Outplaying vs. Winning

[Drunken Master]

Ranger, your exclusive focus on semantics makes arguing pointless and aggravting.

You choose to define "team" in a certain way - that includes all players on the ice. This makes "team" a whole, single unit, an indivisible sum of its parts. This is fine, and making such a definition (which is valid on its face) makes your argument at least factually correct. But it makes intelligent dicussion of the problem impossible.

The "team" is not some Platonic ideal whole. If we cannot divide the "team" into its constituent parts and analyse their contribution, we quite simply loose out ability to speak intelligently about the whole.

Okay?

 

[Goober Mcfly]

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.

In your example, yes, I would say that "as a whole", the movie was good but it was unfortunate the acting sucked. I'll even go so far as giving you an example. The Matrix (Original). The story was awesome, the cinematography was great, the costumes were good, the sound was good, most of the acting was good but *gasp*, Keanu Reeves couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag! So, should I now say that the movie sucked? Or pick a movie that had GOOD acting and a shitty story, sound, cinematography, etc and say that THAT movie is a much better movie?

Are you seeing my point yet?

YOU say that goaltending is the most important part of a hockey team. I say, no. It is a VERY important part, but not the most important. If you don't have at least SOME offence, you're done. That's why I originally gave props to Nieuwendyk, Roberts and McCabe as well as Belfour. So, there you go: Belfour, Nieuwendyk, Roberts and McCabe OUTPLAYED the Senators. But that's as far as I'm willing to go, and everything I've said so far is my opinion only.

In MY opinion, MOST of the Senators players out-shot, out-hustled, out-worked, out-hit, out-chanced and out-played the Leafs. Generally speaking, of course. There were games that the Leafs out-played the Senators (game 5 for example). ON THE WHOLE, however, the Senators out-played the Leafs.

And there's absolutely NOTHING you're going to say that will make me think otherwise. Sorry.

 

[The Doctor]

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. )

*runs out of office screaming to go play ball hockey on the 401*

 

[Ranger68]

Ranger, your exclusive focus on semantics makes arguing pointless and aggravting.

You choose to define "team" in a certain way - that includes all players on the ice. This makes "team" a whole, single unit, an indivisible sum of its parts. This is fine, and making such a definition (which is valid on its face) makes your argument at least factually correct. But it makes intelligent dicussion of the problem impossible.

The "team" is not some Platonic ideal whole. If we cannot divide the "team" into its constituent parts and analyse their contribution, we quite simply loose out ability to speak intelligently about the whole.

Okay?

Yeah, sorry. My definition of "team" includes the goaltender. Wow.

How does it make intelligent discussion impossible exactly?!?! Go ahead and divide the team up and discuss the individual components all you like!

If you want to discuss *individual components of the team*, go ahead! I encourage it:
the Senators' skaters badly outplayed the Leafs' skaters;
the Leafs' goaltending badly outplayed the Senators' goaltending.
Break it down as far as you like. I LOVE analysis. I think the Leafs D played about as well as the Senators D, but their forwards fairly creamed ours. Go ahead and talk about individual players!

Who's stopping you?!?!

But, the fact remains - the Leaf TEAM outplayed the Senators TEAM. If this is aggravating, I can't help that.
Frankly, it's far more aggravating for someone to say the one team outplayed another, and in doing so COMPLETELY IGNORES GOALTENDING.

 

[Ranger68]

In your example, yes, I would say that "as a whole", the movie was good but it was unfortunate the acting sucked. I'll even go so far as giving you an example. The Matrix (Original). The story was awesome, the cinematography was great, the costumes were good, the sound was good, most of the acting was good but *gasp*, Keanu Reeves couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag! So, should I now say that the movie sucked? Or pick a movie that had GOOD acting and a shitty story, sound, cinematography, etc and say that THAT movie is a much better movie?

Are you seeing my point yet?

Believe it or not, I've ALWAYS seen your point. I guess, in my analysis, I wasn't clear enough. Suppose all of those elements you stated were good, but that ALL THE ACTING, not just Keanu Reeves - I did say "the acting", not just one guy's acting - all of it was bad. I'd say you probably wouldn't have liked the movie. Again, because it's hard to get around one thing sometimes.

