What Happened when Venture Capitalists took over the Golden State Warriors

[dixonge]

I found this article very interesting, even though I seldom watch basketball. Evidently VC firms own over 25% of the NBA...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/ma...iors.html?_r=0

[scrinch]

As a long-time and long-suffering Warriors fan, I must agree that management likely does have a lot to do with turning the franchise around. It's just too much to ask me to believe that under one owner the Dubs made the playoffs one year out of sixteen, while under the next owner they've made the playoffs four times out of six, and won a championship.

In my job I'm paid to evaluate the odds (of exploration drilling) and do little (and big) things to improve them for the company I work for. This is in a way similar to what the Warriors management has done. They've evaluated and improved the process of running a basketball team in myriad small ways. It doesn't guarantee success when they do this, it just increases the odds of succeeding when opportunity comes knocking.

A similar process has occurred across the bay with the SF Giants also.... a real culture shift away from the personality driven players and coaches in the 90's and early 2000's and toward a team-first approach, that has shown itself much more likely to succeed when the team makes the playoffs.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[HFWR]

Doesn't hurt to have Steph Curry...

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Doesn't hurt to have Steph Curry...

Yeah, Reinsdorf looked like a super-owner when the Bulls had Jordan.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Doesn't hurt to have Steph Curry...

Every generation has their best player ever. Curry is unreal the way he shoots the ball.

[dixonge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum Yeah, Reinsdorf looked like a super-owner when the Bulls had Jordan.

But that cuts both ways - if you have a Shaq or a James and *don't* win. You can have Curry and coach him to stay inside the paint and avoid 3's and end up like every other Warriors team in history. Having a Curry is probably required, but having him is just one small part of what they've done with that team. They have made a lot of decisions no other team would have made. There is a bit of Moneyball here mixed with a Shark Tank mentality.

On a related note, here is a great piece ESPN just ran - a friend had the paper copy which I thoroughly enjoyed:

TrueHoop Presents: 72 reasons to love the Golden State Warriors!

[zinger1457]

The one thing that kills or makes most good teams is free agency. The San Antonio Spurs seems to be one of the few team where the core has stuck together for an extended period, I'm sure their coach and management has a lot to do with it. The Warriors will probably face some difficulties when Curry's current contract expires. He is extremely underpaid for someone of his caliber, only the 5th highest paid player on the Warriors, he should be in the top 5 in the NBA. It will be difficult to pay him what he deserves and keep all of the other top players on that team.

[scrinch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Doesn't hurt to have Steph Curry...

The tip of the iceberg above the water that you see is Steph Curry's ability to hit clutch 3's. But the huge majority of the iceberg is defense, passing, and rebounding. Curry doesn't lead the team in any of those categories. The Warriors have been prolific scorers for many, many years. They have only been consistent winners for the past few years when they started really focusing on teamwork and defense.

[gcgang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixonge I found this article very interesting, even though I seldom watch basketball. Evidently VC firms own over 25% of the NBA... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/ma...iors.html?_r=0

Great article, thanks!

While I can't think of anything more boring than regular season NBA TV, I have to admit I just watched the Warriors dismantle Memphis for the record breaking 73rd win, while Steph Curry went off for 7 threes in the first half, as he easily got the 8 he needed to get to 400. Btw, Curry is also the only player to get to even 300 in a season.

The details of their "open communication" management style, starting at the top with Lacob, who sounds like an amazing guy, make it sound like a lot of fun.

Is this the "right" style for everyone? Are they winning because of their genius management, or is management genius because they're winning?

They have made shrewd moves that make me think they'll be winners for some time to come. Some guys can beat the index.

Very interested to learn Lacob was one of Edwin Thorp's (math professor and author of the first card counting book, Beat the Dealer) students that beat the casino at blackjack counting cards.

[dixonge]

http://www.si.com/nba/2016/04/14/gol...en-curry-video


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Senator]

Maybe the VC guys have figured out a way to spread the talent, move top players around between teams making it look like a truly competitive sport.

once they have figured out a way to captivate the public, and play games that people are watching, they make more money.

Maybe in the end, it is all fixed. Skewed like a reality TV show. People keep watching, buying tickets, buying merchandise, etc. The eventual champion is determined throughout the year, not by skill of the players, but by the amount of money the team(s) have the potential to generate. Marketers know what you want, before you want it.

Could these sports teams all be just another reality TV show that you can also watch live?

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrinch The tip of the iceberg above the water that you see is Steph Curry's ability to hit clutch 3's. But the huge majority of the iceberg is defense, passing, and rebounding. Curry doesn't lead the team in any of those categories. The Warriors have been prolific scorers for many, many years. They have only been consistent winners for the past few years when they started really focusing on teamwork and defense.

Can't argue that, though a team's top scorer is rarely the best defender or rebounder.