NBA Finals 2018..are we ready?

9,649 Views | 79 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by sonofabear51
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

You want a cal-warriors connection?

Ryan Anderson's contract may get the dubs 2-3 more straight titles.
The Dubs can get those titles on their own merit.

Frankly, I wish we could go back to the days when Anderson was most known for all the threes he hit as a stretch four instead of the two things he's most known for now. I'm sure the money doesn't hurt, but as recent news has shown us, being wealthy and well-known doesn't always equate to life happiness.

If it weren't for that contract, I bet the Warriors could have gotten some use out of him in a Speights type role.


Im pretty sure you don't understand what I'm referring to. That's cool
Your point wasn't hard to understand.

Really? Then I don't see how your response has anything to do with my point that Anderson's contract is the biggest hurdle for Houston getting lebron (if lebron so chooses to play with the rockets)
I don't have to talk about what you think I should talk about.
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

You want a cal-warriors connection?

Ryan Anderson's contract may get the dubs 2-3 more straight titles.
The Dubs can get those titles on their own merit.

Frankly, I wish we could go back to the days when Anderson was most known for all the threes he hit as a stretch four instead of the two things he's most known for now. I'm sure the money doesn't hurt, but as recent news has shown us, being wealthy and well-known doesn't always equate to life happiness.

If it weren't for that contract, I bet the Warriors could have gotten some use out of him in a Speights type role.


Im pretty sure you don't understand what I'm referring to. That's cool
Your point wasn't hard to understand.

Really? Then I don't see how your response has anything to do with my point that Anderson's contract is the biggest hurdle for Houston getting lebron (if lebron so chooses to play with the rockets)
I don't have to talk about what you think I should talk about.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

Yogi Bear said:

ducky23 said:

You want a cal-warriors connection?

Ryan Anderson's contract may get the dubs 2-3 more straight titles.
The Dubs can get those titles on their own merit.

Frankly, I wish we could go back to the days when Anderson was most known for all the threes he hit as a stretch four instead of the two things he's most known for now. I'm sure the money doesn't hurt, but as recent news has shown us, being wealthy and well-known doesn't always equate to life happiness.

If it weren't for that contract, I bet the Warriors could have gotten some use out of him in a Speights type role.


Im pretty sure you don't understand what I'm referring to. That's cool
Your point wasn't hard to understand.

Really? Then I don't see how your response has anything to do with my point that Anderson's contract is the biggest hurdle for Houston getting lebron (if lebron so chooses to play with the rockets)
I don't have to talk about what you think I should talk about.


Absolutely! You should feel free to talk about whatever you want.

But maybe don't reply quote me when your response has nothing to do with my quote.

Just a thought.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is Mayor Schaaf going to require Joe Lacob to purchase a performance bond or otherwise fully collateralize his promise to pay his share of the cost of the parade on Tuesday?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

HoopDreams said:

Cavs gave up by middle of 4th quarter if not sooner. They weren't even going hard for rebounds and loose balls.

KD was trying to get Curry the MVP in the last quarter, and Curry was pressing to win it. But Curry also gave the ball to KD. Mutual respect.

I do think Curry deserved the MVP. It was close, and his horrible game 3 sank him. Still I think teams are so worried about his 3s, that others get lots of space and open looks. KD is superman and can make his own shot on any possession, but Curry (and Green) are what make the Warriors so unique.


Here is the tale of the tape:

KD: Boards 43; Assists 30; Points 115

Curry: 24; 27; 110

If you are are Curry advocate you would point out the rebound differential is irrelevant because KD is a 7 footer. If you are a KD advocate you would point out that Curry is a PG and as such should have a lot more assists, but KD had more.
Bottom line: Real close. Take your pick.
I probably would have voted for Curry, but Durant winning is hardly a travesty.

My logic is that the Warriors won four games, and in three of them Curry was clearly the focal point and the guy the opposition was most worried about. Heck, even in the game where he played like crap it was because the defense sold out heavily to stop him. On the other hand, Durant put up the better overall numbers and was the outstanding player in what was probably the most difficult game to win (Game 3 on the road).
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

bearister said:

HoopDreams said:

Cavs gave up by middle of 4th quarter if not sooner. They weren't even going hard for rebounds and loose balls.
.
KD was trying to get Curry the MVP in the last quarter, and Curry was pressing to win it. But Curry also gave the ball to KD. Mutual respect.

