DDT - 2.21.2008 - Is there such a thing as a "good loss"? [Archive]

rcrook

02/21/08, 03:07 PM

The Giants is a perfect example. That loss in Week 17 against the Pats was a good loss. They didn't lose any ground in the standings, they proved to themselves that it was possible to beat the Pats if they met again. Overall it was a good loss.

preppyak

02/21/08, 03:07 PM

But that loss served as a confidence boost...imagine what it would have done had they won?

The idea I always hear the term used (and why I asked the question), is because a team loses a close game, and they say the "experience" helps them come tourney time in basketball. But wouldn't winning a close game be even better experience? Just like wouldn't ending the perfect season prior to the playoffs have you on cloud 9?

I just always hear the term "good loss" and think what it would have done for that team had they won.

Like Kansas losing to Texas is considered a "good loss", but if they win its even better because they would have the Big 12 locked up right now. I just really can't think that there is a scenario where a team losing helps them more than winning.

Flags of Dawn

02/21/08, 03:09 PM

if they had won, maybe the patriots aren't so cocky and prepare differently and beat them.

preppyak

02/21/08, 03:11 PM

if they had won, maybe the patriots aren't so cocky and prepare differently and beat them.
Yeah...but it could have also served to demoralize that team so that they don't make the playoffs...losing the perfect season at that point...especially since they would have had to sit with it for 2 weeks before playing.

I think the Giants winning is the closest thing I'd consider to a "good loss", but I don't feel losing helped them more than winning would have.

The other thing that made me think was when a team like Duke/UNC loses in the 1st round of the conference tourney, so that they can rest for the 1st round of the tourney, and its called a "good loss" for that too. I dunno, I just think the term becomes overly broad some time that there are too many losses that "help" a team

Flags of Dawn

02/21/08, 03:15 PM

Also true. It seems like the patriots of last year were out to prove something though, so it might have just pissed them off more. Who knows though, its obviously all speculation.

Scott Weber

02/21/08, 03:30 PM

I think there is, I have always though there's no shame in losing the Super Bowl (unless you get blown out) or making the Final Four and bowing out. You still accomplished something pretty damn awesome.

preppyak

02/21/08, 03:32 PM

hmm...hadn't even thought of it that way...like George Mason losing after their tourney run, that was still a good loss seeing as nobody had them in the 2nd round really

looksthatkillbn

02/21/08, 03:50 PM

I've always taken the term "good loss" as not necessarily that it was better to lose than win, but that there is a difference between a "good loss" and a "bad loss"

FondestMemory

02/21/08, 04:05 PM

a loss is a loss.

they all hurt. none are good.

nateisawesome

02/21/08, 04:06 PM

While no one ever wants to lose if a team can take away positive things from the loss that helps make them a better team than I think you could say that it is a good loss

KidRobot

02/21/08, 04:38 PM

a loss is a loss.

they all hurt. none are good.

You don't think the Giants played better throughout the playoffs as a result of their loss in week 17?

Sounds good to me...

LeftWideOpen

02/21/08, 05:16 PM

You don't think the Giants played better throughout the playoffs as a result of their loss in week 17?

Sounds good to me...

it sounds nice, but no. if a loss gives you confidence, then your attitude sucked to begin with (especially if you are a professional athlete as opposed to a kid from a 1-AA or mid major team just losing to a D1 powerhouse). I think a "good loss" is more of a construct made up by fans to take solace in the result.

Scott Weber

02/21/08, 05:22 PM

it sounds nice, but no. if a loss gives you confidence, then your attitude sucked to begin with (especially if you are a professional athlete as opposed to a kid from a 1-AA or mid major team just losing to a D1 powerhouse). I think a "good loss" is more of a construct made up by fans to take solace in the result.
I TOTALLY disagree with that. All losses hurt, but a close loss or a collapse at the end of a game makes you learn things the hard way. You can't learn everything in practices. You learn from your losses and certain games are more influential and important for a team to learn from. A good loss to me is one where your team comes very close, knows they can win, and then makes the adjustments to do so the next time out. This does wonders for confidence and has nothing to do with your attitude "sucking," I find that completely ridiculous.

bjam12

02/21/08, 05:25 PM

I think a loss can be good. I saw a really good basketball team at my old high school go undefeated for a majority of the year and get too cocky. Then when they suffered their first defeat it brought their egos back down and made them refocus, realizing they weren't as good as they first thought. I really think it helped them make them play better ball and get to state. That's just one example.

