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

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.

shabbs wrote:I like beer.

...and cats.

shabbs wrote:I like beer.

Prove it.

Riprock wrote: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.

Sorry, family dinner. On the above:

(1) is just not accurate. We had a letdown game against CAR. After that loss, it was no longer possible to move up. Hence, after that one game, we no longer had anything to play for in those last two games. Nothing.

(2) granted, for sure.

(3) granted, but it's an IF, and it's an IF that I frankly doubt. What some call strategy, I call a lack of incentive to win.

(4) is where you get in trouble, on a bunch of fronts. A winning team not showing up for a game or two that is little or no consequence to them is not at all the same as a losing team losing again and again and again to close out the season. As I have repeatedly granted, abstractly speaking, of course, getting great players at the draft is great -- but realistically speaking, it usually comes at a high cost that hurts the teams in all sorts of other ways.

(5) and this is where the logic really breaks down. Comparing one winning team that doesn't show up mentally prepared to win a game that doesn't mean much to them one way or the other, to another team that is losing all the time and that needs as an organization to turn the ship around, is apples and oranges. The losing team has much, much more to play for than the winning team that just can't get up for the one meaningless game -- i.e., as a organization, top to bottom, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, and that starts with a winning ethic.

(6) granted. I've never argued the contrary, either. All I've ever argued is that 1) losing is not a foolproof strategy for franchise building, and is at best a 50/50 proposition -- i.e., there is at least one CLB out there for every PIT; and 2) getting that potential top end player at the draft comes at high cost across the organization -- i.e., a culture of losing that breeds problems across the organization in terms of keeping or attracting talent, putting butts in seats, and developing players. Abstractly, getting a potentially great player is great; in real life, what you do to get that potentially great players can hurt you in a number of other areas.

(7) granted, but there are exceptions to your claims, too, which is my point (i.e., losing is not a foolproof strategy, and is at best a 50/50 proposition). There are always going to be exceptions, and in general, for every PIT story, there is the CLB story. Anyway, with the examples you cite, you had a commitment at the base level of the franchise that losing was not acceptable and to make a change. FLA's rebirth was established through an aggressive GM, not the draft. PIT's renaissance started with Lemieux, not Crosby. And CHI's rebirth coincided exactly with the dead of an old, cheap Donkey, antiquated owner and a conscious decision to become a better organization. In PIT's and CHI's cases, too, it just happened that there was generational talent (Crosby, Malkin, Toews) available for the picking, which is not the case with every draft.

Here's why I asked you to state your position clearly: what you want to argue is that losing for a while is acceptable / good for a franchise, but you know you can't say that outright without me getting all over you, and that's why you're trying to equate apples and oranges here. But the situations are totally different and not equatable. That's where I take issue, and where, if you ask me, your argument breaks down: a winning team that doesn't get up for a game or two that doesn't have a whole lot of meaning is *fundamentally* different than a losing team that is consistently losing. That, and I think "bottoming out" is at best a 50/50 strategy for an effective rebuild, and that that strategy brings with it the possibility of building a losing culture -- see CLB.

Riprock wrote:

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.

Apology accepted.

It's not that I thought you had no idea what you were talking about; it was that I thought that you were no longer in control of your own position -- that you were opposing just to oppose, with a bunch of rather unrelated points and no clear thesis. I'm talking about arguments, not people.

I can't follow all of those exchanges, but it does make sense that, after the Carolina loss, they had nothing to play for but pride, perhaps, and a change of the first round match up.

The Boston game was especially lame because Boston rested their top goalie, D-man and center. If the Sens won it meant nothing. Personally, I think MacLean made a mistake there, letting Alfie and Spezza play. It was like an exhibition game, but with enough rough/dirty players in the lineup to still have a risk of injury. I hope this wasn't a PR-inspired move to play a full lineup in your last regular season game.

It's quite fortunate they are facing the Rangers (even losing three there was no way to guarantee it because you still needed Washington to beat the Rangers and Florida to gain a point on the last day. So it's ludicrous to believe that they strategically lost 3 (or even lost 2 after the letdown loss to the Canes) to ensure a more suitable round 1 match up.

Anyhow, three more sleeps before we begin to see if those "moves" paid off or not.