I do think Curry deserved the MVP. It was close, and his horrible game 3 sank him. Still I think teams are so worried about his 3s, that others get lots of space and open looks. KD is superman and can make his own shot on any possession, but Curry (and Green) are what make the Warriors so unique.


Here is the tale of the tape:

KD: Boards 43; Assists 30; Points 115

Curry: 24; 27; 110

If you are are Curry advocate you would point out the rebound differential is irrelevant because KD is a 7 footer. If you are a KD advocate you would point out that Curry is a PG and as such should have a lot more assists, but KD had more.
Bottom line: Real close. Take your pick.
I probably would have voted for Curry, but Durant winning is hardly a travesty.

My logic is that the Warriors won four games, and in three of them Curry was clearly the focal point and the guy the opposition was most worried about. Heck, even in the game where he played like crap it was because the defense sold out heavily to stop him. On the other hand, Durant put up the better overall numbers and was the outstanding player in what was probably the most difficult game to win (Game 3 on the road).
Fully agree with this. Game 3 was the only time I think I ever saw a player double-teamed in the corner without the ball. Leaving 3 guys to cover the entire floor is not a recipe for success.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

Interesting fact:

The Warriors have been great twice since coming to the Bay, 1974-1976 when they won their first title and had the league's best record the next year, and this 4 year run. Unlike many other teams that dominate, they both did so by redefining the game. In the 70's, rotations were typically short, 7 or at most 8 players got meaningful minutes, and teams slowed the pace and pounded it inside. Along comes Al Attles and the Warriors who went 12 men deep every night, who played two centers (George Johnson and Clifford Ray) equal minutes and ran everybody off the court. Sea change.

Fast forward to the present and the Warriors once again redefine the NBA with their pass-heavy motion offense designed to get jump shots. Once again, sea change.
Good description. 1975 Warriors are still my favorite NBA team. Huge underdogs all season, even in the NBA finals against the Bullets, where they won 4-0.

I liked Al Attles as a player, but never thought he was a good coach. It was a great strategy of playing all 12 men substantial minutes every night, but I think Attles fell into it by accident. As I remember, Attles started mostly veterans to begin the season, and they often would fall way behind in games. Finally, I think, in disgust, Attles began pulling four or five starters all at once, and replacing them with younger, fresher, hungrier players off the bench. With George Johnson blocking shots and rebounding, the second team moved to an up tempo fast break. The Warriors would often come storming back to take the lead. When the Warriors and their opponents began to believe no lead was too great for the Warriors to overcome, the die began to be cast for an NBA championship. Still, the playoffs were not to be easy. They met the Chicago Bulls, a team they were 1-3 against during the season, in the semi-final, and were down 3-2, but came back and won 4-3. Then they played the Washington Bullets, a team they were also 1-3 against during the season. They beat them 4-0.

Much of the credit for their success had to go to their GM, Dick Vertlieb, who made a blockbuster trade, sending Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond to Chicago for Clifford Ray, and also signing Charles Dudley and Bill Bridges.

In the 1975-76 season, the Warriors wanted the one missing piece, a power forward, and so Vertlieb traded Butch Beard to get Dwight Davis, who did not turn out to be much of a player. Vertlieb drafted a great guard in Gus Willams, and the Warriors went on to have the best regular season record in the NBA, as you mentioned. In the playoffs, Attles would abandon the strategy of playing twelve men, and substituting 4 or 5 players at the same time, which had been so successful. Neither Gus Williams nor Dwight Davis played the final two games of that series, and I don't remember why, and the Warriors lost both games. For much or most of the 2nd half of the 1976 final against Phoenix, Attles would play only five players with no substitutions that I can remember, and the Warriors lost.

It would appear that strategy of playing 12 deep is something else the Warriors of 1974-76 have in common with the Warriors of the present day. Based on minutes, one could argue that the Warriors go as many as 14 deep now, with many players seeing action game after game.


UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

Interesting fact:

The Warriors have been great twice since coming to the Bay, 1974-1976 when they won their first title and had the league's best record the next year, and this 4 year run. Unlike many other teams that dominate, they both did so by redefining the game. In the 70's, rotations were typically short, 7 or at most 8 players got meaningful minutes, and teams slowed the pace and pounded it inside. Along comes Al Attles and the Warriors who went 12 men deep every night, who played two centers (George Johnson and Clifford Ray) equal minutes and ran everybody off the court. Sea change.

