Knicks · Help me understand modern basketball and where the league is headed and why the Triangle is not apart of that (page 2)
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.
Bonn1997 wrote: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.
Good post. I agree.
When Phil hired Hornacek, I actually had some hope because it seemed he was going to be allowed to update the triangle. Phil took the reins back on the offense after the all-star break and has said he wants to do more mentoring. He's also taken to calling the three point shot a cheap shot again.
The triangle of course could be modified to be successful. Part of that involves bringing in the correct personnel.
And of course all this focus on offense keeps ignoring the defensive side of the ball. Defense is a basketball skill. Some guys are better at it than others. Which means it's also a personnel issue. Phil has not addressed it with the guys he's brought in - he's made his biggest trade for Derrick Rose who was hands down our worst defender. He's made his biggest free agent contract for Joakim Noah who was at one point a defensive stalwart but is not capable anymore and hasn't looked it since he had knee surgery in 2014.
The biggest issue with the triangle here outside of shot selection is the coaching confusion it has caused which has trickled down to the players. There is countless evidence of this.
martin wrote: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.
The 2014-15 Knicks aren't relevant but the 2009 Lakers are? Hahaha. Ok.
And I'd add that you're missing the point of the article then. The point of the article is that even if that 17 win team shot the same percentages, but took shots from different spots on the floor, they would have he sixth best effective field goal percentage in the league. The problem wasn't who was shooting, it was WHERE they were shooting it from. Aka the locations dictated by the offense.
Bonn1997 wrote: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.
Phil has indeed mocked GS with 1 tweet. But I just showed you that as a portion of the offense the Triangle shot a good clip of 3 point shots. Do you consider a snide remark as evidence of how a person actually implements a system and how that system is reflected on an offense? Why do you weigh a dumb tweet so heavily when I just put forth 4 years of links regarding 3pt shots per 100 possession?
Bonn1997 wrote:-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.
So, my focus was more on offense than defense, using Analytics/definition of modern basketball to help me understand why the Triangle is slighted. Not sure why you would bring SA defense into the topic. Also, SA does indeed have a VERY efficient offense IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY SEEMINGLY TO DO NOT SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. OR shoot a lot of baskets at the rim. IE, does that lead us to conclude that they are shooting more mid-range? Also, does that further lead us to believe that Pop either does not understand modern basketball? OR PERHAPS it means that there is more than way to skin a cat????
Bonn1997 wrote: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.
Bonn, no they are not. Not per 100 possessions. That is just what I showed above. Why did you ignore what I put forward as evidence. They take 25 3s a game? You are a stat guy. Pace. Per 100 possessions. You just threw both of those out the window. Why?
Again, the Spurs are the best 3pt shooting team in the league when you just consider 3pt FG%. And yet Pop does NOT place an emphasis on making sure his team shoots a lot of them. Why not?
ppl didn't want to use it even in its heyday. It is not about W/L or anything. Ppl just wanted it to go away as fast as it can after Phil retired.The reason it didn't work or ppl didn't want to use it, I thought, is not because of anything on-court but it is against the business world we are in. For example,
The ppg of star players have to be down as they have to share the ball.
The assist tends to be shared among players so someone Rondo must not like it.
Well, in short. Players have to sacrifice himself for the greater good.
I mean, who would do so in Capitalism world? Really? 
Someone would stop to shoot 3 in order to pocket 500k more, this kind of dudes must not like to play triangle.
If a team's superstar doesn't want to use it, of course the team would not use it.
Yeah, triangle actually would help you win. It would help your TS% or something, but who cares? adv. stats would not get you into NBA all-star selection. It would not help you to get a great contract. When it comes to money, only the holy triangle a.k.a. points, rebounds and assists count.
Second, triangle can be very complex, but the idea is that it looks like five players moves at the same time, just like 5 guys dancing together. If one of them doesn't go to the place he is supposed to, it screws up everything. Well, again, you have to ask your star players to use it even though it would hurt his earning and then you want to him to practice hard? please. Mostly they move to their best spot and then camp here and wait for the pass.
Triangle doesn't work just like Communism doesn't work. Most ppl would not want to sacrifice their earning for anything. I often said, if superstars REALLY wants to win, they can take 5 mil or vet mins to join together. This super-team would win every year. 
But they would not. They are like us. We all have to work, and we all like money.
crzymdups wrote:martin wrote: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.
The 2014-15 Knicks aren't relevant but the 2009 Lakers are? Hahaha. Ok.
And I'd add that you're missing the point of the article then. The point of the article is that even if that 17 win team shot the same percentages, but took shots from different spots on the floor, they would have he sixth best effective field goal percentage in the league. The problem wasn't who was shooting, it was WHERE they were shooting it from. Aka the locations dictated by the offense.
Yeah, I got that reading the article. Bad players shoot bad shots.
martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote: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.
Phil has indeed mocked GS with 1 tweet. But I just showed you that as a portion of the offense the Triangle shot a good clip of 3 point shots. Do you consider a snide remark as evidence of how a person actually implements a system and how that system is reflected on an offense? Why do you weigh a dumb tweet so heavily when I just put forth 4 years of links regarding 3pt shots per 100 possession?
Bonn1997 wrote:-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.So, my focus was more on offense than defense, using Analytics/definition of modern basketball to help me understand why the Triangle is slighted. Not sure why you would bring SA defense into the topic. Also, SA does indeed have a VERY efficient offense IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY SEEMINGLY TO DO NOT SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. OR shoot a lot of baskets at the rim. IE, does that lead us to conclude that they are shooting more mid-range? Also, does that further lead us to believe that Pop either does not understand modern basketball? OR PERHAPS it means that there is more than way to skin a cat????
Bonn1997 wrote: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.Bonn, no they are not. Not per 100 possessions. That is just what I showed above. Why did you ignore what I put forward as evidence. They take 25 3s a game? You are a stat guy. Pace. Per 100 possessions. You just threw both of those out the window. Why?
Again, the Spurs are the best 3pt shooting team in the league when you just consider 3pt FG%. And yet Pop does NOT place an emphasis on making sure his team shoots a lot of them. Why not?
Martin, I responded to you in depth about the Spurs three point shooting and pace over the past ten years in a thread about a month ago. If you really need me to dig it up, I can. The Spurs were one of the innovators in the pace and space three point style that dominates the league now. Their shooting less threes as Parker and Ginobili and Duncan aged out. If you look at them from 2005-2010 you will see a team in the top ten in pace and three point shooting year after year.
martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:martin wrote: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.
The 2014-15 Knicks aren't relevant but the 2009 Lakers are? Hahaha. Ok.
And I'd add that you're missing the point of the article then. The point of the article is that even if that 17 win team shot the same percentages, but took shots from different spots on the floor, they would have he sixth best effective field goal percentage in the league. The problem wasn't who was shooting, it was WHERE they were shooting it from. Aka the locations dictated by the offense.
Yeah, I got that reading the article. Bad players shoot bad shots.
Bad systems create bad shots, too.
And not for nothing but Phil did assemble a fair chunk of that roster. Which is his job. So to say we can't judge Phil's effectiveness when he made specific trades to bring in triangle players seems like it's again missing the point of his actual job here and pretending he's the coach
http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/post...
crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:BRIGGS wrote:martin wrote:BRIGGS wrote:martin wrote:BRIGGS wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the game has dramatically changed. If you don't have a serious 3 point arsenal in your attack you aren't paying attentionYou don't care for Spurs offense either, right?
No I like spurs everything
They are bottom 10 in 3pt shots per 100 possessions in league
They really are the innovators of the 3. I like their balance. You don't have to take 30 3s but they know how to spread floor.
That's a different argument. You're saying shooting 3s is a must. The Spurs prove you are wrong.
The Spurs were 7th in the league in made threes in 2013, when they made the Finals and lost in 7 games. They were 12th in league the next year when they beat the Heat in a rematch. In 2012 they were 2nd in the league.
They have fallen in terms of makes in recent years, and surprise have disappointed in the playoffs. Even this year, with lower makes, they lead the league in percentage. Pop has always placed a high value on the three.
Hmmmm. I think you are conflating stats and not considering pace. Correct me if I am wrong but 3pt attempts per 100 possessions seems to be the best marker to see if a team emphasizes the 3pt shot, this is what BRIGGS is suggesting. And season to season this is hit and miss cause you emphasis your team offense to the players a bit (not good 3pt shooters, you back off on that).
Here is SA ranking in the league of 3pt attempts per 100 possessions, I think this would smooth over pace/possessions.
http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#...
Year Rank
2010-11: #6
2011-12: #7
2012-13: #9
2013-14: #15
2014-15: #15
2015-16: #25
2016-17: #25So, this is what I conclude. Pop don't give a shit what "modern basketball" is doing, he is doing his own thing. When the whole league is going towards MORE 3pt shots per possessions, his team is going in the opposite direction.
Oh, and here are the Lakers/Triangle/Phil stats for his last stint, they won championships in 2010 and 2009:
2009-10: #11
2008-09: #16
2007-08: #7
2006-07: #5
2005-06: #6Chew on that and let me know what you think. Am I reading the this wrong? Is Pop the anti-advanced stat, anti-modern basketball guy, and it sure looks like Phil and the Triangle were shooting more 3s over a 5 year time span compared to the rest of the league in a different era?
What conclusions do you'all get from this?
I don't think we can compare this Knicks roster to that Lakers roster, for starters. They had a top ten all time player in Kobe, who had played the Triangle most of his adult life, and Pau who is also a hall of famer. Kobe said it best - the Knicks aren't running what those Lakers ran, compared to they're Triangle, we're a "f**kin' square" (<-- his words).
Also, the Lakers shot a fair amount of threes, but less once Pau arrived and Bynum matured - they became more of a post team with those two. Pau got there trade deadline of the 2008 season, so it makes sense. The 2005-6 Lakers were a basically the freewheelin' Kobe and Lamar Odom show. Kobe's 81pt game happened during that season, also he averaged 40ppg for a month. Phil and Kobe constantly argued about the offense, and there were rumors Kobe would be traded to the Bulls over the summer in 2007. Then they got Pau and the Triangle worked again - maybe it was post play, or maybe it was having a team with two hall of famers in their prime - their 3pt shots went down once they got Pau though.
Similarly, the Spurs started taking a lot fewer threes once Duncan retired - his passing out of the post and the space outside that his presence inside created for shooters was huge for them. So Pop adjusted. But WITH Duncan starting in about 2007, he had the Spurs running a high octane pace and space motion offense that a lot of the league (including Kerr with the Warriors) took copious notes on, which is what Briggs was saying.
If you go back and compare the Spurs to earlier years, when Pop was innovating this system:
3pt rate / 100 poss.
Spurs 06-07 - 6th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th
Spurs 08-09 - 8th
Spurs 09-10 - 10th
Spurs 10-11 - 6th
Spurs 11-12 - 5th
Spurs 12-13 - 9th
Spurs 13-14 - 16th (spurs shoot fewer threes? parker/duncan/manu aging? who knows, but pop adapted)source - https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/th...
Good teams adjust their game plan to their roster. I don't think Pop has written down anywhere "we have to shoot 20 threes for every 100 possessions" or something. I don't even think Kerr does - I think if Curry and Klay retired, Kerr would probably devise a different system. Good coaches do that. Kerr wouldn't hand the ball to say James Harden and say "try to be Steph Curry", he'd probably design a system that used more pick and roll, and took advantage of Harden's line drives to the rim.
The problems are - being morally opposed to the three, which Phil it sometimes seems is based on his tweets about the Warriors and Curry. The other problem is trying to force a roster that should be playing one way into playing another way, rather than adjust your team approach to the talent you have. That was my issue with MDA here, when he tried to make Melo a point forward - Woodson famously claimed he used MDA's offense... but he tweaked Melo's role in it and his expectations of Melo in it, that's the key. I have the same issue with Phil - it seems he believes the Triangle needs to happen at all costs, he's seemingly undercut two coaches to make it happen.
crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote: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.
Phil has indeed mocked GS with 1 tweet. But I just showed you that as a portion of the offense the Triangle shot a good clip of 3 point shots. Do you consider a snide remark as evidence of how a person actually implements a system and how that system is reflected on an offense? Why do you weigh a dumb tweet so heavily when I just put forth 4 years of links regarding 3pt shots per 100 possession?
Bonn1997 wrote:-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.So, my focus was more on offense than defense, using Analytics/definition of modern basketball to help me understand why the Triangle is slighted. Not sure why you would bring SA defense into the topic. Also, SA does indeed have a VERY efficient offense IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY SEEMINGLY TO DO NOT SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. OR shoot a lot of baskets at the rim. IE, does that lead us to conclude that they are shooting more mid-range? Also, does that further lead us to believe that Pop either does not understand modern basketball? OR PERHAPS it means that there is more than way to skin a cat????
Bonn1997 wrote: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.Bonn, no they are not. Not per 100 possessions. That is just what I showed above. Why did you ignore what I put forward as evidence. They take 25 3s a game? You are a stat guy. Pace. Per 100 possessions. You just threw both of those out the window. Why?
Again, the Spurs are the best 3pt shooting team in the league when you just consider 3pt FG%. And yet Pop does NOT place an emphasis on making sure his team shoots a lot of them. Why not?
Martin, I responded to you in depth about the Spurs three point shooting and pace over the past ten years in a thread about a month ago. If you really need me to dig it up, I can. The Spurs were one of the innovators in the pace and space three point style that dominates the league now. Their shooting less threes as Parker and Ginobili and Duncan aged out. If you look at them from 2005-2010 you will see a team in the top ten in pace and three point shooting year after year.
So why has he gone away from that in recent years? And they are still successful.
martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:Bonn1997 wrote: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.
Phil has indeed mocked GS with 1 tweet. But I just showed you that as a portion of the offense the Triangle shot a good clip of 3 point shots. Do you consider a snide remark as evidence of how a person actually implements a system and how that system is reflected on an offense? Why do you weigh a dumb tweet so heavily when I just put forth 4 years of links regarding 3pt shots per 100 possession?
Bonn1997 wrote:-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.So, my focus was more on offense than defense, using Analytics/definition of modern basketball to help me understand why the Triangle is slighted. Not sure why you would bring SA defense into the topic. Also, SA does indeed have a VERY efficient offense IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY SEEMINGLY TO DO NOT SHOOT A LOT OF 3s. OR shoot a lot of baskets at the rim. IE, does that lead us to conclude that they are shooting more mid-range? Also, does that further lead us to believe that Pop either does not understand modern basketball? OR PERHAPS it means that there is more than way to skin a cat????
Bonn1997 wrote: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.Bonn, no they are not. Not per 100 possessions. That is just what I showed above. Why did you ignore what I put forward as evidence. They take 25 3s a game? You are a stat guy. Pace. Per 100 possessions. You just threw both of those out the window. Why?
Again, the Spurs are the best 3pt shooting team in the league when you just consider 3pt FG%. And yet Pop does NOT place an emphasis on making sure his team shoots a lot of them. Why not?
Martin, I responded to you in depth about the Spurs three point shooting and pace over the past ten years in a thread about a month ago. If you really need me to dig it up, I can. The Spurs were one of the innovators in the pace and space three point style that dominates the league now. Their shooting less threes as Parker and Ginobili and Duncan aged out. If you look at them from 2005-2010 you will see a team in the top ten in pace and three point shooting year after year.
So why has he gone away from that in recent years? And they are still successful.
Roster changes? - Parker, Manu, Duncan aging out. LaMarcus and Kawhi taking over. Also, you're looking at their RANK in terms of pacing and shooting 3s. The league as a whole takes TWICE as many threes as it did in 2010. The league adapted - in many ways, it followed the trend set by Pop and MDA. So it may not be that Pop is saying "take fewer threes", it may be that the league has caught up to him.
But, yes, overall Pop adapted to the talent on his roster and tweaked his system. Like Riley did. Like Phil refuses to do. Guys like Phil and MDA only want to play one way, so they need a very specific kind of roster. Pop and Riley have adapted to the changing game. If Phil would adapt his system, I'd have far fewer issues with him.
What he doesn't seem to understand is one of the things that makes KP special is that he's 7'3" with a shooting stroke like a guard. That makes him unguardable. Or it could. But Phil has told him to stop taking "cheap" shots and focus on the post. KP is weak in the post. I'm not saying KP doesn't need to get stronger in the post, but rather than play to a player's weaknesses, I think it'd make sense to play to his strengths.
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.
This is not true. Your logic implies the shot selection of 2014-5 was representative of what to strive for. Big mistake in logic.
Modern analytics shows that the best shot is at the rim. And that is true even ignoring all sorts of other factors that aren't counted, e.g. Getting opponents In Foul trouble softens their D.
crzymdups wrote:
If you go back and compare the Spurs to earlier years, when Pop was innovating this system:3pt rate / 100 poss.
Spurs 06-07 - 6th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th
Spurs 08-09 - 8th
Spurs 09-10 - 10th
Spurs 10-11 - 6th
Spurs 11-12 - 5th
Spurs 12-13 - 9th
Spurs 13-14 - 16th (spurs shoot fewer threes? parker/duncan/manu aging? who knows, but pop adapted)
That's what you put forward. Let me add the Triangle data in when Triangle was there:
3pt rate / 100 poss.
Spurs 06-07 - 6th - Lakers: 5th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th - Lakers: 7th; Lost in finals
Spurs 08-09 - 8th - Lakers: 17th; Won championship
Spurs 09-10 - 10th - Lakers: 9th; Won championship
Spurs 10-11 - 6th - Lakers: 15th
Looks like to me that while Spurs were modernizing baskeball, Triangle was nearly in the same spot?
San Antonio Spurs
2005-06
Three point shots made per game: 6.3 made shots, 10th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 15th in league
06-07
Three point shots made per game: 7.3 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 6th in league
07-08
Three point shots made per game: 7.3 made shots, 8th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 8th in league
08-09
Three point shots made per game: 7.5 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 8th in league
09-10
Three point shots made per game: 6.5 made shots, 13th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 12th in league
10-11
Three point shots made per game: 8.1 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 6th in league
11-12
Three point shots made per game: 8.6 made shots, 2nd in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 6th in league
12-13
Three point shots made per game: 8.1 made shots, 8th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 9th in league
13-14 - here is where you start to see the league catch up - San Antonio makes enough shots to be second in the league in 3pts made just two years earlier, but they're suddenly only 10th in the league, 16th in rate
Three point shots made per game: 8.5 made shots, 10th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 16th in league
14-15 - again enough made shots to be second in the league in 2011-12... now just 12th, 15th in per/100
Three point shots made per game: 8.4 made shots, 12th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 15th in league
15-16 - Here you see Duncan has retired for LMA, Spurs still taking numbers consistent with 06-07, except now it is near last in league
Three point shots made per game: 7.1 made shots, 25th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 25th in league
16-17 - Spurs make more threes per game this year than ever before. Only good for 17th in the league.
Three point shots made per game: 9.2 made shots, 17th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 24th in league
In 2005-06 the number 2 team in the league made 7 threes a game. (the #1 team was MDA's Suns at 10 makes per game.)
This year, the number 2 team in the league makes 14 threes a game. BUT, the top 11 teams all make more than 10 threes per game. And EVERY SINGLE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE makes more threes than the #2 team from 05-06.
The league has changed.
martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:
If you go back and compare the Spurs to earlier years, when Pop was innovating this system:3pt rate / 100 poss.
Spurs 06-07 - 6th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th
Spurs 08-09 - 8th
Spurs 09-10 - 10th
Spurs 10-11 - 6th
Spurs 11-12 - 5th
Spurs 12-13 - 9th
Spurs 13-14 - 16th (spurs shoot fewer threes? parker/duncan/manu aging? who knows, but pop adapted)That's what you put forward. Let me add the Triangle data in when Triangle was there:
3pt rate / 100 poss.Spurs 06-07 - 6th - Lakers: 5th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th - Lakers: 7th; Lost in finals
Spurs 08-09 - 8th - Lakers: 17th; Won championship
Spurs 09-10 - 10th - Lakers: 9th; Won championship
Spurs 10-11 - 6th - Lakers: 15thLooks like to me that while Spurs were modernizing baskeball, Triangle was nearly in the same spot?
Yes, but the difference is that in 2010-11, the Knicks led the league in made 3s with 9.3 a game. This year 9.3 made threes a game would be good for SIXTEENTH. The league has changed since Phil last coached.
You're changing the arguement - your argument was that the Spurs didn't shoot threes to be good. We have proven that was false. They innovated it and the league caught up - see my previous post about the Spurs made threes relative to the rest of the league, and yes I included their pace ranking as well.
crzymdups wrote:If you look at the proliferation of the 3pt shot, it's kinda crazy. Here we go -San Antonio Spurs
2005-06
Three point shots made per game: 6.3 made shots, 10th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 15th in league06-07
Three point shots made per game: 7.3 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 6th in league07-08
Three point shots made per game: 7.3 made shots, 8th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 8th in league08-09
Three point shots made per game: 7.5 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 8th in league09-10
Three point shots made per game: 6.5 made shots, 13th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 12th in league10-11
Three point shots made per game: 8.1 made shots, 6th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 6th in league11-12
Three point shots made per game: 8.6 made shots, 2nd in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 6th in league12-13
Three point shots made per game: 8.1 made shots, 8th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 9th in league13-14 - here is where you start to see the league catch up - San Antonio makes enough shots to be second in the league in 3pts made just two years earlier, but they're suddenly only 10th in the league, 16th in rate
Three point shots made per game: 8.5 made shots, 10th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 16th in league14-15 - again enough made shots to be second in the league in 2011-12... now just 12th, 15th in per/100
Three point shots made per game: 8.4 made shots, 12th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 15th in league15-16 - Here you see Duncan has retired for LMA, Spurs still taking numbers consistent with 06-07, except now it is near last in league
Three point shots made per game: 7.1 made shots, 25th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 25th in league16-17 - Spurs make more threes per game this year than ever before. Only good for 17th in the league.
Three point shots made per game: 9.2 made shots, 17th in the league
Three point rate per 100 possessions: 24th in league
In 2005-06 the number 2 team in the league made 7 threes a game. (the #1 team was MDA's Suns at 10 makes per game.)This year, the number 2 team in the league makes 14 threes a game. BUT, the top 11 teams all make more than 10 threes per game. And EVERY SINGLE TEAM IN THE LEAGUE makes more threes than the #2 team from 05-06.
The league has changed.
Yeah, this is good info. Another way of looking at it is that the Spurs do take a ton of 3s from a historical perspective. It's just that every team in the league does now. They're part of this trend that the whole league is a part of. They make about 9.2 3s per game and average is more like 9.4. It's not clear that's really meaningful, especially not if other factors compensate. I mentioned 3 point attempts per game earlier, but I think you're right to focus on made shots. (If we want to understand why SAS succeeds, we'd focus on how many 3s they make not how many they miss.)
