Seduction Spa
Toronto Escorts

Outplaying vs. Winning

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
There's been enough talk about this in other threads - I thought I'd start this one.

Here's my premise:
it's almost IMPOSSIBLE - or, let's say, at least very rare - for a team that's outplayed to win.

The reason? You're arbitrarily assigning the meaning of "team" to "the skaters of that team". Usually, in those cases, *the skaters of a team* are badly outshot, outhustled, outhit, but *the goalie on that team* saves the asses of *the whole team*.
In that case, it's unfair to say *the team* was outplayed, because the goaltender certainly wasn't, and *the team* includes the goaltender. In fact, the goaltender probably played well enough that you could say *the team* actually outplayed the losing team, by virtue of a strong goaltending performance.

The performance of a team - how well a team *plays* - must include the performance of the goaltender. Sorry, but that's the way hockey works.

When you hear commentators on TV say "The Chiefs were outplayed", usually, they're implicitly implying "the skaters". Fine. It's understood.
When I make my point in here, and people abjectly fail to understand it, it really boggles the mind. If I explained this to Ron McLean, or Scott Oak, or Bob McKenzie, or even Don Cherry - well, okay, that last one may be a stretch - I'm sure they'd grasp what I was saying.

When I talk about how well a team plays, I'm talking about the whole team - the performance of "the team" including the goaltender.


It's too easy for fans of losing teams to fall back on this tired cliche. It makes it seem like winning a game by goaltending is something the other team shouldn't be proud of - "he *stole* one" - it diminishes everyone's performance, instead of praising the winning goaltender's.

If you're going to post a response, please try to make it more intelligent / interesting than "You just don't get it."

Thank you. :)
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Hey, this way you're spared the pain in every other thread!

Oh, and before you shoot yourself, can you take out some others in here first?
;)
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Before we begin, it's not all about statistics - it's about objective reality. That is, when I say "Belfour outplayed the Sens skaters", that's an objective fact, right? I appreciate that statistics merely reflect reality. Anyway ....

To deal with some points in your posting:

When you say "The Leafs weren't playing 100 percent", you mean all of them *except Belfour*, right? ;) ... This is kinda my point. ..... I agree about the rest of the team. ;

As for the shoot and dump / dumpin / chipin strategy, well lots of teams use it - the Leafs, lacking much speed from the forwards, use this to play to their strength - forechecking and cycling - lots of games, the Leafs forwards will, by all accounts, outplay the other team, employing this tactic almost exclusively. ;

I agree that the Leafs have to generate more shots and chances to have much chance to go all the way - my posting should *in no way* be interpreted as blind Leaf faith - a point that's SADLY lost on those who would just bash me or my Leafs - this argument applies to all games, all teams.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
The origin of this whole argument stems from my disappointment in the fans of losing teams not facing reality and falling back on stuff like "We outplayed them". Hey, if the Leafs lose, you won't ever hear me selling crap like that! It's a way of both assuaging your own sadness / anger / bitterness over your beloved team losing - whether it be a single game or a playoff series - and ALSO attacking the skill of the winning side at the same time.

It's crap. Sore l*ser talk. You're just artificially focussing on one aspect of the game - skaters vs. goaltending - or, more accurately, offense vs. defense (since it's difficult to absolutely separate the performance of a goaltender from the defensive play of the rest of his team).
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
Ranger68 said:
Here's my premise:
it's almost IMPOSSIBLE - or, let's say, at least very rare - for a team that's outplayed to lose.
Right. That makes sense. Do me a favour? Re-read your comment above very carefully.

You kill me, Ranger. :D
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
I'm NOT dumping on the l*sers. In actuality, my argument works very well here in preventing the l*sers from dumping on the winners - no matter WHO belongs to the winning and losing sides.

And I'd be the FIRST ONE to use this argument against the Leafs.

If you'd like, I can remove ALL REFERENCE to the Senators from this thread. I will do so if anyone would like me to. In fact, I'll do it right now for the first posting.
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?Id=80943
The Senators outplayed Toronto in many of the games and had an overall 238-154 advantage in shots on goal including 37-26 on Tuesday. But the Senators were baffled by Belfour.
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/teams/page/TOR
Toronto meanwhile, is coming off a very tough series against the Senators, one in which they were generally outplayed, but come out on top largely because of the play of Ed Belfour.
But, I guess YOU know a lot more than sports writers...

I think Jacques Martin said it best: "Patrick (Lalime) didn't have a good night, we're not going to hide that, but at the same time I think you win as a team and you lose as a team," said Martin. "We had a chance to come back . . . but Eddie was the difference."

Fine. The Senators lost as a team, and the Leafs won as a team. But the actual play, independant of the score, was performed much better by the Senators as a whole.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Goober, if it's your intent to NOT read my posts, then by all means do so. But please don't post something I've already dealt with:

"When you hear commentators on TV say "The Chiefs were outplayed", usually, they're implicitly implying "the skaters". Fine. It's understood.
When I make my point in here, and people abjectly fail to understand it, it really boggles the mind. If I explained this to Ron McLean, or Scott Oak, or Bob McKenzie, or even Don Cherry - well, okay, that last one may be a stretch - I'm sure they'd grasp what I was saying.
When I talk about how well a team plays, I'm talking about the whole team - the performance of "the team" including the goaltender."

Clear now? When you read about commentators saying that, they're implying "the skaters" NOT "the whole team". Or do you mean to say that they're implying the same thing about Belfour's performance?

You said it yourself, however, quoting Jacques Martin, who, according to you, said it best: "... you win as a team and you lose as a team."

