Why I Hate “the Warriors”

I’m annoyed.  Here’s the thing:  I thought I was gonna write a quick explanation of why I hate the Warriors, hot take click bait for contrarians.

Because: I do, I hate them!  See, it’s easy for me to feel that, it’s always right there, seething under the surface, clamoring to be voiced. I hate the Warriors. That part is like falling off a log. But an explanation is a different kind of thing. For an explanation I have to think, and when that happens, at least for me, things get complicated.

Why do I hate the Warriors? What about them do I hate?  People ask me this. It’s fair. What’s to hate about a superb team made up of apparently likable players playing well individually and together? What’s to hate about ball movement or great shooting or winning or appearing to have fun? What’s to hate about Oakland having a great team?  What am I even talking about?! People ask me these very difficult questions. And I keep repeating, confirming the stereotype of the egghead academic, that it’s complicated.

Let’s start with what I don’t hate. I don’t hate Steph Curry. His skills are peerless, the precise, but seemingly effortless creativity with which he deploys them is joyful and awe striking, not to mention at times hilarious, and it  manifests at least as much dedication and hours of effort as I’ve ever admired in any other player.  I don’t hate Draymond Green and the ability to adapt to his environment by growing new capacities in leaps and bounds that he’s demonstrated as part of this team. Nor do I hate his brash, trash talking confidence. I don’t even hate the Warriors for beating the heroic LeBron James and the closest thing I have to a hometown club in the finals last year. I don’t hate their crisp pace, or their spacing, or their ball movement. I don’t hate three pointers in particular or great shooting in general. I love all these things. And yet…

And yet, basketball doesn’t just exist within the lines of the court. Basketball is also, for me anyway (and I would argue for anyone, whether they are aware of it or not), a set of stories, stories that convey (and influence) attitudes and beliefs and values. And basketball also is a set of broader societal forces and practices that find their way into the game, moving the minds and hearts and bodies of owners, general managers, coaches, players, fans, and the media. So that while I can watch and admire all that I described above, it’s simply not possible for me to do so without also experiencing feelings provoked by all the other things I can’t help but notice are in play when the Warriors take the floor. (By the way, that, in case you wondered, is why “the Warriors” is in scare quotes in my title.)

I’ve written about this before, so I won’t belabor the point at length, but I can’t help, I’m sorry, but be disturbed by what lurks between the lines of the collective adoration of Steph Curry. It’s not that his skills don’t deserve our admiration. They do, and I believe he is rightly considered the best basketball player alive at this moment.  It’s the way that many (I know: not all) in the media, in the corporate world, and in fandom convey their delight in his success (particularly when it involves licking a saber’s edge over the slain body of the last player they made into an object of worship, LeBron James).

I’m repelled, heretical though it may seem in our country, by the celebration of his Christianity, as though believing in Jesus were a talent or an accomplishment, or evidence of moral virtue, or, um, at all relevant to being a basketball player. And I wonder why in Jesus’s name we, as a culture, give a shit about what Steph believes. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t hate Christians or that Steph Curry is one. I hate that this fact ever appears to his credit in a story about basketball.  Ditto for his having an adorable child and loving her: happy for him that he has one, happy for her that he loves her. Stop talking about it (or start talking about all the NBA players, especially those who didn’t come from two parent households, who are also devoted to their kids).

I’m irritated (not repelled, I’m trying to be precise here) by the open-mouthed marveling at his physical stature, as though with every floater he drops in heavy traffic he were preschooler spelling a difficult word or moonwalking on his parents coffee table, as though he has somehow overcome greater obstacles than other great NBA players.  He’s not, and he has not.  Yes, he is not as tall as the average NBA player, nor as strong, but he’s neither the shortest nor the weakest of his peers. He’s 6-3, was raised amidst material privilege by both his parents (one a former NBA player and three-point specialist), and spent his childhood at NBA practices and games, surrounded and tutored by NBA players. That doesn’t make him a lock to become the greatest player alive (far from it, as I’ve already acknowledged: he’s clearly worked his ass off), but it also doesn’t make him a miraculously prodigious tiny street urchin who wandered in grubby off the street corner and began launching step back threes with unprecedented accuracy.

