Is It Ever Okay To Win By Losing?

When I was younger, playing in Little League and the like, we were always taught to give it our all, leave everything on the field, and do our best to win.  These credos govern most of us as we make our way through youth sports and into adulthood.  But at a certain point we realize that giving it our all may not be good enough.  There are other factors that go into sport that influence outcomes.  Chief amongst these is strategy.  How does one team attack the others weakness?  How does one neutralize another opposing player?  And what other ways are there to achieve the main goal in any sport, winning?

These motivations came to light this week as 4 Olympic badminton teams were kicked out of the games for intentionally throwing their matches.  As puzzling as this may be to outsiders, there was logic behind these actions.  The Olympics changed formats for badminton from a single elimination tournament, to a round robin style.  What this means is that a group of teams play each other to determine where they are seeded in the medal round.  The best team from one group plays the worst in the other, and so forth.  What these teams were attempting to do was manipulate where they would be seeded in the medal round, trying to get the best possible matchup to win gold.  Since the best team had been upset, the others wanted to avoid playing them before the finals.  The only way they could accomplish this was to lose in the round robin matches.

It goes without saying what these teams did was wrong, and they deserved to be ejected from the competition and endure the humiliation from their actions.  But what has been neglected amongst the outrage by the media and officials is the fact that this same thing, although to a less blatant extent, goes on in other sports all the time.  Should athletes be expected to give their all at every opportunity?  Are teams obligated to put their best out on the field every time they play?  Are there any valid reasons why your best may not be what's best for you or the team?

An attempt to win by losing backfires

Two of the Olympics major sports, swimming and track and field, both operate under preliminary races to determine the athletes that will compete in the finals.  The majority of the time these participants do not go all out in these races, either to conserve energy or not give away anything to their opponents.  These athletes clearly aren't throwing the races, just doing enough to get to the next round.  But it could be argued that they are doing a disservice by not giving it their all every time they enter the pool or track, as would normally be expected.

Even in professional sports this tanking trend is prevalent.  Every year in basketball as the season is coming to an end, we see a rash of mysterious "injuries" to star players on teams that have no shot at making the playoffs.  These top tier players sit for an extended period of time and as a result their teams start to lose.  A lot.  Why would a professional team WANT to lose?  Well, in the NBA they have a draft lottery.  The team that finishes with the worst record has the highest percentage of winning the number one draft choice and selecting whomever they chose to play for them the following season.  The logic behind this is why continue to try to win when the playoffs are out of reach when by continuing to lose they can end up "winning" in the draft?  This has gone on for years, and as of now there is no incentive for teams to stop tanking and put their best effort on the court game in and game out.

We see this in hockey as well.  The NHL playoff format is different from other sports in that the winners of the three conference divisions are guaranteed the top three seeds in the playoffs, arranged by point totals (hockey standing are determined by points, not just wins and losses.  A win is 2 points, an overtime or shootout loss is worth 1, and a loss 0).  The remaining 5 spots are determined by points.  What this means is a team could have an awful year, but end up winning their division and earn a 3 seed.  This causes teams, instead of fighting for  a higher seed, to eye a 6 seed in order to draw this poor performing division winner.  We saw this just this year in the Eastern Conference.  The New Jersey Devils were the 6 seed and defeated the 3 seed Florida Panthers and eventually played for the Stanley Cup.  The Panthers would have been a 7 seed had rankings been determined by points alone.  This was obviously a favorable draw for the Devils, who let the other, stronger teams beat themselves up through the subsequent rounds.

Even in baseball and football we see a certain taste of not trying every game.  When teams have a playoff spot or seed wrapped up they will sit their stars, resting them for the playoffs and sheltering them from possible injuries.  This can have an effect on other playoff seeding in a major way.  If a team fighting to make the playoffs is playing these playoff bound teams, they may win games that they otherwise would not, thus helping them achieve their goal.

Is it ever OK to sit your star players when healthy?

So what determines what is out of bounds and unethical and what is legitimate and smart?  The answer is expectations, not only from media but fans as well.  When we watch the prelims at the Olympics, we don't expect these athletes to kill themselves to win a race that will just qualify them for another one.  We don't anticipate a team to play their star players when a playoff birth is already secured.  We hope a team will shut down when the playoffs are out of reach in order to secure a top draft choice and turn around a struggling franchise.  We, as paying spectators, are conscious of what these teams and athletes are doing when we get to the arenas, so when it does happen it is not a surprise.  We anticipate these activities, and accept them.  If as paying fans we expected and demanded the best every single time out, things would be different.  But we don't, and because of that these borderline unethical activities are seen as commonplace, and there is no negative ramifications that come from them.

That is the main difference with these everyday occurrences in sports and what happened with these badminton teams. People paid money to see high quality badminton (I never thought I'd utter the words "high quality badminton" in my life) and were shocked to see such blatant tanking.  This hadn't happened before in a competition, and the outrage from fans and media was fierce.  The badminton officials responded with harsh and just punishment, and with that most likely set a precedent to prevent such things from happening in the future.  But with these other sports the governing bodies go along with actions, withholding any discipline, and as the years pass we grow accustom to these actions.  They became part of the game, and legitimate strategy.  But if opinion on these tactics were to change, I have no doubt that a badminton style storm would brew causing massive change to sports in general.

Until then, we'll just have to keep rooting for our teams, in winning and in losing.