[Game] Kings @ Hornets - 11/23/15 - 4 pm PST, 7 pm EST
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
I don't disagree with any of that. I tend to think members here put a fair amount more thought into posts and in a more respectful manner than you'll find most places, related to sports at least. That's why you'll never see me somewhere like STR.
I'd also say game threads are where you're likely to see the least of it, many more quick/short posts and emotion pertaining to the game effecting the nature of the posts.
I have looked at some old threads out of interest and I saw much of the same there as we see here, just different names being tossed around.
I'd also say game threads are where you're likely to see the least of it, many more quick/short posts and emotion pertaining to the game effecting the nature of the posts.
I have looked at some old threads out of interest and I saw much of the same there as we see here, just different names being tossed around.
Hard not to look at game management, and I'm not just talking about the rotations: during the stretch where we lost the lead in the fourth, we missed seven straight field goals, and only one of them was taken late in the shot clock. Play-by-play, in fact, suggests that as many as five of them were taken with double-digit seconds left on the shot clock. That's an adjustment that needs to be made, and it's not on the players.
It's always an easy out to make statements like these. There a tons of professional players that don't know crap about how the game should be played. You can see that in nearly any game. Just because they play the sport or have played doesn't make them infallible. Furthermore, professional sports is full of nepotism and many coaches get jobs due to their playing experience. Again, doesn't mean they are infallible.
Something can be said about watching thousands of games over the years, too. You kinda get to know what generally works and what doesn't.
The defensive lineup Karl fielded on the Hornets last possession of regulation wasn't something you'd have seen from most NBA coaches. Most "expert" coaches would have had a more defensive oriented lineup in that situation.
There's no excuse for a HC of Karl's experience to make a poor decision like that. It was playing out as the last shot of the game. You gotta go defensive in that situation. You can't allow a midget like Kemba Walker to get an uncontested layup on what could have been the last play of the game.
If Rudy Gay is your decision as a defensive anchor in a game-deciding defensive possession, you shouldn't be coaching for very long.
Something can be said about watching thousands of games over the years, too. You kinda get to know what generally works and what doesn't.
The defensive lineup Karl fielded on the Hornets last possession of regulation wasn't something you'd have seen from most NBA coaches. Most "expert" coaches would have had a more defensive oriented lineup in that situation.
There's no excuse for a HC of Karl's experience to make a poor decision like that. It was playing out as the last shot of the game. You gotta go defensive in that situation. You can't allow a midget like Kemba Walker to get an uncontested layup on what could have been the last play of the game.
If Rudy Gay is your decision as a defensive anchor in a game-deciding defensive possession, you shouldn't be coaching for very long.
I'm reminded a bit of the playoffs three years ago when two good coaches made 2 really stupid decisions to help Miami to their title, first when Vogel pulled Hibbert for a final play and had Miami immediately exploit it for the win, 2nd when Pop did the same thing with Duncan in the Finals, the ball careems right to where Duncan would have been standing for the defensive rebound, instead goes into the hands of the Heat, who hit Ray Allen for the game winner that artificially pumped up his reputation.
You may be right in some regards, but I remember the days when the game threads were fun, win or lose. Of course, we won more than we lost back then. So many of the people who helped make this board what it is are gone, and I know for a number of them it is because they couldn't take the way we were beginning to resemble that other board. I miss those folks; they were a lot of fun on the board and some of them (at least one - Hi 6th!) did a lot to organize events for us off the board.
The [Game] threads were more fun, but that is largely because, like I said, Kings Fans were a lot less impatient than we are now. Winning was new to us; we didn't have expectations. Everybody was happy to be along for the ride. But it wasn't because we didn't argue, or weren't critical.
The other thing to think about is the fact that, back then, the passive people outnumbered the aggressive people. And I don't use those descriptors as pejoratives, nor am I placing value judgments on them, they just are what they are. Some people are very aggressive about getting their point across; they want to argue, and they want people to argue with them. Some people are more passive: they prefer to take the path of least resistance, they don't want to argue, even if they feel strongly about something, they would often rather retreat and withdraw than defend their position against an aggressive person. My WAG is that this is because, unlike the aggressive posters, the passive posters don't get anything out of arguing with people. For many aggressive posters, arguing or otherwise expressing their opinions in an emphatic manner is simply seen as the easiest and most effective way of getting their point across. For many passive posters, those same things are an unpleasant experience, that actively diminishes their enjoyment online; the ways in which the two groups would prefer to express themselves tend to be incompatible with each other.
