The Golden State Warriors Analysis

Alice Hegan Rice famously stated that, “All the higher forms of life have evolved from some one's ideal of justice, liberty or beauty; and the belief that nothing is too good to be true”. However, the oft-used cliché states otherwise, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. What if I were to tell you that our problem as a society isn’t these things being true, rather, that they were simply just too good? Bethelem Shoals and David Sirlin explore and inspect the two sides of this coin in The Golden State Warriors Are So Good They’re Ruining Basketball and Playing to Win respectively. Shoals examines the consequences of the dominance enjoyed by this year’s Golden State Warriors NBA team, heralding their aesthetic and efficiency

while expressing concern about the long-term damage to the sport resulting from a lack of competitive parity. Conversely, Sirlin, a renowned gaming expert, describes the disproportionate desire to eliminate features of games that are deemed by competitive players to be overpowered relative to the number of features that can be evaluated with proper criterion and met with enforceable action. As a culture, it seems that the only thing that’s too good to be true is our ability to enjoy them. Unfortunately, some combination of an obsession with change and a fear of monotony that feel stronger now than ever deprive us from a true and pure enjoyment of excellence. Moreover, by reacting so hastily, we run the risk of unintentionally impeding our own evolution and growth in the various fields affected by our neurosis.
In Shoals Warriors-centric article published in GQ magazine, his fears of what may come from the team’s innovative and dominant performance exemplify the objectively baseless anxiety we experience when faced with similar dilemmas. To Shoals’ credit, he takes an even-keel positon on the current hot-button topic regarding the Warriors playing style itself being problematic. With a ‘pace and space’ philosophy emphasizing the assimilation of analytics (and therefore three pointers) equipped with players that perfectly fit their roles, and a transcendent star in Stephen Curry (statistically the greatest shooter ever), the Warriors had ascended to a record-breaking start of 45 wins and 4 losses at the time of the article’s publication. Currently in the first round of the NBA playoffs, the Warriors finished the regular season with a new record of 73 wins and 9 losses. Shoals praises the Warriors, “Stylistically, they’re the most technically proficient- and by far the most exhilarating thing going,” later writing that the team’s ability to blend style and substance has made them, “…darlings of casual fans and hoops junkies alike.”. Shoals cheerful optimism turns to dread just as quickly, asserting that the Warriors will still be . entertaining to watch in pursuit of their quest for history, that their success comes at a high premium. He even explicitly states, “…the more apparent it becomes that Golden State has robbed us of all 1230 games that, on any given night, might make a difference to someone somewhere in the world,” referencing the entire totality of the NBA season, before opining that the Warriors continued superiority will increase our resentment of them. Citing the then recent blowouts of the Western Conference number two team San Antonio Spurs, and the Eastern Conference favorite LeBron James-led Cleveland Cavaliers, Shoals does more than imply that the outcome of the NBA Playoffs, and the MVP race are foregone conclusions. This set of assumptions is particularly interesting given an earlier brief mention to the potential “what-if” scenario created by a Stephen Curry injury, something that has already happened twice within the first four games of the NBA Playoffs. Again, Shoals soldiers on, informing us that the same qualities about the Warriors that we once found endearing will become irritants; that we will inevitably, “…find ways of souring ont hem, if only to keep things interesting. Monotony is not an option.” In true Sisyphean form, Shoals pushes on, noting that Curry’s visceral confidence on the court will garner loathing as he continues to deliver. The proverbial boulder begins its descent as Shoals himself admits, “And by the way, that a player as uninhibited as Stephen Curry could be expected to check his swagger at the door says some pretty fucked-up things about the price of wider exposure.” His focus then shifts towards the offseason, describing how the Warriors have essentially created a role reversal relative to the typical free-agency period. Normally, players are courted by several teams, but Shoals fears that the Warriors excellence will leaf to them being the ones courted by the best available players on the market, specifically mentioning 4 time scoring champion Kevin Durant as one of many top players he could envision exacerbating this fearsome monotony imposed upon NBA fans. Shoals’ opinion is extremely clear, however, his criterion behind them leave something to be desired.
In Playing to Win, MIT gaming balance expert David Sirlin describes the inherent difficulties in successfully isolating, evaluating, and addressing overpowered aspects of video games.

He does so by exploring the clash between gamers’ instinctive desire to patch features of a game they deem unfair and what legitimately should be banned given firmly established criterion. He argues that contrary to the belief of most gamers, only a fraction of the features typically complained about truly merit patching. Initially separating games into basic categories based on their methods of distribution (some games are patched with varying levels of frequency to address balance issues while others are not), Sirlin observes that these different categories of games create different responses and reactions amongst their respective player baess, which alters the perception of what a patch signifcies to these players. He notes that while some games that are frequently patched elicit little to not reactions with their patches (as they’re expected), other game developers alter the behavior of the players as a result of their patches. He speculates that some players of games frequently patched for balance become complacent, and assume the optimal strategies they would otherwise be discovering will be ‘nerfed’ (weakened or removed altogether), eliminating incentive and motivation to innovate. He similarly notes that the behavior of game developers themselves may change based on their expectations

