tom thib's "D" vs. tex's "triangle offense"

[noelmayo]

     just for purposes of discussion, we all know who turned out to be on top...but for so many years, tex's triangle has been totally dominating the league most especially under phil jackson's tutelage, but near the end of the 2008 finals, it seemed that it has already lost its magic and seemed vulnerable especially to the "now" vaunted "D" formulated by tom thibodeau...the triangle seemed obtuse as what it has been described especially when its odom and gasol running it...does it depend on the people who are running it?would the bulls of yesteryears be able to function well as it did then, if put up against the celt's well orchestrated and swarming switches that seemed impenetrable when and where it mattered most (just ask kobe, lebron, rip and joe)?but for whatever its worth, a second of your thought and a ton of your ideas would be most welcome in this rather thrilling saga of the "new" nba...

[Chris]

Just to be accurate, this Defense was not "formulated" by Tom Tibodeau.  I heard Doc talking about it on the radio earlier in the season, but this is actually the same defensive scheme as Doc has always run.  It was a scheme that was originally from (I believe) Pat Riley, and Doc and Thibodeau both come from the Pat Riley coaching tree (I am not 100% sure it was Riley...but it was one of his contemporaries anyways).

And this is not to take any credit from Thibodeau, who may be the best coach in the world at implementing this defense because of his attention to detail, and teaching abilities.  But he did not invent it.

[crownsy]

I'm no expert on the triangle by any means, and will be intersted to hear some of our posters detail it out, but to me, the most glaring diffrence between those early laker and bulls teams was aggersion.

Odom and Espcially gasol played very passive for the most part. doesn't the triangle rely on people aggersivly attacking the hoop to draw defenders out of position?

that was my general impression anyway, but as i said, by no means am i an expert

[Brickowski]

As usual, Fran Frascilla does a good job of explaining this offense.

http://espn.go.com/ncb/2003/0128/1499926.html

[teddykgb]

I'm no expert on the triangle by any means, and will be intersted to hear some of our posters detail it out, but to me, the most glaring diffrence between those early laker and bulls teams was aggersion.

Odom and Espcially gasol played very passive for the most part. doesn't the triangle rely on people aggersivly attacking the hoop to draw defenders out of position?

that was my general impression anyway, but as i said, by no means am i an expert

As we near the draft, I can't help but equate the word "aggression" with the word "upside"...they're both vapid terms that explain almost nothing about what goes on on a basketball court.  The Lakers didn't lose because Gasol and Odom weren't aggressive...the team that scores more buckets always looks more aggressive.

Either way, the triangle is predicated on sharp cuts and crisp passing, and to be honest, in it's Bulls heyday it really was just good at getting Jordan the ball without a double team, while giving him a weak side outlet 3 should he run into trouble.  Kobe really reaps the same benefits, and it's made guys like Fisher very productive because they can stroke that 3.  Honestly, the triangle is more like a philosophy than anything else, it's just about creating disciplined spacing and forcing the defense to react to short crisp passes.  It also sets different screens than many of the other offenses out there, so defenses struggle to play them properly.  Like most offenses, it is always going to be as successful as the talents of the players who are playing it, and it's had the fortune of having some very talented players play in it in its history as an offense.

[crownsy]

I'm no expert on the triangle by any means, and will be intersted to hear some of our posters detail it out, but to me, the most glaring diffrence between those early laker and bulls teams was aggersion.

Odom and Espcially gasol played very passive for the most part. doesn't the triangle rely on people aggersivly attacking the hoop to draw defenders out of position?

that was my general impression anyway, but as i said, by no means am i an expert

As we near the draft, I can't help but equate the word "aggression" with the word "upside"...they're both vapid terms that explain almost nothing about what goes on on a basketball court.  The Lakers didn't lose because Gasol and Odom weren't aggressive...the team that scores more buckets always looks more aggressive.

Either way, the triangle is predicated on sharp cuts and crisp passing, and to be honest, in it's Bulls heyday it really was just good at getting Jordan the ball without a double team, while giving him a weak side outlet 3 should he run into trouble.  Kobe really reaps the same benefits, and it's made guys like Fisher very productive because they can stroke that 3.  Honestly, the triangle is more like a philosophy than anything else, it's just about creating disciplined spacing and forcing the defense to react to short crisp passes.  It also sets different screens than many of the other offenses out there, so defenses struggle to play them properly.  Like most offenses, it is always going to be as successful as the talents of the players who are playing it, and it's had the fortune of having some very talented players play in it in its history as an offense.

how bout we go with growning a set then? because odom and gasol didn't at any point in this series outside game 5.

they took jumper after settled for jumper, no interst in trying to go to the rim and take the hard foul from perk/brown/Kg that was waiting for them.

on the other end, we went to the rim and got knocked down and slammed around.