Lastly, I’m repelled (yes, repelled again), by what I view as a pernicious racist subtext in the cult of Steph Curry. Let me emphasize: I am not referring to conscious attitudes held by individuals who adore Steph Curry. I’m talking, as I have tried to demonstrate in my book, about the workings of collective, unconscious dispositions and desires that we have all inherited by American society and the history of basketball.  Unless we actively and explicitly combat these, then it becomes too easy for the celebration of a light-skinned, blue eyed, average-sized guard to come at the expense of dark-skinned, brown-eyed, over-sized black men.

Is any of this Steph’s fault? Mostly, I would say no, it’s not. But it is to the degree that he deliberately reinforces (or capitalizes upon) any of these elements of the narrative that has risen up around his brilliant on-court performances.  I leave it to others to judge whether he has or not, and with that, enough about the Church of Steph Curry.

Next up, I can’t watch the Warriors peerless team play and lights out three point shooting without seeing it as the most advanced current manifestation of a tide that has been slowly swelling in basketball over the last 10 years or so that prizes productive efficiency above all else. This feeling has spurred me to a more extensive research project into all the elements, conceptual, technological and otherwise that have driven this development; which is to say, I’m still learning a lot about it. But in my currently oversimplified understanding of the story it goes like this.

Inspired by the advances in the statistical analysis of baseball, some fans with statistical proficiency began to think about the game of basketball and how to quantify what looked to the rest of us more or less like pure, unquantifiable material flow. In doing so, they isolated “the possession” as the fundamental unit of basketball play and to begin to experiment with methods for calculating the productivity of teams (and individuals) in terms of how the various basketball actions they undertake affect the ability to generate points per possession.

Here let me say: of course they did! Because, I say as someone who is just trying these lenses on for size, it’s cool as hell to see the game through them! (I’m the guy, I’d like you to know, who kept stats of the imaginary NBA Finals series he played against his best friend in the driveway and I’m the guy whose Dad kept stats at everyone of his games and then printed out reams of analysis generated by his IBM XT.) I don’t hate numbers. I love numbers and wish I understood them better. So I don’t fault these individuals. I don’t attribute to them soulless, malign intentions. I turn the game into stories and appreciate it with words, they turn it into formulas and appreciate it through numbers. Live and let live, right?

Definitely.  But I worry that the beautiful curiosity, wild imagination, unorthodox vision, and intellectual energy driving their efforts came also to be recognized for its potential value to owners and general managers seeking to maximize and stabilize the return on their financial investment in players.  How, in essence, these individuals might be asking themselves, do I get the most points per possession for the fewest dollars? Now we’ve gone from a few teams hiring some statistically minded kids to analyze their box scores to a half-dozen cameras perched in every arena in the league surveilling the every movement of players and delivering a torrent of big data to small armies of analysts to crunch and transform into actionable information for executives, coaches, and yes, even players.

Of course, I don’t expect that capitalist owners (or their paid underlings) would prioritize questions other than those related to maximizing their ROI.  And, if you’re comfortable with having the unencumbered freight train of free market logic trundle along, you’re probably thinking I’m naive.  After all, this is just the nature of things in our world. Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it, or its effects.

The Warriors, it seems to me, who lead the league in offensive efficiency, seem not only to be the incarnation of this tendency, but, by their success, seem also to be spurring other franchises to try to figure out how to do what they’ve done—as evidenced by Steph and others telling teams not to try.  This may be fine for many fans, whose favorite team either is the Warriors or is trying to become them. But for me it threatens to turn the NBA, which I have long loved to the degree that it presented me with an alternative to the corporatization of daily life in America, into the advance guard for ever more invasive attempts to make economic efficiency the mother of all values, to maximize productivity, and to create more reliable predictive models.

I don’t mind efficiency, I don’t mind productivity, and I don’t mind predictions. God knows I like to get my work done and to know what shit storm is coming around the bend so that I can prepare for it or avoid it.  But these are strong tides in which we are blithely romping in America today and if we don’t watch out, we may find that they’ve swept out to sea some other things that we used to like to have around: beauty, surprise, chance, and nonsense, to name just a few.

