Losing on Purpose to Gain Advantage

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I just wish FIRST would put out a statement that it is in the spirit of gracious professionalism to try to win every *match*. I can see why they wouldn't -- because gracious professionalism encompasses good sportsmanship, so this shouldn't even be a discussion we're having on a yearly (or more often) basis -- but I wish they would.

So I'm going to say something that some people will immediately try to rationalize as not true, too black-and-white, naive, or what-have you:

Every team should try as hard as they can to win every match. To do otherwise is to shortchange your alliance partners, your sponsors, the spectators, and yourselves.

I don't. For multiple reasons.

First, isn't saying "X ig GP, and Y isn't GP" really defeating the point of GP? That's a rule or a guideline. It's not a matter of ethics or morals anymore, it's a question of rules at that point. GP isn't about rules, it's not a metric to evaluate behavior. Creating a concrete rubric for "GPness" completely defeats the value in GP.

Secondly, as I'll elaborate on in a minute, your root principle is a fallacy. And it's openly accepted in both FRC and sports that there are cases where it's acceptable to give less than 100% in favor of a larger goal.

Originally Posted by IKE

Is it horrible in baseball that you intentionally throw crappy pitches in order to walk a really good batter?
I realize this is different, but in essence, 1 player is intentionally not doing his/her best in order to support a larger goal of the team. Walking was not always considered reasonable. In many old fashioned baseball leagues, not throwing a fair pitch meant that you had to keep throwing fair pitches (which slowed down an already slow game).
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml

Baseball has an absolutely fascinating history. Even ignoring walking not being accepted, there was a point in baseball's history where intentionally trying to strike out a batter was considered dirty. You were supposed to serve up easy pitches down the middle of the plate for the other team to hit.There was actually a letter written to the university's baseball team from the Dean of Harvard condemning his players for throwing "deceptive" pitches with the intent to fool the batter. It wasn't considered the gentlemanly conduct that Harvard represented.

Should all the pitchers prior to Candy Cummings (the "inventor" of the curveball) be condemned for not trying their best to help their team?

Sometimes there are cultural convictions that limit the actions teams try in order to win. Should teams resort to "dirty" tactics in order to win a match? Wouldn't they not be giving an 100% effort if they intentionally avoided these tactics knowing they could give them a better chance to win the match? As Al Davis says, "if you 'aint cheating, you 'aint trying."

Originally Posted by IKE

On a tangential note, all of you that feel there is a moral issue involved with "not doing your best", how would this play in with partners not doing what is best for the alliance? If your team has a 2 tube auto that is 90% on the first tube and 50% on the second tube, and you partner is 0/8, shouldn't they then be forced by moral obligation to allow you to run your 2 tube? This past weekend teams often wanted to demonstrate that they finally got their Auto "working". Even though they had no chance of seeding top 8, even though they were 0/X (6, 8...) they insisted that it was a moral imperative that they give it another shot. Wouldn't this be considered throwing the match when they miss and it causes a loss?

This is a terrific point.

It's a pretty common and generally accepted tactic to "showcase" your robot's capabilities for potential alliance captains during qualification matches. Sometimes it comes to the detriment of your alliances' chances of winning. Is it wrong to try and demonstrate your defensive ability, even though you're your alliances' best (or only) offensive machine? Or to run your autonomous code even though it may interfere with your partners' autonomous efforts?

Should the struggling team who just wants to see their robot score its first game piece play defense in every match because its how they're most effective in terms of a winning strategy? Is it wrong of them to value seeing their robot complete the task they designed it for above winning? Are they "un-GP?"

Was it wrong to let Rudy play? Was it wrong for the Florida Panthers management to trade away good players in exchange for future prospects and draft picks? Was it wrong for Cal Ripken to play so many consecutive games when there were cases the Orioles may have done better with him on the bench?

There are obvious exceptions to the "play to win every match" doctrine. There's some truth in the underlying concept and motivation, but there's no 100% rule about this for a reason. Finding where that line lies for different teams makes for great discussion.