Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.