In an age that emphasizes athleticism over fundamentals, you're simply not going to get as many players who can pick up complex schemes as quickly, so trying to do that while personnel turnover is still a revolving door is going to be spinning your wheels.

So what choice is there to make, emphasize talent or brains?

If you emphasize brains, you may sacrifice on talent.

The middle ground seems to be go for the best talent and establish a no ahole rule, thus not signing players like JR or Odom again. If a player is trouble or is known to be unwilling to play team ball, just say no. Otherwise, go for the best talent. Focus on the most talented player acquisitions minus the dumber rocks in the pile.

And until there is a legit quality starting PG here, it is going to be hard to accomplish triangle indoctrination and enforcement. Shved is probably still a backup PG at best.

I don't hate the idea of the triangle, but in today's league you don't start there first. Build a roster, then worry about that stuff. It is always going a blend of plays run anyway, nothing is going to purely one system excluding all other methods.

mreinman wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

mreinman wrote:

blkexec wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Over the last, oh I dunno, few days/ weeks/months I have heard that the Triangle system is old, outdated and not fit for today's NBA. Those are some interesting points of view. However I would
Like to disagree. If we were talking thugball like the 90ies Knick or the Bad Boy Pistons then yes, the rules in today's NBA do not allow that type of play.

The triangle is based around ball and player movement. How can that ever be outdated? Hitting the open man? For the 3? Feeding cutters? Cutting to the basket with gusto? I just don't see how those fundamental plays can be overlooked when judging the Triangle. Don't let the tank season( THIS IS TANKTAAAAA,) blind you. Yes everyone looks bad , but this here is not what the triangle is all about. It's one of the most successfull systems that basketball has ever seen. Am I missing something here?

It's a generational thing. These young guys don't know about true basketball anymore. The art of basketball is slowly fading into 1 on 1 melo ball. Everything is either pick and roll, or 1 on 1....You can see it even in pickup games. It's your turn, now its your turn, then it's your turn. I stopped playing with these young guys because it's terrible. I could be the best shooter on the team, and would only get 2 shots. The triangle was developed from the old school way of playing ball. These new guys are only successful in a run and gun system.

the new generation is using more brains and analytics which the older generation could not even spell.

I too hate teams and players that don't move the ball. Does SA and Atlanta not move the ball?

We should play the smartest basketball that we are capable of playing and teaching and we should use data and shot charts as well as anything and anybody we can get our hands on the can give us any edge.

Are you happy with our shot selection? How about Melo's shot selection?

For me this is the lamest aspect of analytics- the intellectual snobbery. Unfortunately, following analytics does not make you smarter than people who don't. It just means you follow analytics. Those of us who don't believe they are the be all and end all, or just don't find them very interesting or entertaining aren't idiots, we just disagree on how much of basketball (or indeed life) you can quantify, and we watch basketball for entertainment- watching fiery competition, passion, the unpredictable- it's exciting. You like efficiency- I'm not sure how this makes you more intelligent.

I did not say that I am more intelligent and that it is the end all / be all.

I just see that there is a generational gap in its acceptance just like there was / is with PC's and smart phones.

I do think its silly when people dismiss things that they know very little about.

I think that quantum physics is kinda dumb ... those idiots who came up with that should get punched! Its so damn stupid. And they also think they are so damn smart cause they know about this quantum physics thingy and we don't.

quantum physics IS kind of dumb and either it or Einsteins theory of relativity (or possibly both) will eventually be found to be erroneous, simply because they are incompatible.

For me metrics is not about new vs old- it's simply about what peoples subjective tastes are. What people subjectively value- it's that simple, it's not about 'progress', it's about personal preference that somehow is being presented as some sort of scientific breakthrough on the same level as quantum physics, and that people who don't bow down before it are living in the dark ages.

It's like if they invented music metrics, whereby they started judging music based on the octaves and harmonies and some advanced numbers that they essentially made up using past hits. Then they started insisting that anyone who doesn't understand or take into account these metrics when listening to music was a backwards idiot.

nixluva wrote:

franco12 wrote:there was a pair of threads earlier about the triangle and our offense- as I read the articles referenced, we're last in offense not because of talent, but because of the kinds of shots (long range 2's) we're taking. This to me is the triangle.

Does better talent improve our teams ability to run and exploit the triangle as a system? I do like some of the team play I see out there.

Against Phoenix & GS, we stayed with them for a short while. Put Melo (hopefully healthy*), top 4 pick and 1-2 impact type FA, and maybe we stay in those games longer, win a one.

But I am concerned that the system is flawed for today's NBA.

If you're worried then you know nothing about the Triangle. It's not a limiting factor. The Players have options to do what they want in this offense. If they're strong 3pt shooters they can take those shots. There's nothing about the offense that forces this team not to take 3's. but it actually helps players who are not strong 3pt shooters to have ways of scoring inside of the 3pt line.

For one thing if you put a big in this offense who can function in the low post and scores at a high % that will have a huge impact on the overall offense. We don't have the talent to fully take advantage of all the openings the offense creates. 3pt shots are always there as are every other type of shot typical to normal BB. Just imagine this. If we have high % midrange players, low post players and 3pt players then really you have a lot more of the floor covered in terms of being effective. The motion creates driving lanes but you have to have players who can drive. Notice how Shved has found openings to drive more than our previous guards did. It's about talent.

really? do you think that the triangle worried every other club into not going near it?

pretty condescending.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

franco12 wrote:there was a pair of threads earlier about the triangle and our offense- as I read the articles referenced, we're last in offense not because of talent, but because of the kinds of shots (long range 2's) we're taking. This to me is the triangle.

Does better talent improve our teams ability to run and exploit the triangle as a system? I do like some of the team play I see out there.

Against Phoenix & GS, we stayed with them for a short while. Put Melo (hopefully healthy*), top 4 pick and 1-2 impact type FA, and maybe we stay in those games longer, win a one.

But I am concerned that the system is flawed for today's NBA.

If you're worried then you know nothing about the Triangle. It's not a limiting factor. The Players have options to do what they want in this offense. If they're strong 3pt shooters they can take those shots. There's nothing about the offense that forces this team not to take 3's. but it actually helps players who are not strong 3pt shooters to have ways of scoring inside of the 3pt line.

For one thing if you put a big in this offense who can function in the low post and scores at a high % that will have a huge impact on the overall offense. We don't have the talent to fully take advantage of all the openings the offense creates. 3pt shots are always there as are every other type of shot typical to normal BB. Just imagine this. If we have high % midrange players, low post players and 3pt players then really you have a lot more of the floor covered in terms of being effective. The motion creates driving lanes but you have to have players who can drive. Notice how Shved has found openings to drive more than our previous guards did. It's about talent.

really? do you think that the triangle worried every other club into not going near it?

pretty condescending.

The Knicks may not be winning right now but when they finally add more talent its going to pay off having a team full of players that think the game and make better decisions. It's not the path most coaches have the freedom to choose. Why would they switch to something harder to implement and risk their job?

So it has nothing to do with the system being bad or not good enough to win with. It's simply not what most coaches are familiar with and not worth the risk when there are simpler ways for them to play the game.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

franco12 wrote:there was a pair of threads earlier about the triangle and our offense- as I read the articles referenced, we're last in offense not because of talent, but because of the kinds of shots (long range 2's) we're taking. This to me is the triangle.

Does better talent improve our teams ability to run and exploit the triangle as a system? I do like some of the team play I see out there.

Against Phoenix & GS, we stayed with them for a short while. Put Melo (hopefully healthy*), top 4 pick and 1-2 impact type FA, and maybe we stay in those games longer, win a one.

But I am concerned that the system is flawed for today's NBA.

If you're worried then you know nothing about the Triangle. It's not a limiting factor. The Players have options to do what they want in this offense. If they're strong 3pt shooters they can take those shots. There's nothing about the offense that forces this team not to take 3's. but it actually helps players who are not strong 3pt shooters to have ways of scoring inside of the 3pt line.

For one thing if you put a big in this offense who can function in the low post and scores at a high % that will have a huge impact on the overall offense. We don't have the talent to fully take advantage of all the openings the offense creates. 3pt shots are always there as are every other type of shot typical to normal BB. Just imagine this. If we have high % midrange players, low post players and 3pt players then really you have a lot more of the floor covered in terms of being effective. The motion creates driving lanes but you have to have players who can drive. Notice how Shved has found openings to drive more than our previous guards did. It's about talent.

really? do you think that the triangle worried every other club into not going near it?

pretty condescending.

The problem is that it's not as simple as systems like SSOL or the other versions of spread offense. In those systems you pretty much have guys just standing outside the 3pt line and the main action happens with your PG and a Big running PnR and then swinging the ball if the defense reacts. In the Triangle a coach would have to commit to it and spend the time needed to actually teach all his players how to THINK the game. Players who normally would have less decision making to do are now having to think and take part in the offense in a way that they may never have done. The beauty of it comes after the team has been marinated in this for a while and it becomes 2nd nature and you have a whole team of guys making smart plays.

The Knicks may not be winning right now but when they finally add more talent its going to pay off having a team full of players that think the game and make better decisions. It's not the path most coaches have the freedom to choose. Why would they switch to something harder to implement and risk their job?

So it has nothing to do with the system being bad or not good enough to win with. It's simply not what most coaches are familiar with and not worth the risk when there are simpler ways for them to play the game.

so given the time and brainy players as well as job security, many head coaches would be choosing to run the triangle?

I am sure that you have read the issues that many have with the system outside of just complexity?

Too much idealism, not enough reality IMO. The constraints of a bare cupboard team makes this triangle stuff putting the cart before the horse. The more Jax pushed it, the less grounded in reality he seemed.

Further, the guys on the team who actually showed a lightbulb upstairs that could be groomed for the triangle like Aldrich or Wear have been heavily marginalized in favor of players who may not be better, but who are not necessarily more suited to execute in a triangle offense. I see no consistent philosophy at work thus far to indicate the triangle is a cultural transformation in the works.

It will remain mostly a fantasy until this roster is stabilized with a deeper talent base.

nixluva wrote:
It's not as complex as some are trying to make it out to be but it's not simplistic, which is actually a good thing. If you have good players that relative complexity will make it near impossible to stop. You have to project what it would be like when you have good players in this system for long enough to make it 2nd nature. The only reason the Knicks are losing is cuz we don't have the top tier talent any team needs regardless of system!!!

As for putting the cart before the horse, I say nonsense! Some of these players are going to be brought back and you want to know that they can excel in this system. More importantly when you have a system you already know what you're looking for in terms of talent and how that talent is likely to workout. Guys we have like Bargs and Shved were easy to see fitting into this. The Cultural Change is already taking effect and is progressing.

Imagine more talented players who have the right skills and BB IQ! You're pretty much plugging guys into roles that are already established when you start with a system and can build the team to that system. It's great if you have a team in place already like in Golden State and can pick and choose a system that fits the talent, but in our case Phil has complete control and can build a roster to his system which he knows well and his coaches know well. It's gonna start with the draft and who we end up with. After that you can fill in around that player logically and not just throw stuff at the wall.

Enough with the exclamation points already, geezus Nix.

I was fundamentally agreeing with you if you tick off the points of basic talent and intelligence will enable deployment of triangle sets.

My fundamental disagreement is it is not able to even take root yet with a revolving door roster of people who wouldn't even have jobs on most other teams.

One thing at a time.

And please stop shouting.

nixluva wrote:

Splat wrote:

nixluva wrote:
It's not as complex as some are trying to make it out to be but it's not simplistic, which is actually a good thing. If you have good players that relative complexity will make it near impossible to stop. You have to project what it would be like when you have good players in this system for long enough to make it 2nd nature. The only reason the Knicks are losing is cuz we don't have the top tier talent any team needs regardless of system!!!

As for putting the cart before the horse, I say nonsense! Some of these players are going to be brought back and you want to know that they can excel in this system. More importantly when you have a system you already know what you're looking for in terms of talent and how that talent is likely to workout. Guys we have like Bargs and Shved were easy to see fitting into this. The Cultural Change is already taking effect and is progressing.

Imagine more talented players who have the right skills and BB IQ! You're pretty much plugging guys into roles that are already established when you start with a system and can build the team to that system. It's great if you have a team in place already like in Golden State and can pick and choose a system that fits the talent, but in our case Phil has complete control and can build a roster to his system which he knows well and his coaches know well. It's gonna start with the draft and who we end up with. After that you can fill in around that player logically and not just throw stuff at the wall.

Enough with the exclamation points already, geezus Nix.

I was fundamentally agreeing with you if you tick off the points of basic talent and intelligence will enable deployment of triangle sets.

My fundamental disagreement is it is not able to even take root yet with a revolving door roster of people who wouldn't even have jobs on most other teams.

One thing at a time.

And please stop shouting.

I'm not shouting. It's merely strongly stated. Just emphasis.

In any event the system is actually working as it should in that the players are getting good looks but missing layups and point blank post ups, wide open 3's etc. They're actually running the offense the right way but lack the talent to finish effectively. Some of that is cuz they're still developing and others are just not good enough. With better players added into the mix and forming a new starting lineup they will carry the load of the minutes and production and you'll see a big improvement in W/L's. The team is prepared well enough IMO. They just lack the talent right now.

As I've noted before, you may get more compliance for the triangle with scrubs eager to please. Melo is simply not going to be ideal for implementing that and until there is a strong floor leader Melo will remain only moderately coachable. A rookie coach to handle Melo was not necessarily the best choice, but it seems Phil wanted an all-in on the triangle team and that was his way of getting what he wanted.

Ever since people have been online exclamation points used in your fashion has been considered shouting. Bold and caps are used for emphasis. Use them for that. I'm not in a bubble, it is a very common perception. Exclamations used to excess is rude. I'm not lecturing. I'm trying to be considerate and telling you that without any intention of being provocative.

TripleThreat wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Am I missing something here?

My perception of the situation is relatively simple.

1) Melo does not play well in any type of team basketball or system basketball, he does not move well off the ball, he's not a great passer, he doesn't read the floor well. Being a low sports IQ player doesn't mean you are rock solid stupid as a human being. There are plenty of book smart and other type of smarts people who simply don't function well with their relative sports IQ. Part of sports IQ IMHO is how fast you process information given the relative speed of the game you are playing. Or so to say, when you hear an NFL announcer talking about how the game will slow down for an elite talent like an Andrew Luck or a John Elway or Joe Montana.

The Triangle and Melo, the core player locked up for four more years and the rest of Phil's contract, together is like trying to eat a soup sandwich. Melo is a poor fit for the Triangle, the Triangle is a poor fit for Melo. You can hope he changes or adapts but he's been in the league a very long time, over a decade, he's been exposed to Team USA player, international play, the playoffs, All Star games, different coaches. If there was more there under the surface, it would be apparent already. It's not there.

2) If most of the major college feeder programs, the D League and every other NBA team aren't using it, it limits the talent pool you can draw from outside of your own development. It's like the one guy holding onto Beta when VHS won the format wars. Commonality is common sense. It's practical. Think about your everyday life. Are you going to choose to use arcane expensive products that are hard to repair or replace? Or do you factor in how common the ability to repair/replace/rearm into your everyday life? There is a reason in pro sports, any pro sports, success is often "copycatted" When it stops being successful, then it dies. Do you see any NFL teams running the Wild Cat every play anymore? The Run And Shoot? The Wishbone? But elements of those things are still used. There is nothing wrong with using "some" Triangle. I think the problem exists when its a dogmatic approach where Phil's ego and legacy is on the line.

3) Phil Jackson is likely not going to be with the Knicks in five years. It would be one thing if he was a 50 year old guy who could give a strong 10-15 or maybe 20 years as a GM for this franchise. But theres a good chance he's a short run situation and gone. There's a real risk of bypassing helpful talent, simply because it wasn't seen as Triangle friendly, on the least talented team in the league currently, for a system that won't be kept after Jackson is gone. System basketball of any kind holds many of the same core tenets. Take the higher percentage shot. Good movement off the ball. Make good passes. Make good decisions. The Knicks can still play team basketball without the price of the steep learning curve of the Triangle.

There are actual talented players in the D League and probably future UDFA and late 2nd round candidates that the Knicks will PASS OVER simply because they aren't Triangle friendly, but might help the team if the team had a system that didn't have such a steep learning curve to it.

4) The most successful people in pro sports, any pro sport, if you listen to their contemporaries, almost one thing is universal. Guys like Billy Beane and Bill Belichick are noted for seeing what a player is now and will likely always be, not what he could be in the most hopeful/ideal situation. And then those evaluators put those players in the best position to succeed. They are not dogmatic. When the edge was getting on base, Beane went that way. When defense was undervalued, he went that way, when draftees and cost controlled years were overvalued, he shifted in another direction. Belichick is totally unpredictable. Spend heavy on free agency one year, then drop back in the draft another, then move up in the draft another. Their success is about flexibility given the time and place and circumstance. When the Triangle creates a situation where legit roster talent is TURNED AWAY, there is a serious mother ****ing problem. The Knicks don't have the talent to be turning talent away.

The sad thing about this all it's entirely possible James Dolan meant well by hiring Zen Master. Maybe the intent was actually a misguided attempt to do something right and positive for the Knicks. But somehow he managed to horse **** the entire situation all over again.

Good Players who would fit the Triangle are simply good players. What you want is a well rounded and skilled player who isn't stupid and is team oriented. What's not to like about a player like that? Pretty much any player that the Spurs have would fit in the Triangle. They actually run elements of the Triangle. We need to keep bringing in players like that since that leads to winning basketball. This is really overstated and not really a problem.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:Am I missing something here?

My perception of the situation is relatively simple.

1) Melo does not play well in any type of team basketball or system basketball, he does not move well off the ball, he's not a great passer, he doesn't read the floor well. Being a low sports IQ player doesn't mean you are rock solid stupid as a human being. There are plenty of book smart and other type of smarts people who simply don't function well with their relative sports IQ. Part of sports IQ IMHO is how fast you process information given the relative speed of the game you are playing. Or so to say, when you hear an NFL announcer talking about how the game will slow down for an elite talent like an Andrew Luck or a John Elway or Joe Montana.

The Triangle and Melo, the core player locked up for four more years and the rest of Phil's contract, together is like trying to eat a soup sandwich. Melo is a poor fit for the Triangle, the Triangle is a poor fit for Melo. You can hope he changes or adapts but he's been in the league a very long time, over a decade, he's been exposed to Team USA player, international play, the playoffs, All Star games, different coaches. If there was more there under the surface, it would be apparent already. It's not there.

2) If most of the major college feeder programs, the D League and every other NBA team aren't using it, it limits the talent pool you can draw from outside of your own development. It's like the one guy holding onto Beta when VHS won the format wars. Commonality is common sense. It's practical. Think about your everyday life. Are you going to choose to use arcane expensive products that are hard to repair or replace? Or do you factor in how common the ability to repair/replace/rearm into your everyday life? There is a reason in pro sports, any pro sports, success is often "copycatted" When it stops being successful, then it dies. Do you see any NFL teams running the Wild Cat every play anymore? The Run And Shoot? The Wishbone? But elements of those things are still used. There is nothing wrong with using "some" Triangle. I think the problem exists when its a dogmatic approach where Phil's ego and legacy is on the line.

3) Phil Jackson is likely not going to be with the Knicks in five years. It would be one thing if he was a 50 year old guy who could give a strong 10-15 or maybe 20 years as a GM for this franchise. But theres a good chance he's a short run situation and gone. There's a real risk of bypassing helpful talent, simply because it wasn't seen as Triangle friendly, on the least talented team in the league currently, for a system that won't be kept after Jackson is gone. System basketball of any kind holds many of the same core tenets. Take the higher percentage shot. Good movement off the ball. Make good passes. Make good decisions. The Knicks can still play team basketball without the price of the steep learning curve of the Triangle.

There are actual talented players in the D League and probably future UDFA and late 2nd round candidates that the Knicks will PASS OVER simply because they aren't Triangle friendly, but might help the team if the team had a system that didn't have such a steep learning curve to it.

4) The most successful people in pro sports, any pro sport, if you listen to their contemporaries, almost one thing is universal. Guys like Billy Beane and Bill Belichick are noted for seeing what a player is now and will likely always be, not what he could be in the most hopeful/ideal situation. And then those evaluators put those players in the best position to succeed. They are not dogmatic. When the edge was getting on base, Beane went that way. When defense was undervalued, he went that way, when draftees and cost controlled years were overvalued, he shifted in another direction. Belichick is totally unpredictable. Spend heavy on free agency one year, then drop back in the draft another, then move up in the draft another. Their success is about flexibility given the time and place and circumstance. When the Triangle creates a situation where legit roster talent is TURNED AWAY, there is a serious mother ****ing problem. The Knicks don't have the talent to be turning talent away.

The sad thing about this all it's entirely possible James Dolan meant well by hiring Zen Master. Maybe the intent was actually a misguided attempt to do something right and positive for the Knicks. But somehow he managed to horse **** the entire situation all over again.

I really don't know why you keep trying to say Melo isn't a Triangle player. The number one play that Melo runs is one of the top plays in the Triangle, which is the Pinch Post. Melo can run that in his sleep. He can also catch and shoot off of curls and pin downs screens. Melo is also a great PnR/PnP player. I see no reason why you think Melo is a poor fit for the Triangle.

Good Players who would fit the Triangle are simply good players. What you want is a well rounded and skilled player who isn't stupid and is team oriented. What's not to like about a player like that? Pretty much any player that the Spurs have would fit in the Triangle. They actually run elements of the Triangle. We need to keep bringing in players like that since that leads to winning basketball. This is really overstated and not really a problem.

Melo is team oriented? C'mon nix ... nobody follows his possessions / passing opportunities more than me. The dude just refused to pass out of his ISO's ... and I'm glad to see that all his ISO's found its way into this new modern melo version of the triangle.

... and like Triple says, Melo doesn't process real-time information at the level required to be proficient in the Triangle with any consistency.

If Nix actually believes Melo is suitable for the triangle, then I think they are molding the situation to fit their hypothesis rather than accept the inherent limitations based on the actual facts. Melo is a ball hog. Whatever. He just is. He's our ball hog, so rather than be contentious about it, I think it is fair to say you don't have to like Melo, but accept the reality he is here and try to make the best of it. And that is not helped by pretending he is something he ain't.

nixluva wrote:You guys are only looking at Melo as he is with not enough talent and players that don't fit the system. You have to imagine how he'd play with more quality players on the team with him. In that circumstance he's not going to be a selfish player. I'm not looking for Melo to be a PG. He simply needs to work in the flow of the offense which really isn't hard considering how he likes to play is pretty much set as an option in this system.

Also one HUGE aspect that you guys aren't thinking about is that when you have scrubs playing with a star they will defer to the detriment of the team, but good players who are more equal in talent will not defer as much and they will play the game the right way. Especially if you have guards who can make things happen with the ball. That dynamic is what was missing when Melo was playing. It won't be the case next year when Phil upgrades the talent on the roster.

Melo has been the exact same player his whole career. Don't kid yourself. Circumstances change, Melo does not.