Top 5 Reasons To Watch The Golden State Warriors This Off-Season
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 1:19 AM PST
in News
Email
Print- You think your favorite Bay Area football team would be better off playing a different sport.
If you find yourself without a basketball team to cheer for, and your football team makes you long for Ken Macha as manager, you may be the perfect candidate for Warriors’ basketball. It’s sometimes messy, it’s always fun, you certainly get your money’s worth, it’s never boring and the team can actually win some games. Plus, they share a parking lot with the A’s. Doesn’t that mean something?
- You have started to watch late night bass fishing just to have something to cheer about, since the A’s moments were few and far between last season.
Despite a little of the bandwagoning that went on last year during the Warriors’ unexpected success in the playoffs, the Warriors’ fans are every bit as passionate about their team as we here are about the Oakland Athletics. The difference is that they can fill their stadium and they are loud about it. I don’t know about you, but I flat out miss cheering for a team, and maybe, just maybe, the Warriors can provide a little bit of that.
- Because Monta Ellis is just so cute.
But I'm fair...thanks to Baron Davis (who is among the highest scorers in the league!), she can be found at Warriors games.
Everyone happy now?
- Because on days you are not addicted to AN, you can be addicted to Golden State of Mind
Golden State of Mind...another fantastic SB Nation site. It’s funny, it’s hard-core, and you can learn a lot about the game.
- Because they are just so darn exciting.
Before the tip-off of Monday’s game against the Suns, the Warriors’ announcers (who are as excited as the fans at the start of every game) said, and I quote, "And they can go ahead and turn off the shot clocks--they won’t be needing those. Let’s get the game started!"
And started it did. For those of you who missed it, the first six minutes of the game were unlike any basketball I’ve ever seen. Neither team seemed to keep the ball more than 3 seconds, and each team used the fast break on every play, even after a made basket. It looked like a whole different sport; one that bordered on being out-of-control, but in a fun and absolutely entertaining way. And of course, it was only made better by the 101 points the Warriors threw up after the third quarter, and then, of course, winning the game.
After starting 0-6 (for <ahem> reasons <Stephen> that we won’t <Jackson> discuss), the Warriors have pulled themselves to an amazing 6-7, and tonight, they go for a shocking chance to be at .500 after their dismal start.
They play the Sacramento Kings at 7:00pm. C’mon...could it hurt?
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I have been following them
I also enjoy the play-by-play, as well as the interviews with Don Nelson.
Top Reasons Not to Watch the Warriors
- Because they aren't on TV in Sacramento ... frickin Kings ...
They're playing the Kings tonight! :-)
I'm all about solving temporary problems ;-)
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah ... true ...
but the frickin Kings aren't enough of a real team for their games to be broadcast in HD!!!!!!! (I'm all about having something to complain about ;)
Someone's a little...
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
You just don't understand ...
once you go HD ... you can't go back ...
For God's sake, I actually watch Charmed reruns sometimes because TNT is in HD!!!!!!
Mmmmmm...Julian McMahon...
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Looks like Matthew Perry forgot to wash his face
It really looks like Matthew Perry's older,
better looking brother. The cool guy who left a huge shadow for Matthew growing up, so that the only way Matt could get any attention was to act like a doofus.
and it turns out it was totally unjustified ...
the game was in HD ... it wasn't on Comcast Sports Net, it was on the ABC station, which is in HD ... and the Ws won ... even if they played pretty poorly ...
Go Dubs!
If you want to see lots of dunks
and spend way too much money, go to a Warriors game.
Or you could actually watch a game that matters (I'm sorry, any league in which more than half the teams reach the postseason cannot say that the regular season "matters"), doesn't take as long, and is about 8000 times cheaper at Haas or Maples. Added bonus: the players actually care.
You probably haven't given the Warriors a chance
and SURELY don't have a sound understanding of pricing at either Cal games or Warriors games.
I'm a diehard Cal fan, don't get me wrong. However, I went to the Cal vs. SDSU game this past weekend and had to pay $22 for the cheapest seat in the house to watch a somewhat exciting game which showcased a seemingly uninterested Devon Hardin.