Which brings me to my final point, the relationship between the Warriors increasingly predictable domination of all competition and the annihilation of uncertainty and of the emotional complex (and marvelous, wondering stories) to which it gives rise.  Last week, the Warriors demolished the Cavaliers by 34, the Bulls by 31, and the Spurs by 30. Two of those teams (the Cavs and Spurs) were supposed to represent the only significant challenge to the inevitability of the Warriors winning a second consecutive title this year. So much for that. Even if Nate Silver at 538 only puts their chances of winning the title at 46 % (still 20 percentage points higher than the Spurs), I don’t know anybody who really thinks that the Warriors won’t repeat.  Unless, of course, they get hurt. But even I don’t wish for that.

But that’s kind of the point for me. I don’t want to have to wish for great athletes to get hurt so that uncertainty will be restored to the game. And, in basketball, unlike in my life, I like not knowing what will happen next, or how the story will end. I like the tension in my stomach and shoulders, the quickening of my pulse this uncertainty brings, and I like the emotions of fear, hope, elation, relief, despair associated with these physical signs.  I think of basketball as a story-generating machine, but really, it’s the uncertainty that basketball creates and the emotions that uncertainty provokes that are, I think, the source from which the basketball stories I love have always come from.

The Warriors are on pace to tie the 1996 Bulls record setting 72-10 regular season won-loss record. I’d have hated watching those Bulls teams if it weren’t for the utter unpredictability of Dennis Rodman and the sense his existence allowed that I didn’t know what was happen next, or, to put it another way, what the story would be tomorrow. Hell the very presence of Rodman’s brightly colored, pogo-stick body alongside MJ’s in a Bulls uniform was itself a kind of ceaseless source of nourishment for the imagination delighting in the fragile, fleeting materialization of the improbable

I think I know what the story will be tomorrow, and the day after, and in June, when the Warriors finish off their thoroughly probable title run.

CZ6up41WAAAk-Tq

 

 

 

 

34 comments

  • Interesting. Until the Warriors came on the scene, I considered regular season NBA basketball to be unwatchable.

    The Warriors are a revelation. Beautiful basketball is easy to watch. 🙂

  • Your writing is abominable

  • Interesting read… As someone who’s been a Curry fan since his freshman year at Davidson, I’m probably a little biased, but it’s nice to see a different perspective.

    One thing I’ll say is that I think you’re selling the power of his underdog story a little bit short. Sure, he had a more privileged upbringing than most (all?) of his peers, but I also don’t think fans usually assess athletes on that kind of personal level. I’d be hard pressed to describe the pre-college life of all but a handful of players.

    I think fans tend to look at these things from the point where the player entered the public sphere. Most of the top players in the NBA made that entrance as a highly touted recruit/ranked HS player, or at least as a star on a high-major college team. (Lillard & Leonard come to mind as exceptions.) Steph entered as a mid-major player dragging an otherwise overmatched team to the Elite Eight. I think that underdog perception sticks to someone.

    As for the fawning over his Christianity/wholesome image, yeah that makes me uncomfortable too. So does people fawning over Michael Jordan’s “competitive spirit,” which often manifested as something that looked more like bullying to me (I’ve seen a lot of praise for the fact that he punched several teammates in the face). Not a perfect comparison, but the point is, when you reach a level of performance/stardom, people latch on to major aspects of your personality. I think that’s unavoidable.

    As for the analytics stuff, I’m just not sure what you would want the team to do instead. Not try to be efficient? It’s not like the warriors have solved an equation that no other team can. The Warriors aren’t winning because they’re the only team valuing efficiency; they’re winning because they (with a lot of chance and dumb luck and yes, hard work) happened to assemble the best team. I wouldn’t believe that the Warriors being this good signaled an end to chance and randomness any more than I would believe that chance and randomness is what made them this good. This is another story, just like the ones you think are disappearing. Being able to compare this team to the ’96 Bulls and the ’86 Celtics Andy other great teams makes it worth a less competitive season, in my opinion (also a bit overblown, in my opinion. The Warriors were, indeed, 2 games from being eliminated twice last playoffs).