Rags enter on a down note - they've lost 2 in a row and had the Prez Trophy in their sights... Sens clinched and then relaxed... I'm sure we'll see two very different teams that are more focused in Game 1. The playoff atmosphere will kick it all into high gear for sure.

shabbs wrote:Rags enter on a down note - they've lost 2 in a row and had the Prez Trophy in their sights... Sens clinched and then relaxed... I'm sure we'll see two very different teams that are more focused in Game 1. The playoff atmosphere will kick it all into high gear for sure.

They didn't just relax, they flat out played like they wanted to relegate themselves. That 5-on-1 goal was embarassing, gonchar's effort on the winning goal was awful, anderson's gaffe against carolina where he gave up on the play was deplorable, our PK was off, and PP was off.....I cross my fingers they didn't screw themselves more by 'relaxing'

Michallica wrote:

shabbs wrote:Rags enter on a down note - they've lost 2 in a row and had the Prez Trophy in their sights... Sens clinched and then relaxed... I'm sure we'll see two very different teams that are more focused in Game 1. The playoff atmosphere will kick it all into high gear for sure.

They didn't just relax, they flat out played like they wanted to relegate themselves. That 5-on-1 goal was embarassing, gonchar's effort on the winning goal was awful, anderson's gaffe against carolina where he gave up on the play was deplorable, our PK was off, and PP was off.....I cross my fingers they didn't screw themselves more by 'relaxing'

You just gotta believe...

Michallica wrote:

shabbs wrote:Rags enter on a down note - they've lost 2 in a row and had the Prez Trophy in their sights... Sens clinched and then relaxed... I'm sure we'll see two very different teams that are more focused in Game 1. The playoff atmosphere will kick it all into high gear for sure.

They didn't just relax, they flat out played like they wanted to relegate themselves. That 5-on-1 goal was embarassing, gonchar's effort on the winning goal was awful, anderson's gaffe against carolina where he gave up on the play was deplorable, our PK was off, and PP was off.....I cross my fingers they didn't screw themselves more by 'relaxing'

Those are just tough games to get up for, mentally. I can see how it's frustrating for a fan (or a coach), but it's just basic sports psychology, really.

FYI Rooney, my logic doesn't fall apart. My argument "If... then..." is classic standard Modus Ponens and is logically valid.

Riprock wrote:FYI Rooney, my logic doesn't fall apart. My argument "If... then..." is classic standard Modus Ponens and is logically valid.

Riprock wrote:FYI Rooney, my logic doesn't fall apart. My argument "If... then..." is classic standard Modus Ponens and is logically valid.

Watch this:

If the Senators win the Cup, then the F35 plan will be conclusively shown to be flawed.

Two possible truths / realities connected by and expressed in the form of If /Then, but with neither one having anything to do with the other, and leading to a nonsensical argument and conclusion. As I'm sure you can see, you could come up with an endless number of similar examples.

My point is that your If / Then construction posits a connection -- winning teams losing a meaningless games and losing teams losing all year long -- that doesn't exist, at all. Apples and oranges.

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:FYI Rooney, my logic doesn't fall apart. My argument "If... then..." is classic standard Modus Ponens and is logically valid.

Watch this:

If the Senators win the Cup, then the F35 plan will be conclusively shown to be flawed.

Two possible truths / realities connected by and expressed in the form of If /Then, but with neither one having anything to do with the other, and leading to a nonsensical argument and conclusion. As I'm sure you can see, you could come up with an endless number of similar examples.

My point is that your If / Then construction posits a connection -- winning teams losing a meaningless games and losing teams losing all year long -- that doesn't exist, at all. Apples and oranges.

There's a name for if/then constructions. Anyone know it? I can't remember.

Modus Ponens

If X, then Y.
Y.
X.

Modus Tollens:

If X, then Y.
Not Y.
Not X.

Riprock wrote:Modus Ponens

If X, then Y.
Y.
X.

Modus Tollens:

If X, then Y.
Not Y.
Not X.

What you mean to say is that the form is valid, but it doesn't follow that the conclusion is sound.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=if%2Fthen+argument&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

When I say your logic doesn't follow, I mean the argument is not sound, not that the form is invalid. If you want to get technical.