falcolombardi wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:falcolombardi wrote:
Not to any particularly higher degree in comparision to bulls in era peers, no
So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is meaningful and somethingh worth questioning myself on this topic? Of course
Do i change opinions everytime a player says somethingh i disagree with? Not quite, i try not to rely on appeal of authority too much
Players say a lot of thoughts you and me would and do disagree with strongly, and you often have criticized them for it regarding how being a good player doesnt mean they are right in their basketball analysis plenty of times before
Plenty if not most players would say allen iverson was much better than manu ginobili and i dont think you change your opinion of either player based only on that any more than a player has to change their opinion if they happen to disagree with bem taylor or zack lowe at somethingh either
Ah, interesting. So let me draw a distinction here:
There are some things where the actual primary source experience of those who are actually on the hardwood is of paramount importance to me in trying to understand what happened, and there are other things where it isn't.
The experience of playing for a coach, or in a system, or with a teammate, or against an opponent, and all the qualitative stuff that goes with it? I take this very seriously.
The ability for those on the hardwood to take that experience and map it into an accurate and precise measure of how valuable a given player was on the court? I don't take seriously at all, any more than I take seriously the ability for human beings to crunch numbers on a massive scale in their head in a competition against computers.
The nature of what we're discussing then has a huge impact on how much stock I put into what players have to say, and that split between what a) they are truly the experts in, and b) what they aren't but still assume they are, is at the heart of why it's often so hard to convince sporting decision makers that they need to get religion on analytics.
The question of "Oh you think you know basketball better than NBA players?", is one I'd answer "There's much NBA players know better about basketball than I do, but there are particular niches that are more academic/intellectual/analytic where the methods that need to be used to drive optimization tend to require a more white collar background, or at least the willingness to partner with an open mind with the white collar folks."
But let me also say, I think there's probably space for us to better understand each other that acknowledges both what the players say and what you say.
When you talk about setting up isolations, that means setting up the stars, right? Meanwhile, it's the role players who tend to talk most about how unusual the triangle was for them.
Ron Artest talked about the triangle being like having to memorize a million plays - which is absolutely not how you're supposed to see the triangle as a player, but if you struggle to understand the core principles, well then every time you make the wrong move and get corrected can feel like another "play".
Here's a great set of role player interviews on the subject:
Inside the Triangle: what players told me
Six Bulls and one opponent share what makes the offense greatI won't quote all the stuff, but just to give the gist:
Bill Cartwright wrote:The triangle, similar to the Princeton offense, similar to Jerry Sloan’s offense, there’s a purpose of why you do what you do. And it’s activated by the defense. If the defense plays you one way, you have an opportunity to do something else. The ball movement is dictated by the defense. It’s really remarkable.
So ball movement, player movement, and you’re going to get a pretty good shot. That’s what the triangle is all about. It’s greatest attribute is against pressure. The more pressure that you put on the defense and the defense puts on us, the better the offense is.
By the way, if you do catch the ball in the post, you are a passer first before you’re a scorer. It’s just that movement of the ball that’s going to generate the shot. Who knows who’s going to get a shot? But you’re going to get a good shot.
I think what's so noteworthy about this to me is the fact that Cartwright was the starting center on the Bulls playing the Triangle, but on the Lakers Shaq was the center, and Shaq obviously was never a pass-first guy in his basketball life.
So if you look to explain "the Triangle" in terms of what Shaq did playing under Phil Jackson, I think it gives the wrong idea. Jackson's stars had the freedom to break the Triangle as they saw fit, and while it's not like this never frustrated Jackson (he wrote a whole book venting about Kobe after all), Jackson also understood that he was looking to build around his outlier talents and that that meant his "Triangle" looked very different dependent on his stars and their preference.
Now, I do think that Jordan specifically buying in to the Triangle was an essential part of the transition from the Collins years, and helped unlock Pippen & Grant as all-star level performers, so while Jordan certainly could break out of the team offense at any time, he really did get behind a scheme where he was less ball-dominant than before.
With Shaq & Kobe though, I'd say they never actually bought in to the Triangle to the same degree, so the team success of Jackson on the Lakers was less about "the Triangle" and more about a) both Shaq & Kobe being incredibly talented on a level beyond any Bull other than Jordan, b) Jackson being a legendary coach already who when he joined the team had the stature to get Shaq temporarily excited about getting in better shape and taking defense seriously, c) Jackson specifically being the coach of Kobe's role model, which gave him more credibility when pushing Kobe to be more of a team player, and d) Jackson really being ahead of the curve when it came to recognizing great role players who could thrive in a read & react scheme.
Not that the Triangle wasn't there in LA, as we absolutely saw various guys struggle with it - some who flamed out (including previous all-stars like Glen Rice & Gary Payton), and others like Artest who never figured out how to make effective decisions in it and left fans thinking "No!" whenever they did the wrong thing but who had enough other strengths to make themselves indispensable n Jackson's eyes.