Fast forward to the present and the Warriors once again redefine the NBA with their pass-heavy motion offense designed to get jump shots. Once again, sea change.
Good description. 1975 Warriors are still my favorite NBA team. Huge underdogs all season, even in the NBA finals against the Bullets, where they won 4-0.

I liked Al Attles as a player, but never thought he was a good coach. It was a great strategy of playing all 12 men substantial minutes every night, but I think Attles fell into it by accident. As I remember, Attles started mostly veterans to begin the season, and they often would fall way behind in games. Finally, I think, in disgust, Attles began pulling four or five starters all at once, and replacing them with younger, fresher, hungrier players off the bench. With George Johnson blocking shots and rebounding, the second team moved to an up tempo fast break. The Warriors would often come storming back to take the lead. When the Warriors and their opponents began to believe no lead was too great for the Warriors to overcome, the die began to be cast for an NBA championship. Still, the playoffs were not to be easy. They met the Chicago Bulls, a team they were 1-3 against during the season, in the semi-final, and were down 3-2, but came back and won 4-3. Then they played the Washington Bullets, a team they were also 1-3 against during the season. They beat them 4-0.

Much of the credit for their success had to go to their GM, Dick Vertlieb, who made a blockbuster trade, sending Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond to Chicago for Clifford Ray, and also signing Charles Dudley and Bill Bridges.

In the 1975-76 season, the Warriors wanted the one missing piece, a power forward, and so Vertlieb traded Butch Beard to get Dwight Davis, who did not turn out to be much of a player. Vertlieb drafted a great guard in Gus Willams, and the Warriors went on to have the best regular season record in the NBA, as you mentioned. In the playoffs, Attles would abandon the strategy of playing twelve men, and substituting 4 or 5 players at the same time, which had been so successful. Neither Gus Williams nor Dwight Davis played the final two games of that series, and I don't remember why, and the Warriors lost both games. For much or most of the 2nd half of the 1976 final against Phoenix, Attles would play only five players with no substitutions that I can remember, and the Warriors lost.

It would appear that strategy of playing 12 deep is something else the Warriors of 1974-76 have in common with the Warriors of the present day. Based on minutes, one could argue that the Warriors go as many as 14 deep now, with many players seeing action game after game.



Thank you, SFCity, for that trip down "memory lane." I agree that Attles wasn't the greatest coach in the world, and ultimately, Franklin Mueli wasn't the greatest owner, but it was fun for a few years. What is interesting about today's W's is how much Kerr is willing to change up depending on opponent and situation. There are games where there are 5-6 DNP's and others in which everyone plays meaningful minutes. He's the most flexible coach around at this point.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did the Warriors really "play" 12-deep that year? IIRC, it was more like 10-deep (when most teams were going 7-8, so it was still a significant thing). Who were the last two guys on the bench? They were really getting minutes in most games?

Keith Wilkes as "power forward"! That team was ahead of its time. And Rick Barry could flat-out ball. And this was after having blown out his knee earlier in his career (different with today's surgeries... he lost some of his quickness and explosion).
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I spied Franklin Mieuli playing foosball in the alleyway in front of the door to Big Art's on Durant in the days when I was known to partake in an alcoholic beverage or two at that esteemed establishment (1975-1976). I was always hoping for a Historical Landmark plaque. I'm concerned about what is going on with Rick Barry in that photo.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

concordtom said:

I'm guessing that KD shot a much higher shooting percentage, too.
I think curry was also trying to win it, and that I'd et al wanted him to, but curry needed to hit a higher percentage of shots.

I told my wife, we've seen curry's peak as a player. His quickness is never going to be as fast again. I'm not saying he falls off a cliff, but he'll never be what he was in these past years.
We still have many good Curry years to look forward to.
I hope so, but like Keith olbermann's piece about many other stars who suddenly fade, I fear injuries and a general slowing down with age. Small quick guys can't do the mileage of big guys.



I'm not saying he and the Warriors never reach Finals again. Just that his unprecedented dynamism has likely seen its peak.
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Did the Warriors really "play" 12-deep that year? IIRC, it was more like 10-deep (when most teams were going 7-8, so it was still a significant thing). Who were the last two guys on the bench? They were really getting minutes in most games?

