In The Moment....

Well, from a math perspective, with five total points, not forming some sort of a triangle is practically impossible no matter where you randomly put the points.

I assume it's factors other than the fact of a triangle that make it work, including the abilities of the players to slide in and out of slots seamlessly and to pass well.

I'd be interested to know more about HOW it produces scoring opportunities in various situations, compared with more traditional approaches. For example, in other configurations, I'm aware that proper floor spacing, ball movement, player movement, and use of picks can open up passing lanes. How does the triangle create passing
lanes? Or does it need to do so?

Sky, I posted during halftime of that infamous Game 4 of the 2008 finals that there were four good signs. I can't recall the other three, but the main one was that Kobe was dominating the Lakers attack. Making him work harder and probably doubling him during the second half would shift more of the scoring burden to the rest of the Lakers, who weren't really that much into rhythm of the game. That's pretty much how it worked out.

Ironically, that's also what happened 40 years ago in the "balloon game." Jerry West went wild; and, when the Celtics finally doubled a fairly tired (and injured) Jerry in the fourth quarter, he lost the ball two or three times and his teammates had no answers. (Yeah, I know Wilt was on the bench, but Russell had been outrunning Wilt down the floor BEFORE he was hurt. The more time he played in that game, the more Russ looked like a kid out there.)

Whenever the Celtics play the Lakers, I actually root for Kobe to go wild at the outset. I'm sure that will eventually bite me in the behind, but it's been a pretty good omen to date. But first, I'm rooting for both of these teams to return to good health a.s.a.p.

And, by the way, I'm not seeing any signs that Artest is messing up the Lakers. Based mainly on boxscores and recaps (because I don't stay up for that many games), he seems to be energizing the team and having a very positive impact.

Sam

What I meant Sam was you are safe in your statement if Red did indeed run the "triangle" offense. No guilt involved. Every team runs the triangle. Evidently Red just ran it better than anyone else!!

BTW, what was the overall regular season record between the Celtics/Lakers games of the 60's that featured Wilt and Russell? They played, what 9-10 games a season against each other?

Also, unrelated, who owns the best overall season road record for any NBA team on an 82 game schedule? I have no clue. Just asking.

So BSH, what you are saying is not to double Kobe, but not to slack off him completely, just leave him open enough so he'll start launching and try to take over the game? (Kind of like the way the Celtics play him) No wonder nearly everyone loses to them. As usual, the league's coaches are doing it all wrong. Very interesting. Someone please make sure Doc sees this thread come Jan31st!!

Dbrown,

Russ was 85-57 (.599) in head-to-heads against Wilt and 9-1 in championships during seasons when they were both in the league.

The 1971-72 Lakers (the team that won 33 straight) holds the best road record in the 82-game era (31-7, or .816). Note that their number of road games totals only 38 (which is three shy of half of 82). I'm assuming that those three games were neutral court games as parts of doubleheaders, although I'm not certain doubleheaders were still played then.

Sam

Sam wrote:I assume it's factors other than the fact of a triangle that make it work, including the abilities of the players to slide in and out of slots seamlessly and to pass well.

I'd be interested to know more about HOW it produces scoring opportunities in various situations, compared with more traditional approaches. For example, in other configurations, I'm aware that proper floor spacing, ball movement, player movement, and use of picks can open up passing lanes. How does the triangle create passing
lanes? Or does it need to do so?

Sam,

The site that Beat referenced (see below) included a few basics about the triangle and a couple of diagrams. If you'd like to delve into it further, I found a good discussion of it with lots of diagrams. It's a lengthy, multi-part post that extends down the page (don't stop at the first set of comments). You can obviously scan and skip to what may be of interest.

http://www.raptorschat.ca/forums/index.php?showtopic=14440

beat wrote:http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/platriangle-principles.html

helps when you have a couple "all star" type players running it

[edit] Criticisms
Most critics of the triangle offense cite its high level of difficulty and longer-than-average learning process.

Other critics also argue the fact that the triangle offense requires a player of Kobe Bryant's caliber to be successful when the team is out of synch. The triangle offense is like any other system, it can fail and has at times. Phil Jackson has only coached two teams that has run the triangle offense, both of which had the most dominant player in the game of basketball on that team when the triangle was being run, and on both teams, on many occasions the triangle offense was abandoned and the superstar was left to run the show and score at will.

