[aidenn0]

Basically: A player on the losing team made a good play.

I don't think it's a particularly good example; despite the fact that his team lost, that play significantly improved his team's chance for a win. If he doesn't make that play, then players on the other team would have better numbers.

[ronilan]

Yes that. But basically not that at all, unless you ignore all the things that make those players who they are.

[PhasmaFelis]

You're not really clarifying yourself here.

All competitive sports are zero-sum. For one team to win, the other has to lose. That's what "zero-sum" means.

[ronilan]

Competitive sports are zero-sum only if you ignore all the things that competitive sports are about. Winners and losers are a side effect of the competition not the essence of it.

[croon]

This is the third time you have reiterated your point without clarifying what any of "all the things" actually are, for us that don't seem to get it.

There are few conclusions to draw here other than that you either don't know, or don't want to share your insight.

[travisjungroth]

You’ve mentioned things that are ignored three times. Could you say what those things are?

[thenanyu]

I’m not the person you’re responding to but I’ll give it a go.

The progress angle:

When two competitors clash they motivate each other to advance the state of human potential.

Today’s elite high school track athlete would have set world records decades ago.

The narrative angle:

When there is a clash of wills, narratives and stories emerge. When Michael Jordan had the flu and led a comeback in the NBA finals, he helped write a compelling story about fighting through adversity. Google “flu game”.

Sometimes it’s a little of both:

When Steph Curry overcame a series of chronic ankle injuries through a specialized regiment of training, he wrote a story into the culture about problem solving, and helped advance the state of sports medicine.