martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

It's about floor balance and spacing. Spacing in the league has changed because some teams have acknowledged smaller lineups, spreading the floor with the three point shot, taking advantage of the role of the point guard in the offense because of the new hand check rules that have become even more lax in recent years, lax illegal screen rules, the role the illegal defense rules play has changed, etc.

The rules have evolved, the game has evolved, the league has evolved.

I have no problem with the Triangle as a base system. It's that Phil is so rigid about the EXACT nature of how it MUST work. Aka he wants two traditional big men on the floor for "floor balance"... though floor balance in the league now almost dictates you only have one big man. Phil thinks the three point shot is not a good shot and that long mid-range jumpers are higher percentage shots. There's all sorts of math that proves that this is not true. Etc.

If Phil were willing to UPDATE the Triangle, it'd be one thing. But it sure seems like he is not. One of the reasons Fisher was let go was supposedly because he wouldn't run the Triangle the way Phil thought it should be run and he tried to mix in other things.

Do you understand Offensive Efficiency and Pace stats? Cuz they prove that Phil's teams running the Triangle were just as efficient as the best teams today. The only team better is the Warriors. How hard do you think it would be to build a team to match the Warriors?

Is there a handy grid you could post that would illustrate this?

Those teams two Lakers teams you keep pointing to had Pau Gasol, a hall of famer, and Kobe Bryant, a top five all-time shooting guard. That'll help your efficiency.

I guess that could be said ad nauseum though, right? The GWS's modern offense only will work if you have Curry and Thompson and Green, that'll help their efficiency. Miami only had 2 of the 3 top players in the league and that helped their efficiency. Do we question that Pop may not really be that good and his offense/defense may not be that good cause he happened to have Tim Duncan on his team? We could stretch the analogy to say that the Spurs defensive scheme wouldn't be that good since they had Tim and now Khawai?

Sure, it comes down to talent in this league, as always. You can have your talent in the wrong system though. Look at OKC. Two top 7 players in this league, possibly top 5 players and they win 55 games?

And to me, Phil is saying that the system is more important than the talent. To me, and as you just illustrated - the best teams always design their system AROUND their talent. Acquire the talent first, then build a system. If Steve Kerr went to Golden State with Monta Ellis and Jason Richardson as his two starting guards and told them "no shot is a bad shot", he'd be laughed out of the league. Get the talent first. Then build the system to suit the talent.

Big thing with Phil's past success? He stepped into situations where there had already been massive talent assembled. Both the Bulls and Lakers had two top five players in the league and he imposed his structure on them. Maybe if Phil took the Triangle to OKC and Westbrook and Durant and Ibaka, it could help that team turn the corner. He went to teams that were ready to make the leap to true contenders and did a great job.

This is a much different situation and I think it is fair to question the method so far, if not the results.

Phil's Triangle system has won with all sorts of different types of talents - high level talent no doubt - across decades and with multiple teams and different types of guys. Seems to me is all you need is the high level of talent, which every NBA championship team needs.

I am pretty sure he tweaked the Triangle to fit the players.

Jordan never won anything before Triangle. Neither did Shaq or Kobe.

What's the problem with having KP and Melo and other badly needed high level talent immerse themselves?

Lets be more like GS. I agree.. lets go get the league's MVP and a couple other all starts backed by exceptional role players. I promise the triangle will look awesome! I guess folks are frustrated he hasn't done that yet... must be Melo's fault

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

It's about floor balance and spacing. Spacing in the league has changed because some teams have acknowledged smaller lineups, spreading the floor with the three point shot, taking advantage of the role of the point guard in the offense because of the new hand check rules that have become even more lax in recent years, lax illegal screen rules, the role the illegal defense rules play has changed, etc.

The rules have evolved, the game has evolved, the league has evolved.

I have no problem with the Triangle as a base system. It's that Phil is so rigid about the EXACT nature of how it MUST work. Aka he wants two traditional big men on the floor for "floor balance"... though floor balance in the league now almost dictates you only have one big man. Phil thinks the three point shot is not a good shot and that long mid-range jumpers are higher percentage shots. There's all sorts of math that proves that this is not true. Etc.

If Phil were willing to UPDATE the Triangle, it'd be one thing. But it sure seems like he is not. One of the reasons Fisher was let go was supposedly because he wouldn't run the Triangle the way Phil thought it should be run and he tried to mix in other things.

