (especially their D and G, of which we only have 1 in the lineup, unfortunately).

Just looking at the Rangers' roster, and outside of Richards, they don't have a lot of prove playoff performers. Of course Calder Cup playoffs are not the same as the NHL, but the point is we saw the Bingo boys raise their level of play (Daugavins with all those goals playing on the third line and killing penalties?)

It'll be interesting, for sure.

Any injuries?

rooneypoo wrote:

Michallica wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Actually I'll defend dash here. From what I've read he's not dismissing your arguments whereas you are completely dismissing his. Unless your talking about the bolder part

If the entire argument hangs on the premise that "teams strategically lose," then yes, I am dismissing the argument. Otherwise, I'm listening.

Who can prove it one way or the other? It's all opinion anyways. Besides who'd have thunk that the new orleans Saints were strategically targeting injured players?

And I think it got missed, but there were strong reports 4 years ago that the pens threw their final game of the season just so they could face Ottawa. Of course then they swept Ottawa....

First of all, I NEVER suggested that the Sens (or any team) does or did in fact purposely lose. But since Evan was suggesting that the Sens had nothing to gain or lose after they clinched a playoff spot, they would lose since there was NO motivation to try.

BUT, there actually was something to play for.

1) Even though they were guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, they still could move up or down. They lost 3 games that, had they won. would have likely moved them as high as 6th, but they lost, and finished 8th.

2) There seems to be some suggestions that the Sens stood to gain and benefit from losing those three games to avoid playing Boston - the reigning champions and a team they have not had much success against.

3) IF the Sens did lose on purpose, it seems to be that they did so to avoid playing Boston and to play New York, a team they have had better success against.

4) If you accept that it is in a teams best interest to strategically lose - that is, it is to their advantage to lose for the purpose of gaining something - then you have to accept that a non-playoff team also stands to benefit from losing to gain an advantage, which in this case is a higher draft pick.

5) This idea of strategically losing does not entail purposely throwing the entire season. It does however suggest that once there is either nothing left to stand benefitting from (i.e. a playoff spot, or a desired match-up) that it might be in a team's best interests to lose.

6) While I acknowledge that some teams have continually finished in the bottom more than others have, it doesn't mean that they "tanked" or that they want to lose, or that they encourage and adopt a losing culture.

7) There are exceptions to your claim, since Florida has turned around consecutive losing seasons under new management and a roster overhaul. As well, there have been 2 Stanley Cup Champions in recent years that were at one time not too long ago a bottom team for many years.

Michallica wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Michallica wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

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.

Actually I'll defend dash here. From what I've read he's not dismissing your arguments whereas you are completely dismissing his. Unless your talking about the bolder part

If the entire argument hangs on the premise that "teams strategically lose," then yes, I am dismissing the argument. Otherwise, I'm listening.

Who can prove it one way or the other? It's all opinion anyways. Besides who'd have thunk that the new orleans Saints were strategically targeting injured players?

And I think it got missed, but there were strong reports 4 years ago that the pens threw their final game of the season just so they could face Ottawa. Of course then they swept Ottawa....

And that is exactly what I was arguing (by arguing I mean the academic philosophical meaning and not a heated debate, although it took a turn that way). I didn't say one way or another that it was true or false, but only that "if", and "then". The standard modus ponens argument. If the premises are true then the conclusions truth is logically guaranteed. Since nobody can for sure prove that a team loses on purpose, you just have to look at it from the perspective of: If it were true, then it its conclusion would necessarily be true.

There seems to be a strong case to be made that teams stand to benefit from losing.

Rooney, I owe you an apology for making it personal. I do apologize for throwing your education in your face, but I was getting quite upset that you just couldn't grasp my concept even though I fully acknowledged your views. And when you continually make accusations that I have no idea hat I am talking about, it makes it seem like you are implying that your better than others because they fail to stand up to your level.

I like beer.