Keith Wilkes as "power forward"! That team was ahead of its time. And Rick Barry could flat-out ball. And this was after having blown out his knee earlier in his career (different with today's surgeries... he lost some of his quickness and explosion).
The small forward/power forward distinction didn't always exist, Neither did point and shooting guard. You just had two guards and two forwards and both had similar responsibilities. Those distinctions evolved from some time in the 70's to the 80's.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

We still have many good Curry years to look forward to.
I agree. One who is the best shooter all time still has many good years left. I'm just saying the zenith (his peak, his prime) has passed.

Similar to Keith Olbermann's recent piece on Lebron. Simply appreciating something good while it's still there to marvel at.

Hey, wait, I think I just boothed myself.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

Interesting fact:

The Warriors have been great twice since coming to the Bay, 1974-1976 when they won their first title and had the league's best record the next year, and this 4 year run. Unlike many other teams that dominate, they both did so by redefining the game. In the 70's, rotations were typically short, 7 or at most 8 players got meaningful minutes, and teams slowed the pace and pounded it inside. Along comes Al Attles and the Warriors who went 12 men deep every night, who played two centers (George Johnson and Clifford Ray) equal minutes and ran everybody off the court. Sea change.

Fast forward to the present and the Warriors once again redefine the NBA with their pass-heavy motion offense designed to get jump shots. Once again, sea change.
Good description. 1975 Warriors are still my favorite NBA team. Huge underdogs all season, even in the NBA finals against the Bullets, where they won 4-0.

I liked Al Attles as a player, but never thought he was a good coach. It was a great strategy of playing all 12 men substantial minutes every night, but I think Attles fell into it by accident. As I remember, Attles started mostly veterans to begin the season, and they often would fall way behind in games. Finally, I think, in disgust, Attles began pulling four or five starters all at once, and replacing them with younger, fresher, hungrier players off the bench. With George Johnson blocking shots and rebounding, the second team moved to an up tempo fast break. The Warriors would often come storming back to take the lead. When the Warriors and their opponents began to believe no lead was too great for the Warriors to overcome, the die began to be cast for an NBA championship. Still, the playoffs were not to be easy. They met the Chicago Bulls, a team they were 1-3 against during the season, in the semi-final, and were down 3-2, but came back and won 4-3. Then they played the Washington Bullets, a team they were also 1-3 against during the season. They beat them 4-0.

Much of the credit for their success had to go to their GM, Dick Vertlieb, who made a blockbuster trade, sending Hall of Famer Nate Thurmond to Chicago for Clifford Ray, and also signing Charles Dudley and Bill Bridges.

In the 1975-76 season, the Warriors wanted the one missing piece, a power forward, and so Vertlieb traded Butch Beard to get Dwight Davis, who did not turn out to be much of a player. Vertlieb drafted a great guard in Gus Willams, and the Warriors went on to have the best regular season record in the NBA, as you mentioned. In the playoffs, Attles would abandon the strategy of playing twelve men, and substituting 4 or 5 players at the same time, which had been so successful. Neither Gus Williams nor Dwight Davis played the final two games of that series, and I don't remember why, and the Warriors lost both games. For much or most of the 2nd half of the 1976 final against Phoenix, Attles would play only five players with no substitutions that I can remember, and the Warriors lost.

It would appear that strategy of playing 12 deep is something else the Warriors of 1974-76 have in common with the Warriors of the present day. Based on minutes, one could argue that the Warriors go as many as 14 deep now, with many players seeing action game after game.



Thank you, SFCity, for that trip down "memory lane." I agree that Attles wasn't the greatest coach in the world, and ultimately, Franklin Mueli wasn't the greatest owner, but it was fun for a few years. What is interesting about today's W's is how much Kerr is willing to change up depending on opponent and situation. There are games where there are 5-6 DNP's and others in which everyone plays meaningful minutes. He's the most flexible coach around at this point.
You're welcome.

I agree that Mieuli wasn't the greatest owner, but he was one of the great ones, IMO. He joined the Diners Club group of 32 who bought the Philadelphia Warriors and brought them west to San Francisco in 1962. It was a big financial risk, especially after the Warriors only drew 3,000 fans that first year, and the other owners began to bail, and Mieuli ended up buying all of them out and became sole owner. Two years later, he drafted Wayne Hightower and Nate Thurmond, and the Warriors, led by Chamberlain, Guy Rodgers, and Tom Meschery would reach the NBA Finals, losing to the Celtics. The Warriors began to draw more, but Mieuli decided to trade his highest paid star, Wilt Chamberlain. He traded Guy Rodgers for Jeff Mullins and Jim King. Drafted Rick Barry, Fred Hetzel, Clyde Lee and Joe Ellis, and in his fourth season 1967, Mieuli's Warriors would again reach the NBA final, losing to the 76ers.