On the other hand, I can go to a Warriors game for as little as $10/ticket (my season tickets cost me $26/ticket) and watch an exciting passionate style of basketball unique to the Warriors and other run and gun style teams in the NBA. I'm generally not the hugest of NBA fans, but the W's are something different.
GO BEARS!!!!
by SwisherSweet33 on Nov 28, 2007 9:24 AM PST up reply actions
To each his own
and I will admit that the Warriors are certainly more fun than, say, the Spurs or the Lakers.
The playoffs thing really bugs me though. I mean, on the abstract level I like hockey way more than basketball, but even I just can't get at all excited about the NHL regular season, because everyone gets into the playoffs. Same problem in the NBA.
Basketball vs. Baseball (Playoffs)
Baseball Playoffs = Crapshoot
Basketball Playoffs = Best Team Wins 95% of the time
Baseball needs to go back to playing 5 or 7 games in succession, instead of allowing teams to pitch their "Very Best" every night. I'd like to see teams pitch their #4 and #5 Starters in a Full Playoff Series.... A full team effort, you know.
by Colorado Fan on Nov 28, 2007 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that's always the tradeoff
The NBA and NHL should, IMO, drop 2 playoff spots from each conference and give the top 2 teams a first-round bye.
Sadly, this will never happen, because then they don't get to cash the checks from the other games.
uh why?
why does the top seed need a bye? As already stated, the best team wins the majority of the time. When a #8 upsets a #1, it becomes the greatest story of the postseason. Like last year. When the Warriors did it.
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
Define "need"
The #8 team does not deserve to be in the playoffs. Ergo the #1 team, being the best team, should get a first-round bye.
You know why #8s upsetting #1s is the "greatest story of the postseason"? Because it never happens. Last year was the first time it happened in a 7-game series.
That's like arguing that all college football powerhouses should play as many 1-AA opponents as possible because Appalachian State beat Michigan and that was a thrilling game. I mean, sure. But the reason it was so thrilling was all of the zillions of other totally un-thrilling routs that had to take place to make it so thrilling.
you understand that this is basketball, right?
And that teams play a game every other day, generally. Byes work in the NFL because games are only once a week, so the top seed is really only awarded one extra unit of rest.
If you give the #1 seed in the NBA a bye, you're talking about 10-12 days off for a 7 game series. That's just too long.
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
Well, if I was the "substitute commish"
I'd make the shortened first round only 5 games-- so 4 five game series to reduce the field to 8, then 7-game series from there on out.
True historical fact: In Sumeria, what's now modern Iraq, in the 2000s BC, when a calamity was expected for a certain city, they used to appoint a "substitute king," often a gardener, so that the calamity wouldn't be blamed on the actual king. If a month went by and nothing happened, the substitute king would be kicked off the throne and executed.
This worked great until one of the substitute kings refused to step down at the end of his "term" and had the PREVIOUS king executed!
Why?
What would that accomplish?
He got to stay king
...oh, you mean the playoff system.
Well, for one thing, it would shorten the season by a week or thereabouts, which would be nice. For another, it would add a little more tension to the regular season, since teams wouldn't be able to coast into February at .500 and still be confident of getting a playoff spot.
Unfortunately, money >>> suspense in the eyes of the league.
Why does it matter?
if the season is a week shorter? I mean, you don't enjoy it ... that's fine ... but the rest of us do.
I would argue that it would reduce tension ... or at least meaning in the regular season. In the NBA all but a couple of teams are still at least peripheral playoff contenders with a month to go in the season. In MLB, most years half of the teams are essentially eliminated by the All-Star break.
I think the number of "bubble teams" is similar
however, because in the NBA you have a huge number of teams which can basically take the last month off because they're locks for the playoffs. In fact, I suspect the percentage of "bubble teams" is something close to an Iron Law of Sports-- it's always going to be ~40% of teams. Theoretically it should be higher as the playoff "cut" approaches the .500 mark because of binomial distribution, but there are other factors involved. Might make an interesting subject for an article.
As for the week shorter thing, even a lot of fans of the NBA think the playoffs are too long. They drag on forever until people start losing interest.
Teams that are "in" are still enjoyable ...
for their fans to watch. Teams that are "out", not so much.