Anyway, you've NEVER seen a movie which had lots of good elements but was sunk by one particular (probably important) element being bad? I wasn't talking about the Matrix, so you didn't answer my question. You imagined A SINGLE EXAMPLE in which it wasn't true.

Your counterpoint would have been better if Belfour was great in ONE game, but only average in the others. In which case, the Leafs would have lost.

YOU say that goaltending is the most important part of a hockey team. I say, no. It is a VERY important part, but not the most important. If you don't have at least SOME offence, you're done. That's why I originally gave props to Nieuwendyk, Roberts and McCabe as well as Belfour. So, there you go: Belfour, Nieuwendyk, Roberts and McCabe OUTPLAYED the Senators. But that's as far as I'm willing to go, and everything I've said so far is my opinion only.

To be clear, the goaltender is the single most important player on the hockey team. This is an absolute truth. Roughly the only more important things are overall team offense and overall team defense, which are equally important to each other. The Leafs DID have SOME offense. Enough to score more than the Sens, but that's beside the point.

In MY opinion, MOST of the Senators players out-shot, out-hustled, out-worked, out-hit, out-chanced and out-played the Leafs. Generally speaking, of course. There were games that the Leafs out-played the Senators (game 5 for example). ON THE WHOLE, however, the Senators out-played the Leafs.

And there's absolutely NOTHING you're going to say that will make me think otherwise. Sorry.

I agree that MOST of the Senators players did everything better, including outplaying their counterparts. Lalime was not one of them, and that led to THE TEAM being OUTPLAYED overall.

You could at least TRY to answer my question, by the way ......
or .....

 

[Ranger68]

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?

... I'll answer it for you.

The Ottawa Senators finished one point behind the Leafs this year. THAT'S how well they played, on the whole. You can break that down, but then it would no longer be "on the whole". It would be "They finished first in offense" or whatever. The Leafs, during the regular season, OUTPLAYED the Senators.

In the series just finished, on the whole, the Senators were OUTPLAYED by the Leafs, by a similarly slim margin.

You can repeat the opposite as often as you like, but that doesn't make it true. I'll even help you out: what IS true is that MOST of the Senators players outplayed MOST of the Leafs players. That's something to take into the off-season with. It's something you already know.
To say that the team, as a whole, outplayed the Leafs, as a whole, is just ignoring the obvious - that they lost the series.

 

[The Doctor]

Can that be classified as talking to yourself?

 

[Ranger68]

Of course.
I wasn't talking to you.
Or you.
Hey, keep it down!
*ahem*

 

[superquad1968]

This whole thread gave me a headache.

Ranger68: Do you like arguing with yourself? If you argue something long enough eventually you will believe it. As a leaf fan, along with most of the general public who have an ounce of common sense, I can willingly admit that without a doubt that if it were not for one Eddie Belfour this series would have been over in 4 games.

We are already into round 2. Get over it.

SQ

 

[Ranger68]

SQ, I agree that if it weren't for Belfour we wouldn't be in round two.

So, what exactly should I get over? I can't help it if you can't read.

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

Thanks for contributing, though.

 

[superquad1968]

Why the Mudslinging?

I get your argument and in fact i can read. I just don't wish to split hairs or atoms and argue anything that divorces itself from common sense. Though I doubt that you understand common sense. That is my one and only discussion point.

*gone to join the Doctor on the 401. CAR!!!!!*

 

[HowardHughes]

Okay...the way I see it is this...it really doesn't matter who played the "better" game - this is a debate which will go on forever.

What matters in the end is who is in the "win" column, and who isn't.

The Leafs won, maybe or maybe not playing as well as Ottawa, but they advanced.

I think this should really be put to rest, as before you know it, we'll start arguing what is better, metric or imperial...

 

[n_v]

metric.

 

[The Doctor]

Imperial!

 

[n_v]

Metric!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Doctor]

Imperial!

 

[n_v]

Metric!

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Cubits!

 

[shack]

"What's a cubit?" (Noah)

 

[shack]

San Jose was outplayed as a team last night. If it wasn't for Marleau scoring 3 goals they probably would have lost.