KINGS VS. PACERS

[SacKingZZZ]

Giving up 7 offensive boards isn't typically the reason for a loss, especially when the losing team was getting hammered like we were at one point.

[pillwenney]

Giving up 7 offensive boards isn't typically the reason for a loss, especially when the losing team was getting hammered like we were at one point.

When it contributes to the difference between being down but not out and getting "hammered" it certainly does make a difference.

[SacKingZZZ]

Getting hammered > giving up what equates to 2 extra possessions on rebounds. We were for all intents and purposes down and out.

[pillwenney]

How is it "less than" or "greater than"? It's a contributing factor. It's not the main one, but it's still "contributing".

[SacKingZZZ]

Because the severity of the two situations on the basis of a given set of circumstances aren't the same. When you look at it from the finish line of course everything factors in, it's all numbers, but it's how it relates to the next time that matters and giving up 2 extra possessions on the boards is not bad at all. Even if they did turn those offensive boards into points if you took it away from the final ledger we still lose. Seriously though, all one needs to do is watch the game and see what the final nail in the coffin was, and that nail was pounded in far before the point where one would begin to analyze statistical data to determine the reasoning.

[pillwenney]

Because the severity of the two situations on the basis of a given set of circumstances aren't the same. When you look at it from the finish line of course everything factors in, it's all numbers, but it's how it relates to the next time that matters and giving up 2 extra possessions on the boards is not bad at all. Even if they did turn those offensive boards into points if you took it away from the final ledger we still lose. Seriously though, all one needs to do is watch the game and see what the final nail in the coffin was, and that nail was pounded in far before the point where one would begin to analyze statistical data to determine the reasoning.

The final nail in the coffin, though, was only the final nail because of what happened before. Like I said, the rebounding alone wouldn't have made us win, but it would have kept us closer. And a "dagger 3" is much less of a dagger when you get it down to say, 4, then when you get it down to 11.

The problem with just watching the games is that 3's are almost always going to seem like they have a bigger impact than they do--like a dunk or a big block, whereas something like a free throw has a bigger impact than it seems. Yes, they had a real impact, but the fact of the matter is that if we rebound better and turn the ball over less (or force them to turn it over more), to the point where those two things would have been even, we would have won.

[Nicky Nix Nook]

lol, we still talking about this?

[SacKingZZZ]

The final nail in the coffin, though, was only the final nail because of what happened before. Like I said, the rebounding alone wouldn't have made us win, but it would have kept us closer. And a "dagger 3" is much less of a dagger when you get it down to say, 4, then when you get it down to 11.

The problem with just watching the games is that 3's are almost always going to seem like they have a bigger impact than they do--like a dunk or a big block, whereas something like a free throw has a bigger impact than it seems. Yes, they had a real impact, but the fact of the matter is that if we rebound better and turn the ball over less (or force them to turn it over more), to the point where those two things would have been even, we would have won.

But it also didn't make us lose, you can add it up and it counts yes, but all I said was we did a respectable job on the boards.

[pillwenney]

The final nail in the coffin, though, was only the final nail because of what happened before. Like I said, the rebounding alone wouldn't have made us win, but it would have kept us closer. And a "dagger 3" is much less of a dagger when you get it down to say, 4, then when you get it down to 11.

The problem with just watching the games is that 3's are almost always going to seem like they have a bigger impact than they do--like a dunk or a big block, whereas something like a free throw has a bigger impact than it seems. Yes, they had a real impact, but the fact of the matter is that if we rebound better and turn the ball over less (or force them to turn it over more), to the point where those two things would have been even, we would have won.

But it also didn't make us lose, you can add it up and it counts yes, but all I said was we did a respectable job on the boards.

Of course not by itself, but it was certainly a factor. That's all I said.

[SacKingZZZ]

Actually you said, "they didn't help tonight" in regards to Thompson, Nocioni, and Hawes and their job on the boards, when in fact they did keep us very competitive on the boards.

[pillwenney]

Actually you said, "they didn't help tonight" in regards to Thompson, Nocioni, and Hawes and their job on the boards, when in fact they did keep us very competitive on the boards.

They didn't help in making us a better rebounding team than the other team on this given night. I'm not sure what you're arguing. I mean yes they helped in that every player literally helps. I was just saying that we still lost the battle on the boards.

[SacKingZZZ]

Just because you technically "lose" the battle of the boards doesn't mean you didn't do a respectable job and I haven't seen the Kings not get their butts kicked on the boards this frequently in a long time.

[pillwenney]

I was just saying that the rebounding help wasn't sufficient over all on that night because we lost the rebounding battle and it contributed directly to the loss.

And for what it's worth, since the deadline, we have lost the rebounding battle in all but a couple of games--very badly in a couple games. I'm not saying there isn't reason for optimism, just that it's still clearly a problem for this team, and that, even if it was a problem to a lesser degree against Indiana, it's still a problem.

[SacKingZZZ]

I was just saying that the rebounding help wasn't sufficient over all on that night because we lost the rebounding battle and it contributed directly to the loss.

And for what it's worth, since the deadline, we have lost the rebounding battle in all but a couple of games--very badly in a couple games. I'm not saying there isn't reason for optimism, just that it's still clearly a problem for this team, and that, even if it was a problem to a lesser degree against Indiana, it's still a problem.

Yeah, that's what happens when you are already a sh*tty defensive team and then throw 8 new guys on top of it. All I know is you can watch the games and see far, far less teams simply jumping over the backs of our players on the defensive boards, it's quite refreshing. Of course the even more disrupted offensive sequences are a drawback and quite nauseating.