Shaving a couple of games off the front of the playoffs won't add interest at the back end. Fans either care enough to watch after their teams are eliminated or they don't.
NBA teams do not take the last month off
because the #1 seed does not usually have home field locked up with still a month left to play. And seeing as how home field is definitely more important in the NBA than in MLB, there's still a lot to play for.
Furthermore, if the #6 and #7 teams are so unworthy of even being in the playoffs, you know the #2, #3, and #4 teams are all going to be fighting til the end to secure that better seeding.
In baseball, probably at least 6 of the 8 exact seedings are decided with a week left to play. In the NBA, probably only 10 of the 16 seedings are decided with a week left to play.
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think this improves the playoffs at all
You want to shorten the first round back to 5 games? No one liked it when it was at 5 games and everyone wanted it to be extended. Hell, everyone wants it extended in baseball too.
I think the MLB playoffs can learn a lot from the NBA playoffs. MLB playoffs are such a crapshoot that the WS is really losing it's intended superior meaning. They need to extend the first round to seven games and they may even need to extend the number of teams in the playoffs.
The one thing that having more teams in the playoffs does is that it improves the chances a #1 seed is going to go further. Instead of facing the #4 team in the 1st round, the #1 seed gets to face the #8. They should breeze through that while the #4 and #5 fight for their lives. The winner of that gets stuck facing the #1 and so on.
Ideally, you want to see the best teams in the league make it to at least the Conference Finals/Championships. The more games it takes to get to those steps, the better the odds that the worthiest of teams get there since luck is a diminishing factor
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
Why even have the regular season then?
You're mistaking better proportional odds for better absolute odds. Making the MLB playoffs 16 teams instead of 8 would indeed increase the proportional odds of the top team relative to the team that limps in in last place-- instead of being twice as likely to win, they might be 8x as likely to win. But their absolute odds of winning go down.
More games in a round robin league format increase the odds that the best team will win. More rounds in a single-elimination playoff format decrease the odds that the best team will win.
It's not single elimination though
It's not one game winner take all. I get what you're trying to say, but even in this single elimination round you have to win 4 games. The better team is almost always going to win a best of 7. That's not the case in a best of 5, which is why it doesn't make any sense to me why you would shorten the 1st round to 5 games.
Why play the regular season? To see who the best teams actually are. Whatever is on paper preseason doesn't necessarily translate to success. On the other hand, a team that finishes the regular season with the best record in the league should have a successful postseason. That's way more true in the NBA than it is in baseball, so why on earth is the NBA the league that needs a revised playoff format?
Just because you're not a fan of the league doesn't mean their format is less successful.
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
Doesn't matter
Any format in which teams go head-to-head in an equivalent number of rounds (regardless of the exact number of games in said rounds) will become harder for the best team to (win/advance to a given round) if you increase the number of rounds. It's a mathematical certainty.
Baseball is, by its very nature, more random than basketball. That's not a flaw of baseball's postseason structure, it's a flaw (if you will) of the game itself.
The point of the postseason isn't to just anoint the best team as the winner. If it was, why not just crown the regular season champion and have done with the postseason altogether?
because the regular season champ isn't
necessarily the best team in the league.
The Celtics might end up with the best record in the league this year, but seeing as how the majority of their games come against the weaker Eastern Conference, they probably aren't the best team in the NBA.
And I'm not saying we want the playoffs to be predictable to a tee. Of course that's lame. But you want to make the playoffs indicative of success. In baseball, winning the WS doesn't mean you were the best team that year. In basketball, whoever wins the NBA Finals is almost always considered the best team in the league.
That road through the longer playoffs proves it.
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
Quote
Why play the regular season? To see who the best teams actually are.
So you play the regular season to find out the best teams, but then it doesn't show you who the best teams are?
I'm just confused at this point.
Look, the reason why the NBA Finals winner is considered the best basketball team is that a 7-game series in basketball is enormously indicative of the better team. It's not the length of the playoffs that "proves" it. You could cut the playoffs down to FOUR teams per conference and the odds that you would exclude the eventual Finals winner would be virtually zero. The first round of the playoffs is near-pointless. All it does is eliminate teams that basically had no chance of winning in the first place.
