The Theory Of a "Good" Loss

[TwistofRKO]

There is a theory that a loss can be good for a team, while others believe there is no such thing. Let's have a brief overview of each:

Pro-Good Loss: A loss is relatively bad when compared to a win, but can be good compared to other losses. Showing no competitiveness signals a bad loss and shouldn't be uttered on the same level as losing to an even or better team in a close effort.

Anti-Good Loss: A loss shows an inability to execute to the extent of victory. It can halt momentum, and flurry a team out of control. Winning is the point of playing, and as much can be learned from a win as a close loss.

You can add, re-summarize, and/or choice your side on this.

I, personally, relate more with the Anti-Good loss world. There are no absolutes, but in most cases I see no true evidence for a "good" loss bringing anything extra to a team as compared to winning the battle instead.

I'll throw in more of my opinion once (hopefully) this gets going.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I think it depends on the team and who they are facing. If a really good team loses a good game to a bad team, then it's not a good loss. On the other hand, is a bad team plays a good team well, then it is a good loss. So, I guess that a good loss does exist, but certain conditions need to be fit. I hope that makes sense, lol

 

[TwistofRKO]

[QUOTE="Lionheart" Thrill Jericho;1143061]I think it depends on the team and who they are facing. If a really good team loses a good game to a bad team, then it's not a good loss. On the other hand, is a bad team plays a good team well, then it is a good loss. So, I guess that a good loss does exist, but certain conditions need to be fit. I hope that makes sense, lol[/QUOTE]

But what is gained out of the loss?

The Lions ended up 0-16, and they had some close losses. They lost to the Vikings, a playoff team, 12-10, but that didn't seem to spiral them into anything positive.

I couldn't get on board with this theory unless something is gained within the loss, which I find very rare, personally.

 

[Thriller Ant]

I think the big thing with this theory is another theory: momentum. If your team is shit, but play close with a better team, you can carry that into the next game, and hopefully play better. But, if you are the good team that nearly lost to the shitty team, you aren't going to have that momentum and be desperate to look good once again.

 

[TwistofRKO]

[QUOTE="Lionheart" Thrill Jericho;1143328]I think the big thing with this theory is another theory: momentum. If your team is shit, but play close with a better team, you can carry that into the next game, and hopefully play better. But, if you are the good team that nearly lost to the shitty team, you aren't going to have that momentum and be desperate to look good once again.[/QUOTE]

But in the end you lost. If you were good enough to be in position to win the game, doesn't the glass look half empty? Had you won the game you'd have twice the momentum, plus the win. If you beat the crap team, you win. You gain experience in close games, and winning ugly, both of which are positives.

Good discussion.

 

[Thriller Ant]

Bringing up experience is a good point. I didn't even think of this until just now, but you can gain from what you did wrong. Let's take (American) football. If you try and run a fade to win the game, but the QB underthrows it and you lose, you learn not to run that play next time. I know that example kinda sucks, but I think I made myself clear (I hope).

I agree, I'm enjoying the discussion. There is a good chance I won't continue it until tomorrow, however. I have to be up in 8 hours for work and I'm tired

 

[TwistofRKO]

But you haven't gained the experience of doing it right. You're always going to make mistakes, and if you lose the game on an instance such as that, you'll too think back to other plays that played a key role in determining the game. You also lose the momentum of actually winning the game, and knowing it happened because you can't complete a pass on a certain route adds to the misery.

I mean obviously losing 24-21 in the Super Bowl is better than losing 55-10, but that doesn't mean it was any good, you're comparing how bad it was. You can't and don't compare losses on the scale of positivity, you're comparing them, in this specific instance on who sucked more, 24-21 having sucked less, obviously.

 

[Franchize1990]

Since we're using the NFL as an example so far, I guess I'll stick with the sport.

I'm more of a glass half full kind of a guy and try to find the positives in everything that's going on in the world. So, I do believe there can be such a thing as a good loss.

Take the 07-08 season for example. Last game of the season between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. Both teams were playing to win and neither team was holding anything back despite the fact that nobody could gain anything (save the Pats going 16-0).New England had the top seed locked up and the G-Men had the 6th seed win or lose. The Giants put up a great fight but loss 35-38. I truly believe that that loss gave the key players confidence that they could not only hang with the better teams, but beat them come playoff time. Fast forward to the Super Bowl where the Giants all of a sudden got hot through the playoffs and managed to, this time, beat the team they had loss to.

Hope that made sense.