Beat, I'd say it helps to have a couple of all-star type players when running any offense, but the triangle as designed is actually an equal-opportunity offense and doesn't require one or two dominant players. That's not to say that you can run it for the local 6th grade team, because you can't. It requires all players to have advanced skills and good decision-making.

I assume you got the criticism section from Wikipedia. While those criticisms are valid, you left out one key paragraph from that section:

Proponents argue that, when learned, the triangle becomes very natural and is structured so as to make sense. The guiding philosophy behind the offense is to pursue the path of least resistance.

I think that paragraph is key to understanding the offense for what it is, separate from the Phil/MJ/Laker/Kobe issue. Yes, it's difficult to learn, and yes, it can be abandoned for hero-ball (as can any offense), but it's designed to achieve high-percentage shots from all five players by exploiting the weakness of the defense rather than following a structured set of options as you see in most other offenses.

Outside

Outside


your quote

but it's designed to achieve high-percentage shots from all five players by exploiting the weakness of the defense

Problem is ALL players do not achieve anywhere near the same number of attempts............which leads to among other things....hero ball.

beay

Beat,

I think you're confusing the triangle offense in general with how the Lakers play offense. As designed, there's no reason that shots in the triangle can't come from any of the five players, particularly since any player could be in any of the five positions. If anything, it's designed to take advantage of post players more than perimeter players since it involves two post players in good scoring position (not just one, as is typical) plus cutters through the lane.

Instead of looking at how the Lakers run it, look at how Minnesota runs it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2010.html

The distribution of shot attempts is impressive, with ten players ranging from 100 to 349 (Al Jefferson being the highest). It would be 11 players except that Kevin Love has only played seven games.

Outside

Outside,

In general, I've found that discussions of the triangle offense do a great job of describing how it works but not so great a job explaining WHY it works. It's the "why" in which I'm most interested. I exactly what ways does it purport to do a better job than other approaches of freeing up guys for good shots (which is really the name of the game on offense)?

Suppose Phil coached the Celtics with their current personnel. (Oops, I just ground seven of my teeth down to the gums.) The Celts have some pretty proficient players with good basketball IQs and passiing abilities. Would he impose the triangle on them? What would be gained and lost versus their current approach?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot and asking you to answer, as these questions are intended as hypothetical to clarify the nature of my curiosity.

Sam

outside

regardles of any offense it all boils down to execution. We all know of the Celtics 7 plays and variations ect.

Funny how this offense has only won titles with Kobe and Jordan using it.

And really in a fast paced game just how many times does any offense truly get set up?

Even in a less than fast paced game I'd love to count the number of passes in the offensive end prior to the shot or turnover. In most cases I'd bet there are less than 4. Would be interesting to keep track of but I'd rather just enjoy the game and look for trends and things along the way.

To me any offense is only as good as the players that run it. By and large getting all 5 on the floor thinking as one is next to impossible. Maybe this is why Phil "selects" his teams so well. Just a thought.

C's don't run it, yet check their shot distribution among the top 7-8-9 players. It's a whole lot tighter than most any other team.

beat

Sam, I'll work on a better explanation. It probably won't be until tonight.

Beat, excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think you're looking at it objectively. As far as I can tell, your take on it is that it's the Lakers' offense, ergo it sucks. That's fine, you're certainly entitled to feel that way, but I'm trying to discuss it without getting into Celtic/Laker issues.

Outside

outside

All I am saying is that you need quality players to run it or any offense.

Just where else but LA and Chicago has it ( the triangle) won anything in the NBA?

You still need the horses in the barn. You say Minnesota uses it, fine but what is their record? 4 and 24. But then again they really don't have a good team.

To me as I said before, it comes down to execution of any offense and if you do not have really good players, no offense will work very well.

beat

Beat, let me address your comments individually.

All I am saying is that you need quality players to run it or any offense. No argument there. You certainly need quality players to run any offense well. My point is that the triangle does not require one or two dominant players and is designed to run well with players of equal ability, unlike many NBA offenses which rely on playing to one or two players' strengths.

Just where else but LA and Chicago has it ( the triangle) won anything in the NBA? The short answer is, of course, nowhere. But it's rarely been tried anywhere else. There are only a few other triangle teams I'm aware of -- Jim Cleamons tried to use it in Dallas during his short stint there, Tim Floyd tried to use it after Michael, Phil, and darn near everyone else left Chicago, and Rambis is using it in Minnesota. It's hard to teach, and it's hard to learn. And, as you point out, you need quality players to be successful, and other than Phil's teams in Chicago and LA, no triangle-run offense has had that. It hasn't been widely adopted, so there really haven't been any other realistic opportunities for a triangle team to win a title.