Why is baseball by it's nature
more random?
Injuries to pitchers aside.
Round bat, round ball?
Funny bounces?
Baseball and hockey are substantially more random in terms of single-game outcome than basketball or football. The Royals have at least a 25% chance of winning any given game they play.
Pitcher injuries actually have almost nothing to do with this.
Think of it this way: 5 degrees on a bat head (about 2 millimiters) can make the difference between the trajectory of a home run and the trajectory of a pop-up.
Think of it this way
In weightlifting, having the weight begin too far forwards or backwards a couple mililimetres will result in a failed lift.
If you want to talk funny bounces, football has an irregularly shaped ball. The ball used in rugby is even worse.
As for the probability of winning a game, there are many factors involved, besides the nature of the game. There is distribution of talent, park factors etc.
There a lot of reasons baseball is more random
The biggest reason is that the most important player in the game only plays once every five games, so each team is putting a squad team out every day. Also, in other sports, the best players are going to play well pretty much every single game, whereas the best hitters are going to have a lot of games and even series where they don't do anything.
Tango did some math here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde...
Wow, great thread
And totally supports the notion of cutting down the season and/or playoffs massively to create more actual drama.
Heck, the NBA could go with a Euro-soccer format (58 games, home and home) and the odds would be near-certain that the final winning team would be correct. You could cut the season and playoffs in half (40 games, 4 playoff teams per conference) and you'd still be near-certain of producing the "true" champion.
In fact, you could have two separate seasonal NBA leagues, using the same players on different teams, playing essentially the same number of total games as they do currently-- and they would each still probably produce the "true" champion.
Hm... alright, this is now my new proposal.
In European soccer
the best players do not play well pretty much every single game. They don't even play pretty much every single game. Of course, there is no luxury tax, no salary cap, so the squad system actually ends up favouring the rich teams, and reducing luck.
Also, just because hitters struggle doesn't necessarily mean that there is lots of random variation. It simply means that hitting is difficult.
Tango's math is nice. But it still doesn't say why baseball is more random: whether due to injuries, park factors or the "nature of the game". Although, you might consider park factors as part of the "nature of the game".
Yep...but boy is that 5% fun!
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
If you think the Warriors or any players on any
semi competetive professional sports team don't care ... how can I put this delicately ... you're completely full of shit. Yeah, yeah, I'd say that'll do nicely.
Agreed
I've never seen players care MORE about the game they were playing, night after night. Baron Davis plays through all kinds of injuries, and like the other players on his team, just seem to have a disregard for everything but the game they are playing. They throw themselves into each minute--from the first quarter to the last second of the game.
In the playoffs last year, Baron pretty much taped an injury he shouldn't have been walking on, much less playing professional basketball on, and played the game.
They care. It's obvious in the way they play.
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, I'm sure the majority of players care
but there are way too many who don't in the NBA. Half the highlight reel plays are made possible by the fact that many players seem to take the attitude that defense is an optional part of the game. (I'll admit that allowing teams to play zone has improved this substantially over five years ago.)
I mean, how can you describe it as anything but "not caring" when players say that they'd rather not have to play the postseason because they don't get paid for it?
How would you describe the widely acknowledged fact that Shaq has taken months off with dubious "injuries" and then, surprise surprise, seems to be fine when the games actually count? (Note: I don't really blame him for this. Like I said, the regular season is semi-meaningless. But it's got to bug the fans.)
The reason why the Warriors last year were so intriguing is that for once, they actually seemed to put some real emotional energy into their run.
As I said, to each his own. I'm not an NBA fan. That's OK. If you are, go, enjoy yourselves. Just one man's opinion.
Okay, but to be fair...
I was talking about one particular basketball team. You'd be shocked how much the Warriors seem to care about the game. :-)
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
I would compare Shaq ...
to many, if not most of the folks on this site's feelings about Eric Chavez -- he should do what's in the best interest of his team and do what he needs to do to get healthy.
Wow ... so holier than thou ...
As I said, to each his own. I'm not an NBA fan. That's OK. If you are, go, enjoy yourselves. Just one man's opinion.
