So I was talking hockey with someone this morning, and I was trying to explain how the Flames this year (compared to last year) are able to win games and also not lose games. This digressed into a "wtf are you even talking about" moment (which I get a lot), and it left me wondering...
How is it difficult to understand the difference between winning and not losing?
Winning: You actively control and ultimately win the game. These are games that, regardless of the score, aren't even close. Not losing: You do enough to win, but more importantly, you limit mistakes and shut down any comeback attempts or late-game heroics.
I've noticed that this year's team has won quite a few games this season in both fashions. Which, in my memory, is in stark contrast to the team we saw last season.
I have always viewed this in the larger philosophical respect. I feel like as scoring in the NHL dried up in the 90's, teams started playing entirely different. In the goal happy 80's, you played to win. You played to score as many as you could and if that meant giving up a few along the way, so be it. But then as scoring declined and systems came into play, you played not to lose. You played for the tie. You played for the OT point. You didn't worry about scoring as much as you did limiting mistakes.
I could very well be making a mountain out of a molehill, but I see it as the fundamental shift in hockey in the last 20 years. So from that perspective, I do think your point would hold on the micro level.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
I'm more familiar with playing to win vs playing not to lose.
You'll often see teams with a lead squeeze their sticks too tight and play very timidly. Playing not to lose rather than keep rolling along.
In terms of momentum I think a win's a win. Garbage go counts the same as a beauty.
Take yesterday's game. First goal deflected in off the defender's leg. Second goal was highlight reel by Gio. Regardless still 2-0, no extra points for the fake then deke.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
I think a good example of this shift is the way games at the Duck pond have gone for the Flames over the last LONG while to recently. How many of the curse games were they seconds away from winning, to lose in OT....or up by multiple goals, to let the lead slip away...
The Following User Says Thank You to Stillman16 For This Useful Post:
I've always equated "playing not to lose" as meaning the team is playing too passive, sitting back with a lead. Usually the term is used in a negative way, implying that the team playing that way will get caught flat and give up the lead.
I think a good example of this shift is the way games at the Duck pond have gone for the Flames over the last LONG while to recently. How many of the curse games were they seconds away from winning, to lose in OT....or up by multiple goals, to let the lead slip away...
Yes, thank you! That’s the way I should have explained it. All those games in Anaheim where we deserved to win but still found ways to lose. Those are perfect examples. Getting distracted by Perry punching guys on our bench, or retaliating against Kessler and taking stupid penalties and then letting them get in our heads, etc.
This team seems immune to that stuff this year (for the most part), and so we’re not only winning games by just beating our opponents... we’re also not losing the types of games we used to find ways to lose.
I always kind of looked at the game outcome being either more because the winning team won, or more because the losing team lost.
The losing team losing was often seen with the Gulutzan Flames. You know - bad turnovers, odd man rushes, backbreaking goals, failing to generate offense, folding like a tent.
I do hope the Flames get out of this dreadful offensive funk and start scoring more than 2 goals on 30 plus shots. This is a change this year, they are not finding ways to lose those ones
for a number of years i was the primary 'sports photographer' for the school my wife teaches at (all the pics i took went to the year book group that would then select pics to go in the year book). i was shooting a game for the sr boys soccer team and they were playing one of the top teams in the valley (the sr boys team from the other school was always at provincials and won it quite a bit... so they were good).
surprisingly, at half time (is that what they call the break half way thru a soccer game?) the score was still 0-0. i was chatting with the coach from my wife's school and i mentioned the score and he told me they were not playing to win - they were playing not to lose... basically doing everything in their power to keep it a 0-0 game.
at the end of the game my wife's school had been grossly out shot - the game was played pretty much completely in their end of the field (i think they only had 2 shots all game on the other goalie). amazingly, the score was still 0-0.
the kids from my wife's school we elated... like they just 'won it all'
the kids from the other school were so upset - swearing like crazy and totally p.o.-ed that the game ended 0-0.
that has been my only experience with the phrase 'playing not to lose'.
__________________ "...and there goes Finger up the middle on Luongo!" - Jim Hughson, Av's vs. 'Nucks
playing not to lose means as the better team you are sitting back, taking a more defensive posture, assuming that you will score more more goal than your opposition.
as a fan it is always nice to see your team win, but would you rather they win 2-1 most of the time of 6-4?
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
I see the way you guys are interpreting it, and even how that is probably the common way it is applied.
I guess the OP is trying to say, the Flames are winning, and not also finding ways to lose the games they did in previous years. They are more composed, less fragile, and able to close out games much better than before.
The Following User Says Thank You to Stillman16 For This Useful Post:
I think you are using playing not to lose in a different context than its typically used.
I think the best example for your position is tire fire to the North. They win by limiting scoring chances for both teams and hoping they get the lucky bounces go their way or get it to overtime. Calgary this year goes out an plays becuase it knows that it will outchance the opposition every night so in the long term they win games.
Winning vs Not Losing: That's a thing, right?
