Knicks · Help me understand modern basketball and where the league is headed and why the Triangle is not apart of that (page 1)
My understanding:
- There should be better spacing via more 3point attempts.
- There should be a higher % of shots coming from the 3point area cause statistically this counts more heavily than 2's when FG% is taken into account.
- More 3pt shots and spacing will also lead to more baskets at the rim, which also is a better shot when FG% is considered.
- Why does Pop and San Antonio hate all of those concepts? His team has ignored all of that. They LEAD the league in 3pt FG% http://on.nba.com/2jjQQMB and yet didn't shoot them very much http://on.nba.com/2ll1LLx.
I am trying to place this best I can against what the Triangle did in Phil's last stint.
Phil's Lakers teams shot a larger portion of 3pt shots than most teams in the league at the time.
2006-07: 5th http://on.nba.com/2kNttQw
2007-08: 7th http://on.nba.com/2maGyoi
2008-09: 15th http://on.nba.com/2maIf51
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2kNlZwW
2010-11: 12th http://on.nba.com/2kNnJ9l
Pop's team over the past 3 seasons has shot a diminishing portion of 3pt shots than the rest of the league. This past year they are 25th. DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ANALYTICS OR MODERN BASKETBALL IS?!?!?!?!
2013-14: 15th http://on.nba.com/2lgsvJT
2014-15: 15th http://on.nba.com/2kNm8kb
2015-16: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kNuXKu
2016-17: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kzInG4
You can start here:
http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#...
So the other part of advanced/modern stats tell us that Points in the Paint SHOULD be another emphasis with team offenses, right:
2014-15: http://on.nba.com/2jnZ0Iy SA #11th, GS #14, CLE #25
2015-16: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #16th, GS #25, CLE #23
2016-17: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #27th, GS #21, CLE #29
Lakers:
2006-07: 14th http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru
2007-08: 14th http://on.nba.com/2nH79s2
2008-09: 3rd http://on.nba.com/2ptNKd3
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2pu865Z
What is modern basketball? What do the analytics tell us? Why is the Triangle, with so many elements of it used on GS/SA not considered good basketball?
The triangle is fine. Phil has a lot of (his own) mistakes to fix, and needs more from other guys who were hurt. We will have some offseason options. We will see if Phil can get this right or not.
fishmike wrote:far too advanced a topic requiring reading, insightful response, possible research... what were you thinking?The triangle is fine. Phil has a lot of (his own) mistakes to fix, and needs more from other guys who were hurt. We will have some offseason options. We will see if Phil can get this right or not.
That the word antiquated was thrown about when discussing the Triangle and I have no idea why
holfresh wrote:My apprehension was never about the triangle..It's always about the head coach running his system..If the coach isn't running the system then the players won't buy in...What Phil is doing isn't being done anywhere else..Phil would never work under those conditions...
Great, then no need to participate in this discussion, plenty of other threads. That's not what the topic is about. Thanks.
http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2...
Shot Selection in the Knicks’ Triangle OffenseBy Stephen Shea, Ph.D.
The triangle offense has been incredibly successful in the NBA in the past. Phil Jackson famously implemented the triangle offense on championship teams in Chicago and Los Angeles. However, the NBA has changed significantly since Jackson last led a team to a title. Offenses now feature more perimeter shooters, and they station fewer bodies in the paint. They create more space for players to drive and cut down the lane. Today’s offenses are more influenced by analytics and have adapted to defensive rule changes. One has to wonder if the triangle offense will still be as successful as it once was.
The concern is shot selection.
We will analyze shots from six regions—the restricted area, the paint (but not the restricted area), mid-range, the left corner 3, the right corner 3, and the above-the-break 3. The league has the highest eFG% from the restricted area. The second highest eFG% is the corner 3. Not surprisingly then, many teams are striving to get more shots from those two high efficiency zones.
In contrast, the mid-range jump shot is the least efficient shot. Thus, teams are looking to take less shots from this area. That is, all teams follow this trend except the Knicks. The Knicks are getting .97 points from mid-range for every 1 point from the restricted area. That’s the highest such ratio in the NBA in 2015. In fact, it’s the most for any team in any season from 2009-10 through 2014-15.
Some might argue that we cannot evaluate the triangle offense based on these Knicks. These Knicks aren’t loaded with talent. One might suggest that we shouldn’t dismiss the offensive system just because these Knicks can’t make their shots. So, let’s try an experiment. Let’s create the Dream 2014-15 Knicks. These Dream Knicks will still take the same number of shots from each region as the 2014-15 Knicks. However, these Dream Knicks will shoot the league best % from each region. These Dream Knicks will finish around the hoop like Blake Griffin and the Clippers. They’ll knock down mid-range and above-the-break jumpers like the Splash Brothers and Golden State. We’ll even assume they shoot 52.6% from the right corner 3, which if it held for a full season, would be the highest corner 3 % for any team in the last 10 years. We gave the Dream Knicks the league’s best field goal % from every region and then recalculated their eFG%. How do these Griffin-dunking, splash brothers shooting Dream Knicks rank in eFG%? They still don’t have the best eFG% in the league. They still aren’t getting as many points per shot as this season’s Warriors or Clippers.
Maybe I’m being too negative. There is some good news here. Assuming the Knicks current shot selection, if the Knicks could shoot the league’s best % from each region, they would be an above average offense. I guess that’s one road map to success—build a backcourt that shoots like Steph Curry and Klay Thompson and a front court that finishes at the hoop like DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin. The Knicks could do that….or they could ditch the triangle.
Let’s try another experiment. Let’s leave the Knicks’ shooting percentages as they are. Let’s suppose the Knicks finish like these Knicks—a team often believed to be considerably short on talent. Let’s now suppose that they have Houston’s shot selection. Remember how the Knicks had the highest ratio of mid-range points to restricted area points in any of the last 6 seasons. Houston has the second lowest such ratio of the same time frame. They trail only last season’s Rockets. While the 2014-15 Knicks seem to design their offense around getting the mid-range (and least efficient) shot, Houston tries very hard to avoid them.
To be clear, the current Knicks are 23rd in the league in eFG% (at approximately 48.5). If we keep the same shooting percentages and only alter their shot selection to mimic the Houston Rockets, the Knicks eFG% jumps to 52.2, which would be good enough for 6th in the league and only slightly behind the Dream Knicks who would have an eFG% of 53.6.
So, the Knicks have at least two paths to an efficient offense. They can keep their current shot selection as generated largely through the triangle offense and assemble the greatest shooting roster of all time. Or, they could alter their offensive strategy to be more consistent with everything we’ve learned through basketball analytics.
(All stats are courtesy of NBA.com and are current through the January 25th games.)
What has changed is the acceptance of the 3 as a good shot. A lot of guys in the 90s called it fools gold etc, like JVG. The metrics and TS% show there is context making it a very good. So a talent expansion starts. Suddenly guys who were missing parts of their game keeping them from the pros could be useful NBA players if they could hit the 3. So the talent pool of smaller players who could shoot expanded, as did their use in the NBA.
I dont think its anything more than there are more talented smaller players to choose from, and smaller line ups can use the 3 and floor spacing to beat larger slower ones.
The areas of the floor the 2014-15 Knicks were using were the lowest possible value for efficiency and points per shot.
IF that SAME crappy 2014-15 Knicks team had shot the SAME PERCENTAGES but from the frequency and spaces on the floor the 2014-15 Rockets did, the 2014-15 Knicks would have the SIXTH BEST EFFECTIVE FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE.
Conversely, if you put Steph Curry, Blake Griffin, DeAndre Jordan, Klay Thompson on the 2014-15 Knicks and make them shoot from the same mid-range areas, have the same shot selection as the 2014-15 Knicks, the field goal percentage would be only slightly better.
So the Knicks have two options - get superstar talent at every position and run the Triangle - or use the talent they already have more effectively.
And again, this article was about the 2014-15 Knicks. I think we would all agree the 2016-17 Knicks had more talent, even just by adding KP to the equation.
Basically - the mid-range 2pt shot is the least valuable, least rewarding shot in all of basketball. The corner three is the most valuable shot in all of basketball. The Triangle sets people up to take mid-range 2pt shots. It makes the shots you take over the course of the game worth less. It gets more intricate than that, but those are some basics.
crzymdups wrote:Here's a starting point -http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2...
Shot Selection in the Knicks’ Triangle OffenseBy Stephen Shea, Ph.D.
The triangle offense has been incredibly successful in the NBA in the past. Phil Jackson famously implemented the triangle offense on championship teams in Chicago and Los Angeles. However, the NBA has changed significantly since Jackson last led a team to a title. Offenses now feature more perimeter shooters, and they station fewer bodies in the paint. They create more space for players to drive and cut down the lane. Today’s offenses are more influenced by analytics and have adapted to defensive rule changes. One has to wonder if the triangle offense will still be as successful as it once was.
The concern is shot selection.
We will analyze shots from six regions—the restricted area, the paint (but not the restricted area), mid-range, the left corner 3, the right corner 3, and the above-the-break 3. The league has the highest eFG% from the restricted area. The second highest eFG% is the corner 3. Not surprisingly then, many teams are striving to get more shots from those two high efficiency zones.
In contrast, the mid-range jump shot is the least efficient shot. Thus, teams are looking to take less shots from this area. That is, all teams follow this trend except the Knicks. The Knicks are getting .97 points from mid-range for every 1 point from the restricted area. That’s the highest such ratio in the NBA in 2015. In fact, it’s the most for any team in any season from 2009-10 through 2014-15.
Some might argue that we cannot evaluate the triangle offense based on these Knicks. These Knicks aren’t loaded with talent. One might suggest that we shouldn’t dismiss the offensive system just because these Knicks can’t make their shots. So, let’s try an experiment. Let’s create the Dream 2014-15 Knicks. These Dream Knicks will still take the same number of shots from each region as the 2014-15 Knicks. However, these Dream Knicks will shoot the league best % from each region. These Dream Knicks will finish around the hoop like Blake Griffin and the Clippers. They’ll knock down mid-range and above-the-break jumpers like the Splash Brothers and Golden State. We’ll even assume they shoot 52.6% from the right corner 3, which if it held for a full season, would be the highest corner 3 % for any team in the last 10 years. We gave the Dream Knicks the league’s best field goal % from every region and then recalculated their eFG%. How do these Griffin-dunking, splash brothers shooting Dream Knicks rank in eFG%? They still don’t have the best eFG% in the league. They still aren’t getting as many points per shot as this season’s Warriors or Clippers.
Maybe I’m being too negative. There is some good news here. Assuming the Knicks current shot selection, if the Knicks could shoot the league’s best % from each region, they would be an above average offense. I guess that’s one road map to success—build a backcourt that shoots like Steph Curry and Klay Thompson and a front court that finishes at the hoop like DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin. The Knicks could do that….or they could ditch the triangle.
Let’s try another experiment. Let’s leave the Knicks’ shooting percentages as they are. Let’s suppose the Knicks finish like these Knicks—a team often believed to be considerably short on talent. Let’s now suppose that they have Houston’s shot selection. Remember how the Knicks had the highest ratio of mid-range points to restricted area points in any of the last 6 seasons. Houston has the second lowest such ratio of the same time frame. They trail only last season’s Rockets. While the 2014-15 Knicks seem to design their offense around getting the mid-range (and least efficient) shot, Houston tries very hard to avoid them.
To be clear, the current Knicks are 23rd in the league in eFG% (at approximately 48.5). If we keep the same shooting percentages and only alter their shot selection to mimic the Houston Rockets, the Knicks eFG% jumps to 52.2, which would be good enough for 6th in the league and only slightly behind the Dream Knicks who would have an eFG% of 53.6.
So, the Knicks have at least two paths to an efficient offense. They can keep their current shot selection as generated largely through the triangle offense and assemble the greatest shooting roster of all time. Or, they could alter their offensive strategy to be more consistent with everything we’ve learned through basketball analytics.
(All stats are courtesy of NBA.com and are current through the January 25th games.)
This doesn't help me. In 2014-15 the Knicks were 17-65. ANY offense they ran would have been poor. The team started Bargs, Gallo, Shved, Jason Smith, THJr, Shane Larkin and also turned the roster over. Extrapolating stats from that team is a nice math exercise but doesn't feed into anything stronger. That's why I put up the stats from 2006-2010 when the Triangle was last run.
Generally, you can say that a lot of bad teams either take shots from bad areas or play poor defense. Duh. That's what the article says, Triangle is a side note to that.
http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-danto...
Basketball across all levels is becoming more and more committed to the three-pointer.Each season, NBA teams seem to break records for most three-pointers attempted in a season, and the movement is catching on in college basketball, too.
On Wednesday, after a 112-106 loss to Pittsburgh, Marshall head coach Dan D'Antoni (brother of Houston Rockets head coach Mike D'Antoni, a three-point-heavy, offensive savant himself) gave a great (and slightly heated) response to a group of reporters about why three-pointers are the best shots in basketball.
When asked if Marshall didn't score in the paint enough, D'Antoni asked a reporter if he's ever watched the NBA. He then broke down the math behind why threes are so popular (via Craig Meyer of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).
"You see those top three teams. Golden State — do they work it [inside]? My brother in Houston, the biggest turnaround in the league — do they work it in? You can go get any computer and run what the best shots are and it will tell you the post-up is the worst shot in basketball. If you want to run down and try to get it [in the paint] to shoot over somebody, then you're beating analytics. The best shot in basketball is that corner three. The next-best shot in basketball is any other three. Other than free throws, which we try to do, when you get to the foul line, you score 1.5 points every time you go to the foul line in the pros. It just trickles down. It's the same thing for college kids..."
When a reporter began to ask a question, D'Antoni cut him off, saying, "I haven't finished my damn analytics story yet." He continued:"If you can get a layup and it's clean — it's not one that's highly contested — it's [worth] 1.8 points [per attempt]. It's 1.3 from that corner, 1.27. Do you know what a post-up is, with a guy standing over top of you? It's 0.78. So you run your team down there and we'll see how long you can stay with teams that can play the other way. You've seen it in the NBA. The last two championships have been Cleveland and Golden State. What do they do? You don't see anybody post up. They just spread that thing out and go."
D'Antoni said he changed his coaching philosophy years ago, saying he used to coach like a "dummy" by trying to force post-ups.
Some could argue with D'Antoni's analysis. The goal of basketball is to shoot as close as possible, hence why teams run post-ups. The three-pointer has become a weapon, in part, because defenses evolved to protect the rim. Three-pointers can make teams pay for defending too far inside, or they can simply space the floor to create more room to get to the rim. Eventually, basketball will likely reverse course, when teams are so focused on defending the three-point line, someone will find an advantage inside.
Nonetheless, it's refreshing to hear a coach admit to thinking fluidly and following what math suggests, as opposed to digging into his position. As three-point-reliant teams like the Warriors and Cavaliers continue to win, the numbers will be hard for opponents to ignore.
martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:Here's a starting point -http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2...
Shot Selection in the Knicks’ Triangle OffenseBy Stephen Shea, Ph.D.
The triangle offense has been incredibly successful in the NBA in the past. Phil Jackson famously implemented the triangle offense on championship teams in Chicago and Los Angeles. However, the NBA has changed significantly since Jackson last led a team to a title. Offenses now feature more perimeter shooters, and they station fewer bodies in the paint. They create more space for players to drive and cut down the lane. Today’s offenses are more influenced by analytics and have adapted to defensive rule changes. One has to wonder if the triangle offense will still be as successful as it once was.
The concern is shot selection.
We will analyze shots from six regions—the restricted area, the paint (but not the restricted area), mid-range, the left corner 3, the right corner 3, and the above-the-break 3. The league has the highest eFG% from the restricted area. The second highest eFG% is the corner 3. Not surprisingly then, many teams are striving to get more shots from those two high efficiency zones.
In contrast, the mid-range jump shot is the least efficient shot. Thus, teams are looking to take less shots from this area. That is, all teams follow this trend except the Knicks. The Knicks are getting .97 points from mid-range for every 1 point from the restricted area. That’s the highest such ratio in the NBA in 2015. In fact, it’s the most for any team in any season from 2009-10 through 2014-15.
Some might argue that we cannot evaluate the triangle offense based on these Knicks. These Knicks aren’t loaded with talent. One might suggest that we shouldn’t dismiss the offensive system just because these Knicks can’t make their shots. So, let’s try an experiment. Let’s create the Dream 2014-15 Knicks. These Dream Knicks will still take the same number of shots from each region as the 2014-15 Knicks. However, these Dream Knicks will shoot the league best % from each region. These Dream Knicks will finish around the hoop like Blake Griffin and the Clippers. They’ll knock down mid-range and above-the-break jumpers like the Splash Brothers and Golden State. We’ll even assume they shoot 52.6% from the right corner 3, which if it held for a full season, would be the highest corner 3 % for any team in the last 10 years. We gave the Dream Knicks the league’s best field goal % from every region and then recalculated their eFG%. How do these Griffin-dunking, splash brothers shooting Dream Knicks rank in eFG%? They still don’t have the best eFG% in the league. They still aren’t getting as many points per shot as this season’s Warriors or Clippers.
Maybe I’m being too negative. There is some good news here. Assuming the Knicks current shot selection, if the Knicks could shoot the league’s best % from each region, they would be an above average offense. I guess that’s one road map to success—build a backcourt that shoots like Steph Curry and Klay Thompson and a front court that finishes at the hoop like DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin. The Knicks could do that….or they could ditch the triangle.
Let’s try another experiment. Let’s leave the Knicks’ shooting percentages as they are. Let’s suppose the Knicks finish like these Knicks—a team often believed to be considerably short on talent. Let’s now suppose that they have Houston’s shot selection. Remember how the Knicks had the highest ratio of mid-range points to restricted area points in any of the last 6 seasons. Houston has the second lowest such ratio of the same time frame. They trail only last season’s Rockets. While the 2014-15 Knicks seem to design their offense around getting the mid-range (and least efficient) shot, Houston tries very hard to avoid them.
To be clear, the current Knicks are 23rd in the league in eFG% (at approximately 48.5). If we keep the same shooting percentages and only alter their shot selection to mimic the Houston Rockets, the Knicks eFG% jumps to 52.2, which would be good enough for 6th in the league and only slightly behind the Dream Knicks who would have an eFG% of 53.6.
So, the Knicks have at least two paths to an efficient offense. They can keep their current shot selection as generated largely through the triangle offense and assemble the greatest shooting roster of all time. Or, they could alter their offensive strategy to be more consistent with everything we’ve learned through basketball analytics.
(All stats are courtesy of NBA.com and are current through the January 25th games.)
This doesn't help me. In 2014-15 the Knicks were 17-65. ANY offense they ran would have been poor. The team started Bargs, Gallo, Shved, Jason Smith, THJr, Shane Larkin and also turned the roster over. Extrapolating stats from that team is a nice math exercise but doesn't feed into anything stronger. That's why I put up the stats from 2006-2010 when the Triangle was last run.
Generally, you can say that a lot of bad teams either take shots from bad areas or play poor defense. Duh. That's what the article says, Triangle is a side note to that.
I think that article is pretty clear. I guess I'm done trying to explain it to you.
crzymdups wrote:The short version of that article -The areas of the floor the 2014-15 Knicks were using were the lowest possible value for efficiency and points per shot.
IF that SAME crappy 2014-15 Knicks team had shot the SAME PERCENTAGES but from the frequency and spaces on the floor the 2014-15 Rockets did, the 2014-15 Knicks would have the SIXTH BEST EFFECTIVE FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE.
Conversely, if you put Steph Curry, Blake Griffin, DeAndre Jordan, Klay Thompson on the 2014-15 Knicks and make them shoot from the same mid-range areas, have the same shot selection as the 2014-15 Knicks, the field goal percentage would be only slightly better.
So the Knicks have two options - get superstar talent at every position and run the Triangle - or use the talent they already have more effectively.
And again, this article was about the 2014-15 Knicks. I think we would all agree the 2016-17 Knicks had more talent, even just by adding KP to the equation.
Basically - the mid-range 2pt shot is the least valuable, least rewarding shot in all of basketball. The corner three is the most valuable shot in all of basketball. The Triangle sets people up to take mid-range 2pt shots. It makes the shots you take over the course of the game worth less. It gets more intricate than that, but those are some basics.
2014-15 team is not a good extrapolation point. It's a reflection of poor players taking poor shots.
Spurs and Lakers.
No doubt, PHX had really good shooters. Have to have good players.
Pop had good players inside and out, as did the Lakers!!!!
crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:Here's a starting point -http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2...
Shot Selection in the Knicks’ Triangle OffenseBy Stephen Shea, Ph.D.
The triangle offense has been incredibly successful in the NBA in the past. Phil Jackson famously implemented the triangle offense on championship teams in Chicago and Los Angeles. However, the NBA has changed significantly since Jackson last led a team to a title. Offenses now feature more perimeter shooters, and they station fewer bodies in the paint. They create more space for players to drive and cut down the lane. Today’s offenses are more influenced by analytics and have adapted to defensive rule changes. One has to wonder if the triangle offense will still be as successful as it once was.
The concern is shot selection.
We will analyze shots from six regions—the restricted area, the paint (but not the restricted area), mid-range, the left corner 3, the right corner 3, and the above-the-break 3. The league has the highest eFG% from the restricted area. The second highest eFG% is the corner 3. Not surprisingly then, many teams are striving to get more shots from those two high efficiency zones.
In contrast, the mid-range jump shot is the least efficient shot. Thus, teams are looking to take less shots from this area. That is, all teams follow this trend except the Knicks. The Knicks are getting .97 points from mid-range for every 1 point from the restricted area. That’s the highest such ratio in the NBA in 2015. In fact, it’s the most for any team in any season from 2009-10 through 2014-15.
Some might argue that we cannot evaluate the triangle offense based on these Knicks. These Knicks aren’t loaded with talent. One might suggest that we shouldn’t dismiss the offensive system just because these Knicks can’t make their shots. So, let’s try an experiment. Let’s create the Dream 2014-15 Knicks. These Dream Knicks will still take the same number of shots from each region as the 2014-15 Knicks. However, these Dream Knicks will shoot the league best % from each region. These Dream Knicks will finish around the hoop like Blake Griffin and the Clippers. They’ll knock down mid-range and above-the-break jumpers like the Splash Brothers and Golden State. We’ll even assume they shoot 52.6% from the right corner 3, which if it held for a full season, would be the highest corner 3 % for any team in the last 10 years. We gave the Dream Knicks the league’s best field goal % from every region and then recalculated their eFG%. How do these Griffin-dunking, splash brothers shooting Dream Knicks rank in eFG%? They still don’t have the best eFG% in the league. They still aren’t getting as many points per shot as this season’s Warriors or Clippers.
Maybe I’m being too negative. There is some good news here. Assuming the Knicks current shot selection, if the Knicks could shoot the league’s best % from each region, they would be an above average offense. I guess that’s one road map to success—build a backcourt that shoots like Steph Curry and Klay Thompson and a front court that finishes at the hoop like DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffin. The Knicks could do that….or they could ditch the triangle.
Let’s try another experiment. Let’s leave the Knicks’ shooting percentages as they are. Let’s suppose the Knicks finish like these Knicks—a team often believed to be considerably short on talent. Let’s now suppose that they have Houston’s shot selection. Remember how the Knicks had the highest ratio of mid-range points to restricted area points in any of the last 6 seasons. Houston has the second lowest such ratio of the same time frame. They trail only last season’s Rockets. While the 2014-15 Knicks seem to design their offense around getting the mid-range (and least efficient) shot, Houston tries very hard to avoid them.
To be clear, the current Knicks are 23rd in the league in eFG% (at approximately 48.5). If we keep the same shooting percentages and only alter their shot selection to mimic the Houston Rockets, the Knicks eFG% jumps to 52.2, which would be good enough for 6th in the league and only slightly behind the Dream Knicks who would have an eFG% of 53.6.
So, the Knicks have at least two paths to an efficient offense. They can keep their current shot selection as generated largely through the triangle offense and assemble the greatest shooting roster of all time. Or, they could alter their offensive strategy to be more consistent with everything we’ve learned through basketball analytics.
(All stats are courtesy of NBA.com and are current through the January 25th games.)
This doesn't help me. In 2014-15 the Knicks were 17-65. ANY offense they ran would have been poor. The team started Bargs, Gallo, Shved, Jason Smith, THJr, Shane Larkin and also turned the roster over. Extrapolating stats from that team is a nice math exercise but doesn't feed into anything stronger. That's why I put up the stats from 2006-2010 when the Triangle was last run.
Generally, you can say that a lot of bad teams either take shots from bad areas or play poor defense. Duh. That's what the article says, Triangle is a side note to that.
I think that article is pretty clear. I guess I'm done trying to explain it to you.
Oh the article is clear enough on what it is trying to do but it's not a reflection of the Triangle so much as it is a reflection of where bad players shoot from with a side note that they were trying to do it within the Triangle.
Again, Knicks turned the roster over. Had Dleague scrums running with Bargs. You think that is reflective of anything? Of course they were taking bad shots, they are piss poor players.
crzymdups wrote:Here's another explanation from Dan D'Antoni -http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-danto...
Basketball across all levels is becoming more and more committed to the three-pointer.Each season, NBA teams seem to break records for most three-pointers attempted in a season, and the movement is catching on in college basketball, too.
On Wednesday, after a 112-106 loss to Pittsburgh, Marshall head coach Dan D'Antoni (brother of Houston Rockets head coach Mike D'Antoni, a three-point-heavy, offensive savant himself) gave a great (and slightly heated) response to a group of reporters about why three-pointers are the best shots in basketball.
When asked if Marshall didn't score in the paint enough, D'Antoni asked a reporter if he's ever watched the NBA. He then broke down the math behind why threes are so popular (via Craig Meyer of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).
"You see those top three teams. Golden State — do they work it [inside]? My brother in Houston, the biggest turnaround in the league — do they work it in? You can go get any computer and run what the best shots are and it will tell you the post-up is the worst shot in basketball. If you want to run down and try to get it [in the paint] to shoot over somebody, then you're beating analytics. The best shot in basketball is that corner three. The next-best shot in basketball is any other three. Other than free throws, which we try to do, when you get to the foul line, you score 1.5 points every time you go to the foul line in the pros. It just trickles down. It's the same thing for college kids..."
When a reporter began to ask a question, D'Antoni cut him off, saying, "I haven't finished my damn analytics story yet." He continued:"If you can get a layup and it's clean — it's not one that's highly contested — it's [worth] 1.8 points [per attempt]. It's 1.3 from that corner, 1.27. Do you know what a post-up is, with a guy standing over top of you? It's 0.78. So you run your team down there and we'll see how long you can stay with teams that can play the other way. You've seen it in the NBA. The last two championships have been Cleveland and Golden State. What do they do? You don't see anybody post up. They just spread that thing out and go."
D'Antoni said he changed his coaching philosophy years ago, saying he used to coach like a "dummy" by trying to force post-ups.
Some could argue with D'Antoni's analysis. The goal of basketball is to shoot as close as possible, hence why teams run post-ups. The three-pointer has become a weapon, in part, because defenses evolved to protect the rim. Three-pointers can make teams pay for defending too far inside, or they can simply space the floor to create more room to get to the rim. Eventually, basketball will likely reverse course, when teams are so focused on defending the three-point line, someone will find an advantage inside.
Nonetheless, it's refreshing to hear a coach admit to thinking fluidly and following what math suggests, as opposed to digging into his position. As three-point-reliant teams like the Warriors and Cavaliers continue to win, the numbers will be hard for opponents to ignore.
Didn't the Knicks try that but some weren't buying in. After MDA was here wasn't he.
martin wrote:I don't have a firm grasp of either the Analytics/Modern basketball or how the Triangle would/would not fit with how the league operates today.My understanding:
- There should be better spacing via more 3point attempts.
- There should be a higher % of shots coming from the 3point area cause statistically this counts more heavily than 2's when FG% is taken into account.
- More 3pt shots and spacing will also lead to more baskets at the rim, which also is a better shot when FG% is considered.
- Why does Pop and San Antonio hate all of those concepts? His team has ignored all of that. They LEAD the league in 3pt FG% http://on.nba.com/2jjQQMB and yet didn't shoot them very much http://on.nba.com/2ll1LLx.
I am trying to place this best I can against what the Triangle did in Phil's last stint.Phil's Lakers teams shot a larger portion of 3pt shots than most teams in the league at the time.
2006-07: 5th http://on.nba.com/2kNttQw
2007-08: 7th http://on.nba.com/2maGyoi
2008-09: 15th http://on.nba.com/2maIf51
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2kNlZwW
2010-11: 12th http://on.nba.com/2kNnJ9lPop's team over the past 3 seasons has shot a diminishing portion of 3pt shots than the rest of the league. This past year they are 25th. DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ANALYTICS OR MODERN BASKETBALL IS?!?!?!?!
2013-14: 15th http://on.nba.com/2lgsvJT
2014-15: 15th http://on.nba.com/2kNm8kb
2015-16: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kNuXKu
2016-17: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kzInG4You can start here:
http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#...
So the other part of advanced/modern stats tell us that Points in the Paint SHOULD be another emphasis with team offenses, right:2014-15: http://on.nba.com/2jnZ0Iy SA #11th, GS #14, CLE #25
2015-16: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #16th, GS #25, CLE #23
2016-17: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #27th, GS #21, CLE #29Lakers:
2006-07: 14th http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru
2007-08: 14th http://on.nba.com/2nH79s2
2008-09: 3rd http://on.nba.com/2ptNKd3
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2pu865Z
What is modern basketball? What do the analytics tell us? Why is the Triangle, with so many elements of it used on GS/SA not considered good basketball?
This is a good topic. There are many who know more about the metrics than I do, and there are actually metrics forums. But I'll at least add some thoughts.
-I'm not sure the triangle is inherently flawed. If it could be used in a way that generated a lot of points in the paint and 3s (especially corner 3s), that would work. It doesn't seem like Phil wants it to be used this way though. He actually mocked teams using metrics and shooting a lot of 3s. Or if it could be used to turn mid range shots into high percentage ones, that would work but that seems far-fetched.
-Most of San Antonio's success is due to their defense. In terms of offensive efficiency, they are above average (8th out of 30 and about 2 1/2 points per 100 possessions above average). But their defensive efficiency is tops in the league.
-Usually metrics based conclusions are based on trends. So the metrics people would ask a question like, "are the most successful teams generally shooting more 3s and 2s close to the rim"? That would be more important than "are there any successful teams that don't follow this approach?" The second question still matters but first you have to figure what generally works and then look at what exceptions exist and why.
So what are the possible reasons for the Spurs being such an exception? 1) Their defense carries them. 2) They have found other ways to make their offense reasonably efficient (good passing). 3) They are so good at 3s and close 2s that it still helps their offense. They'd just be even better if they shot more from these areas.
I'd also add that the Spurs *are* part of the league-wide trend towards shooting more 3s. They just haven't followed the trend quite as much as the average team. They take 25 3s a game while the average team takes 27. However, they're taking more 3s now than virtually any team did 10 years ago.
Now like anything you still need TALENT to be truly great but the premise of Modern Ball is to limit low efficiency Offense. So practically eliminating Low Efficiency Post Ups and Mid Range looks is what teams are trying to do from a structural level. The Triangle doesn't look to avoid those Post Ups or Mid Range shots.
Some complain about the Triangle because many of the actions will end up with a Mid Range or Post Up but really that isn't necessarily a problem if you have players with efficient Mid Range and Post Up ability. The Triangle is actually a completely flexible system and is not ANTI 3 Point Shot. EVERY shot is possible in the Triangle because it's a constant Ball and Player Movement offense or so it should be.
If you're a 3pt shooter the Triangle doesn't stop you from taking as many 3's as you like. Just ask Fisher, Hodges, Paxson, Kerr, Horry etc.
The other main difference in the Triangle from Modern forms of offense is that the more PURE form of Triangle often called for 3 passes before you really got into most scoring positions. So you have the Lead Guard making a Lag pass to the other guard and that would lead to a Post Feed and then the Cuts off that Post Feed might lead to another pass. This is really just BASKETBALL. Modern Offense may dispense with this and go right into a PnR Spread look.
The thing is that when you get deep into the playoffs and you face the best defensive teams you may not score as quickly or efficiently as the regular season. Having the Triangle actually is a benefit because it is closer to Playoff Basketball and your team is already proficient operating against a set defense. Just my 2 cents.
there is NO system that won't work in the future of basketball, just poor management and coaching that do not fit the pieces of the system together correctly.