Coming from the guy who one post previously said:
If you want to see lots of dunks and spend way too much money, go to a Warriors game.
Or you could actually watch a game that matters (I'm sorry, any league in which more than half the teams reach the postseason cannot say that the regular season "matters"), doesn't take as long, and is about 8000 times cheaper at Haas or Maples. Added bonus: the players actually care.
Translation: It's just my opinion ... feel free to love this sport that is an utter waste of oxygen.
Not exactly the sentiments of the high minded peace maker you're trying to act like now ...
Aw, come on
What's a blog without a little good-natured trash talking?
I don't feel like the NBA is a waste of oxygen. I feel like it's not nearly the sport it could be (and to some extent, not nearly the sport it has been in the past, although I'm not old enough for that to be any more than hearsay).
I will unashamedly say that I would like to see more fans spend their entertainment dollars and viewing hours on college hoops, though. That way more games will be on TV and it'll get more press coverage.
I'm a college hoops evangelist, not a hater... :p
Nothing wrong with trash talking ...
but you're not a politician -- pick a side and stick to it. If you want to talk trash, talk trash ... though in this case, I'll be up a creek, since I like Cal and college hoops (though I vastly prefer the Warriors/NBA) ... if you just want to advocate for the cute little kiddies at Haas ... well then, no need to hate ...
I don't have any problem with either approach ... but I'm sure you can understand where the confusion would come from, given the nature of your initial post and your subsequent instance on being an evangelist, not a hater ...
I'm just kind of not in the mood for a rerun
of the Grover thread...
Large numbers of basebal players
are often criticised for "loafing".
That doesn't mean that they don't care. It simply means that they are human, and it isn't possible to play at 100% all the time.
Some players will end up playing at say, 85% all the time, and get a reputation for grittyness, while others will play at 100% at some times, and at 60% at others, and get a reputation for being loafers.
That's like telling people to go watch the
Rivercats instead of the A's. Except for the dunking part . . . College basketball, like minor league baseball, is a lower quality product with less skilled athletes.
And 65 teams make the playoffs in Division 1 college basketball and 32 of those are chosen by a committee. How is that better playoff system than the NBA?
Not that this can be proven or dis-proven or even intelligently discussed, but I would strongly suggest watching the Warriors if this is a serious hang-up for you. You will be pleasantly surprised. One of the reasons it's fun rooting for the A's is that the players seem to really like each other and have fun playing the game (with notable exceptions Redman, Rhodes, MB etc . . . ). That's one of the neat things about the Warriors post-DunMurphy: this is a team that clearly cares about winning and each other.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 28, 2007 9:37 AM PST up reply actions
Now I have to defend college hoops
You're right, it is a "lower quality" product... although I think last year's Florida team could have beaten several NBA teams. But that was an exceptional group, so it's not fair to hold it up as the standard.
In some ways, though, I think that actually makes it more interesting. You get much more variation in styles of play, depending on what the coach prefers and teaches well-- everything from "40 minutes of hell" to Dick Bennett-style teams who win with 50 points a game. West Virginia made a habit of winning with teams with basically not very talented players, because they had a system and executed it perfectly.
As for the "committee" thing... there are usually 1 or 2 teams which are actually debatable includes. Joe Lunardi at ESPN has predicted 63 or 64 teams out of 65 correctly for something like 8 years running. It's not a perfect system, but it's actually a pretty good one. Certainly far better than the thrice-cursed BCS.
I should add
that I also have it on good authority that Rivercats games are great fun, too-- I've never been to one, but I understand you can get great seats for very little money.
Rivercats games are great fun ...
if you think my authority is any good ... consider the point verified.
I went to a 4th of July game one year
and it was fun. Blanton started, Swisher was in center and Dan Johnson was at first. So I guess it was like a Major League game retroactively . . . Nice Park too. Like a stripped down, miniature Major League Park. Although, having Esteban German on your I-80 billboard screams "second-rate".