    What would your vision of the NBA look like? Sixteen teams finishing with 45-55 wins each year? It would make for a less predictable season, yes, but these 65-70 win spikes introduce variety and new storylines on a more macro-level between seasons.

    Sorry for rambling, thanks for getting some thoughts going!

    • Thanks for reading. You’re probably right that I’m underselling the power of the underdog story short, cause, you know “Rocky”. My critique there would be at fans and journalists who don’t think more deeply about what “overcoming long odds” really means in America. I agree about MJ, except not that it’s unavoidable. The culture we live in is a culture we get to choose every day whether to remake or to change by our own actions. And yes, I probably overstated the degree to which the Dubs (and analytics) have eliminated uncertainty from the game. That would be impossible. But I did so, partly, just to explain how it *feels* to me and second to try to provoke people to think a bit more deeply about the trend by offering an exaggerated description of it (as in dystopian science fiction).

  • Man, that is a long article. Lost me brother…

  • Were Kobe Bryant and Shaq somehow more intriguing than the Warriors. Or Jordan’s Bulls? They won by having ONE player take over the game at the end. While Curry is capable of that, he certainly doesn’t do it night in and night out like Jordan or Kobe or Shaq.
    He actually is forced to rely on teammates due to his physical limitations, and makes the game 100 times more interesting then those aforementioned dynasties ever did.

  • This was a fascinating read that got me thinking about a lot of things. As a woman who played and coached and loves basketball, I think I have a different view when I watch players who find ways to make their game work in the larger scheme of The Game, as you mention Dray had done and I think Curry has as well. This is the way women have absolutely had to navigate basketball to reach success: unmatched work ethics + creatively approaching the game. It’s not so much an underdog thing, as an understanding of context.

    I have only really started following the NBA again because of the Warriors – they are too fun too watch, and they still are unpredictable because they are human and the style they embrace is replete with risks (hopefully only for turnovers not injuries, bit certainly losing…) see today in Philly.

    That Steph is palatable to a racist America is obvious, and not his doing at all. And while this is important I wonder if it deserved its own article outside of a general critique of moneyball-ing basketball….

    At the end of the day, peak performances are thrilling to watch in their own way regardless of outcomes or odds. And as a lifelong Bay Area girl, I sure am enjoying it… And the hate it inspires.

    • Hi Amanda, Thanks for your thoughtful engagement and articulate response. As I read the conclusions you drew from your experience about how women have reached success (unmatched work ethics + creatively approaching the game) I was struck by the impression that this was not so much something unique to women but a great description of all successful basketball players. I’m glad that you find the Warriors enjoyable. I don’t think I said that they were not unpredictable, only first, that they were on the advance guard in broader trends in the NBA and in society aimed toward minimizing unpredictability as a way of extracting maximium value from workers. Perhaps I overstated that, or was insufficiently nuanced in saying so. And I also said, second, that I didn’t know anyone who doubted whether they’d win it this year. Of course, they are human and of course they can’t possibly eliminate all the elements of sport and life that erode predictability. You mention the Sixers game yesterday. I’m sure like me you were surprised that the Sixers closed the gap and took them to the final seconds. There was lots of uncertainty there, or at least it felt like it (though one advanced analytics website that tracks win probabilities over the course of a single game estimated that the Sixers max chance of winnign that game was 21 %, when it was tied at 105 with 22 seconds left). The Dubs won, which (though not *as*) we expected. I do take the point I think you are making that the more granular we get in our observations, the smaller the scale, the more unpredictability arises. I might feel very certain they’re gonna win the title; quite certain they’re gonna win their next game; pretty certain STeph will make his next shot, and very uncertain as to which direction his next step will take him in. I’m grateful for the reminder that you and other readers have given me (a former literary scholar who revels in close reading, the attention to ambiguity at the micro level of the text) about this. You call the palatability of Steph to racist America “obvious.” I disagree and I have quite a few tweets and e-mails to back that up. But I’m glad it’s obvious to you. I’m also glad it is important to you. It is to me as well. I’m not sure I knew how to take your wondering “if it deserved its own article outside of a general criticque of moneyball-ing basketball”? If you’re saying it did, I agree, and that’s why I wrote that in the piece called “A Desire Named Steph Curry” (linked in the post you read). If you’re saying it didn’t, well, we disagree. Lastly, once again, my post was not an argument against the Warriors or anyone’s enjoyment of them. It was an attempt to discover for and explain to myself what forces could be at work leading me to hate them despite the fact that they have likable players who play superbly, beautifully, and with joy.