Scott Weber

02/21/08, 05:29 PM

S/T

02/21/08, 05:40 PM

I think there is such thing as a good loss, but it's never more beneficial than winning.

FondestMemory

02/21/08, 05:47 PM

so are there bad wins?

LeftWideOpen

02/21/08, 05:54 PM

I TOTALLY disagree with that. All losses hurt, but a close loss or a collapse at the end of a game makes you learn things the hard way. You can't learn everything in practices. You learn from your losses and certain games are more influential and important for a team to learn from. A good loss to me is one where your team comes very close, knows they can win, and then makes the adjustments to do so the next time out. This does wonders for confidence and has nothing to do with your attitude "sucking," I find that completely ridiculous.

well i think theres a difference between learning from a loss and a loss being "good". yes, you can learn from losses. but i wouldnt call any loss "good", from the standpoint that i don't think any player should walk away happy from a loss. as a player, you should go into every game expecting to win.

nfggc10

02/21/08, 05:54 PM

No, if any athlete feels a sense of accomplishment after losing a game then I want them traded from my team immediately. You can look at some of the most mentally tough players whether it's Jordan or Tiger and they'll never feel anything but disappointment/frustration after losing. If you feel good after a loss then you're expectations aren't high enough.

nfggc10

02/21/08, 05:55 PM

S/T

02/21/08, 05:55 PM

Scott Weber

02/21/08, 05:58 PM

well i think theres a difference between learning from a loss and a loss being "good". yes, you can learn from losses. but i wouldnt call any loss "good", from the standpoint that i don't think any player should walk away happy from a loss. as a player, you should go into every game expecting to win.
I just think your definition of good is totally skewed. Since when does good ONLY mean happy? satisfying? Good means something GOOD comes of it, whether it's productive, a learning experience, or whatever. That's what it means to me...I don't think anybody thinks losing should make you happy...

nfggc10

02/21/08, 05:58 PM

I wouldn't say so. If you're playing a basketball game and you lead the whole game by 30 and then end up holding on to win by 1 at the end at least you learned something. Sure, it was a bad spell, but you'll have atleast gained some expereince closing out games.Yeah regardless of how you win there's still confidence gained. There's not a type of loss that should lead to a sense of accomplishment. I mean if you play great and lose then you either learned that your best isn't good enough or your expectations of your own abilities are too low. If you play poorly and only lose by 1 then you're still playing poorly and have to fix it if you want to improve and start winning.

kshtoinks12

02/21/08, 06:00 PM

If a loss puts you in position to draft a sure thing NFL superstar as opposed to dropping down, I think it can be a good loss.

nfggc10

02/21/08, 06:02 PM

If a loss puts you in position to draft a sure thing NFL superstar as opposed to dropping down, I think it can be a good loss.That's a good loss for fans in that it puts your team in a position to improve. But for the players they're still going to be pissed off they lost. If players are throwing games or would rather lose them to gain something like a better draft position then they don't have the mentality to play at a high level.

kshtoinks12

02/21/08, 06:11 PM

That's a good loss for fans in that it puts your team in a position to improve. But for the players they're still going to be pissed off they lost. If players are throwing games or would rather lose them to gain something like a better draft position then they don't have the mentality to play at a high level.I agree, but on the whole, it can be a good loss for a franchise. Throwing games is clearly anathema at the pro level, but that doesn't mean it can't put you in a better position.

KidRobot

02/21/08, 06:30 PM

so are there bad wins?

If a bunch of your players get injured I suppose.

FondestMemory

02/21/08, 06:39 PM

You don't think the Giants played better throughout the playoffs as a result of their loss in week 17?

Sounds good to me...

i'm not convinced they would have played worse if they'd have won the game in week 17.