I would never choose that over a Major League game though, where I can see higher skilled players like Blanton, Swisher and Johns . . .
by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 28, 2007 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Heh heh heh
by baseballgirl on Nov 28, 2007 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
Another sad moment for on of ours
"Matt Barnes' mother, Ann, succumbed to her fight with cancer early Tuesday morning. The Sacramento native, who returned home following his stirring performance against the Suns, also sprained his left ankle late in the game to further cloud his status for tonight. Said Davis: "He's a tough dude. He's like the soul of our team. He's the hunger, the grit, dude who makes us fearless."
Hope you and your family are doing alright Matt.
God Bless...........
On TV, no
For "live entertainment dollars," yes, at least for most people.
Shit, I'll watch Warriors games on TV sometimes-- or at least flip to them during commercials of "House" or "Private Practice." (Should I be admitting that I watch that? :p)
Obviously
you are not a Warrior fan or you wouldn't say that. Also, the W's are the most entertaining ticket in town and they "are" affordable. If you pais attention at all you would know the Warriors offer many different types of ways to make tix afffordable.
Check out the website dude and just enjoy the game....
Go W's!
Tickets on the installment plan?
No thanks, man.
(Dunno if that's actually what you're referring to, but it's what it sounded like.)
That's a pretty ridiculous position.
At least, the part about the players on the Warriors not caring.
As for the playoffs thing, go tell it to someone else when the Warriors broke a long playoff drought last year and gave Bay Area sports fans one of the most exciting runs ever seen.
Cool idea for an offseason column....
As a Warriors fan since I was a little kid, last year's playoff run was about as much I have had watching sports since Stanford made the Final Four or the Bash Brothers were around. I love watching this team play and the game agaisnt the Suns was as much fun as an NBA regular season game has been. Great entertainment and a hell of a lot more fun right now than the A's or 49ers.
Warriors!
Baron and Barton (Baron) should have an awesome sitcom. It's really fun to be a fan right now after watching them be bad since I was 12.
great diary!
Also of note, the Warrior's Ellis and the A's Ellis both have that "boy next door that I'd let take my daughter to the prom" cute factor.
This probably just feeds into what you're saying
by bloodsweatndonuts on Nov 28, 2007 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Uh, some of us are Kings fans....
Assuming that everyone in Northern California is a Warriors fan is like assuming that everyone in the Bay Area is a Giants fan. The Warriors had their chance for my loyalty while I was growing up in the Bay Area and instead just fielded (courted?) dreary team after dreary team. Though they might be on the upswing and the Kings may be on the downswing, the Kings have at least made things interesting over the years and I have long ago switched over to the Kings and could care less if the Warriors go to the playoffs. Big deal!
Well, they do play next door
to the team on this blog so it is not a big jump. As for the Giants fans assumption, not even close considering at least the Giants actually play in the Bay Area.
by OaktownPower on Nov 28, 2007 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Golden State of Mind?
Garbage. I know it's a sister site of here, but let's not ignore the fact that there are better Warriors sites out there.
Go check out Warriorsworld.net if you haven't. The format might not be to everyone's liking, but the information, analysis, and humor rocks. Today may or may not be the best day to visit though, since it is the Annual Beans Day
by black beane and rice on Nov 28, 2007 12:39 PM PST reply actions
I'm with you
If were a 19 old obsessed with proving my tech-savvy, displaying my art, and talking in fragmented sentences I would love GoldenStateofMind.com. As a Warriors fan I have tried to like the site, but it is virtually impossible for me to stomach whatever vibe that site has going on. If others like it, that's fine for them, but I only go on there if someone tells me pree has a juicy rumor to spread.
by BlameChannel53 on Nov 28, 2007 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
well, that post sucked
by BlameChannel53 on Nov 28, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions
Nice post baseball girl warriors are awesome
by 3Chavy3 on Nov 28, 2007 1:17 PM PST reply actions
Are you trying to say
that you like violent people who are nice, but only those born after baseballgirl?
