What Happened When Venture Capitalists Took Over the Golden State Warriors | Hacker News Reader

What Happened When Venture Capitalists Took Over the Golden State Warriors

nytimes.com

102 pointsrm288962 comments

Other comments have already accurately described how this is mostly fluff since the Warriors success is mostly due to lucky random events with Steph Curry. But one more clarification:

> So when Lacob fired him in 2014, after a 51-31 season, and replaced him with Steve Kerr, the basketball world was shocked.

Not many people were shocked. Jackson was a disaster despite their record and was poisonous to the team.

Here's a taste of what he did:

> Jackson demoted Brian Scalabrine, an assistant coach, to the D-League after initially firing him without cause in front of players. The team fired another assistant, Darren Erman, after learning he had been secretly recording conversations Jackson had with other coaches. Erman was concerned Jackson was bad-mouthing him behind his back, multiple sources have said, and poisoning his relationship with players. The team changed the location of Erman’s parking spot without warning, sources say. Jackson also made it known he preferred that Jerry West, a senior adviser to the Warriors, stay away from practices.

from: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mark-jackson-fired-golden-...

> Other comments have already accurately described how this is mostly fluff since the Warriors success is mostly due to lucky random events with Steph Curry

Lucky stuff like drafting Klay Thompson and Draymond Green? Lucky stuff like hiring Steve Kerr? Lucky stuff like investing in a training staff that has successfully solved Steph's recurring ankle issues? They got lucky with Steph falling to them, and with his injuries coinciding with his free agency. Welcome to sports, the winners always have luck. Stop trying to take away the essentially endless list of things they irrefutably did well just because HN commenters don't like VC's promoting themselves.

Jackson alienated a lot of people but objectively he did a good job. The team had been floundering and he turned them into a top tier defense. If anything he failed on soft skills alienating some of his players and failing as a manger. But objectively the team improved under Jackson and impressively as as defensive team.

Yes, Luck into Steph Curry and his contract, it's this smart silicon valley owner. NONE OF THIS WAS AN ACCIDENT.

Except, for how the Warriors even "lucked" into Steph Curry during the draft. It's because David Kahn of the Timberwolves drafted both Johnny Flynn and Ricky Rubio two spots ahead of Curry. Flynn lasted 2 seasons, Rubio didn't even play in the league until after Flynn had left.

Nevermind the fact that the Sacramento Kings essentially screwed themselves over when they got upset that Andre Iguodala didn't sign with them fast enough, which opened the door for the Warriors to sign him, then David Lee being injured at the beginning of last season which forced them to play Draymond Green (and finding out how great he was).

No it's, "all skill" man.

Talk about drinking the koolaid.

The Warriors are playing out of their minds this year, overshadowing a Spurs team that is playing out of their minds as well. The big difference right now is Pop is willing to rest his starters, Kerr has been playing his starters extra minutes trying to win 73 games. If anything that will be their downfall (I still think they're going to win).

"It's not just Steph Curry.", Are you out of your mind? If Steph Curry wasn't there they'd still be a good team, but not a team on the brink of winning 73 games.

I can't recall specifics, but indications of bubble one, the media was comparing or attributing things to the "ethos" that is Silicon Valley during the ramp up.

The article was hard to take with much seriousness.

This is a stinging and well constructed criticism, and I've got to give some credit to the perspectives. Obviously you follow the league on not just a superficial level. You're demonstrating a lot more comprehension of the wheeling and dealing of the league.

On a related note, I've heard an extended family member consistently downplaying Coach Popovich's status as one of the best coaches, it's kind of an amusing gripe, and would fit in with your poking holes in 'the narrative' so I'll sketch it out roughly (from memory):

David Robinson's injury kicked off the dynasty. As Pop came to the newly bought Spurs, he fired the coach and made himself the coach. Robinson could have come back during that season, but Pop saw the opportunity to get Tim Duncan if only they could bomb out. With the tandem of Robinson and Duncan Pop knew he'd have something special, and history worked out that way.

