Knicks · Help me understand modern basketball and where the league is headed and why the Triangle is not apart of that (page 4)

Kobe and Jordan never reduced their scoring in the triangle. Matter of fact they superstar lead the league in scoring on numerous occasions.

Sorry I don't know how to quote

Yes, they did very good in triangle, but no one could know who would happen to their PPG if they played in different systems. History can only run once. However, it is logical to assume that "Give him the ball then go away from his path" or something similar MUST make the superstars have more chance to score. At the end, winning side should have better stats just because they score more. If a system must success, who wouldn't want to use it?

Triangle would not guarantee anyone to success but it is pretty sure to take away the shot attempt star players normally would have. The ball has to be shared. It is going to be some kind of game theory. if everyone is unselfish, the pie is much bigger, but if you are selfish, you are guaranteed to have your share. At last, it is just everyone for himself.

On paper, triangle has to be the best system. It won 11 times out of 20, it just has to. But it has to have the leader who can convince everyone to buy into it.

Don't think the difference between "Modern" vs "Triangle"/Spurs type offenses is about the quantity of 3pt. shots taken. Rather its about how 3pt. shots are generated. As well as preferred pace. The Triangle actually demands to have a good 3pt. shooter to be successful. As it is needed once teams double team the pinch post. The examples you used are actually a good way to explain the differences. Phil's Lakers teams and the Spurs were traditional half court set offensive teams. They preferred to work low/high and to slow down the pace to get into their half court sets. They fed players down low like Duncan, Robinson, Shaq, Bynum, Gasol to create double teams. When double teams came, it opened up three point shooters. However, the offense was still geared towards 2 point scores. Of course Kobe also had the freedom to create as he was so good at it. Modern offensive teams get their 3pt. shots by pushing the pace. They also prefer the 3pt shot. Claiming the obvious, its more points but also that it can be shot with similar efficiency, if wide open, and that it is a bigger influence on momentum. They look to create offense off the 3pt shot (High/low). When defenses rush to cover the 3pt. shooters. it opens up cuts and drives to the basket. It definitely is not the traditional basketball ideology. Imagine the Riley Lakers going on a fast break getting to the basket and then passing out to a guy at 3pt. line for a three? Riley would have benched him. Now they bench the guy if he doesn't pass it to the 3pt. shooter. Would love to see Phil watch a young Clay Thompson or Curry rush down the court and take a long 27 footer within the first 5 seconds of the shot clock. Think the other parts of the offenses are basically the same. Teams go to PnR with their best players, as they always did, if the initial set offense was shut down. Maybe less so in the Triangle. Watched the Rockets and it was either a quick three on transition or PnR for Harden.

As for the Triangle. Complaints are that it slows down the pace therefore minimizes a players athleticism. That it's predictable and teams can jump the procession. And that it needs at least two really good post players and excellent 3pt. shooters for it to work. But if you look at those Laker and Spur teams, think it was more about personnel and defense. The Spurs teams have always been successful because they have had 3 future HOF's in the squad at the same time, been able to get solid vets to play back up roles for league minimum and they have always been excellent defensive teams. As did Phil's Lakers. 3 things we can use around here.

In any team game the main thing is structure.
The team needs a blueprint and plan to build the system.
What system is not so important.
After structure is in place organization need to slowly select players who feet the system and complement each other.
This is a slow process. It takes time and is a hit-and-miss proposition.
But the reward is a very big probability to build consistent winner and contender.
Spurs is and excellent example of this process planned and implemented correctly.
Of course team can spend a ton of money on starts and get lucky to win it all.
But this success is unsustainable, short, and is not happening very often.
There are a ton of players in NBA who are capable to win using Triangle.
Knicks zo have non of them. The young guys can became that but it is not clear if they have enough talent to compete at NBA level.
I doubt that the process Phil started can be followed through in NY and in NBA altogether.
Players changed, business changed, and so game changed.
Character, greatness, teamwork, and comradely are gone with NBA legends.
Today's NBA is just corporate money-making machine going farther away from sports with every year.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the Spurs-Rockets series. The Spurs defense is so good that I was going to give them like a 95% chance of winning the series even though the Rockets have the better offense. But yesterday was a true thumping. I still give the Spurs a 60% chance of winning the series.

Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

The point is the game evolved way before Curry, and it's pretty much required to shoot a ton of 3s to win a championship. If the Spurs were taking only 10 or 13 3s a game like they did around 2000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams today. But if you go back to the 1980s, teams took only about 5 3s a game.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

The point is the game evolved way before Curry, and it's pretty much required to shoot a ton of 3s to win a championship. If the Spurs were taking only 10 or 13 3s a game like they did around 2000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams today. But if you go back to the 1980s, teams took only about 5 3s a game.

Yes, but the run and gun gets validated by the wins vs losses and a championship. Curry/Thompson took it to another level because they can shoot, but they were given a license to do it. No that teams didn't have good shooters, but nobody did it like that prior.

1972 Lakers with Gail Goodrich and Jerry West were often seen as the best shooting tandem prior. They didn't play at this kind of pace but they one just one chip in 4 tries in the backcourt.

You want to talk about a mindphuch, Lakers were 1-8 in the finals in the Celtic/knick era. played Knicks 3 times and one once.

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

The point is the game evolved way before Curry, and it's pretty much required to shoot a ton of 3s to win a championship. If the Spurs were taking only 10 or 13 3s a game like they did around 2000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams today. But if you go back to the 1980s, teams took only about 5 3s a game.

Yes, but the run and gun gets validated by the wins vs losses and a championship. Curry/Thompson took it to another level because they can shoot, but they were given a license to do it. No that teams didn't have good shooters, but nobody did it like that prior.

1972 Lakers with Gail Goodrich and Jerry West were often seen as the best shooting tandem prior. They didn't play at this kind of pace but they one just one chip in 4 tries in the backcourt.

You want to talk about a mindphuch, Lakers were 1-8 in the finals in the Celtic/knick era. played Knicks 3 times and one once.

What if the Cavs or Celtics win the championship? They took more 3s than the Warriors.

Its all about the learning curve IMO. You need a couple of seasons (at least) to understand the intricacies of the offense, and knowing how to play one's role in it as well. You have players on short term deals, who are being asked to learn a system that they might be starting to get just as they're headed out the door. Combine that with a franchise that has a high rate of roster turnover, and you end up with a team that is constantly in flux.

Whatever you believe about the Triangle's effectiveness in today's NBA, there is no get around the learning curve. I believe that relying on an offense that even former players who have praised it have said that it is hard to learn, puts the team at a competitive disadvantage. The counterargument has been that today's NBA is "dumbed down". I would argue that making the Triangle so essential to the future of this franchise is making things more complicated than they need to be.

GustavBahler wrote:Its all about the learning curve IMO. You need a couple of seasons (at least) to understand the intricacies of the offense, and knowing how to play one's role in it as well. You have players on short term deals, who are being asked to learn a system that they might be starting to get just as they're headed out the door. Combine that with a franchise that has a high rate of roster turnover, and you end up with a team that is constantly in flux.

Whatever you believe about the Triangle's effectiveness in today's NBA, there is no get around the learning curve. I believe that relying on an offense that even former players who have praised it have said that it is hard to learn, puts the team at a competitive disadvantage. The counterargument has been that today's NBA is "dumbed down". I would argue that making the Triangle so essential to the future of this franchise is making things more complicated than they need to be.

If it is hard to learn for the team playing in the triangle system, imagine the team trying to stop it.

GustavBahler wrote:Its all about the learning curve IMO. You need a couple of seasons (at least) to understand the intricacies of the offense, and knowing how to play one's role in it as well. You have players on short term deals, who are being asked to learn a system that they might be starting to get just as they're headed out the door. Combine that with a franchise that has a high rate of roster turnover, and you end up with a team that is constantly in flux.