Follow, please: Did Belfour outplay the Senators' skaters? Objectively, probably yes - three shutouts. Did Lalime outplay the Leafs' skaters? Not really - some awful goals in the deciding game - a draw at best, you might say. (If you argue that Lalime outplayed the Leafs' skaters, by how much did each entity outplay the other - by how much did Belfour outplay the Sens skaters and by how much did Lalime outplay the Leafs skaters?)

Now, answer: How is it possible for Belfour to outplay the Senators' skaters, and the Leafs' skaters to at least earn a qualitative draw against Lalime, and yet you argue that *the Senators, as a whole, outplayed the Leafs*?
 

n_v

Banned
Aug 26, 2001
2,006
0
36
Goober Mcfly said:
Fine. The Senators lost as a team, and the Leafs won as a team. But the actual play, independant of the score, was performed much better by the Senators as a whole.
Here here.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Did he say something interesting? Hard to imagine.
I'd guess he was agreeing with Goober.
My point about defending winning teams from the bitterness of losing teams' fans is well taken, it appears.
Oh, Doctor - you could answer the question I asked Goober, as well.
 

The Doctor

Still Without Humour
Jun 2, 2003
2,319
1
0
1060 West Addision
Ranger68 said:
Now, answer: How is it possible for Belfour to outplay the Senators' skaters, and the Leafs' skaters to at least earn a qualitative draw against Lalime, and yet you argue that *the Senators, as a whole, outplayed the Leafs*?
I went through this yesterday regading coaching strategies. You identify the factors for success and you match up with the other team. By most accounts the sens played better in 4 or 5 categories and yet still lost. One thing I think you are forgetting in all of this is that there is an aspect of chance/luck whatever you want to call it that can appear rather randomly thoughtout a game. For example Lalime having brain cramps twice while Joe is coming down the left wing taking bad angle shots. You can't defend against lucky goals but you can't count on them if you want to have consistent success. 9 of 10 times Lalime is going to stop those shots, just like 9 of 10 times if you are outplayed in 4 of 5 categories you will probably get beat.

Was the Leafs victory a fluke, I don't think so. But they were lucky in two situations that resulted in goals that had in impact on how the rest of the game was played. You have to be good to be lucky and lucky to be good.

As I said yesterday, if I'm a betting man I don't like those odds.
 

Goober Mcfly

Retired. -ish
Oct 26, 2001
10,125
11
38
NE
Ranger68 said:
When I talk about how well a team plays, I'm talking about the whole team - the performance of "the team" including the goaltender.
And when I argue with you about this, I'm saying that if 5 guys play shitty, stupid, farked up hockey and the goalie plays stellar, the team AS A WHOLE was outplayed. Five out of six players sucked, one rocked.

Getting clearer?

Also, seeing as you are ignoring my posts:
Originally posted by Ranger68
Here's my premise:
it's almost IMPOSSIBLE - or, let's say, at least very rare - for a team that's outplayed to lose
I think you mean that it's very rare for a team that's outplayed to win.

</clarity>
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
The Doctor said:
I went through this yesterday regading coaching strategies. You identify the factors for success and you match up with the other team. By most accounts the sens played better in 4 or 5 categories and yet still lost. One thing I think you are forgetting in all of this is that there is an aspect of chance/luck whatever you want to call it that can appear rather randomly thoughtout a game. For example Lalime having brain cramps twice while Joe is coming down the left wing taking bad angle shots. You can't defend against lucky goals but you can't count on them if you want to have consistent success. 9 of 10 times Lalime is going to stop those shots, just like 9 of 10 times if you are outplayed in 4 of 5 categories you will probably get beat.

Was the Leafs victory a fluke, I don't think so. But they were lucky in two situations that resulted in goals that had in impact on how the rest of the game was played. You have to be good to be lucky and lucky to be good.

As I said yesterday, if I'm a betting man I don't like those odds.
You didn't really answer my question. All you did was imply that luck was a factor in the Leaf win. That's fine, if that's your stance. Go for it.

My question was, how is it possible for the Leafs' goaltender to outplay the Senators' skaters, the Leafs' skaters NOT to be outplayed by the Senators' goaltender, and yet for the Senators *as a whole* to have outplayed the Leafs? I've identified the two MOST FUNDAMENTAL factors for success - in fact, all of (the on-ice game of) hockey can be broken down into these two categories - skaters and goaltending.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Goober Mcfly said:
And when I argue with you about this, I'm saying that if 5 guys play shitty, stupid, farked up hockey and the goalie plays stellar, the team AS A WHOLE was outplayed. Five out of six players sucked, one rocked.

Getting clearer?

Also, seeing as you are ignoring my posts:


I think you mean that it's very rare for a team that's outplayed to win.

</clarity>
Yeah, I've already fixed that. Moving on ....

I think you're completely misinterpreting what the phrase "as a whole" means. "As a whole" means, taking into account, *in their proper proportion*, all components. Would you say a movie was good if the script was good, the cinematography was good, the costumes were good, the makeup was good, but the acting sucked? Probably not. Why? Because this one factor is more important to the movie *as a whole* than those others.

Here, let's try this:

How well did the Ottawa Senators play this regular season, as a whole? How well did the Toronto Maple Leafs play this regular season, as a whole? How well did they play relative to each other, on the whole?

(BTW, you'll notice that none of those sports guys you've quoted used the term "as a whole" - they use terms like "in general" or "in most games". In fact, they're being very imprecise - a conceit I grant them due to the nature of their jobs. If I were to explain my argument to them, they'd understand what was meant by "as a whole" - this wouldn't be anything new to them. YOU, on the other hand, have inferred from their *imprecision* an *innacurate* statement. Anyway, just answer my question, please. ;) )
 
Toronto Escorts