Mieuli and the Warriors suffered a crushing blow in 1967 when Rick Barry was enticed to join the ABA for a team coached by his father-in-law. He did return to the Warriors in 1972, but was not the same player, as a knee injury had now limited his athletic abilities somewhat. But Barry led them to their first NBA title as a Bay Area team. Mieuli's teams went to the playoffs 10 times in 24 years, went to the finals three times, and won one championship.

Mieuli always tried to give the Bay Area fans a show, and drafted a number of players from local schools like St Marys, USF, Santa Clara, Stanford, and several from Cal, starting with Charles Johnson. He drafted players who had played their high school ball in the Bay Area, like Joe Ellis, Bob Portman, and Willie Wise. He brought in a Hall of Famer like Wilt Chamberlain, future Hall of Famers like Nate Thurmond, Rick Barry, and Jerry Lucas. And great or exciting players like Bernard King, Tom Meschery, Guy Rodgers, Jamaal Wilkes, Clyde Lee, Phil Smith, Gus Williams, Robert Parish, Purvis Short, Larry Smith, Chris Mullin, Cazzie Russell, Sleepy Floyd, and World B. Free.

And Mieuli hired the greatest sportscaster in Bay Area history, Bill King. I know Mieuli had a number of down years, years where it looked like he had lost interest, but I always thought he got a bad rap during his lifetime. Without Franklin Mieuli, we might not have the Warriors in the Bay Area today, and we should be grateful to him for that at least. The good seasons are just gravy on top of that. He had quite a long run giving us some pretty good entertainment from the great game of basketball.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Did the Warriors really "play" 12-deep that year? IIRC, it was more like 10-deep (when most teams were going 7-8, so it was still a significant thing). Who were the last two guys on the bench? They were really getting minutes in most games?

Keith Wilkes as "power forward"! That team was ahead of its time. And Rick Barry could flat-out ball. And this was after having blown out his knee earlier in his career (different with today's surgeries... he lost some of his quickness and explosion).
The roster in 1975 was 13 players. The Warriors carried 12 players most of the season. There were 10 players who played in most of the games but the 11th man, Steve Bracey did play significant minutes in 42 games, and had several games where his contribution really contributed to a win.

With 15 games to go in the regular season, the Warriors signed NBA all-star veteran Bill Bridges, and he played in all those games. The roster was then up to 13 players, but the 13th man, Frank Kendrick, played in only 24 games. He looked to be a promising player, but only played that one season in the NBA. I'm not sure why. With the need for a rebounder and defender up front, Bracey's minutes went more to Bridges, and the Warriors were still basically 11 men deep. In the playoffs, it was still 11 deep, and Bracey only played in 4 games.

In 1976, the Warriors had a 12 man roster, and went 11 deep when Jeff Mullins was healthy (it was his final career year), but was more like a 10 deep lineup for most of the games. Bubbles Hawkins was the 12th man and did not play much. In the playoffs, they were 10 deep, as Mullins only played in 8 of 13 games.

The Warriors of those years did not go 10-12 deep every night. They had players injured or playing injured, or feeling ill, and they had some older players like Bridges and Mullins needing rest. Bridges retired in 1975 and Mullins in 1976. Some nights, especially in the early season while the two-unit strategy was being tried out and developed, and depending on team and individual matchups, you might see only an 8 or 9 man rotation.

Jamaal Wilkes is listed on sports-reference.com as a small forward, so the Warriors started two small forwards, Wilkes and Barry. Another reason for signing Bill Bridges (and trading for Dwight Davis) was to defend the bigger and stronger power forwards like Spencer Haywood and Elvin Hayes, Bob Love, and more.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I spied Franklin Mieuli playing foosball in the alleyway in front of the door to Big Art's on Durant in the days when I was known to partake in an alcoholic beverage or two at that esteemed establishment (1975-1976). I was always hoping for a Historical Landmark plaque. I'm concerned about what is going on with Rick Barry in that photo.


Was your Big Art the same guy who had a band called "Big Art and the Trash Masters" who played in the clubs down on San Pablo Ave in the 1970's? They wore shades, levis and white t-shirts, and looked like motorcycle mechanics. They played '50s rock and roll. Smoking hot!
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Big C said:

Did the Warriors really "play" 12-deep that year? IIRC, it was more like 10-deep (when most teams were going 7-8, so it was still a significant thing). Who were the last two guys on the bench? They were really getting minutes in most games?

