nixluva wrote:EwingsGlass wrote:newyorker4ever wrote:It sounded like he was just talking to talk and there's no way he'll be the next Knicks head coach, we all know that's Rambis' job.
I believe the triangle criticism is somewhat justified. For example, it was invented before the existence of the three point line. The component that is alive and well is the dynamic offense which identifies locations on the floor pursuant to which players have (i) open shots and (ii) maximum PPP efficiency. I think the justified criticism may be the percentage of shots taken between 10-21 feet in the triangle. Spacing really needs to be a bit more expanded to maximize good three point shots and shots at the rim. This can be accomplished with "TRIANGLE" but the reservation to a specific shape is a reference to the triple post -- shots that are now resulting in lower PPP than an offense centered around players that can shoot out to the 3 pt line with efficiency, can get to the FT line at a decent clip and can pass and move.
Triangle seems to be focused on bigger players and with the strength and plethora of players between 6'7 and 6'11, size just isn't as dominating as it used to be. Phil is hanging his hat on Kris P to engineer this version of the triangle around size again and this becomes a function of whether the system can bring Kris to maximum efficiency. Given the number of mid range shots he takes and the percentage he hits at, I am not so convinced it maximizes anything about Kris. But it is only his first year on it. This year may be better. I hope it clicks.
BALANCE is the true nature of the Triangle. It's about floor balance to be able to get back on D. Proper spacing so no pass is too long to make and players have room to operate. THe very nature of the spacing means you will have guys behind the 3pt line if you keep your spacing right. People tend to assume you can't get 3's but there are opportunities all the time in the Triangle. All it takes is players who are confident in taking them.
Balance isn't the first word I would use. I'm sticking with dynamic. That said, I still think it overemphasizes the mid range shot. It's kind of like looking at FG% instead of TS%. the question then becomes whether you can create better spacing and a higher TS% for the team with a 4/1 offense - while being 'balanced' to prevent fast breaks.