Adding other 'system' players like Manu and Parker eventually showed how much luck can continue to be a factor, because they were arguably not high-potential prospects in the context of how they turned out. Both are probably Hall of Famers. They've definitely been integral to Championships.

So, yeah, it was a smart move and luck was good to the Spurs for Duncan and getting other Hall of Fame caliber pieces (who have played for YEARS now together), but the relative is pretty consistent in downplaying Pop's talent versus the players he's had to work with. This argument of course gets more traction with Leonard turning into an amazing baller.

(For the record I disagree and think Pop's approach is an outlier and effective, but the criticism does amuse me)

I think the fact that Pop understand the point of resting players and his longevity in successfully building out teams points out how well he understands the game. Being a great coach with talent is one thing, but having talent doesn't translate into championships. See: 2012 OKC Thunder.

Totally agree, I think his management scope is a lot more significant than just attributing it to luck. 538 did an analysis and showed that based on metrics, even the San Antonio bench would be a competitive group of starters in the league. That kind of depth and how to manage it is really quite impressive because of how it goes against typical rotations in the NBA in my view.

Not to mention he was drafted 2009, before that VC was in.

In every single instance of NBA success, a substantial amount of luck is involved. Yes, Steph's contract is wildly under market. That said, even if he were on a max deal, Iguodala is the only guy they would not be able to have acquired, as they drafted Klay and Dray (both of whom weren't available simply because of a moron in front of them). If you say the Warriors "lucked" into Steph Curry, then did the Spurs "luck" into Kawhi Leonard? Did the Heat "luck" into Dwyane Wade? Draft misses are astoundingly common.

> "It's not just Steph Curry.", Are you out of your mind? If Steph Curry wasn't there they'd still be a good team, but not a team on the brink of winning 73 games.

Are you out of your mind? Yes, Steph is the key. But remove Dray, Klay, etc, and they are also no longer a 73 win team.

> Kerr has been playing his starters extra minutes trying to win 73 games.

No, he simply hasn't been as aggressive as Pop in resting starters. He's behaving the way literally every coach but Pop behaves.

Of course there is luck everywhere. But most owners don't get articles written about them in the New York Times about how great they are because of their luck.

> No, he simply hasn't been as aggressive as Pop in resting starters. He's behaving the way literally every coach but Pop behaves.

Eh, he can easily rest his starters much more often. The other night he kept his starters in the 4th when they were up by 16 or so. There are definitely some coaches that would do that, but generally most of those coaches are considered terrible.

You're undervaluing Steve Kerr. Under Kerr with essentially the same roster as the season before the Warriors jumped from being an above average offense to an elite offense. The popular narrative is that David Lee was injured and Draymond Green took on Lee's role but Green was already a key player and 6th on the Warriors in minutes the year before the championship.

It's not the type of thing that is easy to measure outside of looking at team wide efficiency statistics (and thus viewing the result, not the strategy) but it seems as though Steve Kerr did an amazing coaching job. And I say this as someone who thought highly of Marc Jackson's results (it seemed like he was doing a great job coaching defense because a team that looked offensively stacked had one of the best defensive efficiency totals in the NBA). It's not a great analytics/HN narrative but what I've heard in interviews with Kerr is he made the team scale back in the complexity of their practices and work on fundamentals and avoiding turnovers.

I was really upset actually that Curry was playing so hard in the 4th quarter against Philly of all teams. He went for a steal w/ 2 minutes left up 18 points. I get it the mentality, but so close to the playoffs? Give your bench more play time 'cause that's what won last year.

Considering Kerr used to play for Pop at one point I'm pretty sure he's got his own reasons for his approach? Not really a secret the way Pop runs his show. Just different. For the record I admire Pop's coaching skill. And his interview gamesmanship. "More points. Fewer turnovers. Okay? Thanks." Heh.

Let's just remember that Steph Curry is the guy that took Davidson College to the Elite 8. Davidson. Davidson is not a school that's known for it's great athletic talent, so I actually would give some credence to the idea that it really IS just him.