  • I can see a lot of your points about Steph and how well the W’s are playing makes one want to root against them. I don’t get caught up in all the numbers and analytics crap. I am a lifelong Warriors fan since the 60’s and so am really enjoying the past several years after so many lousy, very lousy, ones. The offensive greatness of this team’s shooting has way overshadowed their decent commitment to defense, which is what really got them to the level f improvement they have achieved.I love Draymond’s toughness and defense. Appreciate Harrison Barnes’ cool, unselfish demeanor and his defense, as well as Klay Thompson’s. As a fan I am worried that the offensive success will take that away from this team contribution and focus. Look at Marresse Speights and what he brings and does and how he acts and you can see some raw, unrefined basketball that adds unpredictability and surprise to the W’s overall package. Plus if Steph reverts to his careless erratic ball handling/passing the Warrior’s chances to repeat as champions will be in the balance.

  • Pingback: Basketball Analytics: Reflections and Reservations | Between the Lines

  • At least you use “hate” which implies subjectivity. However, if you think these amazing Curry moments are inspired by nerd stats u are wrong. Keep in mind, he takes “bad shots” all the time! That’s part of the fun sir!

  • Pingback: The 10-man rotation, starring the bounty of bigs in the 2015 draft – FMSports.org

  • Please add a TL;DR note. Your writing style is amateur and you lost me with your writing. No offense.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hate the Warriors too… but only because they’re on track to get 73+ wins. Not because they’re good. I’d love for the dubs to be good as a dynasty. They deserve to succeed. They shouldn’t succeed too much though. They shouldn’t get a 73+win record. Nobody in this current era of the NBA deserves it. This era is way too soft to have a “deserving” 73+ win team. The Bulls in 95-96 deserved their 72-10 (higher than that 60s Celtics record) record because that era was tough. These soft small ballers don’t deserve their record because they’re in a (now) weak Western conferencd and even weaker Pacific division.

    If the Warriors go 71-11 or less wins than 71, we should all be happy. If they get 73+ wins, we should all be angry. It’s not fun to see a good team pick apart extremely weak teams. That’s not nice. It was fun however to see the Bulls pick apart other teams, but only because those other teams were tough as well… and the Bulls were in the tough central division of the East in 1995-96, as well as the much tougher Eastern conference in comparison to the West at the time.

    • Seriously? For starters, the Bulls had the benefit of having two expansion teams in the league at the time of their historic season, and this was also largely prior to the influx of excellent international players (although there certainly were some). Due to these factors, as well as the general improvements in fitness, nutrition, et cetera over the past two decades, the average level of competition that the Bulls faced was lower than the Warriors’ competition today. That is in no way an attempt to invalidate the greatness of the many phenomenal players of the nineties, but it’s the truth.

      Second, you don’t get to define who should and shouldn’t succeed too much. That is determined by the individuals who work their asses off to improve and create a team that is greater than the sum of its parts, and that is exactly what the players, staff, and organization of Golden State have done and while it is perfectly within your right to claim “this team ‘deserves’ this and this team ‘deserves’ that,” that doesn’t make it so.

      Your reasoning behind the “deserve” nonsense is even more mind-numbingly flawed. Firstly, “soft” is a highly subjective manner of evaluating a team. I would argue that the Warriors, by basically every definition of “soft,” are not a soft team. They have on their rosters two blue-collar enforcer type players in Draymond Green and Andrew Bogut. Bogut, Livingston, Brandon Rush, and Steph Curry all had to overcome tremendous injury troubles to get where they are today. I don’t know how many times you’ve recovered from injuries that threatened to require an amputation, to derail your dreams, or to rob you of some of your athleticism and much of the touch you’ve developed over a lifetime of playing the sport, but I can assure you that “softness” is not a part of the recovery equation, and it’s not a part of the Warriors.