 

[Thriller Ant]

That is an excellent example. That is a perfect case of gaining nothing on paper from a loss, but using it to your advantage in the long run. Now, you can't set concrete guidelines for a "good loss," but I think it is almost impossible to dismiss it entirely

 

[BooCocky]

I don't believe in good losses but if there was a such thing I would go back to the 2007 NFL football season. The game was NYG and NE. The starters played for a while but not fully. NE eventually won but it was a coming out party for Eli and the Giants. They played tough, defense made stops and the offense was productive. Not knowingly this became the SB matchup. The Giants won the SB because they knew how New England rolled they rattled Brady, forced turnovers, didn't really turn the ball over themselves and basically they clicked on all cylinders. If there was such a thing as a good loss, that game was the definition. NYG became a better team after a loss.

 

[TwistofRKO]

But when looking at their week 17 match-up did the Giants learn anything extra from the loss that they couldn't have gotten from a win? Wouldn't their confidence have been even higher had they won that game, and slayed the Giants (bad pun) in week 17?

I believe good things came from that loss, but I don't believe it was because they lost. They would have the same data for their Super Bowl gameplan had they won, just as well had they lost.

 

[Franchize1990]

I believe they learned how to play better defense and close out games against teams. Look at what they did to their opponents throughout the playoffs after they gave up a two possession lead in the 4th quarter to the Pats (I believe):

Wild Card Round vs Tampa Bay

Only gave up one meaningless touchdown when they already had the game locked.

Divisional Round vs Dallas

Closed them out by keeping them scoreless during the entire 4th quarter and held on to a very slim lead to move on

NFC Championship vs Green Bay

Only gave up a field goal with approximately 12 minutes in the last quarter and forced Brett Farve, who had a great season that year, to throw an interception to set up the GW field goal.

And we've already talked about the Super Bow and what they did to the Patriots. I believe if the Giants had won that game, they don't ride that momentum to the Super Bowl because they feel they can come back whenever they needed to.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Is that really contributed to that week 17 loss?

If they gained anything it was Eli's confidence on offense, handing him a dumbed-down playbook for the stretch run.

The Giants' Defense was certainly what carried them in the playoffs, but they were the reason they were in the playoffs in the first place, and I don't see the evidence of learning how to shut down a comeback. They were leading 10-7 late in the 4th and allowed a Randy Moss TD, eerly similar to the week 17 game.

 

[Slyfox696]

Usually I don't think of games in terms of wins and losses, but rather or not our team was successful. If the Duke Blue Devils played the Los Angeles Lakers, 9.9 times out of 10, they would lose. Is that a bad loss? Is that a good loss? Well, it doesn't matter, what matters is how they played. Did the Blue Devils lose simply because of a lack of talent? Where they played their hearts out, executed the best the coach could expect, always tried to do the fundamental things, and converted on their FTs, etc.? Then that's successful. They might not have one, but you can't be disappointed in the effort.

On the flip side, if they played lousy, was scared, didn't execute, etc., then it was not a successful game. Regardless of whether you win or lose, what people SHOULD be concerned about is if the team is successful.


Thus, I don't believe in the theory of a "good loss", but I don't subscribe to the theory of "anti good loss". I believe simply in the theory of doing the very best you can, and if you do that, then, regardless of who is ahead at the end of play, then you are successful.

My proudest moment in my 5 years of coaching came just last December in Junior High basketball. It was the conference tournament, which ends the season, and we were up against the school that has won that tournament for the last 10 years in a row, both in 7th and 8th grade. Their high school team has a state record of state championships in basketball, and the level of talent is just amazing. Even more impressive is the level of athleticism this school produces. Just an awesome basketball school. It is a school of around 100 kids, and they could beat any team from any school in the state. They're that good.

It was the championship game of the tournament, and we're down 16 points at the end of the 3rd quarter, and it's looking bad. We play 6 minute quarters, which means we have 6 minutes to make up a 16 point deficit in a junior basketball game against a prestigious basketball school. We put on a press, and just blitz them. We tie the game up, get a steal, and have the ball with 9 seconds to go in the game. The comeback, the fact that we played our hearts out to put ourselves in a position to win the game is easily the proudest I've ever been of a team. We didn't win the game, but the fact that those kids stepped up against superior athletic kids from a prestigious basketball program, and had the kind of comeback they did was the mark of a very successful game.

Was that a good loss? No, it was just a game where the team did the very best they could possibly be expected to do. That's being successful, and to say it's a "loss" is very narrow-minded in my opinion.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think good losses can occur, but they're rare. There's one example that I can think of that to me was definitely a good loss.

