The game thread (as I have tried to explain previously) was created so fans NOT IN ATTENDANCE could share a bit of the game time experience. We're sitting at home watching the game and reacting via KF the way we would in G1C. We've been doing it for years. There is post-game discussion, but because of all the other stuff going on we have a lot of members who aren't participating as much as they normally would.
We actually separated the game-time discussion from a post-game analysis but as time went by it seemed rather unnecessary since some threads barely made it past a couple of pages. We do try, often with a bit of overlap, to stick to the thread format so people who want to talk about the topic in the OP don't have to wade through a bunch of stuff that is a different discussion. Hope this helps to clarify.
------------------------------------------
I am trying to understand the above but it is difficult.
Initially, you seem to be saying that someone who is or was not at the game should not be commenting (at least, during the game).
So, if I WERE to use Dragon Naturally Speaking (because I'm not going to LOOK at my device while I am at the game), the fact that I was commenting FROM the arena while IN attendance would not be welcomed.
That seems short sighted.
As does moving posts I made which use videos OF the game (from the referee's report).
Plus, it makes it more difficult for me, since if I want to review, I can't go to a game WHERE they occurred (which will be in a logical place in the stack - i.e., Game 76 will logically be found somewhere between Game 75 and Game 77), but have to locate a thread on a player which may be anywhere in the stack (from abandoned/concluded in April to still being current in September).
Since I TOOK the time to document the game, why not leave my contributions in BOTH places?
Because I intended to conclude with two examples (based on my game attendance) as to why I am coming to conclude that while Joerger may be a good coach in SOME ways (comparing/contrasting the lack of arguments between players to, for example, Yogi Ferrell's blow up at a teammate in the previous game), the way he was outcoached in the Indiana game in a very specific way makes me doubt his preparatory talents - and I would place that here, but I guess you would move it (instead of leaving it in both places).
Perhaps less people are participating because you are making it more difficult than it has to be. Or maybe you are just trying to send a message. Message taken, I guess, but I will still add a point about this game, but without making reference to the source of the problem (Joerger), so that it is not moved or otherwise disappeared.
Background:
Teams scout other teams and make game plans.
For example, on our first possession in the (home) Charlotte game, it was apparent that they were going to play Buddy to force him to dribble. The very first time he touched the ball, the defender was right in his grill, denying him any chance to get off a step back jumper (not that he really jumps -he has more of a Magic Johnson set/push shot, which is easier to defend if you play him tight, conceding that you are giving him an easy opportunity to drive by the defender).
In the Indiana game, I saw somthing that I almost never see in a Kings game - that the Pacers were sending three players to crash the boards for offensive rebounds on every offensive possession, certain tht Joerger would NOT respond by exhorting his team to PUSH the ball upcourt for easy break baskets.
And it totally succeeded. Not that they got a ton of offensive rebounds (8), but on many occassions, their rebounders tipped the ball into the air where one or the other team finally corralled it, but too late for a break the other way.
Oddly, since Indiana was also never going to push the ball, the Kings ALSO begn crashing the boards on offensive shots.
They NEVER do that.
In fact, it is often the case where, when a King shoots, EVERYONE (on the Kings) immediately heads back to set up a defensive alignment.
But in this game, since neither team was going to push, both teams crashed.
I can only say that if you went back and looked at plays in the Dallas game, they would look substantially different than those in the Indiana game in terms of offensive rebounders crashing the boards.
Yes, Joerger reacted, by having his players emulate Indiana, but he never found away to have his team push the ball and make them pay - so they continued to crash. At the game, as I and other seatmates continued to observe and discuss this phenomena, Indiana seemed to get the better of this.
I guess we will never be a running team, which is odd, because that is why Malone was discarded.
This was a game where Joerger almost never left the bench (as he sometimes does).
And, other than time-outs, Joerger never appeared to "call plays". Which is how he often does it - they are freelancing.
Compared to Rick Carlisle in game 75, it was night and day. Literally every time (in the second half of the Dallas game, when I sat three rows behind the Dallas bench), Carlisle was on his feet after every made basket and the point guard always brought the ball up next to him and received a series of numbers (plays, sets or both) from the coach - it was a very tactically planned example of game coaching.
So, what I learned from the Indiana game is that Joerger appears to want his team to freelance rather than run set plays and even if you give the Kings break opportunities (by crashing the boards), they will not take them. I expect other teams to observe this also and penalize the Kings for their predictability under Joerger.
BTW, Oladipo coasted until crunch time, then took over. It was as though he knew that no one could guard him, but waned to save it for later, so they would not have a chance to adjust/react. Up until the end, it was Sabonis they were running the offense through and even in the fourth, he was still calling for the ball - except at that time, it went to Oladipo. So, Sabonis stood alone, hand outstretched, but stopped getting the ball, but was still so much more effective than Turner that McMillan HAD to leave him in - that guy is a keeper.
