mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:LA and a young Dirk took majority of the shots in the mid range and were close to 50% for much of their careers that has the ability to post up in mid range, beat their man off the dribble with a pump fake, and get fouled, as well as pass over their defender/facilitate

I have no idea what you are considering mid range. Between what range?

LA is not even close to 50 percent in the midrange. And, harden is certainly not either.

Space between FT to the 3pt line
Where KG made majority of his shots from inside the 3pt line Anthony Davis is very good at that as well, though he gets many baskets and points from lobs/OFF rebounds and in the paint as well to bring their FG% higher

Baseline could be closer to the FT distance as the 3pt line is shorter and the out of bounds limits counters, moves to make

How isn't LA close to 50% for his career? Please don't single out games after wrist injury and lack of talent around him....

TripleThreat wrote:

nixluva wrote:The Knicks were among a group of playoff teams who also don't go nuts with 3pt shots. This is not to say that it's better or worse to have an offense that isn't as reliant on 3pt shooting. I just think it underscores that even in today's NBA you can be highly competitive running an Old School style of basketball. Phil's approach of building with good bigs as the foundation of the team as he's had in the past and running a post based offense is still relevant even now.

Teams want high percentage shots.

Across the board, there was an interesting study done and presented at the annual Nike/Morey Sloan Conference, that even long twos at a historic rate wouldn't compete against a team shooting a ton of threes at at least a league average clip.

Long twos are not efficient. Getting uncontested shots five feet to the rim and in, gunning three pointers at above a league average rate and getting to the free throw line more than your opponent is efficient.

TripleThreat wrote:The Triangle Offense is still a system where

1) It's only shown to have worked at a high level in the NBA when you have TWO Top 5 players.

Lakers 2008-2009 Champions

Points Per Game Leaders - Qualified
RK	PLAYER	TEAM	        GP	MPG	PTS	FGM-FGA	    FG%	  3PM-3PA   3P%	   FTM-FTA  FT%
1	Dwyane Wade, SG	MIA	79	38.6	30.2	10.8-22.0   .491  1.1-3.5   .317   7.5-9.8  .765
2	LeBron James, SF CLE	81	37.7	28.4	9.7-19.9    .489  1.6-4.7   .344   7.3-9.4  .780
3	Kobe Bryant, SG	LAL	82	36.1	26.8	9.8-20.9    .467  1.4-4.1   .351   5.9-6.9  .856
4	Dirk Nowitzki, PF DAL	81	37.7	25.9	9.6-20.0    .479  0.8-2.1   .359   6.0-6.7  .890
5	Danny Granger, SF IND	67	36.2	25.8	8.5-19.1    .447  2.7-6.7   .404   6.0-6.9  .878
6	Kevin Durant, SF OKC	74	39.0	25.3	8.9-18.8    .476  1.3-3.1   .422   6.1-7.1  .863
7	Chris Paul, PG	NO	78	38.5	22.8	8.1-16.1    .503  0.8-2.3   .364   5.8-6.7  .868
 	Carmelo Anthony, SF DEN	66	34.5	22.8	8.1-18.3    .443  1.0-2.6   .371   5.6-7.1  .793
9	Chris Bosh, C	TOR	77	38.0	22.7	8.0-16.4    .487  0.2-0.6   .245   6.5-8.0  .817
10	Brandon Roy, SG	POR	78	37.2	22.6	8.1-16.9    .480  1.1-2.8   .377   5.3-6.5  .824
RK	PLAYER	TEAM	        GP	MPG	PTS	FGM-FGA	    FG%   3PM-3PA   3P%	   FTM-FTA  FT%
25	Rudy Gay, SF	MEM	79	37.3	18.9	7.2-16.0    .453  1.1-3.1   .351   3.3-4.4  .767
 	Pau Gasol, PF	LAL	81	37.0	18.9	7.3-12.9    .567  0.0-0.0   .500   4.2-5.4  .781

Lakers 2009-10 Champions

Points Per Game Leaders - All Players
RK	PLAYER	TEAM	        GP	MPG	PTS	FGM-FGA	    FG%	  3PM-3PA   3P%	   FTM-FTA   FT%
1	Kevin Durant, SF OKC	82	39.5	30.1	9.7-20.3    .476  1.6-4.3   .365   9.2-10.2  .900
2	LeBron James, SF CLE	76	39.0	29.7	10.1-20.1   .503  1.7-5.1   .333   7.8-10.2  .767
3	Carmelo Anthony, SF DEN	69	38.2	28.2	10.0-21.8   .458  0.9-2.7   .316   7.4-8.9   .830
4	Kobe Bryant, SG	LAL	73	38.8	27.0	9.8-21.5    .456  1.4-4.1   .329   6.0-7.4   .811
5	Dwyane Wade, SG	MIA	77	36.3	26.6	9.3-19.6    .476  0.9-3.2   .300   6.9-9.1   .761
6	Monta Ellis, SG	GS	64	41.4	25.5	9.9-22.0    .449  1.2-3.6   .338   4.6-6.1   .753
7	Dirk Nowitzki, PF DAL	81	37.5	25.0	8.9-18.5    .481  0.6-1.5   .421   6.6-7.2   .915
8	Danny Granger, SF IND	62	36.7	24.1	7.9-18.4    .428  2.5-7.1   .361   5.9-6.9   .848
9	Chris Bosh, C	TOR	70	36.1	24.0	8.6-16.5    .518  0.1-0.3   .364   6.7-8.4   .797
10	Amar'e Stoudemire, CPHX	82	34.6	23.1	8.6-15.4    .557  0.0-0.1   .167   5.9-7.7   .771
RK	PLAYER	TEAM	        GP	MPG	PTS	FGM-FGA	    FG%	  3PM-3PA   3P%	   FTM-FTA    FT%
31	Dwight Howard, C ORL	82	34.7	18.3	6.2-10.2   .612	  0.0-0.1   .000   5.9-10.0   .592
 	Pau Gasol, PF	LAL	65	37.0	18.3	7.0-13.0   .536	  0.0-0.1   .000   4.4-5.6    .790

TripleThreat wrote:2) No other team is running it. No major college feeder program is running it. There is no pipeline to help train the talent to the Triangle
3) The college game to the pros is clearly a "One And Done" system, which does facilitate the development of the fundamentals and classic "Four Year" players that helped push forward the Triangle in it's heyday with the Bulls and front end of the Lakers run.
4) It's a complicated offense, relative to other systems, that requires a ton of repetition to master. If the player can master it at all.

TripleThreat wrote:
5) Phil Jackson has four years left on his contract timeline. Given the asset base, he's going to have to shop heavily in free agency to fill out the roster. In the practical Tier 4 and Tier 5 free agents he can probably get, those players are not by design, going to be guys suited for the Triangle. Those guys are AVAILABLE FOR A REASON. And they are AVAILABLE AT A KNICKS FRIENDLY PRICE POINT FOR A REASON.

Trying to push the Grizzlies forward does nothing to change the above.

Part of why the Grizzlies work as a team is because Gasol and Randolph can operate together. This is generally the exception rather than the rule with two bigs. In most instances, two high level bigs will struggle to mesh well together and complement each other and maintain effective floor spacing.

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:LA and a young Dirk took majority of the shots in the mid range and were close to 50% for much of their careers that has the ability to post up in mid range, beat their man off the dribble with a pump fake, and get fouled, as well as pass over their defender/facilitate

I have no idea what you are considering mid range. Between what range?

LA is not even close to 50 percent in the midrange. And, harden is certainly not either.

Space between FT to the 3pt line
Where KG made majority of his shots from inside the 3pt line Anthony Davis is very good at that as well, though he gets many baskets and points from lobs/OFF rebounds and in the paint as well to bring their FG% higher

Baseline could be closer to the FT distance as the 3pt line is shorter and the out of bounds limits counters, moves to make

How isn't LA close to 50% for his career? Please don't single out games after wrist injury and lack of talent around him....

here is his shooting stats

I think that you looked at his overall percentage on 2 point shots. His midrange game is closer to 40%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01.html#shooting::none

When LA gets fouled and when he is able to go to the rim because he is defended from the mid range game, as well as assist or non assist play generated by pulling a rebounder/shot blocker out of the opponent are some examples of how you discount that STATS that are not reflecting upon because of his mid range ability, giving a line to operate with cuts/penetration for other team mates, as well as POST UP opportunities if they actually had a post presence

So yes, I do count the FG% as well as points for FT's for his game, majority of LA and Dirk's game are based on the mid range

For majority of LA's years, Portland has went through a couple of rebuilds and just didn't have enough talent with him
Brandon Roy's injury haunted them for a couple of years till they were able to draft Lilliard

So I guess, you can take it for whatever it is worth if you are going to discount the other things that the mid range game results for opening things up for the team and him to closer baskets

RonRon wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:

mreinman wrote:

RonRon wrote:LA and a young Dirk took majority of the shots in the mid range and were close to 50% for much of their careers that has the ability to post up in mid range, beat their man off the dribble with a pump fake, and get fouled, as well as pass over their defender/facilitate

I have no idea what you are considering mid range. Between what range?

LA is not even close to 50 percent in the midrange. And, harden is certainly not either.

Space between FT to the 3pt line
Where KG made majority of his shots from inside the 3pt line Anthony Davis is very good at that as well, though he gets many baskets and points from lobs/OFF rebounds and in the paint as well to bring their FG% higher

Baseline could be closer to the FT distance as the 3pt line is shorter and the out of bounds limits counters, moves to make

How isn't LA close to 50% for his career? Please don't single out games after wrist injury and lack of talent around him....

here is his shooting stats

I think that you looked at his overall percentage on 2 point shots. His midrange game is closer to 40%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01.html#shooting::none

When LA gets fouled and when he is able to go to the rim because he is defended from the mid range game, as well as assist or non assist play generated by pulling a rebounder/shot blocker out of the opponent are some examples of how you discount that STATS that are not reflecting upon because of his mid range ability, giving a line to operate with cuts/penetration for other team mates, as well as POST UP opportunities if they actually had a post presence

So yes, I do count the FG% as well as points for FT's for his game, majority of LA and Dirk's game are based on the mid range

For majority of LA's years, Portland has went through a couple of rebuilds and just didn't have enough talent with him
Brandon Roy's injury haunted them for a couple of years till they were able to draft Lilliard

So I guess, you can take it for whatever it is worth if you are going to discount the other things that the mid range game results for opening things up for the team and him to closer baskets

I am not discounting anything (or even arguing the point)

you stated that LA shot 50% (FG) for his career in the midrange. I was just stating that this was not the case.

I absolutely don't discount FT's in shot attempts, though some on this board do.

If you count LA's ft's then he is actually around 53% (that is exactly what TS will tell you, though it does not give you TS just for mid range)

And, 53 is okay but not really considered good. The reason why he is not higher is because he shoots way too many long range shots and if you look at his % of makes from those areas, it is not that good.

Dirk on the other hand is a whole different world and not a comparison for LA at all.

If Phil thinks otherwise, then he is sleeping at the wheel since he's had several great 3pt shooters that he coached.

yellowboy90 wrote:New school is not just about shooting 3s. Also, one of the best looking teams in the playoffs have been the Clips and they shoot a lot of 3s. Phil trolling analytics does sound dumb and is just bad taste for an F.O. executive to do. It is never wise to possibly upset teams you May want to do business with later. That just creates more animosity, imo.

Phil knows there's more to the modern game than just 3's. He just prefers an offense can be effective inside and not be ovely reliant on PnR, 4 out and 3's, which is something a lot of teams have gone to. Phil isn't anti 3!!! He just wants to make sure that his teams have a post game and play more inside out.

People have to stop thinking he's lost on all this stuff. He's been dealing with these metrics guys for years. This didn't just start recently. He isn't anti metrics either. He just doesn't place as much importance on it as others but he does use advanced stats as does his staff. He just balances that stuff with good old fashioned sound basketball principals as well. He can't say all of that in a tweet.

nixluva wrote:

masud wrote:So about that... Thread was a little premature no?

No. Why would it be premature? The title of the thread is that Old School Basketball is still RELEVANT! I didn't say it was superior or that modern basketball is not good. Just that you can still win playing a more traditional style of ball. I don't hate modern BB. I was one of the few who supported that style of play on this forum. See this is what happens all the time. If someone suggests that a player is similar to an All Time Great there will be those who read that and think that means we think player X is "as good" as that All Time player. This despite the fact that wasn't what the original poster actually said.

It's also not just about the GS v Memphis series. In this case we're looking at teams in the 2nd rd of the playoffs who are playing 2-2 even tho one team was missing their starting PG and he's coming back less than his normal self. IMO it's obvious that Memphis is relevant even tho they play an Old School style of ball. It still works playing inside out and playing tough D. You're going to still take 3's, but it's how you get to them that is different.

Golden State is not a model you can easily replicate. The Sixers try to play that way and the results are far different. It's about the talent obviously. The Hawks might be a more realistic roster to try and replicate. Still Phil is obviously intent on going in a different direction. We'll have to see how he rebuilds the team, but we have a rough idea of what he's looking to do.

Yup- These playoffs have shown, as indeed every playoffs have shown, that there is more than one way to build a team, and more than one style of play that can be successful. The only constants are defense, mental toughness, heart, execution and chemistry. Analytics is just a side dish- the attempts to make it the central pillar of bball are daft, and are more about people trying to look 'with it' and more intelligent than they actually are.