If Phil talked more about his philosophy, we wouldn't have to speculate here. Or if the rosters he put together here had more success, people would give him more benefit of doubt.
crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:
If you go back and compare the Spurs to earlier years, when Pop was innovating this system:3pt rate / 100 poss.
Spurs 06-07 - 6th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th
Spurs 08-09 - 8th
Spurs 09-10 - 10th
Spurs 10-11 - 6th
Spurs 11-12 - 5th
Spurs 12-13 - 9th
Spurs 13-14 - 16th (spurs shoot fewer threes? parker/duncan/manu aging? who knows, but pop adapted)That's what you put forward. Let me add the Triangle data in when Triangle was there:
3pt rate / 100 poss.Spurs 06-07 - 6th - Lakers: 5th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th - Lakers: 7th; Lost in finals
Spurs 08-09 - 8th - Lakers: 17th; Won championship
Spurs 09-10 - 10th - Lakers: 9th; Won championship
Spurs 10-11 - 6th - Lakers: 15thLooks like to me that while Spurs were modernizing baskeball, Triangle was nearly in the same spot?
Yes, but the difference is that in 2010-11, the Knicks led the league in made 3s with 9.3 a game. This year 9.3 made threes a game would be good for SIXTEENTH. The league has changed since Phil last coached.
You're changing the arguement - your argument was that the Spurs didn't shoot threes to be good. We have proven that was false. They innovated it and the league caught up - see my previous post about the Spurs made threes relative to the rest of the league, and yes I included their pace ranking as well.
I literally don't even know what that means. That wasn't my argument.
Both the Spurs (while they supposedly were modernizing basketball) and the Lakers Triangle, had similar'ish 3point shooting rates. No idea why Pop gets credit in this instance if 2 teams were doing similar stuff. Both teams got to finals and won. Phil moved on from Lakers.
In recent years Pop has not kept up with the trend of shooting more 3s or is it that he thinks shooting about 30% of shots from 3point land is the sweet spot?
martin wrote: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
We get a new coach and 10 new players every yr, and we have SASHA and RAMBIS as the only 2 that are familiar with the system. You hire a coach that doesn't no anything about the triangle, and sign, and trade for players that are the complete opposite of what you're trying to do..
The system would not be a topic if we had a core, and coach that knew the ins and out..but we don't and it's obviously a very IQ system that takes time and 100% commitment across the board, which we never seem to have..
knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote: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
We get a new coach and 10 new players every yr, and we have SASHA and RAMBIS as the only 2 that are familiar with the system. You hire a coach that doesn't no anything about the triangle, and sign, and trade for players that are the complete opposite of what you're trying to do..
The system would not be a topic if we had a core, and coach that knew the ins and out..but we don't and it's obviously a very IQ system that takes time and 100% commitment across the board, which we never seem to have..
That's nice but off topic. Thanks though.
Modern basketball, Analytics, Triangle. Help me understand the differences.
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
martin wrote:knicks1248 wrote:martin wrote: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
We get a new coach and 10 new players every yr, and we have SASHA and RAMBIS as the only 2 that are familiar with the system. You hire a coach that doesn't no anything about the triangle, and sign, and trade for players that are the complete opposite of what you're trying to do..
The system would not be a topic if we had a core, and coach that knew the ins and out..but we don't and it's obviously a very IQ system that takes time and 100% commitment across the board, which we never seem to have..
That's nice but off topic. Thanks though.
Modern basketball, Analytics, Triangle. Help me understand the differences.
Your not even realizing that all your references and statistics are being compared with lakers and Spurs, rosters that have been together for yrs..
Today's nba is spread and go(why you think JH and fisher a high speed triangle), Phil offense is half court spread, and every body keeps moving and cutting and passing the ball until the defense is off balance. The problem is that our execution is terrible most of the time(mostly because of familiarity), and guys get frustrated and quit on it.
So you can run numbers all day, it's just a terrible way to look at why the system doesn't work.