Or that you like nice violent youthful female people who were born after the existence of baseball?
both
by 3Chavy3 on Nov 28, 2007 7:55 PM PST up reply actions
NBA is the best, except for the refs
I love the NBA, its marketing, its cross-gender appeal, its superstars. The athleticism is amazing, like Cirque Du Soleil acrobats, these players. PaulThomas seems to be referring to the pre-Bird/Magic era of the NBA. Otherwise, his argument that NBA players don't care is completely paradoxical. Its true that the NBA playoffs display an enormous amount of intensity and will to win. But, that makes it special. It does not detract from the action of the regular season. I wouldn't want playoff intensity for every game. The drama there is in the lower echelon teams beating an elite, like almost every game Monday night. You get to watch players develop over the course of a season, and watch coaches tinker with lineups/matchups/gameplay.
The Warriors are even a better story than the A's at this point. No, its not about a payroll disparity, its about a conflict of culture and playing style. Redemption for Don Nelson, his father-like relationship for his boss, Chris Mullin. Mullin's assemblage of character rejects, (Baron and Stephen) are eager to prove that their style of play, while emotional, can win in the playoffs. The Warriors have a strong team with player-leadership that embraces International guys. I love the fact that David Stern didn't criticize our street-style players or the multi-ethnic makeup of our fanbase. Its unfortunate that he can't get better quality of referees however. Clearly, a negative that needs to be fixed.
GSOM is a collection of College-aged kids, most of whom are bright and know basketball. Yes, I wish the maturity level was higher, in general, but it also is amusing to see how estatic these teens get when we win. Good thing about GSOM is the lack of cliquiness that I experience here. They even cross-promote all other Warriors blogs in a true Web 2.0 mashup fashion. But, they're clearly the leaders of the Dubs blogosphere. They don't tolerate racism. And, the connection with the Warriors marketing department is incredible. Yes, the admins and moderators of the site are unprofessional and flame war each other, but those kinks can work themselves out. Of course, if more AN posters became active over there, it would undoubtedly improve the level of discourse and snarkyness.
Monday's Warriors / Suns game
...reminded me of why I used to enjoy watching NBA basketball. It was a wonderful contrast to boring coach dominated game that the likes of Pat Reilly spawned. As for college hoops I peferred it when it was played by teams made up of players who at least pretended to be college students and played out their eligibility. As a taxpayer whose money support public institutions of higher learning I resent subsidizing the equivalent of the NBA's, and NFL's, minor league system.
by NoeValley on Nov 28, 2007 4:26 PM PST reply actions
Do you resent subsidizing the NFL and MLB
by means of special legislation which creates legal monopolies for them to extract profits at taxpayer (and draft-pick) expense?
Do you oppose publicly-funded stadiums and arena deals?
Pro sports are far more heavily subsidized by the public sector than college sports.
Yes
I voted no on every SanFrancisco stadium ballot initiative. However, if the citizens of Baltimore, Cleveland or Houston choose to subsidize the wealthy team onwership that is their decision.
I object to distorting the mission of our colleges and universities. The athletic teams should be comprised of students who view participation in athletics as an extra-curricular activity, not hired athletes who view their classes as an extra-curricular activity. I agree with the stance the University of Chicago's Robert Maynard Hutchins took in the 1930's. Chicago's exit from the Big 10 arguably enhanced its reputation as an institution of higher learning.
by NoeValley on Nov 29, 2007 8:33 AM PST up reply actions
So, you support abandoning the bowl system,
banning television coverage of college sports events, and ending athletic scholarships, right?
These guys are brought in by colleges for the express purpose of playing sports for those colleges. That's what an athletic scholarship is. It's already a form of payment. It so happens that it's gross UNDERpayment of the athletes for what they're actually accomplishing in terms of revenue generation, but it's still payment.
Actually, of course, this wouldn't force all universities to stop giving out scholarships. Private universities can do whatever they feel like and would undoubtedly move to occupy the space vacated by public universities, because it's extremely profitable.
The Ivy League Model
The Ivies eliminated athletic scholarships in the '50s. This model is my preference. You could still have bowl games and post season playoffs. The competitors would be students who attend college not hired hands. In 1950 CCNY won both the NCAA and NIT basketball tournaments. Every student at City College was on scholarship. (The colleges that now make up CUNY were all tuition free to residents of NYC who could qualify for admission.) The school could compete because colleges teams were made up of students who were also athletes. Sadly there is another side to this story. Several members of the team were involved in the point shaving scandal.
by NoeValley on Nov 29, 2007 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
LUV IT, luv it, luv it...thanx bbg...