Whatever you believe about the Triangle's effectiveness in today's NBA, there is no get around the learning curve. I believe that relying on an offense that even former players who have praised it have said that it is hard to learn, puts the team at a competitive disadvantage. The counterargument has been that today's NBA is "dumbed down". I would argue that making the Triangle so essential to the future of this franchise is making things more complicated than they need to be.

Phil is learning that his best chance at success is having Jeff blend his modern concepts with Triangle as a base to fall back on if the Early Offense doesn't lead to a score! Phil also learned that he has more success with open minded younger players.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

The point is the game evolved way before Curry, and it's pretty much required to shoot a ton of 3s to win a championship. If the Spurs were taking only 10 or 13 3s a game like they did around 2000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams today. But if you go back to the 1980s, teams took only about 5 3s a game.

Yes, but the run and gun gets validated by the wins vs losses and a championship. Curry/Thompson took it to another level because they can shoot, but they were given a license to do it. No that teams didn't have good shooters, but nobody did it like that prior.

1972 Lakers with Gail Goodrich and Jerry West were often seen as the best shooting tandem prior. They didn't play at this kind of pace but they one just one chip in 4 tries in the backcourt.

You want to talk about a mindphuch, Lakers were 1-8 in the finals in the Celtic/knick era. played Knicks 3 times and one once.

What if the Cavs or Celtics win the championship? They took more 3s than the Warriors.

No arguement. The Paradigm shift happend when? When a team that shot the shyt out of the ball won a chip. Thats the point I make. The GSW when Kerr came on board opened it up just a bit more and it worked.
Historically teams fell short. SAS defense was its benchmark. Not volume shooting.

Cavs play a system thats works for their personel. Its Called "Give Lebron the ball". Celtics have a very good squad and adding Horford who shoots a good 3, and Isiah Thomas getting better and better is no doubt a benefit.

Back to square one: build it as you want a roster, or hire a coach better suited to a good team. Brooks took Wiz higher, Kerr took GSW higher. Knicks needed renovation.

crzymdups wrote:More importantly - let's talk about the Knicks.

Knicks

2010-11 - MDA. Melo's first half season. Playoffs
Three point shots made per game: 9.3 made shots, 1st in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 2nd in league

2011-12 MDA. Lin. Melo. Playoffs.
Three point shots made per game: 7.6 made shots, 5th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 2nd in league

2012-13 Woodyball. Playoffs
Three point shots made per game: 10.5 made shots, 2nd in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 2nd in league

2013-4 Miss playoffs by one game due to Bargs being present and Tyson breaking leg
Three point shots made per game: 9.3 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 3rd in league

2014-15 ▲ 17 wins
Three point shots made per game: 6.8 made shots, 20th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 21st in league

2015-16 ▲ 32 wins - Knicks acquire generational 7'3" 3pt shooter... continue to shoot fewer threes relative to league
Three point shots made per game: 7.4 made shots, 24th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 22nd in league

2016-17 ▲ 31 wins
Three point shots made per game: 8.6 made shots, 24th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 25th in league

The stats are deceptive. Over the last three years the Knicks are progressively shooting more threes and their shot attempts are rising. Their drop is relative to the rest of the league's volume of shots. The chronic losing also contributes to fewer possessions and so on. This kind of ranking is a natural by-product of other more significant factors. To point to it as meaningful is absurd. A look at what other teams fair poorly in this ranking and you'll find numerous playoff powerhouses (OKC, Atlanta, and so on).

This year's shot attempts from the three are close to 2013-14. The number made is of course the difference.

By myopically becoming obsessed with this particular feature of the game you have to examine who was and is currently taking these shots.
Losing a JR Smith will naturally reduce both numbers. And its only in the last year that our guard play is ramping up its 3 point shooting potential.

For the past two or three years the coaching staff has advocated that the guards shoot more threes (e.g. Calderon and everyone after) - so there's that as well. I attribute the bashfulness to sticky Melo deference syndrome.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/th...