      If you look at the Warriors’ success with small ball, the offensive advantages they create through it are indeed formidable. But the reason for their unparalleled success lies primarily in their absolute adherence to an extremely demanding style of play on defense and transition that involves lightning-fast rotations, holding your own against bigger players, swarming ball-dominant players, and generally doing things that would gas the majority of players today and from the nineties. To do that night after night with the discipline they demonstrate is not “soft.”

      Thirdly, “soft” is just a poor way to measure teams. The hard fouls and macho bullshit of the nineties, where its best player was one of the worst human beings who has never committed a crime, are poor substitutes for sophisticated, aesthetic, graduate-level basketball. The “toughness” of your nineties basketball is defunct because it’s a crappy product and a poor excuse for actually executing the game of basketball skillfully. You could point out that hard fouls and blah blah blah are not mutually exclusive with skillful, technically intricate basketball, and you’d be right. However, today’s offenses and defenses are far better than nineties teams’ offenses and defenses, and it shows. To brilliantly outmatch opponents on both ends of the floor as the Warriors have done over the past two seasons requires overcoming opponents and schemes that would have caused nineties teams – including the Bulls, to an extent – to flounder in today’s league.

      Ultimately, “soft” doesn’t matter. Skill does, hard work does, resilience does, and so on. But not “softness.”

      • You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. layers were much more fundamentally sound back in the 1990’s The Golden Era of basketball. Bill Russel could hit the TOP OF THE BACKBOARD in the 1960’s…… NO DIFFERENCE between 1998 and today for athleticism- it is too close. Rodman. Pippen and Jordan= more athekltic than today….. I asked Tim Grover.

      • Kobe’s 90’s style DEFENSE shut down that petulant POOR driving Wardell Curry…… You must be somebody born in 1996 ot after… pathetic. You do not understand basketball…. isiah Thomas, the Pistons legend said ” NOBODY PLASY DEFENSE TODAY= THERE IS NONE.” that is why DORKS like Wardell Curry score so much. Kobe rendered his three attemtp IMPOTENT JUST LIKE Gary Payton would have…..

  • As for you, Mr. Colas, I’m not sure where to start digging into your article for the purposes of argument; I disagree with the majority of it. My first thought is, though, to wonder why you chose the word “hate” to describe your feelings towards the Warriors specifically, because while much in your article focuses on factors SURROUNDING the team and its players, and you make some good points – I, as an atheist, vehemently dislike the constant presence of Curry’s Christianity in the news, for example – but nothing in your argument displays any reason why you should hate the Warriors in and of themselves, other than an apparent inability to separate the wonderful stories and accomplishments and artistry of the players and the team, from the narratives that surround them.

  • Morial Williams

    I thoroughly enjoyed this article as it encapsulates many of my own feelings about the Warriors. Their dominance of the league this year has turned the basketball regular season into more of a snooze-fest than usual. It is clear that barring a terrible injury to Curry (which I hope never happens) they will waltz to another championship and many more as the years progress. This may be great for Warriors fans, and

    I know they work hard at shooting, and respect their ability to knock down threes, but I don’t enjoy watching the non-stop three point bonanza the league is becoming (Yes I know they play good defense, but I would counter that this is a product of teams panicking and attempting to match their pace, not simply strong, individual, half-court defense). I agree that it will only spur the rest of the league to start hoisting as many threes as possible (which a lot of teams already do) in the name of efficiency. Moneyball is making sports way less enjoyable for me.

    I want to just wonder how a player will perform in a given situation. I don’t want to know that a player makes 78% of his shots when fading back to his right after doing a between the legs crossover from his left hand to his right hand; and only 65% when he crosses right to left and jumps at least 30 inches from the floor. Sports have always been a magical land of possibility, safe from math (fellow English Lit major here), politics, religion, and the other contentious parts of society.