The thing is, back when we were winning, even if people didn't agree about how things were going, they were more willing to let bygones be bygones, like that old cliché about winning being the best deodorant. Now that we're losing, aggressive posters in particular are much less willing to continue to let bygones be bygones; there's a lot more of, "Hey, I was never cool with X, Y and Z, anyway, but I was willing to hold my tongue, because we were winning. But, you're not about to have me have to put up with a losing team, and keep quiet, too! I'm going to speak my mind, in a way that makes me comfortable, and if my being comfortable makes you uncomfortable, you're going to have to be the one to leave!"
So, the passive people left.
That's really what it is, IYAM. It's not really even a "positive versus negative" thing, although many of the "positive" posters we used to have tended towards passivity, and most of "negative" posters trend towards aggression. There were always aggressive people here, it's just that it was harder to notice when the team was winning, because the difference between a passive person and an aggressive person isn't always immediately obvious, when they're not arguing with each other. I don't think that the board has become overwhelmingly negative so much as I think that it has become overwhelmingly aggressive. It's just that there aren't a whole lot of aggressively positive people.
The other thing to think about is the fact that, back then, the passive people outnumbered the aggressive people. And I don't use those descriptors as pejoratives, nor am I placing value judgments on them, they just are what they are. Some people are very aggressive about getting their point across; they want to argue, and they want people to argue with them. Some people are more passive: they prefer to take the path of least resistance, they don't want to argue, even if they feel strongly about something, they would often rather retreat and withdraw than defend their position against an aggressive person. My WAG is that this is because, unlike the aggressive posters, the passive posters don't get anything out of arguing with people. For many aggressive posters, arguing or otherwise expressing their opinions in an emphatic manner is simply seen as the easiest and most effective way of getting their point across. For many passive posters, those same things are an unpleasant experience, that actively diminishes their enjoyment online; the ways in which the two groups would prefer to express themselves tend to be incompatible with each other.
The thing is, back when we were winning, even if people didn't agree about how things were going, they were more willing to let bygones be bygones, like that old cliché about winning being the best deodorant. Now that we're losing, aggressive posters in particular are much less willing to continue to let bygones be bygones; there's a lot more of, "Hey, I was never cool with X, Y and Z, anyway, but I was willing to hold my tongue, because we were winning. But, you're not about to have me have to put up with a losing team, and keep quiet, too! I'm going to speak my mind, in a way that makes me comfortable, and if my being comfortable makes you uncomfortable, you're going to have to be the one to leave!"
So, the passive people left.
That's really what it is, IYAM. It's not really even a "positive versus negative" thing, although many of the "positive" posters we used to have tended towards passivity, and most of "negative" posters trend towards aggression. There were always aggressive people here, it's just that it was harder to notice when the team was winning, because the difference between a passive person and an aggressive person isn't always immediately obvious, when they're not arguing with each other. I don't think that the board has become overwhelmingly negative so much as I think that it has become overwhelmingly aggressive. It's just that there aren't a whole lot of aggressively positive people.
I guess I am one of the passive people. I have learned long ago that arguing goes nowhere. I have never changed a person's mind. The point of arguing does not seem to have any purpose as it doesn't have anything to do with sharing knowledge. It seems to be who can cleverly dominate another with a turn of a phrase. I have my personal standards as to what I find enjoyable. The game threads are not enjoyable to me and I will not return.
There ARE negative people. Rudy Gay had a great game and at times played defense. He still got a ration of crap from the customary people who need someone to blame. They missed a good game by Rudy while they were typing their criticism. I do not like it when people can't notice what is good but seem to have a field day of orgasmic proportions when something bad happens.
There ARE negative people. Rudy Gay had a great game and at times played defense. He still got a ration of crap from the customary people who need someone to blame. They missed a good game by Rudy while they were typing their criticism. I do not like it when people can't notice what is good but seem to have a field day of orgasmic proportions when something bad happens.
Last edited: