Kobe and Jordan never reduced their scoring in the triangle. Matter of fact they superstar lead the league in scoring on numerous occasions.

Sorry I don't know how to quote

Yes, they did very good in triangle, but no one could know who would happen to their PPG if they played in different systems. History can only run once. However, it is logical to assume that "Give him the ball then go away from his path" or something similar MUST make the superstars have more chance to score. At the end, winning side should have better stats just because they score more. If a system must success, who wouldn't want to use it?

Triangle would not guarantee anyone to success but it is pretty sure to take away the shot attempt star players normally would have. The ball has to be shared. It is going to be some kind of game theory. if everyone is unselfish, the pie is much bigger, but if you are selfish, you are guaranteed to have your share. At last, it is just everyone for himself.

On paper, triangle has to be the best system. It won 11 times out of 20, it just has to. But it has to have the leader who can convince everyone to buy into it.

As for the Triangle. Complaints are that it slows down the pace therefore minimizes a players athleticism. That it's predictable and teams can jump the procession. And that it needs at least two really good post players and excellent 3pt. shooters for it to work. But if you look at those Laker and Spur teams, think it was more about personnel and defense. The Spurs teams have always been successful because they have had 3 future HOF's in the squad at the same time, been able to get solid vets to play back up roles for league minimum and they have always been excellent defensive teams. As did Phil's Lakers. 3 things we can use around here.

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

The point is the game evolved way before Curry, and it's pretty much required to shoot a ton of 3s to win a championship. If the Spurs were taking only 10 or 13 3s a game like they did around 2000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams today. But if you go back to the 1980s, teams took only about 5 3s a game.

Yes, but the run and gun gets validated by the wins vs losses and a championship. Curry/Thompson took it to another level because they can shoot, but they were given a license to do it. No that teams didn't have good shooters, but nobody did it like that prior.

1972 Lakers with Gail Goodrich and Jerry West were often seen as the best shooting tandem prior. They didn't play at this kind of pace but they one just one chip in 4 tries in the backcourt.

You want to talk about a mindphuch, Lakers were 1-8 in the finals in the Celtic/knick era. played Knicks 3 times and one once.

GustavBahler wrote:Its all about the learning curve IMO. You need a couple of seasons (at least) to understand the intricacies of the offense, and knowing how to play one's role in it as well. You have players on short term deals, who are being asked to learn a system that they might be starting to get just as they're headed out the door. Combine that with a franchise that has a high rate of roster turnover, and you end up with a team that is constantly in flux.

Whatever you believe about the Triangle's effectiveness in today's NBA, there is no get around the learning curve. I believe that relying on an offense that even former players who have praised it have said that it is hard to learn, puts the team at a competitive disadvantage. The counterargument has been that today's NBA is "dumbed down". I would argue that making the Triangle so essential to the future of this franchise is making things more complicated than they need to be.

If it is hard to learn for the team playing in the triangle system, imagine the team trying to stop it.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great thread and discussion. The question of talent seems to be the always a final piece to any team. Better talent can run a system better no matter what it is.

Perhaps Curry has revolutionized the game to some extent as he and the game evolved to a crossover point where the coach gave his blessing to fire away. Crowd loves, and it works with mega talent sniper!. Thus far, it has produced a single chip. With Durant now part of the mix, the team is now talented enough to do about anything it wants offensively except run a deep post set. They are playing to their personal as did MDA.

Phil has had the benefit of walking onto a talented team and implementing the triangle. If Jordan does not buy in, I guess the Lord of the Rings would have a different history to write. Kobe obsessed over Jordan and despite his pushback, did mostly buy in although Kobe struggled with his legacy even as a 20 year old!

Thanks Crzy for providing back up to your posts and clarity to your view. I do understand it better. Do I agree? For me its a part of the overall picture and not my driving theme.
Phil is trying to build a team from the ground up. He has never done this before. If he thought he would get Melo to buy in, he was wrong. We don't know if Melo was genuine in his attempt or had his own agenda all along. Seems to make for good drama. Nalod thinks Melo is a great talent but wrong for the knicks at this juncture. PHil is not going away. NO article or poster is going to convince me at 33 years old he'd win a power struggle. Dolan has backed Phil and in my mind Phil is whats best for the team. If Melo was 27 and pushing back I'd have to think differently. At 33 he can still fill up the points but he is asked to do more. He is paid to do more. Max players need to be all that.

ITs not really a question as the talent of this team has not high. Woodsons best team ran out of gas by seasons end as we were depleted in talent or by age. As for the Phil Era the turnover in players is a result of cleaning house. Galloway was a nice player but not worthwhile to give the money he got as we are still filling in the major players. Shump was due to be a free agent and he was not a fit. JR was not a serious professional in his role here. I suppose any discussion of these guys lead to either Hilary Clinton, or Tyson/Noah. Tyson didn't want to be here and his autoimmune system was not compliant either. Noah is the right player and a very good decision. Ok, wait for it........But he was broken. I suppose the issue of Noah will have to be decided by his on court performance going forward or via trade. Good decision, bad result. Given his health issues Im as perplexed as anyone why we paid what we did.

Back on task, I do think the better teams utilize the three more and effectively but we are talking "the better teams". They also turn the ball over less, play better defense and rebound well. and if they don't hold the ball too long......well, we can only imagine.

Phil is here for at least two more years and he has his hands full this off season. As much as he turns it over, I have to admit the intrigue runs high. I prefer winning but we can't win if there are no games to play!

As Trump supporters say: "Its going to be interesting!!"

The point is the game evolved way before Curry, and it's pretty much required to shoot a ton of 3s to win a championship. If the Spurs were taking only 10 or 13 3s a game like they did around 2000, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the top teams today. But if you go back to the 1980s, teams took only about 5 3s a game.

Yes, but the run and gun gets validated by the wins vs losses and a championship. Curry/Thompson took it to another level because they can shoot, but they were given a license to do it. No that teams didn't have good shooters, but nobody did it like that prior.

1972 Lakers with Gail Goodrich and Jerry West were often seen as the best shooting tandem prior. They didn't play at this kind of pace but they one just one chip in 4 tries in the backcourt.

You want to talk about a mindphuch, Lakers were 1-8 in the finals in the Celtic/knick era. played Knicks 3 times and one once.

What if the Cavs or Celtics win the championship? They took more 3s than the Warriors.

No arguement. The Paradigm shift happend when? When a team that shot the shyt out of the ball won a chip. Thats the point I make. The GSW when Kerr came on board opened it up just a bit more and it worked.
Historically teams fell short. SAS defense was its benchmark. Not volume shooting.

Cavs play a system thats works for their personel. Its Called "Give Lebron the ball". Celtics have a very good squad and adding Horford who shoots a good 3, and Isiah Thomas getting better and better is no doubt a benefit.

Back to square one: build it as you want a roster, or hire a coach better suited to a good team. Brooks took Wiz higher, Kerr took GSW higher. Knicks needed renovation.