... Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 What, are you suggesting that the Blackhawks are going to intentionally throw their game on the 3rd? I'm only suggesting that as much as a team can be a spoiler for playoff teams, teams not in the bottom 4 or 5 can be spoilers for the tanking teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 I'm only suggesting that as much as a team can be a spoiler for playoff teams, teams not in the bottom 4 or 5 can be spoilers for the tanking teams.Not following your logic. No team is going to intentionally lose to Edmonton or Arizona, just like neither of them will intentionally lose; though the way the teams have been crafted they lose a lot more than they win. Somehow a team is going to try extra hard to beat a team they consider a creampuff just to hose the Sabres? And of Sabres adversaries, other than TO which appears to have quit, who is going to lie down and intentionally give the Sabres a point or 2? The Sabres have played 3 games against the 28th and 29th team; they've lost all 3 games. Their current position in 30th has been earned. They might go on a tear and pass one or both teams ahead of them; but people right now are giving that a 5% chance of occurring. It COULD happen, but it isn't very likely. And it won't be because some other teams wanted to shaft the Sabres. The Sabres, Eulers, and Desert Dogs players and coaches aren't intentionally losing; if teams that could reap a benefit by tanking aren't losing on purpose, why would teams that can't reap a benefit do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) A team out of the playoffs, but too high to get anywhere near the bottom, or a team comfortably high up in the playoff rankings, might have an objection to the tank. If they have this objection, why wouldn't they want to act as a spoiler? And, acting as a spoiler, in this instance, means LOSING. So, I think there's no trying here, the strategy would be no different than Murray has had all season. Why would a team out of the playoffs want to act as a spoiler to a playoff team? What benefit is there to doing that? Yet, lots of games near the end of the season are set up that way. Anyway, I'm not saying it WILL happen, all I am saying is that it CAN happen. Edited March 27, 2015 by SiZzlEmIsTEr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 A team out of the playoffs, but too high to get anywhere near the bottom, or a team comfortably high up in the playoff rankings, might have an objection to the tank. If they have this objection, why wouldn't they want to act as a spoiler? And, acting as a spoiler, in this instance, means LOSING. So, I think there's no trying here, the strategy would be no different than Murray has had all season. Why would a team out of the playoffs want to act as a spoiler to a playoff team? What benefit is there to doing that? Yet, lots of games near the end of the season are set up that way. Why would, for example, Chicago want to "spoil" the Sabres' chances but not Arizona's or Edmonton's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 A team out of the playoffs, but too high to get anywhere near the bottom, or a team comfortably high up in the playoff rankings, might have an objection to the tank. If they have this objection, why wouldn't they want to act as a spoiler? And, acting as a spoiler, in this instance, means LOSING. So, I think there's no trying here, the strategy would be no different than Murray has had all season. Why would a team out of the playoffs want to act as a spoiler to a playoff team? What benefit is there to doing that? Yet, lots of games near the end of the season are set up that way. Anyway, I'm not saying it WILL happen, all I am saying is that it CAN happen. Why would, for example, Chicago want to "spoil" the Sabres' chances but not Arizona's or Edmonton's? Good question. An even better one; why would a professional athlete EVER lose on purpose if he doesn't stand to directly benefit from the loss? When his career is over, he's got his stats to look back on; why would he intentionally sully them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) Why would, for example, Chicago want to "spoil" the Sabres' chances but not Arizona's or Edmonton's? An even better one; why would a professional athlete EVER lose on purpose if he doesn't stand to directly benefit from the loss? When his career is over, he's got his stats to look back on; why would he intentionally sully them? Because if tanking is such a principled blow to the players and/or the league, this would be their chance to affect it directly. What are a few games worth of stats when you can stick it to the poster-boy-team of NHL tanking? Besides, if the GM or coach altered the rosters to do this, the players would have no choice anyway, and they aren't intentionally throwing the game. WTF? It's just an idle thought and now I feel like I have to explain fancy stats. Why would a pro athlete EVER lose on purpose - period. Yet, here we are, talking about our tanking Sabres. How does that happen? Not by the players' doing, right? Pittsburgh or the Islanders might want to help spoil the Sabres chances at McEichel because they don't want that player in their division. Edited March 27, 2015 by SiZzlEmIsTEr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Why would, for example, Chicago want to "spoil" the Sabres' chances but not Arizona's or Edmonton's? Because everyone in the league is *Soooooo* mad a Buffalo they'll do