If a bunch of your players get injured I suppose.

that doesn't make any sense. players can get injured just as easily in a win than in a loss.

if a bunch of players get hurt, that's a bad game. getting a win out of it would at least be some positive.

preppyak

02/21/08, 06:42 PM

so are there bad wins?
I wouldn't say so. If you're playing a basketball game and you lead the whole game by 30 and then end up holding on to win by 1 at the end at least you learned something. Sure, it was a bad spell, but you'll have atleast gained some expereince closing out games.
See...I believe there are bad wins...games where teams play horribly and escape and then just look at their record for solace. I think most of the games the Pats played in the end of the regular season were bad wins...barely escaping the Eagles, Ravens, etc and allowing themselves to think "it built character, at least we got that win and it can prepare us for the playoffs" rather then genuinely figuring out why they let teams that could get a pass rush on Brady nearly destroy them

And it cost them in the playoffs.

Likewise, KU in 2004, wins most of their conference games but never very convincingly, and what it does is start them on a streak to lose in the 1st round. They were a team taht was absolutely that cocky to believe that because they were winning, they were good...and Bradley showed them otherwise

KidRobot

02/21/08, 06:43 PM

i'm not convinced they would have played worse if they'd have won the game in week 17.

Its not good per say that the lost obviously but to say they were better off not playing that game is stupid.

that doesn't make any sense. players can get injured just as easily in a win than in a loss.

if a bunch of players get hurt, that's a bad game. getting a win out of it would at least be some positive.

If the Patriots won Week 17 but lost Brady, Moss and Welker they would've been better off if they lost and kept all their players healthy?

preppyak

02/21/08, 06:47 PM

If the Patriots won Week 17 but lost Brady, Moss and Welker they would've been better off if they lost and kept all their players healthy?
But those are two seperate games...i think the intention of bad win is that by winning the game, it hurts you maybe more than if you lost

If they lose all those players and lose the game, it is way worse than winning the game...but for example I think had Kansas winning their games in February of 2004 hurt them, because they never re-adjusted for tournament time, and when Langford was hurt, they sucked hard

FondestMemory

02/21/08, 06:49 PM

Its not good per say that the lost obviously but to say they were better off not playing that game is stupid.

what? i can't translate that enough to know what point you're trying to make.

If the Patriots won Week 17 but lost Brady, Moss and Welker they would've been better off if they lost and kept all their players healthy?

that's a whole other debate about whether or not you should rest your starters. if you lose all of them and still win the game, you're better off than losing them all and losing the game.

KidRobot

02/21/08, 06:50 PM

But those are two seperate games...i think the intention of bad win is that by winning the game, it hurts you maybe more than if you lost

If they lose all those players and lose the game, it is way worse than winning the game...but for example I think had Kansas winning their games in February of 2004 hurt them, because they never re-adjusted for tournament time, and when Langford was hurt, they sucked hard

I agree with your scenario above also. I think they go both ways.

what? i can't translate that enough to know what point you're trying to make.

Were the Giants better off going into the playoffs after Week 16 or Week 17?

that's a whole other debate about whether or not you should rest your starters. if you lose all of them and still win the game, you're better off than losing them all and losing the game.

I suppose, but it still can make it a bad win.

nfggc10

02/21/08, 06:51 PM

See...I believe there are bad wins...games where teams play horribly and escape and then just look at their record for solace. I think most of the games the Pats played in the end of the regular season were bad wins...barely escaping the Eagles, Ravens, etc and allowing themselves to think "it built character, at least we got that win and it can prepare us for the playoffs" rather then genuinely figuring out why they let teams that could get a pass rush on Brady nearly destroy them

And it cost them in the playoffs.I don't really understand your point. The Pats looked at their record as a sign that regardless of how they played they were still able to find ways to win. And just because you win doesn't mean you sit back and ignore the process of improving every aspect of your team.

Even if you know why teams are succeeding against you in certain areas that doesn't mean that you have the talent or the players' abilities on that particular day to adjust or fight off the opposition.

preppyak

02/21/08, 06:54 PM

I don't really understand your point. The Pats looked at their record as a sign that regardless of how they played they were still able to find ways to win. And just because you win doesn't mean you sit back and ignore the process of improving every aspect of your team.

