Knicks · The Triangle (page 1)
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.
The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
It's a generational thing. These young guys don't know about true basketball anymore. The art of basketball is slowly fading into 1 on 1 melo ball. Everything is either pick and roll, or 1 on 1....You can see it even in pickup games. It's your turn, now its your turn, then it's your turn. I stopped playing with these young guys because it's terrible. I could be the best shooter on the team, and would only get 2 shots. The triangle was developed from the old school way of playing ball. These new guys are only successful in a run and gun system.
ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
yYes ... nobody has any interest in running or teaching it for a reason and the top teams and the ones using advanced metrics are using much more of a spread ooffense with the high PnR.
Too many damn long range jumpers which I detest.
Now I will leave this thread to Nixluva for his feasting and puppet shows.
Also people think you can't run in the Triangle and that is also not true. The very 1st thing that is taught in the Triangle is to run and look for early offense but if it's not there they set up and run the offense.
By Phil Jackson and Tex Winter
Seven Principles of the Sound OffenseAn effective offense, to my way of thinking, features the following dimensions.
1. Penetration. Players must penetrate the defense, and the best way to do this is the fast break, because basketball is a full-court game, from baseline to baseline.2. Spacing. I am a fanatic about how players distribute themselves on the offensive end of the court. They must space themselves in a way that makes it most difficult to defend, trap, and help. Players must align a certain number of feet apart. In high school, I’d recommend 12 to 15 feet spacing, in college, 15 to18 feet, and in the NBA, 15 to 20 feet. Proper spacing not only exposes individual defensive players’ vulnerabilities, but also ensures that every time the defense tries to trap, an offensive player will be open.
3. Ball and player movements. Players must move, and must move the ball, with a purpose. Effective off-the-ball activity is much more important than most fans and players think because they’re so used to watching only the movement of the ball and the player in possession of it. But there is only one ball and there are five players, meaning most players will have the ball in their hands 20 percent or less of the time the team is in possession of the ball.
4. Options for the ball handler. The more options a smart player has to attack a defender, the more successful that offensive player will be. When teammates are all moving to positions to free themselves (or another teammate with a pick), the ball handler’s choices are vastly increased.
5. Offensive rebounding and defensive balance. On all shots we take, players must go strong for the rebound while retaining court balance and awareness to prevent the opponent’s fast break.
6. Versatile positioning. The offense must offer to any player the chance to fill any spot on the court, independent of the player’s role. All positions should be interchangeable.
7. Use individual talents. It only makes sense for an offense to allow a team to take advantage of the skill sets of its best players. This doesn’t preclude the focus on team play that is emphasized in the six other principles, but it does acknowledge that some individuals have certain types and degrees of talent, and an offense should accentuate those assets. Michael Jordan taught me this.
Finally, I want the offense to flow from rebound to fast break, to quick offense, to a system of offense. The defenses in the NBA are so good because the players are so big, quick, and well coached. Add the pressure that the 24-second clock rule applies to the offense to find a good shot, and the defense gets even better.
The triangle offense has proven most effective, even against such obstacles, when players commit to and execute the system. The offense hinges on players attending to minute details in executing not just plays but also the fundamentals underlying the plays. Once players have mastered the individual techniques required of their roles, we then integrate those individuals into a team. Once this is done, the foundation for a good offense is solidly in place. The team can then go on the court with the confidence and poise so essential to success.This method of play is as old as basketball. The triangle set is adjustable to the personnel, but such adaptations can be made without altering the essence of the offense. The only necessary adjustment from one season to the next involves tailoring the series of options based on each individual’s talents.
Shved has been pushing the ball better since coming here and if we can imagine having better players who can run with him and finish it would really improve the offense quite a bit. The players are getting better at executing the motion and passing but finishing off the plays is a problem. That should improve with better players as we look towards next season.
blkexec wrote:ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
It's a generational thing. These young guys don't know about true basketball anymore. The art of basketball is slowly fading into 1 on 1 melo ball. Everything is either pick and roll, or 1 on 1....You can see it even in pickup games. It's your turn, now its your turn, then it's your turn. I stopped playing with these young guys because it's terrible. I could be the best shooter on the team, and would only get 2 shots. The triangle was developed from the old school way of playing ball. These new guys are only successful in a run and gun system.
the new generation is using more brains and analytics which the older generation could not even spell.
I too hate teams and players that don't move the ball. Does SA and Atlanta not move the ball?