We actually separated the game-time discussion from a post-game analysis but as time went by it seemed rather unnecessary since some threads barely made it past a couple of pages. We do try, often with a bit of overlap, to stick to the thread format so people who want to talk about the topic in the OP don't have to wade through a bunch of stuff that is a different discussion. Hope this helps to clarify.
------------------------------------------
I am trying to understand the above but it is difficult.
Initially, you seem to be saying that someone who is or was not at the game should not be commenting (at least, during the game).
So, if I WERE to use Dragon Naturally Speaking (because I'm not going to LOOK at my device while I am at the game), the fact that I was commenting FROM the arena while IN attendance would not be welcomed.
That seems short sighted.
As does moving posts I made which use videos OF the game (from the referee's report).
Plus, it makes it more difficult for me, since if I want to review, I can't go to a game WHERE they occurred (which will be in a logical place in the stack - i.e., Game 76 will logically be found somewhere between Game 75 and Game 77), but have to locate a thread on a player which may be anywhere in the stack (from abandoned/concluded in April to still being current in September).
Since I TOOK the time to document the game, why not leave my contributions in BOTH places?
Because I intended to conclude with two examples (based on my game attendance) as to why I am coming to conclude that while Joerger may be a good coach in SOME ways (comparing/contrasting the lack of arguments between players to, for example, Yogi Ferrell's blow up at a teammate in the previous game), the way he was outcoached in the Indiana game in a very specific way makes me doubt his preparatory talents - and I would place that here, but I guess you would move it (instead of leaving it in both places).
Perhaps less people are participating because you are making it more difficult than it has to be. Or maybe you are just trying to send a message. Message taken, I guess, but I will still add a point about this game, but without making reference to the source of the problem (Joerger), so that it is not moved or otherwise disappeared.
Background:
Teams scout other teams and make game plans.
For example, on our first possession in the (home) Charlotte game, it was apparent that they were going to play Buddy to force him to dribble. The very first time he touched the ball, the defender was right in his grill, denying him any chance to get off a step back jumper (not that he really jumps -he has more of a Magic Johnson set/push shot, which is easier to defend if you play him tight, conceding that you are giving him an easy opportunity to drive by the defender).
In the Indiana game, I saw somthing that I almost never see in a Kings game - that the Pacers were sending three players to crash the boards for offensive rebounds on every offensive possession, certain tht Joerger would NOT respond by exhorting his team to PUSH the ball upcourt for easy break baskets.
And it totally succeeded. Not that they got a ton of offensive rebounds (8), but on many occassions, their rebounders tipped the ball into the air where one or the other team finally corralled it, but too late for a break the other way.
Oddly, since Indiana was also never going to push the ball, the Kings ALSO begn crashing the boards on offensive shots.
They NEVER do that.
In fact, it is often the case where, when a King shoots, EVERYONE (on the Kings) immediately heads back to set up a defensive alignment.
But in this game, since neither team was going to push, both teams crashed.
I can only say that if you went back and looked at plays in the Dallas game, they would look substantially different than those in the Indiana game in terms of offensive rebounders crashing the boards.
Yes, Joerger reacted, by having his players emulate Indiana, but he never found away to have his team push the ball and make them pay - so they continued to crash. At the game, as I and other seatmates continued to observe and discuss this phenomena, Indiana seemed to get the better of this.
I guess we will never be a running team, which is odd, because that is why Malone was discarded.
This was a game where Joerger almost never left the bench (as he sometimes does).
And, other than time-outs, Joerger never appeared to "call plays". Which is how he often does it - they are freelancing.
Compared to Rick Carlisle in game 75, it was night and day. Literally every time (in the second half of the Dallas game, when I sat three rows behind the Dallas bench), Carlisle was on his feet after every made basket and the point guard always brought the ball up next to him and received a series of numbers (plays, sets or both) from the coach - it was a very tactically planned example of game coaching.
So, what I learned from the Indiana game is that Joerger appears to want his team to freelance rather than run set plays and even if you give the Kings break opportunities (by crashing the boards), they will not take them. I expect other teams to observe this also and penalize the Kings for their predictability under Joerger.
BTW, Oladipo coasted until crunch time, then took over. It was as though he knew that no one could guard him, but waned to save it for later, so they would not have a chance to adjust/react. Up until the end, it was Sabonis they were running the offense through and even in the fourth, he was still calling for the ball - except at that time, it went to Oladipo. So, Sabonis stood alone, hand outstretched, but stopped getting the ball, but was still so much more effective than Turner that McMillan HAD to leave him in - that guy is a keeper.