anything to get between us and cup, even if it means some other team gets great players. In this case, I'm sure Chicago wants McDavid to be in the East, and "spoiling" Buffalo only makes that less likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Because if tanking is such a principled blow to the players, this would be their chance to affect it directly. What are a few games worth of stats when you can stick it to the poster-boy-team of NHL tanking? Besides, if the GM or coach altered the rosters to do this, the players would have no choice anyway, and they aren't intentionally throwing the game. WTF? It's just idle speculation and now I feel like I have to explain fancy stats. Why would a pro athlete EVER lose on purpose - period. Yet, here we are, talking about our tanking Sabres. How does that happen? Not by the players' doing, right? Pittsburgh or the Islanders might want to help spoil the Sabres chances at McEichel because they don't want that player in their division. Is there 1 single person on this board that believes that TN or the players are tanking intentionally? If they aren't, why would teams battling for playoff position lose intentionally? I'll drop the subject after this post. (At least I expect this will be my last on this subject. ;)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Is there 1 single person on this board that believes that TN or the players are tanking intentionally? If they aren't, why would teams battling for playoff position lose intentionally? I'll drop the subject after this post. (At least I expect this will be my last on this subject. ;)) At this point, I have to believe you're not reading my posts on this distraction. Have a great weekend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 At this point, I have to believe you're not reading my posts on this distraction. Have a great weekend! I am reading them. They don't make sense. I think you're imitating your avatar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 In my mind it just comes down to the fact that playing "spoiler" against a playoff team is all well and good, because it involves the team attempting to do so WINNING. No team would LOSE on purpose to play spoiler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 I am reading them. They don't make sense. I think you're imitating your avatar. Of course I'm not making any sense. Just setting myself up for your inevitable insults. Hope you enjoyed the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) In my mind it just comes down to the fact that playing "spoiler" against a playoff team is all well and good, because it involves the team attempting to do so WINNING. No team would LOSE on purpose to play spoiler.WHY NOT? This is, apparently, the difficult concept here. It seems that the idea a team would want to lose a game purposefully is so left field, folks simply can not grasp the possibility. The idea is so...fuzzy...that the brain can't latch onto the meaning of the words that follow. My suggestion is that, if tanking is SO morally corrupt, so reprehensible, why wouldn't a team that is in a position to lose very little by so doing, why wouldn't a team try and derail the aim of a team that is tanking? The reason, as implied, would be to teach a lesson, to, in effect, send the message "this is what we think of your tank." Being that tanking is so mal-principaled, a team, or GM, or owner could perhaps get behind such an audacious act for one game, if but to wave the anti-tank flag for the world to see. Whacky, crazy, it would never happen because the annual sports narratives are set in stone, but, again, an idle thought thrown out to consider. Or not. Or, a fouled tablet upon which to excercise your inferiority complexes. Edited March 28, 2015 by SiZzlEmIsTEr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 WHY NOT? This is, apparently, the difficult concept here. It seems that the idea a team would want to lose a game purposefully is so left field, folks simply can not grasp the possibility. The idea is so...fuzzy...that the brain can't latch onto the meaning of the words that follow. My suggestion is that, if tanking is SO morally corrupt, so reprehensible, why wouldn't a team that is in a position to lose very little by so doing, why wouldn't a team try and derail the aim of a team that is tanking? The reason, as implied, would be to teach a lesson, to, in effect, send the message "this is what we think of your tank." Being that tanking is so mal-principaled, a team, or GM, or owner could perhaps get behind such an audacious act for one game, if but to wave the anti-tank flag for the world to see. Whacky, crazy, it would never happen because the annual sports narratives are set in stone, but, again, an idle thought thrown out to consider. Or not. Or, a fouled tablet upon which to excercise your inferiority complexes. Why would the players ever do that though? They aren't going to take it upon themselves to throw a game and jeopardize their career to "teach" another team a lesson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 WHY NOT? This is, apparently, the difficult concept here. It seems that the idea a team would want to lose a game purposefully is so left field, folks simply can not grasp the possibility. The idea is so...fuzzy...that the brain can't latch onto the meaning of the words that follow. My suggestion is that, if tanking is SO morally corrupt, so reprehensible, why wouldn't a team that is in a position to