We should play the smartest basketball that we are capable of playing and teaching and we should use data and shot charts as well as anything and anybody we can get our hands on the can give us any edge.
Are you happy with our shot selection? How about Melo's shot selection?
ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
The media are running with it because the media are running with it. Back in Phil's Bulls championship days and Phil's Laker championship days, how many other teams ran the triangle? Did that mean it was obsolete then? It's ridiculous- the whole triangle thing is over blown, it's just a system- in basketball you just need to chose a system, get the personal to run it and you'll have success. When we were run and gun all we heard was that style wouldn't win in the playoffs. Now we're not run and gun and apparently only run and gun will win in the playoffs. The reality is simple- play defense and have everyone on the same page. Pass the ball. Make shots. It's not rocket science.
mreinman wrote:blkexec wrote:ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
It's a generational thing. These young guys don't know about true basketball anymore. The art of basketball is slowly fading into 1 on 1 melo ball. Everything is either pick and roll, or 1 on 1....You can see it even in pickup games. It's your turn, now its your turn, then it's your turn. I stopped playing with these young guys because it's terrible. I could be the best shooter on the team, and would only get 2 shots. The triangle was developed from the old school way of playing ball. These new guys are only successful in a run and gun system.
the new generation is using more brains and analytics which the older generation could not even spell.
I too hate teams and players that don't move the ball. Does SA and Atlanta not move the ball?
We should play the smartest basketball that we are capable of playing and teaching and we should use data and shot charts as well as anything and anybody we can get our hands on the can give us any edge.
Are you happy with our shot selection? How about Melo's shot selection?
For me this is the lamest aspect of analytics- the intellectual snobbery. Unfortunately, following analytics does not make you smarter than people who don't. It just means you follow analytics. Those of us who don't believe they are the be all and end all, or just don't find them very interesting or entertaining aren't idiots, we just disagree on how much of basketball (or indeed life) you can quantify, and we watch basketball for entertainment- watching fiery competition, passion, the unpredictable- it's exciting. You like efficiency- I'm not sure how this makes you more intelligent.
example: take a team like Atlanta, no stars ... would the triangle be as good as the offense that they are running? I say no way but who cares ... no way to prove that since nobody cares to try the triangle.
Phil seems to be letting Fish tweak the Triangle and find something that works better.
mreinman wrote:would be nice if the triangle had even one success story with a team that did not have 4-5 of the top players of all time.example: take a team like Atlanta, no stars ... would the triangle be as good as the offense that they are running? I say no way but who cares ... no way to prove that since nobody cares to try the triangle.
I read somewhere that other teams use a variation of the triangle.....mixed in with other systems. To me, thats a better approach because you can align the combination of systems to fit the players.....That way, we don't turn down talent becasue they don't fit the system. Rather develop a multi system combination that fits the players.
mreinman wrote:would be nice if the triangle had even one success story with a team that did not have 4-5 of the top players of all time.example: take a team like Atlanta, no stars ... would the triangle be as good as the offense that they are running? I say no way but who cares ... no way to prove that since nobody cares to try the triangle.
How many teams have won a championships using any system without any hall of famers?
smackeddog wrote:mreinman wrote:blkexec wrote:ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?
It's a generational thing. These young guys don't know about true basketball anymore. The art of basketball is slowly fading into 1 on 1 melo ball. Everything is either pick and roll, or 1 on 1....You can see it even in pickup games. It's your turn, now its your turn, then it's your turn. I stopped playing with these young guys because it's terrible. I could be the best shooter on the team, and would only get 2 shots. The triangle was developed from the old school way of playing ball. These new guys are only successful in a run and gun system.
the new generation is using more brains and analytics which the older generation could not even spell.
I too hate teams and players that don't move the ball. Does SA and Atlanta not move the ball?
We should play the smartest basketball that we are capable of playing and teaching and we should use data and shot charts as well as anything and anybody we can get our hands on the can give us any edge.
Are you happy with our shot selection? How about Melo's shot selection?
For me this is the lamest aspect of analytics- the intellectual snobbery. Unfortunately, following analytics does not make you smarter than people who don't. It just means you follow analytics. Those of us who don't believe they are the be all and end all, or just don't find them very interesting or entertaining aren't idiots, we just disagree on how much of basketball (or indeed life) you can quantify, and we watch basketball for entertainment- watching fiery competition, passion, the unpredictable- it's exciting. You like efficiency- I'm not sure how this makes you more intelligent.