You truly think that? I believe you can put any other reasonable players with Curry and they will perform better than ever. When Curry is dragging defense outside it makes it easy for the forwards.

The Timberwolves narrative is a bit more complex than that; Kahn has publicly stated since his dismissal that the Curry camp indicated they weren't interested in Minnesota and wanted to go to a bigger market. Curry did not visit Minnesota nor would he work out for the TWolves in pre-draft preparations. Agreed on everything else you mentioned

I didn't hear that, but according to this article[0], Curry didn't want to go to Golden State either and didn't work out with them. Even still having two picks there and picking two point guards... why? Just terrible overall.

0: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-story-of-how-stephen-curry-...

Rubio really didn't want to go to Minnesota, either, and yet they picked him.

Was going to say the same thing, but also add that Rubio didn't even play in Minnesota right away, so that argument doesn't make sense.

But they coaxed him over. Can't say it didn't pay off, and why would it have been different for Curry?

And he also worked out with them pre-draft.

If the Warriors had traded Curry for Bogut (instead of Ellis) this article doesn't get written.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25413636/how-...

> "It's not just Steph Curry.", Are you out of your mind? If Steph Curry wasn't there they'd still be a good team, but not a team on the brink of winning 73 games.

Are you saying it IS "just" Steph Curry? Even if he's the majority of the reason that they win 73 games, it's very unlikely he'd win 73 with a different supporting cast (i.e. a cast other superstars have).

I agree on a few of your points, but tone it down, man.

I probably shouldn't have talked about the 73 wins, since I was more ranting about the context of the article; how they address how great the owner is, and that it's his "plans" that are the keys to how successful they've been and not that they kept literally the greatest shooter of our time at a reasonably bargain. So yeah saying "It's not just Steph Curry", it's how we do <X> is pretty wrong.

Have you been following the stats? How do you defend Steph Curry? He could be with any team right now and hitting ridiculous amounts of long range shots. Those long range shots matter a lot!

So many teams are hampered by nutcases (Cousins) or one-way players whose deficiencies can't be overcome. Put Curry on many teams and he might score loads, but likely be back in the pack. GSW have got a solid rim protector, great system and buy-in (invaluable), defensive versatility (Draymond and Iguoadala) and a second-fiddle shooter who is pretty outstanding in his own right.

It's no surprise that the other outstanding team in San Antonio also have defensive versatility and a brilliant system.

Didn't you see how much credit was given to the investment group during the parade last Summer? They're going to have to install tables for the new courtside seating so that handjobs can be given out under them.

> Except, for how the Warriors even "lucked" into Steph Curry during the draft. It's because David Kahn of the Timberwolves drafted both Johnny Flynn and Ricky Rubio two spots ahead of Curry.

Sports leagues are zero-sum games. Being smarter than the competition is the point, and in this case the competition was stupid. In an American sports league, the highest draft picks go to the worst-performing teams, who are generally the dumbest teams.

The temptation, as exhibited by your Kahn examples, is to go for crazy home-run picks that fit your mental model of superstars. The Warriors instead took the best basketball player available even though it would take him a few years to get to this level.

> Sports leagues are zero-sum games. Sorry you're going to have to explain this. Otherwise I don't really know what this means. If Golden State "gains" a Curry, who "loses" a Curry here? When teams trade a player due to money factors rather than the player's skill factors, do they "lose" or "gain" against the other team?

The draft is a huge crapshoot IMO and no one has been able to consistently pick out winners year over year. And no one really knows for certain who will actually do well in the NBA until they actually step on the floor.

To say the Warriors knew anything about how Curry would mature would be false. Also considering the narrative for Curry at the time (undersized, can't handle the NBA's size, not really a point guard), I would say Curry was a "gamble" pick.

A zero-sum game is one in which when you do better, someone else does worse. Which is to say, it's not like the economy, where both of us can get richer at the same time, but for Golden State to improve, someone else has to get worse.