lose very little by so doing, why wouldn't a team try and derail the aim of a team that is tanking? The reason, as implied, would be to teach a lesson, to, in effect, send the message "this is what we think of your tank." Being that tanking is so mal-principaled, a team, or GM, or owner could perhaps get behind such an audacious act for one game, if but to wave the anti-tank flag for the world to see. Whacky, crazy, it would never happen because the annual sports narratives are set in stone, but, again, an idle thought thrown out to consider. Or not. Or, a fouled tablet upon which to excercise your inferiority complexes. I suppose it is possible, but I'd say very unlikely. It would be pretty hypocritical for a team to tank a game in order to take a stand against tanking, though, right? The old two wrongs don't make a right idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Oh well atleast the oilers are at a good distance now, roy came through for us :D Also notest he wearing an "A" last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) WHY NOT? This is, apparently, the difficult concept here. It seems that the idea a team would want to lose a game purposefully is so left field, folks simply can not grasp the possibility. The idea is so...fuzzy...that the brain can't latch onto the meaning of the words that follow. We know that the players won't do it. We can't even get our players under long-term contracts (Ennis, Moulson, etc.) to do it and they would stand to benefit far more from a successful tank than another teams' players would stand to benefit from derailing it. Too many players on that team would not be in comfortable positions (long-term contracts), themselves, so they will play hard for their own best interests. Losing a game on purpose (not just thinning the roster, but actually playing on the ice to lose) is morally reprehensible and no GM/Coach is going to walk into the dressing room and say, "let's teach these tankers a lesson tonight, boys; go out there and lose one for the moral high ground." Team-wise, the only exception seems to be Toronto, whose "stars" are mailing in every game. As for roster manipulation, it can be done when rebuilding by trading off players for future assets (even that takes time, not to mention an open trading season), but there's not much that can be done in the short-run to affect one game. They are limited in call-ups and there would certainly be outrage from the players if some of them are sat in favor of lesser players just to prove a point. I don't see any of them doing much more than playing the backup goaltender. Oh well atleast the oilers are at a good distance now, roy came through for us :D Also notest he wearing an "A" last night. Not to mention one heck of a "playoff" beard. Edited March 28, 2015 by carpandean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) http://i.imgur.com/mQFHuV3.jpg Maybe Lindy really belonged in Dallas all along. Edited March 28, 2015 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Is that miner 49er ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/mQFHuV3.jpg Maybe Lindy really belonged in Dallas all along. Pretty close. But it's not Paul MacLean and his uncanny doppleganger in Ottawa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 WHY NOT? This is, apparently, the difficult concept here. It seems that the idea a team would want to lose a game purposefully is so left field, folks simply can not grasp the possibility. The idea is so...fuzzy...that the brain can't latch onto the meaning of the words that follow. My suggestion is that, if tanking is SO morally corrupt, so reprehensible, why wouldn't a team that is in a position to lose very little by so doing, why wouldn't a team try and derail the aim of a team that is tanking? The reason, as implied, would be to teach a lesson, to, in effect, send the message "this is what we think of your tank." Being that tanking is so mal-principaled, a team, or GM, or owner could perhaps get behind such an audacious act for one game, if but to wave the anti-tank flag for the world to see. Whacky, crazy, it would never happen because the annual sports narratives are set in stone, but, again, an idle thought thrown out to consider. Or not. Or, a fouled tablet upon which to excercise your inferiority complexes. If Toronto is already out of the McEichel sweepstakes in three games, I could see them wanting to lose to keep him out of their division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
French Collection Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Sports net saying Sabrès may have inside track on BU goalie Matt O'Connor. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/west-coast-bias-oilers-play-oconnor/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Sports net saying Sabrès may have inside track on BU goalie Matt O'Connor. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/west-coast-bias-oilers-play-oconnor/ Sweet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 If Toronto is already out of the McEichel sweepstakes in three games, I could see them wanting to lose to keep him out of their division. San Jose could do same in their two games with the yotes. Lower Arizona's chances while increasing their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 San Jose could do same in their two games with the yotes. Lower Arizona's chances while increasing their own. That's the key right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.