I did not say that I am more intelligent and that it is the end all / be all.
I just see that there is a generational gap in its acceptance just like there was / is with PC's and smart phones.
I do think its silly when people dismiss things that they know very little about.
I think that quantum physics is kinda dumb ... those idiots who came up with that should get punched! Its so damn stupid. And they also think they are so damn smart cause they know about this quantum physics thingy and we don't.
blkexec wrote:mreinman wrote:would be nice if the triangle had even one success story with a team that did not have 4-5 of the top players of all time.example: take a team like Atlanta, no stars ... would the triangle be as good as the offense that they are running? I say no way but who cares ... no way to prove that since nobody cares to try the triangle.
I read somewhere that other teams use a variation of the triangle.....mixed in with other systems. To me, thats a better approach because you can align the combination of systems to fit the players.....That way, we don't turn down talent becasue they don't fit the system. Rather develop a multi system combination that fits the players.
I think that SA does.
I think that a good system is a mix of all the most efficient and best practices and systems.
blkexec wrote:mreinman wrote:would be nice if the triangle had even one success story with a team that did not have 4-5 of the top players of all time.example: take a team like Atlanta, no stars ... would the triangle be as good as the offense that they are running? I say no way but who cares ... no way to prove that since nobody cares to try the triangle.
I read somewhere that other teams use a variation of the triangle.....mixed in with other systems. To me, thats a better approach because you can align the combination of systems to fit the players.....That way, we don't turn down talent becasue they don't fit the system. Rather develop a multi system combination that fits the players.
Next season we'll introduce some variations from the triangle- we stuck with it so rigidly this season just to establish it.
smackeddog wrote:mreinman wrote:would be nice if the triangle had even one success story with a team that did not have 4-5 of the top players of all time.example: take a team like Atlanta, no stars ... would the triangle be as good as the offense that they are running? I say no way but who cares ... no way to prove that since nobody cares to try the triangle.
How many teams have won a championships using any system without any hall of famers?
Detroit?
what's the point? If Atlanta will win? That is not the point.
This generation's best talent is Kobe, Duncan and LeBron. Together, they've appeared in 14 out of the last 15 finals and if you go Shaq, who's a generational talent in his own right, you'd get 15 out of 15. If you extend that back to every championship, you'd find that at least every team has a B+ player or two. Even Atlanta does.
Does better talent improve our teams ability to run and exploit the triangle as a system? I do like some of the team play I see out there.
Against Phoenix & GS, we stayed with them for a short while. Put Melo (hopefully healthy*), top 4 pick and 1-2 impact type FA, and maybe we stay in those games longer, win a one.
But I am concerned that the system is flawed for today's NBA.
crzymdups wrote:Has anyone talked about how much pick and roll Shved and Bargnani are running lately? they're running a lot of them.Phil seems to be letting Fish tweak the Triangle and find something that works better.
The PnR/PnP is a HUGE part of the Triangle if you have good offensive players who can run it. The Triangle part of the offense is just one half of the court on the other side you have a 2 man game and that has the option of PnP, Give and Go etc. It's called the Pinch Post in Triangle parlance but it's just basic basketball. It's up to the players to decide to run it or not. It's always there.
The Triangle is a great offense if you have quality bigs cuz they're always involved and can keep the defense moving as they are posting up close to the basket. All those shots Cole is missing won't be missed by a high quality post big who scores at a higher %. This is what Phil is going to look to do this summer.
Also because of Carmelo, because he is not the type of vocal leader who can demand that others follow his lead.
In an age that emphasizes athleticism over fundamentals, you're simply not going to get as many players who can pick up complex schemes as quickly, so trying to do that while personnel turnover is still a revolving door is going to be spinning your wheels.
So what choice is there to make, emphasize talent or brains?
If you emphasize brains, you may sacrifice on talent.
The middle ground seems to be go for the best talent and establish a no ahole rule, thus not signing players like JR or Odom again. If a player is trouble or is known to be unwilling to play team ball, just say no. Otherwise, go for the best talent. Focus on the most talented player acquisitions minus the dumber rocks in the pile.
And until there is a legit quality starting PG here, it is going to be hard to accomplish triangle indoctrination and enforcement. Shved is probably still a backup PG at best.
I don't hate the idea of the triangle, but in today's league you don't start there first. Build a roster, then worry about that stuff. It is always going a blend of plays run anyway, nothing is going to purely one system excluding all other methods.