When teams trade, they might both improve, but it will be at the expense of the other teams in the league.

When Golden State "gained" Curry at the draft, the team picking behind them "lost" the opportunity to take Curry.

> I would say Curry was a "gamble" pick.

I don't understand how to reconcile this with saying that the Warriors were lucky Minnesota blew their picks and he fell to them.

There's a lot of fluff in that article. I'd say it's a combination of two things: what the owners are doing, outlined in the article and something you can't get through management: a group of players that are humble and truly want to work together as a team. I stopped watching the NBA in the 90's after the Warrior's "run TMC" was broken up and Jordan and Magic retired. The egos and attitudes of the players really turned me off.

Curry and his teammates have turned me on again to the game, in a big way. The games are a joy to watch. The pure excitement generated by the team is just amazing. Even in the 90's I would rarely watch every minute of a game. I watch EVERY minute of each Warrior's game and love every bit of it. They are that good.

Hahahahaha. Ok. Sure. You loved watching Jordan, but you dislike "egos and attitudes"? C'mon, man. Gettin' a little dog-whistle-y there. And the idea that Steph (or Dray) doesn't/don't have an ego or an attitude - the man rains conscience-less bombs from 40 feet out, turns and runs after shots because he knows they'll hit, and talks shit to other teams' bench while his shot falls. And that's before we start talking about Iggy or Dray.

It's one thing to have an ego, but it's another to back it up. Jordan backed it up. My point was a lot of players have the ego without the skills. Also, Jordan's ego was focused on winning. He never made stupid statements in public (that I heard of). I can't tell you how many times LeBron said or did really dumb things off the court. Of course, all driven by his massive ego.

LeBron's a two-time champion in what's probably the best NBA, talent-wise, in the league history. He has won multiple MVPs and you could legitimately argue for him as MVP virtually every year he has ever played. There is no legitimate argument that he has not "backed it up".

And the reason you can't tell me how many times he has said or done dumb things off the court is because he really doesn't. He's a dedicated family man and a savvy businessman. He doesn't get in trouble. He got flack for The Decision, but most of that flack was stupid. I hate him as a player; I'm a Bulls fan, and he's owned us forever. But your criticism of him doesn't make any sense.

> Gettin' a little dog-whistle-y there.

What are you talking about?

There's always at least a bit of racist motivation for complaints about NBA players' "egos and attitudes". In this case that's probably not even most of what OP was saying. But when white American racists read complaints like that, they accurately assume that racism is part of it. Those who don't think that way, don't make that assumption. It's like a dog whistle in that certain audiences hear the message, and others don't.

> There's always at least a bit of racist motivation for complaints about NBA players' "egos and attitudes".

First of all, you just called someone on here racist. That's very insulting if you're wrong about the person in question.

Second, you just said that I can never complain about NBA player egos and attitudes, otherwise I'm a racist no matter what. I'm sure your premise must equally apply to all sports then: complain about hockey player egos, you're a racist; complain about baseball player egos, you're a racist; complain about football player egos, you're a racist. No?

You're building a wall against any criticism by elaborately abusing the concept of racism. Is it racist to artificially shield one group of players from criticism based on race, while not shielding players of every of race from identical criticism across every other sport?

Read my reply above, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11397602 ... hopefully that clarifies.

Or it's the usual inference-sans-implication that makes for fun eggshell-walking discourse.

> There's always at least a bit of racist motivation for complaints about NBA players' "egos and attitudes".

Oh, is there? That's quite a harsh accusation -- it can get people instantly fired nowadays -- so I'm sure you can back it up.

> It's like a dog whistle in that certain audiences hear the message, and others don't.

You seem to be very good indeed at hearing this alleged dog whistle. Perhaps the problem is a little closer to home than you realize.