..I've been a Warriors fan for more than 30 years, since Al Attles was their coach, and Bill King was calling the games... but i still have one question, what is a foul???
by littleA on Nov 28, 2007 5:03 PM PST reply actions
maybe I'm not getting it...
Then again maybe if the Warriors would ditch that woeful Golden State name for Oakland, I just might.
That and the whole "City" thing on their unis.
I don't know, just a little too SF for me.
And I know, that's not good for Bay Area spirit, but I have all I need with my A's and (cough) Raiders.
But nice change-of-pace diary to give AN something else to talk about.
fully aware
I am also aware they began playing full-time in Oakland during the 1971-'72 season, when they officially removed San Francisco from their name in favor of Golden State.
It wasn't like Oakland was an unknown entity. In fact, even from a sports sense it was very much on the map, with the A's having won their first division title and the Raiders posting an unworldly 37-4-1 record from 1967-69 (their second through fourth seasons in their new digs, which happened to have a just-as-shiny new arena right next door).
I enjoy the NBA (not nearly as much as the other two bigs) and I am neither a fan or antagonist of the Warriors. I just never understood why they couldn't adopt the Oakland name, that's all.
Maybe it wouldn't have made a diffence for me, maybe it would have. But referring back to their SF days doesn't help.
Just sayin', that's the reason for it.
And probably because those were some pretty cool uniforms. Of all the throwbacks teams have worn, they seemed to get the best reactions.
I do think they need to drop Golden State and go with Oakland.
They are doing throwbacks from the mid-80s this year:
Okay, sure exciting basketball team
I may give following G-State a try this season but I got over-exposed to the NBA years ago. Peaked out with the Kings close but no cigar playoff years. Then it occurred to me....geez it's a long season of guys running back and fourth, game after game after game then finally the playoffs.
I see where the Warriors have theologians
just like MLB. They feel the obligation to pronounce to us the cause and effects of the "after-life". Baron Davis is now declaring his take on the life after death, with conviction and certainy that Matt Barnes' mother, who recently passed away,
"His mom was looking down on us. She was with us the whole game..."
I mean, how does Baron Davis know that she didn't flush a crucifix down a toilet at age five, and never repented! Thus, she went straight to Hell, etc etc...on and on, you get the point about endless possibilities. I mean, it's simply absurd to declare a thing about what's going on in a place where you've never been, for persons "there" (maybe, maybe not?) There has been zero tangible reports from that place...if said "place" (the Afterlife) itself had any, any tangible evidence of its own existence.
How about something like, "Our play was inspired by the memory, by each player, of what a great, great fan and supporter of our team that she was.."
??
by One won lost won on Nov 29, 2007 12:39 PM PST reply actions
No ... I disagree ...
I don't think it's worth having this discussion again.
BTW, the team played like shit and still won -- it's hard to say that they were inspired by her memory.
That was a rhetorical question
with that last sentence. I agree, I do not believe we should have that discussion again. I posed the question more as a "coda" than a request for more opinions.
Sometimes, we read something in the newspaper, and we have to fulminate a bit. That's what AN is all about, ain't it??!! 8^))
by One won lost won on Nov 29, 2007 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Surley you meant the Sharks..
I was a die hard Kings fan for the past 10-15 years. We had season tickets when they first came to Sacramento. The problem I have is not with the kings, it is with the NBA in general.
I am tired of watching people cry after ever single play.
I am tired of watching 4 guys stand around while 1 guy does something.
I am tired of watching the refs try to control outcomes of games.
This is why I turned to hockey. I love it, I have always liked it but I have never had a chance to get into it because of basketball. So I am trying it this year. No basketball for me and all Hockey, and I love every second of it.
I enjoy watching guys fight between plays instead of whining.
I enjoy watching everyone move around and be involved no matter what is going on.
I enjoy power plays! Christ if basketball had power plays I think it would solve everything I hate about it. Players would be more careful, they wouldn't beg for fouls all the time etc etc.
In short watch the Sharks.... that is if freaking FSNBA isn't carrying the Warriors :(
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