You still need the horses in the barn. You say Minnesota uses it, fine but what is their record? 4 and 24. But then again they really don't have a good team. Again, no argument there. Considering that it is difficult to learn, especially for NBA players accustomed to running traditional offenses, you need to give it time to see if it can be successful in Minnesota. Another couple of good players would help. Also, I have no idea if Rambis is good at teaching it.

To me as I said before, it comes down to execution of any offense and if you do not have really good players, no offense will work very well. We're in agreement, though "execution" is better suited to a traditional offense with set options that you try to impose on the defense. A key difference with the triangle as I understand it is that you use motion, passing, and spacing (not so much screening) to make the defense react, and you then take advantage of the best opportunities that the defense gives you.

The image that comes to mind for me is a grid. On a simplistic level, I'll use a 3x3 grid, where the top row is A1, A2, A3, the second row B1, B2... and so on, so that there are nine spaces total. The defense can cover a maximum of five of those nine spaces at any one time, and on offense, your objective is to locate an open space on the grid for the shot. With a traditional offense, you design plays to go to a specific grid space -- say, B2 for a particular play. You set up screens or run isolation or whatever to get your shot at B2. Your offense is designed to impose your preference (get a shot at B2) on the defense.

With the triangle, the objective is to take the best available open option that the defense gives you. So you pass and move, and if the defense takes away B2, then you forget about that and take C3 or A2 or whatever they left open. If the defense knows you want to take the shot at B2, then they can load up at B2 and stop you. But if the offense is willing to take the grid spots that the defense leaves open, that means you can get more good shots, and the offense is less predictable and more difficult to defend.

My grid analogy is simplistic, but hopefully it illustrates the different mindset to the triangle vs. traditional offenses. That mindset, combined with spacing, passing, motion, and equal opportunity for player shots, is what I like about it.

Outside

Outside

Thanks for the feedback

BUT again why is it then that Jordan and Kobe end up taking such a high % of the available shots if the triangle is meant to creat for everyone "somewhat equally". Or perhaps to answer my own question, if you discount the isos and the breakdowns and only count the times you "set" the triangle up, would the diversity show up a whole lot more?

Probably would I guess.

I've spent the better part of an otherwise slow day reading up on it a bit and can only draw a few conclusions. (which I am still figureing out)

Going back to the recent LA -BOS final, was our defense so much better than the Lakers ability to run the triangle? Or was just the "tidal wave" of defense, that once it got going in some of the Celtic wins the triangle was completely taken away?

Now I've got to go back and watch that series again, and watch games the Lakers won a little closer and look to see how many times they ran it, and just how successful it was. Of course I really don't mind watching that anyway. Esp 131-92.

beat

Outside

One last thought

Being that there are only 24 seconds to do anything offensively, and lets say you get the ball into the frontcourt at about 20. How far does one run this if various options are not open? Does one pass up a relative open look early on the set for perhaps a better look 2 passes into the future? Or do you shoot at the first good look? And by being spaced around in the grid you described, it would appear offensive rebounding might be somewhat adversely affected too.

beat

Beat,

I'll try to address your comments individually again.

BUT again why is it then that Jordan and Kobe end up taking such a high % of the available shots if the triangle is meant to creat for everyone "somewhat equally". Or perhaps to answer my own question, if you discount the isos and the breakdowns and only count the times you "set" the triangle up, would the diversity show up a whole lot more?

I think that you're correct, that if you throw out the isos, you'd see better distribution of shots when the Bulls or Lakers actually use the triangle. That's only logical, considered that Jordan and Kobe would take the majority of those iso shots. But in any offense, even one designed to allow equal opportunity, you can still wind up with an individual player taking a disproportionate percentage of the shots.

The triangle doesn't always lead to equal shot attempts, but it does allow for distributed shot opportunities among the five players. I contrast that with other offenses designed to run plays for specific players. With the triangle, you can run it and get equal shot opportunities for all five players, or you can have one or two players take a larger portion of the shots. You can say you want all players to take shots equally, or you can say you want to take advantage of particular players' offensive abilities and have them take more shots. How a team decides to allocate shots is up to them, but the triangle itself provides opportunities for any player. That's not the case for many offenses.

Going back to the recent LA -BOS final, was our defense so much better than the Lakers ability to run the triangle? Or was just the "tidal wave" of defense, that once it got going in some of the Celtic wins the triangle was completely taken away?

It's not that the triangle is so great that if you run it correctly, you're guaranteed to win. There were so many other factors at work in the LA-Boston series in 2008, and that's a whole 'nother can of radioactive worms.

I'm not saying the triangle is the greatest offense ever or that it's the only offense to ever employ the elements of spacing, passing, movement, and team play, because that's certainly not the case. I just think that if you can get past the fact that the Lakers use it, you could appreciate its qualities and advantages, which are in line with the team basketball concept that is a significant part of Celtic tradition. Separate it from the Lakers and Phil, look at it on its own merits, and I think you can appreciate what it tries to do.

Outside

beat wrote:Outside

One last thought

Being that there are only 24 seconds to do anything offensively, and lets say you get the ball into the frontcourt at about 20. How far does one run this if various options are not open? Does one pass up a relative open look early on the set for perhaps a better look 2 passes into the future? Or do you shoot at the first good look? And by being spaced around in the grid you described, it would appear offensive rebounding might be somewhat adversely affected too.

beat

Beat,

I've never run the triangle as a player or coached it, so I don't know enough about it to really answer your questions. You're knowledgeable about basketball and are asking good questions, but I unfortunately can't give you great answers. (If anyone out there reading this thread knows more, please feel free to add your knowledge and correct any errors I'm making. BSH?)

Regarding whether to take a shot opportunity or continue in the hope for a better one -- as with all things, I suppose you try to strike a balance between being patient enough to find the best shot and not pushing yourself so far into the clock that you're in a bind. In my view, I'd like to see 2-3 passes minimum (4-6 would be better) before taking a shot since that's more likely to get a defense out of position. I suppose this is one of the things that takes time for players to get comfortable with. If you run a set play to get Richard Hamilton a shot curling off a screen, then he knows he's supposed to take that shot. In the free-flowing nature of the triangle, that won't be as clear.

I think your offensive rebounding question is a great one. My first inclination is to say that greater spacing by players could lead to open lanes for active players to get offensive rebounds. It also seems logical to me that spacing players around the court puts some of them farther from the basket, though those players are likely to be the ones falling back on defense. I don't know enough to say whether offensive rebounding is an inherent liability in the triangle, an advantage, or neutral compared to other offenses. The Lakers are 8th in offensive rebounding this year, and Minnesota is 10th, though I'm not sure what that means.

I'm enjoying the conversation, and I hope you are too. I have stuff to do, so I won't be posting anything more until later tonight. I intend to address Sam's question (why does the triangle work, not just how does it work) then.

Outside

Outside & beat,

Although I am not involved in this discussion, I am enjoying reading your posts.

Outside, don't sell yourself short, I think you have a good amount of knowledge on this subject, and it is easy to understand your points.

Pete

Watchin the Lakes play the Bulls and trust me the "triangle" is right out the window when it's close. Kobe has taken their last 4 shots. It's get the ball to Kobe and let him hog it.

Tight game. welcome to the road Lakers.

They got two guys on their bench who give them positive minutes. Brown and Odom. Tonite it's all about Kobe.

Lakers as they stand are eminently beatable. Stop Kobe control Gasol and force the other guys to beat you. Same ol song. They dont have any shooters and their bench is non existent.

One night granted. And they are very very good. BUt unbeatable. Nope.

Sam wrote:Outside,

In general, I've found that discussions of the triangle offense do a great job of describing how it works but not so great a job explaining WHY it works. It's the "why" in which I'm most interested. I exactly what ways does it purport to do a better job than other approaches of freeing up guys for good shots (which is really the name of the game on offense)?

Suppose Phil coached the Celtics with their current personnel. (Oops, I just ground seven of my teeth down to the gums.) The Celts have some pretty proficient players with good basketball IQs and passiing abilities. Would he impose the triangle on them? What would be gained and lost versus their current approach?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot and asking you to answer, as these questions are intended as hypothetical to clarify the nature of my curiosity.

Sam

Sam,

I've thought about how to best address your question -- why the triangle is effective rather than how it works. As I mentioned before, I'm not an expert on the triangle, but I'll do the best I can.

I think the triangle offense itself is just a means to create consistent player spacing, movement without the ball, and passing while putting players into good offensive positions. Any offense that does that can have the same effect.

Did you read the site I referenced previously? (www.raptorschat.ca/forums/index.php?showtopic=14440) The introductory material at the top has a lot of good information about the triangle, particularly the Basic Philosophy and Principle of Spacing and Spots sections. It explains key elements and why they are important. The first diagram (Initial Alignment) shows the basic positioning, and you can see that it puts players in good offensive positions and creates good passing lanes. (I actually remember the strong side post player -- usually Gasol -- being higher toward the free-throw line, sort of mid-post, than what's shown in the diagram, but that achieves the same effect.) Forget all the detail stuff that comprises the rest of the information on that page.

The key thing to me is spacing and positioning. By positioning the players like it does, the triangle creates open passing lanes from the player with the ball to at least three of the other players. It allows for a good entry pass to the post from the 1, 2, or 3. That may not seem like a big deal, but if you look at most offenses, the passing lanes are more cluttered, you can't make the post entry from as many positions, and it's easier to help on defense because players aren't spaced as well. If the defense double-teams someone, there should be a player open with at least 15 feet to the nearest defender.

Sorry, but I'm going to refer to the Lakers offense in the playoffs last year. What I remember seeing a lot is someone left alone on the perimeter (Ariza and Fisher come to mind) for an open three. That's what happens when the defense collapses to help on, say, Kobe or Gasol. If the defense "stays at home" so that everyone is on their man, the spacing allows for individual mismatches in the post (Gasol last year, Gasol and Bynum this year) and open lanes for a driver or cutter (like Kobe and Odom). Again, if a defender rotates to help against a driver or cutter, that leaves someone else open, either for an interior pass or a kick-out three.

Of course, there should always be someone open whenever the defense rotates or double-teams, no matter what offense is running. They key advantage to the triangle is that it maintains spacing and positioning so that the open player should be as wide open as possible and the passing angles should be as good as possible.

Player spacing is so important that you don't see much screening at all (mostly just by a player moving without the ball rubbing off a post player on his way to another spot). A traditional man-to-man offense uses screens to get players open, but the triangle primarily uses spacing to get players open. Screening for the player with the ball would be a negative in the triangle because that means players aren't spaced properly, allowing multiple defenders to defend the player with the ball and shutting down passing lanes to other players. You don't see the Lakers do the high screen/roll like many teams do.

I'm sure there are other offenses that can achieve the same results of spacing and good player positioning while having continual options for ball movement and movement by players without the ball. My guess is that there isn't an offense that does it any better.

To summarize, the key reason why it works is its player positioning -- putting players in optimal positions to shoot, drive, and pass -- and spacing, which opens passing and driving lanes, creates individual mismatches, and makes it difficult for the defense to double-team and help.

As to your question about what would happen if Phil coached the Celtics, other than my initial mixed-metaphor thought about a flying pig carrying a snowball in Hell, I'd have to say that the Celtics would probably be affected less than most teams because they're used to sharing the ball and spacing the floor. Trying to impose the triangle in Cleveland or Miami, now THAT would be interesting.

Outside

Outside,

Wow, I feel guilty that you went to all that work to give such a great explanation. I believe I understand the concept ten times better than previously.

Ironically, one of my sources of confusion was how the triangle allows for good spacing and high screens simultaneously. The main reason for my interest was that I have felt that the offensive tactic to which the Celtics have been most vulnerable has been the high screen and roll.

But I'm a big devotee of spacing too. The spacing of so many teams (including the Celtics from time to time) seems to break down so easily that a system emphasizing spacing makes some sense.

I'm not at the point where I'd like to see the Celtics using the triangle, but I will certainly have more to watch for when they play the Lakers, thanks to your thoughtful description.

Thanks a lot,

Sam

Sam,

Actually, it was a great benefit to me. Doing a little research and putting the explanation into words helped me understand it much better. Besides, as you can probably tell, I enjoy this game of basketball and like discussing stuff like this.

Outside

Outside,

Fantastic!! I'm ready for the final exam!! That's what I'm talking about. Now I think I can watch the Lakers w/o just hating them throughout the game, flipping SmugFace Phil off and hoping they will lose! Well, OK, I think I can still do the above AND watch for the intracacies of the triangle offense. I'll try my best. Thanks again. db

P.S. Bulls played well enough to win last night, or at least deserved to win. Fell apart in the last few minutes. They looked inspired. Glad we got out of there when we did. GM must have gone in there and said, "We ain't firing Vinnie yet, so start @$&%^& playing for what we're paying!"