
What Happened When Venture Capitalists Took Over the Golden State Warriors - rm2889
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/what-happened-when-venture-capitalists-took-over-the-golden-state-warriors.html
======
bretthopper
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-...](http://grantland.com/the-triangle/mark-jackson-fired-golden-state-
warriors/)

~~~
the_watcher
> 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.

------
swang
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.

~~~
the_watcher
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.

~~~
swang
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.

~~~
ritchiea
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.

------
e40
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.

~~~
trowawee
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.

~~~
e40
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.

~~~
trowawee
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.

------
rmason
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?

~~~
olb
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lacob)),
Joe Lacob has never started a company.

------
esturk
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...](http://www.basketball-
reference.com/contracts/GSW.html?lid=standings_payroll)

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

~~~
kin
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.

------
chiliap2
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.

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

[http://pitchbook.com/news/articles/barbarians-at-the-
ticket-...](http://pitchbook.com/news/articles/barbarians-at-the-ticket-gate-
the-pe-moguls-who-own-14-of-the-nba)

~~~
mtanski
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.

------
bhaumik
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.

------
chrisgd
Hagiography masquerading as reporting.

------
realdlee
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.