I don't care what you call it, one team seeked out contact, one cowered from it like a 8th grade high school team. that left no one cutting to the rim, which i am lead to belive is how the triangle flows.

[teddykgb]

I'm no expert on the triangle by any means, and will be intersted to hear some of our posters detail it out, but to me, the most glaring diffrence between those early laker and bulls teams was aggersion.

Odom and Espcially gasol played very passive for the most part. doesn't the triangle rely on people aggersivly attacking the hoop to draw defenders out of position?

that was my general impression anyway, but as i said, by no means am i an expert

As we near the draft, I can't help but equate the word "aggression" with the word "upside"...they're both vapid terms that explain almost nothing about what goes on on a basketball court.  The Lakers didn't lose because Gasol and Odom weren't aggressive...the team that scores more buckets always looks more aggressive.

Either way, the triangle is predicated on sharp cuts and crisp passing, and to be honest, in it's Bulls heyday it really was just good at getting Jordan the ball without a double team, while giving him a weak side outlet 3 should he run into trouble.  Kobe really reaps the same benefits, and it's made guys like Fisher very productive because they can stroke that 3.  Honestly, the triangle is more like a philosophy than anything else, it's just about creating disciplined spacing and forcing the defense to react to short crisp passes.  It also sets different screens than many of the other offenses out there, so defenses struggle to play them properly.  Like most offenses, it is always going to be as successful as the talents of the players who are playing it, and it's had the fortune of having some very talented players play in it in its history as an offense.

how bout we go with growning a set then? because odom and gasol didn't at any point in this series outside game 5.

they took jumper after settled for jumper, no interst in trying to go to the rim and take the hard foul from perk/brown/Kg that was waiting for them.

on the other end, we went to the rim and got knocked down and slammed around.

I don't care what you call it, one team seeked out contact, one cowered from it like a 8th grade high school team. that left no one cutting to the rim, which i am lead to belive is how the triangle flows.

I disagree, they went to the rim plenty, and neither of them took very many jump shots.  All the shot charts are available on espn.com, but look at Lamar Odom's shot chart in the most important game of the series: game 4.  Lamar took 11 shots in the game, and all but 3 were within 5 feet of the rim.  If anything, a few jump shots may have helped his team.  Similarly, Gasol had 10 shots and all but 3 were within 10 feet, with the vast majority within 5.  If you define "aggressiveness" as taking the ball to the rim, then both of these players were doing precisely that.  The truth is they just didn't make the shots because there was a good defense waiting to contest even these close shots, and that is only going to be solved by more skill, not trying harder.  They're NBA players, they're trying for god's sakes.

edit: link to game http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/shotchart?gameId=280612013

[crownsy]

I'm no expert on the triangle by any means, and will be intersted to hear some of our posters detail it out, but to me, the most glaring diffrence between those early laker and bulls teams was aggersion.

Odom and Espcially gasol played very passive for the most part. doesn't the triangle rely on people aggersivly attacking the hoop to draw defenders out of position?

that was my general impression anyway, but as i said, by no means am i an expert

As we near the draft, I can't help but equate the word "aggression" with the word "upside"...they're both vapid terms that explain almost nothing about what goes on on a basketball court.  The Lakers didn't lose because Gasol and Odom weren't aggressive...the team that scores more buckets always looks more aggressive.

Either way, the triangle is predicated on sharp cuts and crisp passing, and to be honest, in it's Bulls heyday it really was just good at getting Jordan the ball without a double team, while giving him a weak side outlet 3 should he run into trouble.  Kobe really reaps the same benefits, and it's made guys like Fisher very productive because they can stroke that 3.  Honestly, the triangle is more like a philosophy than anything else, it's just about creating disciplined spacing and forcing the defense to react to short crisp passes.  It also sets different screens than many of the other offenses out there, so defenses struggle to play them properly.  Like most offenses, it is always going to be as successful as the talents of the players who are playing it, and it's had the fortune of having some very talented players play in it in its history as an offense.

how bout we go with growning a set then? because odom and gasol didn't at any point in this series outside game 5.

they took jumper after settled for jumper, no interst in trying to go to the rim and take the hard foul from perk/brown/Kg that was waiting for them.

on the other end, we went to the rim and got knocked down and slammed around.

I don't care what you call it, one team seeked out contact, one cowered from it like a 8th grade high school team. that left no one cutting to the rim, which i am lead to belive is how the triangle flows.

I disagree, they went to the rim plenty, and neither of them took very many jump shots.  All the shot charts are available on espn.com, but look at Lamar Odom's shot chart in the most important game of the series: game 4.  Lamar took 11 shots in the game, and all but 3 were within 5 feet of the rim.  If anything, a few jump shots may have helped his team.  Similarly, Gasol had 10 shots and all but 3 were within 10 feet, with the vast majority within 5.  If you define "aggressiveness" as taking the ball to the rim, then both of these players were doing precisely that.  The truth is they just didn't make the shots because there was a good defense waiting to contest even these close shots, and that is only going to be solved by more skill, not trying harder.  They're NBA players, they're trying for god's sakes.

edit: link to game http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/shotchart?gameId=280612013

trying and seeking contact are diffrent things. I have that game on tape, and gasol in paricular is called out at least twice by van gundy for settling for jumpers, which he did. Odom was taking hook shots falling away from the basket.

What your saying about everyone in the NBA trying to attack the rim is pateintly false. Some guys are more than happy to play the finness game (gasol) and some just don't seek contact (odom)

its the same at every level. on every team, in every league, there are players who go all out and don't care about getting hit, and thier are guys who would rather play the finess game. I hate to sound like brick, but that shot chart proves nothing. Ive watched that game 3 times now (best 12.99 ever, 6 games for one low price lol ) and there is no way you can objectivly say they were attacking when the celtics were comign back. its just not true.

that shot chart doesn't list type of shot. a jump shot from 5-10 feet out is still a jump shot. KG takes tons of fallaway jumpers in the key, is that seekign contact? of course not.

that doesn't make it a shot, but it isn't goign to the basket. that exists, its a real aprt of the game.

[Celtic]

I drew this before, and it's relevant again.

[libermaniac]

As usual, Fran Frascilla does a good job of explaining this offense.

Well, that's the only thing that bum does well.  He blew up the New Mexico program, taking a perennial top-15 program and setting it back 8 years.  He's not on my list of favorites.

[crownsy]

I drew this before, and it's relevant again.

TP then and TP now, still awesome 

[iowa plowboy]

For Rivers to say he implemented even a facsimile of the defense (or any other defense for that matter) that Thibodeau implemented is laughable.  Rivers is a nice guy, but his ego supercedes the obvious.  The disgraceful defensive exhibition of the three seasons previous to this one and every other season Rivers has coached speaks to that.

It helps to have Garnett to anchor anybody's defense.  But without Thibodeau, Boston's defense with Garnett would more resemble Minnesota's defense the three seasons previous to this one.  Decent, but far from outstanding.  

This is on Thibodeau implementing, and probably led by Garnett, the players buying into a completely different mentality.  Rivers gets credit for keeping the egos (other than his own) in check.  But defensively, Rivers was just along for the ride.

Vs the Triangle?  Again, it helps to have an athletic 7ft freak anchoring, and an energized Paul Pierce playing defense like he did under Jim O'Brien.  Paul, the last 3 seasons, defended like Tank Carter.  This season, he defended like Bruce Bowen.

[Chris]

For Rivers to say he implemented even a facsimile of the defense (or any other defense for that matter) that Thibodeau implemented is laughable.  Rivers is a nice guy, but his ego supercedes the obvious.  The disgraceful defensive exhibition of the three seasons previous to this one and every other season Rivers has coached speaks to that.

It helps to have Garnett to anchor anybody's defense.  But without Thibodeau, Boston's defense with Garnett would more resemble Minnesota's defense the three seasons previous to this one.  Decent, but far from outstanding. 

This is on Thibodeau implementing, and probably led by Garnett, the players buying into a completely different mentality.  Rivers gets credit for keeping the egos (other than his own) in check.  But defensively, Rivers was just along for the ride.

Vs the Triangle?  Again, it helps to have an athletic 7ft freak anchoring, and an energized Paul Pierce playing defense like he did under Jim O'Brien.  Paul, the last 3 seasons, defended like Tank Carter.  This season, he defended like Bruce Bowen.

Danny has said the same thing.  This is "Doc's defense".  The only difference is there are better players, and it is being run by Thibodeau rather than Tony Brown.  The actual system is the same as it was last year, just implemented much better.

There are also other teams in the league that run similar defensive systems, but they don't have the ability to focus on the details that Thibodeau has (nor do they have the horses to make it work).

[Who]

It was a scheme that was originally from (I believe) Pat Riley, and Doc and Thibodeau both come from the Pat Riley coaching tree (I am not 100% sure it was Riley...but it was one of his contemporaries anyways).

Dick Harter? I'm not certain but I believe it was him that started off Riley's defense.

[zerophase]

Just to be accurate, this Defense was not "formulated" by Tom Tibodeau.  I heard Doc talking about it on the radio earlier in the season, but this is actually the same defensive scheme as Doc has always run.  It was a scheme that was originally from (I believe) Pat Riley, and Doc and Thibodeau both come from the Pat Riley coaching tree (I am not 100% sure it was Riley...but it was one of his contemporaries anyways).

And this is not to take any credit from Thibodeau, who may be the best coach in the world at implementing this defense because of his attention to detail, and teaching abilities.  But he did not invent it.

yes your facts are correct. lets just hope thibodeau comes back next year...