As devoted readers of this blog can tell you, I would rather my team get blown out than lose in agonizing fashion. To me this is a self-evident truth, but I understand why there is some misguided opposition. Marquette's miracle comeback in the round of 64 against Davidson provided an excellent case study to my position. Before I begin with that case study I am going to elucidate what I mean by an agonizing loss.
Sometimes your team will get blown out and other times they will just barely suffer defeat. At the latter end of the spectrum exists the dreaded stomach punch loss that leaves you in a daze for weeks. A necessary condition for a stomach punch loss is an error, or series of errors, by the losing team that either directly leads to defeat or significantly increases the likelihood of defeat. Such an error was committed by De'mon Brooks of Davidson in their devastating loss to Marquette. (Highlights can be found HERE)
A lot needed to happen for Marquette to mount a comeback. Trailing 56-51 with 30 seconds to play, Vander Blue hit a three-pointer that cut the lead to two. Had the shot missed, Davidson would have almost been guaranteed victory. Instead they were fouled, hit two free throws, and extended the lead back to four. A few moments later Jamil Wilson hit a three point shot with 10 seconds left that pulled Marquette within one. Up to this point Davidson did everything correct. They forced Marquette, the 318th ranked three-point shooting team in the nation, to take heavily contested shots from downtown: the shots just happened to go in. Also, in between the shots Davidson hit a pair of free throws. So far, so good. After the second three pointer in the sequence, however, Davidson made a crucial error which illustrates why losing stomach punch games are worse than any alternative.
The Wildcats as a team shoot free throws at an 80% rate. Bob McKillop, their fantastic head coach, stresses free throws above anything else. And with good reason: in late game situations they are the key to victory. De'mon Brooks in-bounded the ball after the Golden Eagles pulled within one and was promptly passed the ball. He was immediately swarmed by Marquette defenders who were trying to foul him. As a 75% free throw shooter, Brooks would have been wise to take the foul and go to the line. Doing so would most likely extend the Davidson lead to 3 and force a terrible three point shooting team to do something they are terrible at doing. Instead he sent an errant pass that led Nik Cochran out of bounds and gave the ball back to Marquette. This was a horrible decision that significantly altered the probable outcome of the game. The dynamic Vander Blue was given an opportunity to drive to the bucket, which as St. John's will tell you, is something he's very good at doing. Blue hit the a layup with one second left and gave Marquette a thrilling 59-58 victory.
This was a game Davidson had in the bag. They lost in large part because Marquette got inexplicably hot at the exact right time, but ultimately it was their unforced error that decided the game. It's this error that makes Davidson's loss much worse than a blowout. If a team makes miracle shots and you lose, all there is to do is tip your cap and move on. But the acute errors that lose games are what gnaw away at your will to be. They cause you to dream a dream where you lost by 20 points. In addition to directly facilitating defeat, the acute error committed by Brooks is particularly devastating for three reasons.
First, you must consider the aforementioned philosophy of Davidson: make your free throws. The decision to make a dangerous pass instead of accepting a trip to the line runs perpendicular to Davidson's identity. The final mechanism for defeat was the result of Brooks forgoing a huge component of what the Wildcats are. This cuts deeper than a conventional loss because they did not play Davidson basketball when they needed to most. It's hard to imagine something more frustrating than that.
Second, the Davidson Wildcats are a mid-major that rarely gets an opportunity to accomplish anything of consequence on the national stage of college basketball. This is an unfortunate reality considering the excellent program Bob McKillop has built and maintained, but its true nonetheless. At stake was an opportunity to showcase The Davidson Wildcats to the world. A victory would cause the pundits to sing their praises and, more importantly, allow them to play another game and perform another 40-minute showcase on a more concentrated stage. Davidson did play admirably and earned a lot of praise, but the reality is that their basketball capital was mostly erased when Vander Blue's layup when through the hoop. The conversation focused more on Brook's Boner than the fact Davidson is arguably a better team than Marquette.
Finally, Davidson had a terrific season. They won the Southern League regular season title and post season tournament. They also entered the NCAA tournament with the longest winning streak in the nation (17). Had Marquette won by 15 they would be more able to reflect on what they accomplished in 2012-2013. They can still do that (and they should), but they also will have to deal with the nagging feeling of what could have been. With this in mind, how is losing like they did a better option than a blowout?
The correct answer to the question posed by this post is "I would rather win." Even so, it's impossible to ignore that stomach punch losses are agonizing parasites that stick with you for a long time. Given the choice, it's better to just lose and move on. Of course, that's only if winning is not an option.
