Comment by the_watcher | Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_watcher | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com