    I am a middle school teacher and am often disturbed by how inexorably focused my students (as much as I love them) are on bottom line and how uninterested they are by experiences that may not have a direct material gain, or a material gain that is to their satisfaction.

    As a student, and a very young kid (I’m 27 so I’m far from a geezer) I enjoyed earning something as minuscule as an eraser or a pencil or a folder for strong performances in class. My students laugh at such rewards and will often mock me for thinking that something like that would inspire them to give effort. Other times I will offer them extra credit if they read their responses aloud, but will refuse if they aren’t given a satisfactory amount of extra credit–even if they are failing my class.

    The most galling example was when I offered a $25 gift card to the movies for good behavior and academic performance. Some students asked which movie theater the card would allow them to attend, not because they would have trouble getting there, but they wanted to ensure they could see a movie at an IMAX theater. Some even balked at the card being “only” $25 and not being enough to get a bevy of snacks in addition to their movie ticket.

    Efficiency definitely has its place in the world, but I believe there is too much of an emphasis on how to fulfill one’s desires as fast as possible. This emphasis is coming at the cost of the enjoyment of the unpredictable, unquantifiable aspects of life that have a longer and more enriching effect than a quickly, smoothly attained award. Life should be bumpy, and jagged at times.

    The saddest thing is that this increased efficiency is celebrated as a sign of progress, even though it is having a hollowing effect on the American psyche. There is an overwhelming sense that life should be all about return on investment. That respect for something beyond profit is an asinine concept. A relic of the past best fit for a graveyard.

    Sorry I know that was a lot to read, but your article inspired the outpour. Keep up the writing.

  • I’m sure Steph Curry will be surprised to know he has blue eyes

  • Oscar Unashamed Mendez

    Honestly, you have issues (which you acknowledge) but I’m referring to the kind of issues that are rooted in a complex world of virtually nothingness. With everything you are “repelled” by, you fail to see the overarching, bigger than yourself, bigger than basketball, bigger than Steph and company, point of why this is happening in a time and era such as ours. In order to do that or atleast have you fully understand the simplicity to your complexities, you need to start with what you were initially repelled by to begin with. The celebration of his Christianity!! Is it really such a shock that God would choose to bring together a blend of guys whonare devoted to him and have them be successful? Even if for the last 3 years. Harrison Barnes is a son of God by virtue of his faith in Christ, Andre Iguadola, Steph Curry, even David Lee gave his life to Jesus. Ateph Curry’s ties to his shoe brand are related diirectly to his faith. The only reason he signed with under armour was because Nike will not allow scripture to be written on their gear and obviously, Steph put God first and didnt bow down to Nike, the God of all things basketball apparel! His love for his wife and daughters are not a diss to mainstream society, its an example of how God is blessed by people who love him and showcase thwir love and devotion and allegiance to his Kingship and Lordship over them. Dont you see, its not coincidence God has raised up a man in Curry to set the faith tone, the passion tone, the example tone to the world in order for one thing and one thing only, to lift up the name of Jesus across the earth. Its bigger than you and God can choose to use the NBA as a platform if He so desired. Curry is simply an exame of what righteousness could look like in todays Godless, Jesus repelled, ignorant, deceived, fleshy world. Basketball and the game and the trophies and the accolades and the notoriety is nothing but a platform my friend for something bigger. It is realigning the world and those who are watching intently to reach out for God and faith in Christ, because basketball, life, it will one day come to a halt and we will all receive our due. Those that pledge to place their lives and souls in allegiance to Him will receive blessing in this life and in the life to come. And thats good news. Dont be repelled by it just cause your flesh and mind are challenged by it. Maybe its an opportunity for you to humble yourself before Jesus. Maybe the fact his name keeps coming up in your life even through the game which we both love isnt such a bad thing? What does it matter if the media portrays him and the team a certain way, I have yet to see any member of the media be disengenuine when writing or speaking about Steph and the team. Its just a common consensus, that Steph is truly special and Gods name is coming back to life in our society in a way we havent seen before. Durant is a born again believer, his faith has been highlighted. Dont get me wrong, plenty of athletes have been Christians and have been highlighted for their faith, and it shows up in their game and lives. But even amongst the disciples there were only a few standouts. God chooses whoever he wants to choose to display his power and influence in their lives to transmit a message. All I’m saying, is dont be surprised if one day God says, “hey son, I told you through that guy who responded to your hate filled blog that it was all about me (Jesus) the whole time” 🙂 God bless you sir