Keith Wilkes as "power forward"! That team was ahead of its time. And Rick Barry could flat-out ball. And this was after having blown out his knee earlier in his career (different with today's surgeries... he lost some of his quickness and explosion).
The roster in 1975 was 13 players. The Warriors carried 12 players most of the season. There were 10 players who played in most of the games but the 11th man, Steve Bracey did play significant minutes in 42 games, and had several games where his contribution really contributed to a win.

With 15 games to go in the regular season, the Warriors signed NBA all-star veteran Bill Bridges, and he played in all those games. The roster was then up to 13 players, but the 13th man, Frank Kendrick, played in only 24 games. He looked to be a promising player, but only played that one season in the NBA. I'm not sure why. With the need for a rebounder and defender up front, Bracey's minutes went more to Bridges, and the Warriors were still basically 11 men deep. In the playoffs, it was still 11 deep, and Bracey only played in 4 games.

In 1976, the Warriors had a 12 man roster, and went 11 deep when Jeff Mullins was healthy (it was his final career year), but was more like a 10 deep lineup for most of the games. Bubbles Hawkins was the 12th man and did not play much. In the playoffs, they were 10 deep, as Mullins only played in 8 of 13 games.

The Warriors of those years did not go 10-12 deep every night. They had players injured or playing injured, or feeling ill, and they had some older players like Bridges and Mullins needing rest. Bridges retired in 1975 and Mullins in 1976. Some nights, especially in the early season while the two-unit strategy was being tried out and developed, and depending on team and individual matchups, you might see only an 8 or 9 man rotation.

Jamaal Wilkes is listed on sports-reference.com as a small forward, so the Warriors started two small forwards, Wilkes and Barry. Another reason for signing Bill Bridges (and trading for Dwight Davis) was to defend the bigger and stronger power forwards like Spencer Haywood and Elvin Hayes, Bob Love, and more.
Thanks for the info. I guess my only regret about that team was that two of my favorite Warriors, Nate Thurmond and Jim Barnett, were no longer there.

Going to an NBA game was much less of a "corporate experience" back then. They used to sell tickets 1/2 price for kids 16 and under (or maybe it was "under 16"). Anyway, because it was the "anything goes '70s", they didn't check your actual age and they probably didn't even care. I remember going to maybe a dozen games between the ages of 15-17: $12 tickets for six bucks! They let us hang out near the baskets during warm-ups. Got to see Wilt and Kareem up close. One player, and only one, actually acknowledged our presence and even chatted a bit with us while he was waiting in the layup line... and that was Butch Beard. Thanks Double B!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

....Was your Big Art the same guy who had a band called "Big Art and the Trash Masters" who played in the clubs down on San Pablo Ave in the 1970's? They wore shades, levis and white t-shirts, and looked like motorcycle mechanics. They played '50s rock and roll. Smoking hot!


SFCB, I don't know the answer to your question. My memory going back 42 years is that Art was a stocky clean shaven guy with a full head of blond hair in a surfer cut. I also know that Johnny "Love" Metheny was a bartender there and probably had an ownership interest in Big Art's.
It was a very cramped space. The bands I saw play there included Eddie Money, Delta Wires and Arm and Hammer. It was also the place I was physically threatened by Tom Bates' bodymen when he was running for the State Assembly.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear Bearister: would that be the same Tom Bates who one day gathered up all copies of the Daily Cal and had them trashed so that they were rendered unreadable. he apologized by saying he probably did overreact to a negative article in the Daily Cal and promised he would never do it again. he was elected. he wants you to know that he is a genuine liberal who never would, never could ever do anything untoward during an election campaign.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
My favorite Bill King basketball call (on a TV broadcast). Chamberlain was called for goaltending and was enraged with the ref (think Draymond on steroids). King calmly says: "Wilt wants to negotiate. Maybe he can get it down to one point."

btw, Tom Bates was/is a walking contradiction. A football player on the 1959 Rose Bowl team, he opposed the stadium retrofit as mayor. Go figure.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear Bearister: would that be the same Tom Bates who one day gathered up all copies of the Daily Cal and had them trashed so that they were rendered unreadable. he apologized by saying he probably did overreact to a negative article in the Daily Cal and promised he would never do it again. he was elected. he wants you to know that he is a genuine liberal who never would, never could ever do anything untoward during an election campaign.
They never do anything untoward. According to them, and those who cover for them.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
I feel the same way about King. Just didn't want to say it. If I did, I figured I'd get ripped.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

SFCityBear said:

Big C said:

Did the Warriors really "play" 12-deep that year? IIRC, it was more like 10-deep (when most teams were going 7-8, so it was still a significant thing). Who were the last two guys on the bench? They were really getting minutes in most games?