of what approach will be utilized in balancing their games upon release. Developers of games expected to be patched frequently may experience the same complacency they impose upon their players, opting to wait until after a game is released to fix pre-existing issues. Sirlin proceeds to establish criterion for a path or ban, stating that it must be, “enforceable, discrete, and warranted.” In explaining his use of the word ‘enforceable’, Sirlin states that a banned tactic must be identifiable and preventable, because without the ability to do so, you can’t enforce penalties for breaking the rules. When extrapolating upon his use of ‘discrete’, Sirlin emphasizes the need for the feature in question to be, “completely defined”. He cites a hypothetical shooting game in which ‘camping’ (taking cover without movement except that of to shoot the opponent from an unflankable position) is the optimal strategy, but also lacks a full definition. He argues that if a time limit were set on camping, players would simply camp for a second less than the limit. He also provides a working example of a game meeting the ‘discrete’ criteria, citing a competitive collectible card game in which cards that unfairly alter the balance of the game can be banned, and prevented from any and all use in competitive play. His last criteria is perhaps the most important, as he explains, “if it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discreet. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardy anything warrants a ban.” However, Sirlin acknowledges certain categories of ‘glitches’ do indeed warrant a ban based on certain characteristics alone, further analyzing the concept of ‘fairness’ and attempting to answer the question of ‘What is equitable’. Again, Sirlin describes pitfalls that can happen as a result of banning even the most unbalanced features of games, noting that “Banning a tactic simply because it is ‘the best’ isn’t even warranted. That only reduces the game to all the ‘second best’ tactics, which isn’t necessarily any better of a game than the original game. In fact, it’s often worse…It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only ‘the best’ but also ‘ten times better than anything else in the game’ results in a better game”. (BLOCK QUOTE) In summation, Sirlin references two characters in competitive Street Fighter tournament play effectively patched by the players own respect for the competitive balance of the game. One character is inarguably so much better than the others that if he were allowed in tournament play, every player hoping to win would be forced to play as him alone. Another character isn’t nearly as ‘broken’, but still has certain characteristics that make a few of the other character in the game unviable, resulting in Japanese tournaments instituting a ‘soft-ban’, one that frowns upon, but doesn’t prohibit the usage of said character. Sirlin notes that this results in what amounts to a self-correcting phenomena of sorts, wherein the best players respect the game so much (and have found ways to neuter the character in question) such that they won’t use them, and the lower ranked players may use him, but in efforts that typically prove futile.
This brings us to an important impasse; what exactly is wrong with something being ‘too good’? Are we capable of applying criterion like that of Sirlin in making these judgements? Shoals quickly jumps from a glowing review of the Warriors prowess to a pessimistic outlook zeroing in on all of the things that may go awry if the Warriors were to continue dominating the NBA in the fashion they had been. Yet, Shoals judgements omit many important facts, making even more curious his disdain for this supposed monotony. He writes as if the Warriors success this season has been such a unique outlier, when in fact, the San Antonio Spurs were on (and finished with) near record-breaking figures themselves. Winning 69 games in total (only 4 behind the Warriors), the Spurs went 40-1 at home (with their only loss coming against the Warriors during the final week of the season in a closely contested affair that came some days after the Spurs actually beat the Warriors). Shoals also acts as if this performance by the Warriors has become a thing of regularity, that they are some dynasty exerting their superiority over several years, when in fact they won the championship last year with a record several games behind this year’s pace, and hadn’t made it to the Conference Finals prior to last year in over a decade. As for Steph Curry, the Warriors face and superstar, he has actually improved in every statistical category from last year’s MVP campaign that many prominent sports journalists have openly supported the unprecedented notion of awarding the Most Improved Player award to last year’s MVP. In all, while the Warriors have been extremely impressive and innovative, their success hasn’t been drawn-out, and they aren’t unbeatable, nor without peers in this year’s NBA. Also, while Shoals makes a reference to Jordan’s Bulls garnering a similar ire through their era of dominance, the Bulls truly embodied a dynasty, and this ire Shoals mentions seems to be a sentiment of his alone. A simple Google search reveals hundreds, if not thousands of people expressing opinions that the Warriors are too good for the sport. Conducting the same search for Jordan’s Bulls yields zero similar results. Ironically, when conducting another Google search on the hot button topic of who would win in a dream match-up between the two teams, almost every renowned sports journalist favors the Bulls. If the Bulls aren’t too good for basketball, and they are supposedly head and heels above the Warriors, why are the Warriors such a concern? Even if we were to ignore the apparent hypocrisy, can we adequately evaluate the Warriors given Sirlin’s criterion? It becomes quickly apparent that the Warriors do not meet the ‘enforcable’ criteria. There is nothing that could realistically be done to prevent their prowess from taking over. They also fail to meet the ‘discrete’ criteria. There isn’t one specific thing they do that could be identified as problematic besides succeeding. Lastly, as shown through Shoals misrepresentation of the NBA’s disparity, ‘banning’ the Warriors from play in the NBA is not warranted.
Granted, there is no fool-proof way to apply Sirlin’s criterion to a professional sports team, although there have been failed attempts in the past.

Several antiquated changes that have since been overturned including such things as bans of dunking, zone defense, and others. Granted, some changes have stood the test of time, and have bettered the sport. Examples include the innovation of the shot clock, and the three point line. The same three point line in question exploited by the Warriors (and Spurs), has successfully been a part of the NBA for almost 30 years. Frankly, there shouldn’t be a way to ban a particular team, doing so would prevent the natural self-corrective mechanisms Sirlin describes with the character in Street Fighter soft banned. The very same mechanism that will create parity in the future is the one that created the Warriors to begin with. The Spurs and whatever team LeBron James has been on have ruled the landscape of the NBA for the past decade. LeBron James hasn’t missed an NBA Finals in over half of a decade. His teams usually featured two other mega-stars, a template broken by these Golden State Warriors. When LeBron James signed with the Miami Heat about 5 years ago, similar complaints about dominance emerged. Again, given time, the rest of the league figured out of how adjust accordingly. This principle isn’t exclusive to basketball, and in fact was first made famous by neo-classical economic theorist Adam Smith, who is best known for his theory

that a laissez-faire approach to government is ideal, as the mechanisms of supply and demand will cause the economy to correct itself.