  • My big thing is that I hear parents talk about how Steph Curry is a better role model because he’s like an average guy or something. Firstly, the dude’s still 6’3″. Secondly, the kid grew up with an NBA sharpshooter father (as did Klay Thompson.) Those are two not average advantages that 99 percent of people will never have. It makes no sense. LeBron James was gifted with perhaps the most freakish genetics in NBA history, but to assume that he doesn’t word hard is stupid. And his genetics are not a reason why kids shouldn’t look up to him. He grew up sans a dad, at a young age dealt with the national media impressively, and has given back to his community. I don’t know why so many people fault LeBron, but Steph Curry is like a god. Lastly, if you ask the 31 GM’s to build a roster from scratch and build around one player, all 31 will take LeBron every time.

    • Maybe they take LeBron for one game or one season, but he is getting worn down and older, I think many would take Curry, or Westbrook or Anthony Davis or Karl Anthony Towns etc. if building for the next 5 or 10 years.

  • Steph Curry is the reason why I started watching basketball again.He and his team have captured the imagination of basketball fans worldwide with their style of play and this has been good for the NBA and basketball in general. I have noticed that there seems to be a resentment towards Curry by blacks fans and by black players in the NBA. They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.This kid is bringing back former fans of the game and is bringing in new fans which bode well for the NBA. If white fans, short fans, small fans, middle class fans and christian fans identify with Curry, that is great for the league. I remember the NBA in the 70s’ and the league was heading south quickly.The entry of Bird and Magic changed that and saved the NBA. A lot of white fans started watching the NBA because of Bird and that was a good thing. There was a lot of resentment toward Bird by black fans and black players who felt Bird was given super star status because he was white. It is true that Bird’s race was a factor in his popularity but like Curry, he had mad skills and would not have achieve his status if he was not a great player. Magic and the other players came to realize that Bird’s presence for great for the NBA as it increased the profile of the league which resulted in increased revenue for the players. Westbrooke and the other haters better realize that Curry can carry the league to another level which will benefit them in the long run. Golf today is still hurting with the demise of Tiger. Tiger brought so many new fans into golf because he captured their imagination with his game and his unusual golfing background. Attendance is down as are television ratings with the decline in Tiger’s game and while the game has bright young stars, the pblic has not taken to them. This should be a lesson to those Curry haters

  • “Is any of this Steph’s fault? Mostly, I would say no, it’s not. But it is to the degree that he deliberately reinforces (or capitalizes upon) any of these elements of the narrative that has risen up around his brilliant on-court performances. I leave it to others to judge whether he has or not”

    That begins unpersuasive, and ends worse than that. Curry isn’t an academic with time on his hands. He probably doesn’t know what the “elements of the narrative….” are, and is hardly likely to be deliberately reinforcing them, or making money out of them (I assume that is what you mean by “capitalize upon”). And as for “leave it to others to judge”, that simply amounts to slurring him by implication and then refusing to give reasons.

  • Pingback: Draymond Inexperienced Has Lastly Given Us A Purpose To Hate The Warriors | Ten Sports Club

  • Pingback: Draymond Green Has Finally Given Us A Reason To Hate The Warriors | BuzzWare

  • Pingback: Draymond Green Has Finally Given Us A Reason To Hate The Warriors - AltoSky

  • Pingback: Draymond Green Has Finally Given Us A Reason To Hate The Warriors

  • Pingback: Disbelieveland | Between the Lines

  • Love it. I relished every minute of the finals, and reading this makes me appreciate it that much more. Rooting for the Cavs was a pleasure, for exactly the reasons you wrote about here. Thanks for reminding me why I love basketball!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *