can someone explain the intricacies of the triangle offense to me?

if I were a player, it would make perfect sense to me to follow the teachings of Phil Jackson and Tex Winters, 2 men who have perfected a system to the tune of 9 titles. I would pick their brains for hours on end, study endless video tape, and get my teammates to the gym to practice the different variations of it for hours on end.

Basketball is all about winning. These men WIN. People remember WINNERS. Sadly, many players are too selfish and ego-driven to commit themselves to a system. Noone remembers how much money you make or how many points you average per game. To get 5 guys on the court who are in total harmony just seems like too much to ask these days.

[QUOTE=Sharas]well, topic like this requires better knowledge of Xs & Os than 98% of ISH posters have. including myself. that's why they're so rare. right now you've got the single digit number of active posters that really could wrote something meaningful on topic like this.[/QUOTE]


Most people are attracted to good storylines, and/or flashy plays. However, as I get older, I am somewhat distancing myself from being the fanboy that I once was. I can only handle so much off the court drama, and while crossover dribbles and slam dunks are fun to watch, I crave for a much deeper understanding of the game.

[QUOTE=Sharas]well, topic like this requires better knowledge of Xs & Os than 98% of ISH posters have. including myself. that's why they're so rare. right now you've got the single digit number of active posters that really could wrote something meaningful on topic like this.[/QUOTE]

It's the same for 98% of the subjects as well. So many people consider themselves experts when they can't even be bothered to read the article that they're commenting on, they just comment on a tiny piece of it that someone posts. THAT is the main problem.

It's not that people don't have the knowledge, it's that people don't want to make the effort to gain the knowledge.

Why would you post about something that you know little to nothing about? It's like if people coming in here and posting about the triangle offense, when they really don't know anything about it, what purpose does that serve other than to display their own ignorance? If those people didn't post, you'd have a hell of a lot more posts like this on ISH, with people asking questions about something they honestly wanted to know about, not some uninformed child with an agenda asking questions just to bait someone into an argument so they can tell them why they're wrong.

If more people posted about what they honestly knew about, and didn't post at all in the threads that they honestly don't know about, the internet as a whole would be a better place, and we could all sign Kumbaya around the glow of our monitors :D

[QUOTE=applejoe]Kinda like what Kobe does. Seems like the whole point of the triangle for the Lakers is to get Kobe a shot over 2 defenders. At times he goes through the motions just so everyone else can touch the ball too, but rarely do they get the benefits of the movement and spacing created from the offense.[/QUOTE]

No.. Kobe's teammates can't even make open shots, that's why the Triangle doesn't work. Jordan had some of the greatest shooters of all time in their positions on his team (Kerr, Grant), one of the greatest SF of all time, and smart players that know their role in all positions. That's why Jordan could afford to pass the ball and run the Triangle. That's why the Triangle worked to get 6 chips. If Kobe had those teammates, he'd get at least 2 by now.

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]The thing about the cross court alignment is that it isolates the two help side defenders as far from the action as possible, and in as useless a position as possible.

You'd get into it with a high screen between Rondo and Perkins, then move Garnett to the strong block with a cross screen, most likely from Pierce. Or use Garnett as the high screener, then back screen him to the short corner with Perkins, a screen the screener action. That should get Garnett the ball, mid post, and Rondo corner, Perkins high makes up the usual triangle.
The thing is, Garnett is going to instinctually inside pivot and face up. That renders doubles from Rondo's guy useless, because he's on his back. Doubling off of Perkins is only going to cover the top.
That creates the triangle between Garnett, and Allen/Pierce on the weakside. Any action off the ball on the weakside, like a cross between the two, should be enough to open them up a little.
The help is less likely to be too agressive off of those two, plus it's got less size, otherwise there'd be iso problems against either one. Should the ball get skipped, you have Pierce and Allen in a two on two situation, with the help coming off of Garnett having to cover more ground, because of the distance Garnett plays off the block. And the help would coming off of Garnett, which is a good thing.
You're asking him to make a difficult pass across the middle of the floor, but Garnett's length makes him one of the few people I could imagine pulling it off. Winter has talked about it with regard to Walton. Shaq's post position is much deeper, making that cross court pass less impactfull. And Jordan would have a more difficult time because he's shorter, plus he's playing one of the two spots you'd want that iso on the weakside for.

One of the problems the C's have with the traditional triangle would be their Centers on the weakside, who generally can't shoot, meaning you get an automatic double team. That's why the Bulls went after guys like Wennington. It's the reason Brian Cook can find a roll on the Laker's when he otherwise may not be in the league.[/QUOTE]

Just to get it right. You got the regular triangle on the strong side with the center up top, the PG in the strong side corner and the two swingmen on both wings. The strong side swingman cuts along the baseline, the weakside moves towards the top and if there isnt a viable scoring situation with those moves, the high post player will make a move towards either side and the only viable help is from the former strong side corner or the weakside wing? Is that it? Basically some sort of a triangle morphed into a 2-1-2 situation with two up top, a high post and two corner/wing players?

If that, I see how KG would fit well in there, since he can shoot it well from there, take a long stride towards the basket or pass it out if he gets the double team.

[IMG]http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/offense/triangle/TriangleBasicR.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE]Just to get it right. You got the regular triangle on the strong side with the center up top, the PG in the strong side corner and the two swingmen on both wings. The strong side swingman cuts along the baseline, the weakside moves towards the top and if there isnt a viable scoring situation with those moves, the high post player will make a move towards either side and the only viable help is from the former strong side corner or the weakside wing? Is that it? Basically some sort of a triangle morphed into a 2-1-2 situation with two up top, a high post and two corner/wing players?

If that, I see how KG would fit well in there, since he can shoot it well from there, take a long stride towards the basket or pass it out if he gets the double team.[/QUOTE]

I'm ending up with my strongside triangle being PG (Rondo) in the corner, my Center (Perkins) at the strong wing, almost in the high post, and my PF (Garnett) on the block. This is awkward, because it requires at least one of my bigs to by a good ball handler, at least in terms of decision making.
There's almost an infinite number of ways to get into that arangement. You can run pick and pop with Pierce and Rondo, then run a flare screen to the weakside from Perkins.

The advantage to this, as opposed to the usual triangle, is that it leaves both wings (Pierce and Ray Allen) on the weakside. This seriously diminishes the quality of help over there, as there isn't going to be much size. It also increases the firepower over there. So much so in fact, that the weak side really becomes the focal point of the offense. That's a really strange idea.

It only works if you have post player who's adapt enough a passer to make those cross court passes, and he has to play a bit off of the box in order to pull help away from those two after the ball gets over there. Shaq sits almost too deep in the post, and Jordan may be too small to ask to consistently make those passes.

The big secret behing the triangle is that it's not rocket science. It's mostly just a set around a post player, that's only real consistent requirement is to get the ball into him. After that, it's just a fill of those spots.

The trouble is that it requires a great deal of feel among the players in it. It rarely has specific call outs. It feeds off of a series of cuts, and off the ball screens, from which the post player essentially runs the offense, while the movement pulls attention away from him. Those cuts aren't called out like a specific play, they're much more instinctive. And that's why it's hard to run. You need at least three guys with some common ideas about how to approach a possession, without speaking. It can be done because the movement is pretty basic. It's mostly a combo of those cross cuts, and some flare screens, with some curl action run on the weakside, or from strong to weak. I ran some triangle in college, and always liked it.

Of the two pro triangle's that most people are used to, they're a little decieving. The Laker triangle fed off of a guy who was nearly impossible to stop at that time in the post. Those Laker teams weren't really displaying the triangle the way it's taught. The post play was much deeper, and the off ball stuff was more stagnant, mostly because of the quickness with which Shaq made plays, because he was so deep. There's not a ton of difference between the Laker triangle at that time, and the 4 out 1 in scheme Rudy T ran with the Rockets.
The Bull triangle was really genius. It was extremely unique in the way it was built. It was obviously built around the fact that Jordan was the best post scorer in basketball at the time. But it was further out than usual. It relied on even more strong side movement than usual, because Jordan was generally going to back out. And the weakside moved less, and was more pure shooter, to keep the help honest. It really required a special big, who could function on the strong side, but not in the post. So he needed to be able to pass, catch, move well, make decisions, and read his teammates, all while being willing to be that good and not have the ego to want those post touches. That's a tough player to find. Without that guy, you get both bigs on the weakside, now they both need to be able to shoot, and even then there's bigger help coming over to double. It's a fascinating lesson in team building.
Part of the Celtic problem with trying to run it like that was that they don't have a center to play the weakside. That big was going to be an automatic double every time. And with both Pierce and Allen on the strong side, you'd leave Rondo on the weakside too, leaving even less shooting.

One of the best pure basketball threads this message board has ever seen

its basically running horns a lot with your best post passer receiving the ball or running diamond with your 2 left players out of triangle. spacing is also very important. so its kind of bad to use it against zone. Real zone.

if you have 2 good, smart post players it can turn into nightmare for defense with all back screens.