Could have been watching the Spurs for decades if that's what you like, minus the excitement until recently :)

LOVE watching Kawhi Leonard - the guy is so entertaining from a strictly "that guy knows how to play basketball" kind of way

I've watched them a few times over the season and their players just don't do the same thing for me. Technically they are very good, I agree. There's an intangible in the way the Warriors play together that really increases enjoyment.

It's not just about winning. It's how they win.

Of course, the other thing is watching Steph Curry change the game. It's a wonder to behold.

> There's an intangible in the way the Warriors play together that really increases enjoyment. > It's not just about winning. It's how they win.

You realize you just described the case for the Spurs for the past decade, right?

Spurs are fun to watch, but don't have Steph launching ridiculous bombs from anywhere. It's barely basketball anymore, and it's amazing.

On an interesting note, Kawhi Leonard's advanced stats were marginally better than Curry's as of two weeks ago. They're both equally exciting players in my eyes. Also, have you seen the size of Leonard's hands?!

Does the last minute of basketball still take 15 minutes? If so then I'm not coming back.

Love it how Lacob says he 'started' 70 companies. Funny I bet those guys seeking funding from his firm thought they were the founders. I am not begrudging that he might have helped but I thought that was a bit rich. Also left wondering how many of those founders got replaced along the way?

I came here to make this comment. I found that quote offensive, as both a founder (I’ve started two companies) and angel investor (I “started” zero of these companies!). According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lacob), Joe Lacob has never started a company.

Yeah, that is very far from the way most VCs view their role in the ecosystem, and I gather that was the case even before the recent "founder-friendly" era. Tells you something about this guy in particular and his version of the Warriors story. I don't doubt that he's made a lot of good moves with the Warriors, but this piece is so over the top.

Is this wordplay similar to a minister "marrying 70 people" throughout a career?

Its more coincidental that the warriors got all the pieces in place. Curry was injured the year he had to sign the current contract which is way undervalued. This is the key that allowed them to have signings like Iggy. Curry is easily worth 2x what he's being paid now which would eat up Iggy's contract.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/GSW.html?lid=s...

Lacob gives himself too much credit for the fact that his injured point guard trained himself into the greatest shooter in NBA history.

He got lucky and he's arrogant because his gamble paid off. I really do hate this Silicon Valley mentality where when a decision leads to a success, they actually believe that there was a 0% chance the decision could have led to a failure.

BTW, this warriors-jazz game is crazy right now.

I thought this article was a pretty good overview of the team, and it did at least acknowledge the difficulty in separating the ownership from the start player, in terms of success. But one part at the end seemed super out of place.

> He confided that he figures he’s one of the 10 best blackjack players in the worl

What? How can this man be thought of as a shrewd businessman by anyone after saying something like that. The only possibly explanation could be that he's referring to card counting, but I doubt he's playing million dollar games against people that don't realize what he's doing.

Fun fact - 1/4th of the NBA is owned by big names in private equity -

http://pitchbook.com/news/articles/barbarians-at-the-ticket-...

They've spend a money not only on the players but things in & around the arenas they play in (concessions, upgrading booths) and as a result they've been able to extract more money out of the franchises. I'm also sure owning a team is fun if you're into that.

Players, coaches, trainers, and assistant + GMs do most of the work in any NBA franchise. Owners mostly give a final approval or veto on major decisions.

Hagiography masquerading as reporting.

What's happened with the Warriors reminds me a lot of the Dallas Mavericks' transformation after Mark Cuban bought the team in 2000. Pre-Cuban, the Mavs were terrible, a perennial bottom-tier team. Cuban changed the culture and the Mavs have been more successful than most fans could have dreamed of (even winning the championship in 2011 and runner-ups in 2006).

The Warriors didn't just get "lucky" by drafting Green, Klay, Barnes, and Curry. It's hard drafting well; just ask the 76ers, the Cavs (before Lebron came back, they weren't making the playoffs despite multiple #1 overall picks), and 20+ other teams in the NBA. With the exception of the Spurs, no other team has been better at building a team lately.

Many parties deserve recognition for the Warriors' outstanding success over the last few years and the owners are certainly included.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com