Keith Wilkes as "power forward"! That team was ahead of its time. And Rick Barry could flat-out ball. And this was after having blown out his knee earlier in his career (different with today's surgeries... he lost some of his quickness and explosion).
The roster in 1975 was 13 players. The Warriors carried 12 players most of the season. There were 10 players who played in most of the games but the 11th man, Steve Bracey did play significant minutes in 42 games, and had several games where his contribution really contributed to a win.

With 15 games to go in the regular season, the Warriors signed NBA all-star veteran Bill Bridges, and he played in all those games. The roster was then up to 13 players, but the 13th man, Frank Kendrick, played in only 24 games. He looked to be a promising player, but only played that one season in the NBA. I'm not sure why. With the need for a rebounder and defender up front, Bracey's minutes went more to Bridges, and the Warriors were still basically 11 men deep. In the playoffs, it was still 11 deep, and Bracey only played in 4 games.

In 1976, the Warriors had a 12 man roster, and went 11 deep when Jeff Mullins was healthy (it was his final career year), but was more like a 10 deep lineup for most of the games. Bubbles Hawkins was the 12th man and did not play much. In the playoffs, they were 10 deep, as Mullins only played in 8 of 13 games.

The Warriors of those years did not go 10-12 deep every night. They had players injured or playing injured, or feeling ill, and they had some older players like Bridges and Mullins needing rest. Bridges retired in 1975 and Mullins in 1976. Some nights, especially in the early season while the two-unit strategy was being tried out and developed, and depending on team and individual matchups, you might see only an 8 or 9 man rotation.

Jamaal Wilkes is listed on sports-reference.com as a small forward, so the Warriors started two small forwards, Wilkes and Barry. Another reason for signing Bill Bridges (and trading for Dwight Davis) was to defend the bigger and stronger power forwards like Spencer Haywood and Elvin Hayes, Bob Love, and more.
Thanks for the info. I guess my only regret about that team was that two of my favorite Warriors, Nate Thurmond and Jim Barnett, were no longer there.

Going to an NBA game was much less of a "corporate experience" back then. They used to sell tickets 1/2 price for kids 16 and under (or maybe it was "under 16"). Anyway, because it was the "anything goes '70s", they didn't check your actual age and they probably didn't even care. I remember going to maybe a dozen games between the ages of 15-17: $12 tickets for six bucks! They let us hang out near the baskets during warm-ups. Got to see Wilt and Kareem up close. One player, and only one, actually acknowledged our presence and even chatted a bit with us while he was waiting in the layup line... and that was Butch Beard. Thanks Double B!
It was pretty easy for kids to get into games then, for a low price or free at times. I've mentioned before going to early Warrior games at the Civic Auditorium or the Cow Palace. One night at the palace we bought General Admission tickets for maybe $6, and snuck down to the floor and sat under the basket, first row right behind the photographers. Celtics vs Warriors. Russell vs Wilt and we were 10-12 feet away, watching them jockeying back and forth for position all night. Tommy Heinsohn going off for 44 points. Another time when I was much younger, at the Heavyweight Championship at Kezar between Rocky Marciano and England's Don Cockell, a horde of us kids overwhelmed the ticket-takers and all snuck in to watch the fight in the fog. For 49er football games, we used to climb the fire escape of Poly high across the street and watch the games from the roof, until the police came. After one or two trips up the fire escape, they finally let us stay up there and watch. A buddy of mine who would go on later to play in the NFL for 5 years nearly got caught and arrested for parking cars for $5 in other people's driveways in the neighborhood around Kezar.
Butch Beard was a valuable player, and good defender. He was a leader on the '75 team. When they traded him because they wanted Dwight Davis and thought Gus Williams would be an upgrade, well, that was the beginning of the slide from the top for the Warriors.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
My favorite Bill King basketball call (on a TV broadcast). Chamberlain was called for goaltending and was enraged with the ref (think Draymond on steroids). King calmly says: "Wilt wants to negotiate. Maybe he can get it down to one point."