Do you understand Offensive Efficiency and Pace stats? Cuz they prove that Phil's teams running the Triangle were just as efficient as the best teams today. The only team better is the Warriors. How hard do you think it would be to build a team to match the Warriors?

Is there a handy grid you could post that would illustrate this?

Those teams two Lakers teams you keep pointing to had Pau Gasol, a hall of famer, and Kobe Bryant, a top five all-time shooting guard. That'll help your efficiency.

I guess that could be said ad nauseum though, right? The GWS's modern offense only will work if you have Curry and Thompson and Green, that'll help their efficiency. Miami only had 2 of the 3 top players in the league and that helped their efficiency. Do we question that Pop may not really be that good and his offense/defense may not be that good cause he happened to have Tim Duncan on his team? We could stretch the analogy to say that the Spurs defensive scheme wouldn't be that good since they had Tim and now Khawai?

Shouldn't there be some evidence that his teams were not as efficient as todays teams since his teams didn't shoot the 3 as much? What then accounts for the high level of efficiency his teams performed at.

07-08 Lakers   1751 3pt Attempts  37.8%  FT Attempts  2270  76.9%  2pt Attempts  5067	51.0%  Offrtg 113.0  Pace 95.6
15-16 Thunder  1945 3pt Attempts  34.9%  FT Attempts  2067  78.2%  2pt Attempts  5137	52.4%  Offrtg 113.1  Pace 96.7
15-16 Warriors 2592 3pt Attempts  41.0%  FT Attempts  1790  76.3%  2pt Attempts  4567	52.8%  Offrtg 114.5  Pace 99.3

The thing that stands out the most is the amount of FTA's Phil's teams got due in part to attacking the basket and post ups. A different approach but with similar results in terms of efficiency.

Which is fine if you have you're own draft pick. That's the only way to compete right now with raising salaries.

If the following players are making on average btw 14MM-16MM annual (Tristan Thompson, Demare Carrol, Reggie Jackson, Kris Middleton, Gordon Dragic, Wes Matthews), tell me how the Knicks can compete. Teams like the Spurs and Warriors knock it out of the park in the draft year after year.

We are one all star and one quality starter away from being a top 4 team in the east. But, you have to overpay to get anyone to come to the Knicks. It's a bottom of the barrel franchise. Arguably one of the worst teams in all of sports. And that's with a built in corporate fan base and blue collar guys that love the game and choose to believe this team will turn it around.

Right now the triangle scares people. You don't come into a situation and give a guy a five year deal making him one of the highest paid coaches in the NBA with no resume only to fire him a year and a half into the job. Teams rarely recover from moves like this.

Phil either coaches or allows a coach to coach. It's really not complicated. You can't let the media snow ball into a bigger story. You have Charlie Rosen literally airing private conversations between players publically. There is a lack of trust within this organizations and players see it.

anrst wrote:Phil needs to coach or gtfo. B/c otherwise he has no business noodling.

That's just drama.

EnySpree wrote:

anrst wrote:Phil needs to coach or gtfo. B/c otherwise he has no business noodling.

That's just drama noodling.

I mean one of the most respected guys in the game shares knowledge and its "noodling." Amazing.

EnySpree wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

Because we don't have the players to run the system effectively, It's that simple

just imagine if we had kurt Thomas, kidd, camby, rasheed, prigioni, fatty felton, and we had a coach that insisted on a system that had those guys running like a track meet, you would look at him like an idiot. Like why would he think these older veterans have the stamina to run up and down the court.

Get the players and coach that can run your system effectively, get a coach that can run the system, but also has the brains to other things. Phil just seems to be doing everything backwards, hoping for the best

so you think it's better to have a new system every year until we finally get enough talent to choose the right one? How does that work in terms of development?

Or, what system should the Knicks have right now considering their roster?

That depends on this off season, and how many of the core players he plans on keeping. you can't have low IQ players in a High IQ system. Maybe you dummy it down, make some changes to it, like kerr, pop, did and a few others to fit the roster.

That's what I though fisher was doing during summer league, preseason, and a few wks into the season, and then he stopped and back to a half court slow pace, probably the pressure from phil.

Dumb it down? Fisher pressured? That's just drama to me. Our players weren't good enough and Fisher was a bad coach. Deal with the truth not wallow in drama

you already know how I felt about fisher, and every time I criticized him, I had to hear you and half the board endorse him like you were getting checks to do so.

towards his end I started realizing that something was wrong with the coaching staff and they weren't on the same page. It started looking like fisher was completely contradicting himself, or what phil was syaing

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

It's about floor balance and spacing. Spacing in the league has changed because some teams have acknowledged smaller lineups, spreading the floor with the three point shot, taking advantage of the role of the point guard in the offense because of the new hand check rules that have become even more lax in recent years, lax illegal screen rules, the role the illegal defense rules play has changed, etc.

The rules have evolved, the game has evolved, the league has evolved.

I have no problem with the Triangle as a base system. It's that Phil is so rigid about the EXACT nature of how it MUST work. Aka he wants two traditional big men on the floor for "floor balance"... though floor balance in the league now almost dictates you only have one big man. Phil thinks the three point shot is not a good shot and that long mid-range jumpers are higher percentage shots. There's all sorts of math that proves that this is not true. Etc.

If Phil were willing to UPDATE the Triangle, it'd be one thing. But it sure seems like he is not. One of the reasons Fisher was let go was supposedly because he wouldn't run the Triangle the way Phil thought it should be run and he tried to mix in other things.

Do you understand Offensive Efficiency and Pace stats? Cuz they prove that Phil's teams running the Triangle were just as efficient as the best teams today. The only team better is the Warriors. How hard do you think it would be to build a team to match the Warriors?

Is there a handy grid you could post that would illustrate this?

Those teams two Lakers teams you keep pointing to had Pau Gasol, a hall of famer, and Kobe Bryant, a top five all-time shooting guard. That'll help your efficiency.

I guess that could be said ad nauseum though, right? The GWS's modern offense only will work if you have Curry and Thompson and Green, that'll help their efficiency. Miami only had 2 of the 3 top players in the league and that helped their efficiency. Do we question that Pop may not really be that good and his offense/defense may not be that good cause he happened to have Tim Duncan on his team? We could stretch the analogy to say that the Spurs defensive scheme wouldn't be that good since they had Tim and now Khawai?

Sure, it comes down to talent in this league, as always. You can have your talent in the wrong system though. Look at OKC. Two top 7 players in this league, possibly top 5 players and they win 55 games?

And to me, Phil is saying that the system is more important than the talent. To me, and as you just illustrated - the best teams always design their system AROUND their talent. Acquire the talent first, then build a system. If Steve Kerr went to Golden State with Monta Ellis and Jason Richardson as his two starting guards and told them "no shot is a bad shot", he'd be laughed out of the league. Get the talent first. Then build the system to suit the talent.

Big thing with Phil's past success? He stepped into situations where there had already been massive talent assembled. Both the Bulls and Lakers had two top five players in the league and he imposed his structure on them. Maybe if Phil took the Triangle to OKC and Westbrook and Durant and Ibaka, it could help that team turn the corner. He went to teams that were ready to make the leap to true contenders and did a great job.

This is a much different situation and I think it is fair to question the method so far, if not the results.

Phil's Triangle system has won with all sorts of different types of talents - high level talent no doubt - across decades and with multiple teams and different types of guys. Seems to me is all you need is the high level of talent, which every NBA championship team needs.

I am pretty sure he tweaked the Triangle to fit the players.

Jordan never won anything before Triangle. Neither did Shaq or Kobe.

What's the problem with having KP and Melo and other badly needed high level talent immerse themselves?

No problem at all. Except we haven't heard Melo is a part of this camp, which also seems odd.

I guess the issue I have is that we weren't told we were doing a full rebuild. We had a team that won 54 games, was blown apart after a down season and then all of the sudden we're winning 17 games with no young talent and no 2016 draft pick and free agents avoiding this place like the plague last summer.

Like I said, I get some of the logic. But if the idea was to acquire talent first, I would've liked to get a lot more in return for Tyson, Shump, Felton, JR, Amare, Hardaway, etc. Those players were essentially given away for very little return. The way Phil was talking heading into the 14-15 season, he treated it as if playoffs were a given. Go back and look - he was talking playoffs. This strip it all down and rebuild from "Year Zero" was a story they came up with after the fact. They got KP, at least, and hopefully Grant pans out, but the process so far has been rocky and I think anyone would have to admit - this is not how Phil envisioned the process going.

Is part of the issue the Triangle? Shump and JR seemed to intimate that. Free agents have seemed to intimate that. Even Melo is starting to talk about it, after being a pretty damn good team player this season. And now the Triangle is dictating the coaching search and severely limiting our options.

At some point you have to question the Triangle. Or at least, at this point, I am questioning the Triangle.

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

It's about floor balance and spacing. Spacing in the league has changed because some teams have acknowledged smaller lineups, spreading the floor with the three point shot, taking advantage of the role of the point guard in the offense because of the new hand check rules that have become even more lax in recent years, lax illegal screen rules, the role the illegal defense rules play has changed, etc.

The rules have evolved, the game has evolved, the league has evolved.

I have no problem with the Triangle as a base system. It's that Phil is so rigid about the EXACT nature of how it MUST work. Aka he wants two traditional big men on the floor for "floor balance"... though floor balance in the league now almost dictates you only have one big man. Phil thinks the three point shot is not a good shot and that long mid-range jumpers are higher percentage shots. There's all sorts of math that proves that this is not true. Etc.

If Phil were willing to UPDATE the Triangle, it'd be one thing. But it sure seems like he is not. One of the reasons Fisher was let go was supposedly because he wouldn't run the Triangle the way Phil thought it should be run and he tried to mix in other things.

Do you understand Offensive Efficiency and Pace stats? Cuz they prove that Phil's teams running the Triangle were just as efficient as the best teams today. The only team better is the Warriors. How hard do you think it would be to build a team to match the Warriors?

Is there a handy grid you could post that would illustrate this?

Those teams two Lakers teams you keep pointing to had Pau Gasol, a hall of famer, and Kobe Bryant, a top five all-time shooting guard. That'll help your efficiency.

I guess that could be said ad nauseum though, right? The GWS's modern offense only will work if you have Curry and Thompson and Green, that'll help their efficiency. Miami only had 2 of the 3 top players in the league and that helped their efficiency. Do we question that Pop may not really be that good and his offense/defense may not be that good cause he happened to have Tim Duncan on his team? We could stretch the analogy to say that the Spurs defensive scheme wouldn't be that good since they had Tim and now Khawai?

Sure, it comes down to talent in this league, as always. You can have your talent in the wrong system though. Look at OKC. Two top 7 players in this league, possibly top 5 players and they win 55 games?

And to me, Phil is saying that the system is more important than the talent. To me, and as you just illustrated - the best teams always design their system AROUND their talent. Acquire the talent first, then build a system. If Steve Kerr went to Golden State with Monta Ellis and Jason Richardson as his two starting guards and told them "no shot is a bad shot", he'd be laughed out of the league. Get the talent first. Then build the system to suit the talent.

Big thing with Phil's past success? He stepped into situations where there had already been massive talent assembled. Both the Bulls and Lakers had two top five players in the league and he imposed his structure on them. Maybe if Phil took the Triangle to OKC and Westbrook and Durant and Ibaka, it could help that team turn the corner. He went to teams that were ready to make the leap to true contenders and did a great job.

This is a much different situation and I think it is fair to question the method so far, if not the results.

Phil's Triangle system has won with all sorts of different types of talents - high level talent no doubt - across decades and with multiple teams and different types of guys. Seems to me is all you need is the high level of talent, which every NBA championship team needs.

I am pretty sure he tweaked the Triangle to fit the players.

Jordan never won anything before Triangle. Neither did Shaq or Kobe.

What's the problem with having KP and Melo and other badly needed high level talent immerse themselves?

No problem at all. Except we haven't heard Melo is a part of this camp, which also seems odd.

I guess the issue I have is that we weren't told we were doing a full rebuild. We had a team that won 54 games, was blown apart after a down season and then all of the sudden we're winning 17 games with no young talent and no 2016 draft pick and free agents avoiding this place like the plague last summer.

Like I said, I get some of the logic. But if the idea was to acquire talent first, I would've liked to get a lot more in return for Tyson, Shump, Felton, JR, Amare, Hardaway, etc. Those players were essentially given away for very little return. The way Phil was talking heading into the 14-15 season, he treated it as if playoffs were a given. Go back and look - he was talking playoffs. This strip it all down and rebuild from "Year Zero" was a story they came up with after the fact. They got KP, at least, and hopefully Grant pans out, but the process so far has been rocky and I think anyone would have to admit - this is not how Phil envisioned the process going.

Is part of the issue the Triangle? Shump and JR seemed to intimate that. Free agents have seemed to intimate that. Even Melo is starting to talk about it, after being a pretty damn good team player this season. And now the Triangle is dictating the coaching search and severely limiting our options.

At some point you have to question the Triangle. Or at least, at this point, I am questioning the Triangle.

He def should have gotten more out of Tyson deal. He overvalued Jose. And he ended up firing Fisher so that was a whif. Other then that his moves have been solid.