Even if you know why teams are succeeding against you in certain areas that doesn't mean that you have the talent or the players' abilities on that particular day to adjust or fight off the opposition.
Yeah....I agree there...it just felt like that every close game they had was because of the same reasons...and that they never truly adjusted to it, either in game at the Super Bowl, or really for the last 6-7 weeks as a whole.

FondestMemory

02/21/08, 06:58 PM

Were the Giants better off going into the playoffs after Week 16 or Week 17?

the giants were playing well the weeks leading up to the pats game. it's not like they just instantly started playing well that game and never stopped.

would the giants have been better off going into the playoffs with the confidence in knowing they could beat the pats, or going in with the confidence knowing that they could play the pats close?

rcrook

02/21/08, 07:02 PM

I agree, but on the whole, it can be a good loss for a franchise. Throwing games is clearly anathema at the pro level, but that doesn't mean it can't put you in a better position.

woah woah woah this isnt the place or the topic to be throwing this word around, i didnt even know that was a word until i looked it up. for all you people who are normal and dont use words like anathema it means something that is loathed or detested. i can use it in a sentence for you.

kshtoinks12's investment skills and ms paint skills are anathema to us.

KidRobot

02/21/08, 07:03 PM

the giants were playing well the weeks leading up to the pats game. it's not like they just instantly started playing well that game and never stopped.

:shudder:

What team were you watching? The Giants got destroyed by the Redskins where Eli looked like he never threw a pass before and then they won a sloppy game in Buffalo that they were down in the 4th until a few plays went their way.

Believe me when I tell you, going into the playoffs, the Giants did not seem like a team with confidence.

would the giants have been better off going into the playoffs with the confidence in knowing they could beat the pats, or going in with the confidence knowing that they could play the pats close?

Its all speculation...but I think they would've been almost equal. Either way, the Giants got a new found confidence and focus that they did not have prior to the Patriots game.

rcrook

02/21/08, 07:07 PM

why are we still talking about the giants and pats?

KidRobot

02/21/08, 07:08 PM

why are we still talking about the giants and pats?

Because they're two great examples of the topic...

kshtoinks12

02/21/08, 07:23 PM

woah woah woah this isnt the place or the topic to be throwing this word around, i didnt even know that was a word until i looked it up. for all you people who are normal and dont use words like anathema it means something that is loathed or detested. i can use it in a sentence for you.

kshtoinks12's investment skills and ms paint skills are anathema to us.Cool word eh? I learned it a while ago and saw it on a video game recently.

Another example could be if the Yankees lost with all their back-ups to a wild card team that replaced the dangerous surging Red Sox in the playoffs because of that loss.

Obviously not what happen, but you get the idea.

LeftWideOpen

02/21/08, 08:25 PM

I just think your definition of good is totally skewed. Since when does good ONLY mean happy? satisfying? Good means something GOOD comes of it, whether it's productive, a learning experience, or whatever. That's what it means to me...I don't think anybody thinks losing should make you happy...

the point i'm getting at, to steal from my boy Herm, is this: you play to win the game.

you can certainly learn a lot from a loss but when you consider your main objective, there is no such thing as a good loss. the learning is nothing but a consolation. i dont think losing brings any satisfaction to a professional athlete.

Scott Weber

02/21/08, 08:29 PM

the point i'm getting at, to steal from my boy Herm, is this: you play to win the game.

you can certainly learn a lot from a loss but when you consider your main objective, there is no such thing as a good loss. the learning is nothing but a consolation. i dont think losing brings any satisfaction to a professional athlete.
No, i hear you. I just think we have different definitions of what's "good." At the moment, a loss is never good. But good can come on it, which is why I think the term good loss is used.

micahistheballs

02/21/08, 09:54 PM

deadstar

02/23/08, 07:36 AM

The Pens getting their ass kicked by the Flyers a few months ago was a good loss. Not only did they come together as a team through fighting and standing up for their teammates and coach, but they also finally woke up and realized they cant cruise into the playoffs. Been a different team since then.