btw, Tom Bates was/is a walking contradiction. A football player on the 1959 Rose Bowl team, he opposed the stadium retrofit as mayor. Go figure.
Love the quote.
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
I feel the same way about King. Just didn't want to say it. If I did, I figured I'd get ripped.
You figured you'd get ripped for saying Bill King was a great announcer? That's the layup of the Bay Area sports take world.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Dear Bearister: would that be the same Tom Bates who one day gathered up all copies of the Daily Cal and had them trashed so that they were rendered unreadable. he apologized by saying he probably did overreact to a negative article in the Daily Cal and promised he would never do it again. he was elected. he wants you to know that he is a genuine liberal who never would, never could ever do anything untoward during an election campaign.

One and the same, Bruh.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
I feel the same way about King. Just didn't want to say it. If I did, I figured I'd get ripped.
You figured you'd get ripped for saying Bill King was a great announcer? That's the layup of the Bay Area sports take world.
I've always thought that if you like or if you criticize someone or something too much on the Bear Insider, there will be fans who will go on the attack. I draw them like flies, no matter what I write, or maybe it is just paranoia.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I loved Bill King but wasn't Vin Scully a pretty decent baseball announcer?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
I feel the same way about King. Just didn't want to say it. If I did, I figured I'd get ripped.
You figured you'd get ripped for saying Bill King was a great announcer? That's the layup of the Bay Area sports take world.
I've always thought that if you like or if you criticize someone or something too much on the Bear Insider, there will be fans who will go on the attack. I draw them like flies, no matter what I write, or maybe it is just paranoia.
It's probably pretty hard for anything to be a consensus opinion in this world, but one thing that Bay Area sports fans almost agree upon universally if they were of an age to hear him is the greatness of Bill King.
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

I loved Bill King but wasn't Vin Scully a pretty decent baseball announcer?
He was decent.

Actually in my opinion, baseball was King's weakest sport. Same for Greg Papa. Both better doing basketball and football. Baseball is a sport that I think is generally done better by people who only do baseball.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

Yogi Bear said:

SFCityBear said:

helltopay1 said:

Dear SFCB: One caveat: Bill King was clearly the greatest all-around sportscaster in the history of the world dating back to when god hadn't yet thought of creating company. and we all know why God created Man. it was because he was disappointed in the monkey. but I digress. king had no peer as a basketball announcer, no peer as a baseball announcer and no peer as a football announcer. King was an eccentric SOB. He used to broadcast baseball games wearing only his underwear while munching peanut butter sandwiches. He farted so much that the stadium was half-empty by the end of the game. RIP
I feel the same way about King. Just didn't want to say it. If I did, I figured I'd get ripped.
You figured you'd get ripped for saying Bill King was a great announcer? That's the layup of the Bay Area sports take world.
I've always thought that if you like or if you criticize someone or something too much on the Bear Insider, there will be fans who will go on the attack. I draw them like flies, no matter what I write, or maybe it is just paranoia.
It's probably pretty hard for anything to be a consensus opinion in this world, but one thing that Bay Area sports fans almost agree upon universally if they were of an age to hear him is the greatness of Bill King.
Glad to hear it.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

bearister said:

I loved Bill King but wasn't Vin Scully a pretty decent baseball announcer?
He was decent.

Actually in my opinion, baseball was King's weakest sport. Same for Greg Papa. Both better doing basketball and football. Baseball is a sport that I think is generally done better by people who only do baseball.


Scully was good at football too.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

SFCityBear said:

....Was your Big Art the same guy who had a band called "Big Art and the Trash Masters" who played in the clubs down on San Pablo Ave in the 1970's? They wore shades, levis and white t-shirts, and looked like motorcycle mechanics. They played '50s rock and roll. Smoking hot!


SFCB, I don't know the answer to your question. My memory going back 42 years is that Art was a stocky clean shaven guy with a full head of blond hair in a surfer cut. I also know that Johnny "Love" Metheny was a bartender there and probably had an ownership interest in Big Art's.
It was a very cramped space. The bands I saw play there included Eddie Money, Delta Wires and Arm and Hammer. It was also the place I was physically threatened by Tom Bates' bodymen when he was running for the State Assembly.
Big Art's wasn't around after the mid-1970s, was it? In which case Johnny "Love" Metheny would've been about five years too young to tend bar there.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keith Olbermann??If only I had a 500 lb bar of soap to wash out his mouth.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.