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/2kNnJ9l

Pop'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/2kzInG4

You can start here:
http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=FG3A&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions

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 #29

Lakers:
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.

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?

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

source -
https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-made-per-game?date=2017-04-17

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-point-rate?date=2017-04-17

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 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.

source -
https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-made-per-game?date=2017-04-17

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-point-rate?date=2017-04-17

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.

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..

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