It was 1996 and the Kentucky Wildcats were without a doubt the best team in the country. We were going to be a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament and were the heavy favorites to take the national champioinship. We lost in the SEC Tournament to Mississippi St. Even Rick Pitino said that he wasn't incredibly bothered by it. It was better to lose there and realize that we weren't invincible than to think we couldn't lose in the NCAA Tourney and get upset there. It made us sharper and was more important than an SEC Title.

Therefore, I would say that good losses do exist, but only after a lot of good wins.

 

[Thriller Ant]

That is another good point KB. Usually if a team is going through a season undefeated and dominating their opponents, they tend to put it on cruise for a game or two. Losing those games is the best thing that can happen to that team. It brings them back to reality and reminds them to go all out at all times.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I think good losses can occur, but they're rare. There's one example that I can think of that to me was definitely a good loss.

It was 1996 and the Kentucky Wildcats were without a doubt the best team in the country. We were going to be a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament and were the heavy favorites to take the national champioinship. We lost in the SEC Tournament to Mississippi St. Even Rick Pitino said that he wasn't incredibly bothered by it. It was better to lose there and realize that we weren't invincible than to think we couldn't lose in the NCAA Tourney and get upset there. It made us sharper and was more important than an SEC Title.

Therefore, I would say that good losses do exist, but only after a lot of good wins.

My varsity baseball team this year started off 8-0, and we were the happiest team in the entire district. Everyone got along, we pulled rabbits out of hats every single night, and found ways to win. We lost our 9th game by one run with the bases loaded on a screaming line drive to the 2nd baseman. That's about as good of a way to lose as possible. What happened? We lost 3 out of our next 4, our team got complacent, some turned on each other, lost the magic we had and we lost in the first round of districts.

Obviously, high school kids, but we lost in the most respectable fashion, but we didn't really learn anything out of it. You can correct mistakes from a win just as well as you can from a loss. When you lose I don't think it's as much of looking back at the loss and seeing what you did wrong as much as it is looking back and assigning blame.

And Sly, I see what you are getting at, but what you are coaching is more focused on development than it is winning. Obviously you aren't trying to not win, but you are looking for improvement as much as anything from game to game. When you are looking at the NFL, as many have, there are very few instances where the team is granted a development period, usually 3 years at the most. At some point you just have to win. It's competitive. If you aren't winning you aren't doing your job.

 

[TwistofRKO]

[QUOTE="Lionheart" Thrill Jericho;1144809]That is another good point KB. Usually if a team is going through a season undefeated and dominating their opponents, they tend to put it on cruise for a game or two. Losing those games is the best thing that can happen to that team. It brings them back to reality and reminds them to go all out at all times.[/QUOTE]

But isn't the same thing learned through winning ugly? I don't think the Steelers were more prepared to win close games because they got a loss out of the way. They won their way through because they knew how to win ugly. The '72 Dolphins won ugly, the '07 Patriots battled through extremely tough games (they were the best team, hopefully nobody tries to debate this) and they were prepared better for winning these games and not taking any play off.

Would the 2007 Patriots really have been that much better off had they lost a game prior to the Super Bowl? I don't think they would have gained anything.

If anything rings true, look at Pittsburgh vs Baltimore this past season, Baltimore lost two tough games and by theory they could've considered them "good" losses. In the end, nothing was gained. They lost their 3rd match-up, because the first two losses gave them nothing more than they would have had if they won. The experience is there regardless if you win or lose.

 

[Slyfox696]

And Sly, I see what you are getting at, but what you are coaching is more focused on development than it is winning. Obviously you aren't trying to not win, but you are looking for improvement as much as anything from game to game. When you are looking at the NFL, as many have, there are very few instances where the team is granted a development period, usually 3 years at the most. At some point you just have to win. It's competitive. If you aren't winning you aren't doing your job.

Sports are sports...trying to say that what applies in high school doesn't apply to the NFL is silly, in my opinion.

Are you telling me that Bill Belichek is more concerned about winning than he is about his team playing the best they can? Do you think that Bob Knight looks at his team after a game and says, "Well, we were sloppy, and didn't execute right, but we won so I don't care?" Of course not. Being successful is what sports is about. You can't help, in any one given moment, that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than you...all you can do is do your very best, play the best you can, and if Tiger is better than you, then so be it. You can be proud of yourself, for doing the best you can, because that's all you can control.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Of course Bill Belicheck is more concerned with the win than anything else. He wants flawless execution, but he's paid to win, end of story. Winning close, sloppy games is a staple of the greatest teams throughout all of sports.

Do you think the Mets are happy to take their run and win after Bill Buckner made an error? They didn't execute, but the Red Sox didn't either. Should the Mets feel less joyous knowing they could have very well lost that game, winning on an error? Of course not.