Disregarding Steph Curry’s guidance for the Warriors entails disregarding his past

It pains me to acknowledge this, but TV soapboxer Stephen A. Smith might have raised a legitimate question about Stephen Curry’s leadership.

It’s painful because Smith’s style, the equivalent of acupuncture with rusty nails, makes a fair question feel like a withering condemnation of Curry’s soul. Smith is the type of guy who makes you take offense to “Good morning.” Let’s get beyond that.

In the wake of Draymond Green’s indefinite suspension from the Golden State Warriors, ESPN’s Smith wondered whether Curry had done enough, as a supposed team leader, to help Green.

“Where’s the leadership?” Smith said of Curry on “First Take.” “Where’s he at? What kind of impact is he having?”

In other words, if Curry is a team leader, how did he let Green become so destructive to himself and his team? Smith invoked LeBron James, implying that James would not let a teammate go so far astray.

Warriors head coach Steve Kerr called Smith’s commentary “sickening.” Before Sunday night’s win at Portland, he elaborated by saying: “As far as I can tell, it’s impossible to have a great team without internal leadership from key players. Steph’s as good as it gets. That’s why I was so upset the other day when he got criticized for his leadership. It made no sense to me.

“Steph’s the reason this whole thing is still going, and that it’s lasted for over a decade. All the stuff that happens to an NBA team, franchise, there’s so many different potholes, and the only way for a team and a core group to survive this long is if you have internal leadership, and Steph provides that every day.”

I don’t doubt Kerr’s sincerity. The Warriors didn’t hang four banners simply because Curry is a really nifty shooter. Green has long been lauded for his leadership, because of his fiery personality, but leadership of this team usually has been a yin-and-yang affair, Green and Curry being the opposite but complementary forces leading the way.

Right now, there is no easy answer to Smith’s question. Those of us on the outside don’t know what Curry has done in the distant or recent past to prevent Green from going off the rails. Was Curry, as Smith seems to suggest, a passive enabler to his emotionally unstable teammate? The best person to provide that answer is Green, and he won’t be providing any insights or intel for at least a few weeks.

So the best answer to Smith’s questions about Curry’s leadership will come during Green’s timeout, as the Warriors try to find their way through a crisis, of which the suspension is one element. Many predict that this is the end of the dynasty. It appears that Curry is not ready for that to happen.

What inspires this belief that Curry will rise to the occasion and be a strong leader now? How about the past 14-plus seasons?

• As a rookie, Curry was dropped onto the doorstep of a losing team for which he did not want to play, under a head coach who treated rookies with withering scorn, paired with a beloved guard who told the world Curry was a bad fit. Curry rose above. He proved to be the team’s emotional Rock of Gibraltar, and has been since then.

• When Kerr replaced Mark Jackson, some players were angry and resentful. There could have been an emotional mutiny, but Curry put his personal feelings aside and led the team — including a volatile young player named Draymond Green — to a pragmatic acceptance of Kerr.

• Curry, coming off a unanimous-vote MVP season, not only welcomed Kevin Durant to the team, but also altered his game to accommodate the Durant, without a word of protest or complaint.

• In last season’s playoffs, before Game 7 in Sacramento, Curry delivered his famous bus speech, challenging his teammates, demanding that they put aside their personal peeves and problems for the good of the team. He then scored 50.

• This season, as every Warriors core player has struggled, Curry has taken his game higher. It might have seemed like a futile effort to lead by example, but there are recent signs, like wins Saturday and Sunday, that the team is climbing off Curry’s back and joining him in the spirited charge up the hill.

Curry told me last season that his instinct in times of team crisis and turmoil is “you always kind of look at what you can do better first. Kind of an impulse that protects you from the chaos of life.”

The Warriors need Curry’s leadership. They are in an awkward transition phase, trying to figure out who fits where, and whether they are a contender or a crumbling dynasty. They are missing the man who is famous for being the team’s heartbeat. They need leadership.