View Single Post
01-28-2013, 09:34 PM
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Just for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate:
When the Isles found themselves down 2-1 in the third and came back to take a 4-2 lead, was it because the Jets couldn't hold a lead? There are two ways of understanding this question, one trivial and the other substantial.
According to the trivial reading, the mere fact that the Jets had the lead and then lost it is enough to ground the claim that they couldn't hold the lead. They couldn't hold the lead, on this reading, just in the sense that they weren't able to to do it.
According to the substantial reading, there was something
about the Jets
why they had the lead and then lost it. It's not just that they didn't hold the lead; on this reading, they didn't have the ability to hold it. In roughly the same circumstances, they likely wouldn't have held it.
Is there reason to think that the Isles' problem is substantial in this sense? That is, is there something about them that this causing them to give up leads? If so, what's the evidence for this? Is it the fact that they lost the lead against Winnipeg? In isolation, this is only evidence for the trivial sense of not being able to hold a lead, not the substantial sense which is at issue. Is it the fact that they repeatedly give up leads? Well, this was a problem last season. But they've only lost two games this season. Perhaps it's too early to call it a problem. The defense is a problem, but we knew that. It's not obvious to me that there's a specific lead-holding problem.
Again, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I am worried about this, largely because it was an issue last year. But this team is maturing, and perhaps Capuano is as well.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Gavagaisles