ok. As in the title .. Yeah well. Every time I have tried to build a triangle team it falls flat. I have succeeded with motion/man, fastbreak/press, motion/zone ... Basically most other options I've tried. But not triangle. Lane is my attempt to more or less start from scratch in building one. I'll take any and all pointers in how to build a team for a triangle/zone. I am not proud. Next year I have six scholarships coming and, looking at the conference, probably a boatload of postseason money. Given that, two things ...

A: I know the team can't win, but as a mental exercise, if you were trying to maximize the output of this team playing triangle zone, what would you do(people who play triangle)?

Things such as differences in how to handle distribution in triangle, etcetera. The basic bit I glean is that you can support a few "offensive noncontributors" in a triangle lineup and concentrate your offense a bit more in fewer players ...

B: What, if anything, different should I be emphasizing for recruiting triangle players as opposed to what works with other teams I do in other sets?

I'm all ears on this one.

I took over my very first triangle team this season.  The only thing I know is that good ballhandling is supposed to be key, but then it's also key in most other offenses.  I didn't knock it out of the park on BH in the recruiting cycle just past,  but I'll keep trying.

I'm interested in answers to your question too, a_in_the_b.

My most success by far has been with flex, but I do have a title and another F4 with triangle (never made it past the Sweet Sixteen with FB). Honestly, I set the distro the same for triangle as I would for flex. I put it about where the relative qualities of my scorers demands, and I adjust based on performance. 

The difference is that I don't obsess over PER/PASS in triangle quite like I do in flex. In one of my triangle teams right now, my starting five guys are currently accounting for 29%, 13%, 10%, 9%, and 6% of my offense. With my other one, it's 24%, 14%, 11%, 9%, and 3%. Both of them have really been more of the "one star, three guys who can chip in, a couple more off the bench," rather than "three stars and a bunch of nothing." But that's just how it's turned out in recruiting. Both of my triangle teams right now just happen to have seniors who returned after leading the team in scoring their junior year, so it makes sense that the distro is skewed that way. But I'd do that in other offenses too if I had a player like that. 

The triangle focuses more on 1/2 stars and that allows you to recruit the rest of your players to A) play defense and B) get the ball to your stars.  That means passing is important, having that low bh/pas player at sf/pf/c will hurt as he will be a non-factor on offense even more as he won't even be able to get the ball to your star players.

PG needs high bh/pas

SG is my perimeter star

SF is defensive ace.

PF is my lp threat

C I like to have high ath/reb to cleanup the misses.

Then distro-wise I focus SG -> PF -> C -> SF -> PG  heavily focused on SG/PF

I prefer to not have my PG play a big part to limit to's.

The notion the Triangle is bad for Per is somewhat false, it is probably the most useful offense if you have 1 90+ perimeter guy, however a bunch of medium per rated guys(75 below) are better suited to share the load in a motion off.

The upside is that star players are utilized the most and take over games.

The downside is that if you don't have at least 1 offensive star it is the easiest to defend of all the offenses.

If you can consistenly get at least 1 offensive star who can be the focus of you offense 75+ LP 85+ Per then you should have a good team assumping you have good cores.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/8/2014 11:42:00 PM (view original):
ok. As in the title .. Yeah well. Every time I have tried to build a triangle team it falls flat. I have succeeded with motion/man, fastbreak/press, motion/zone ... Basically most other options I've tried. But not triangle. Lane is my attempt to more or less start from scratch in building one. I'll take any and all pointers in how to build a team for a triangle/zone. I am not proud. Next year I have six scholarships coming and, looking at the conference, probably a boatload of postseason money. Given that, two things ...

A: I know the team can't win, but as a mental exercise, if you were trying to maximize the output of this team playing triangle zone, what would you do(people who play triangle)?

Things such as differences in how to handle distribution in triangle, etcetera. The basic bit I glean is that you can support a few "offensive noncontributors" in a triangle lineup and concentrate your offense a bit more in fewer players ...

B: What, if anything, different should I be emphasizing for recruiting triangle players as opposed to what works with other teams I do in other sets?

I'm all ears on this one.

Don't overthink it, what works for one offense will work for another. Having said that, I'd also like to say that I've never, not even for a single season, had a team that ran FB so I can't speak to what works well with that one (just wanted to put that disclaimer out there even though the question isn't about running FB).

I really like the Triangle. I drink the Kool-Aid and believe that you can win with three shooters (although more never hurts). I feel that it is very important to have one or preferably two perimeter shooters. I don't particularly look for a shooter at PG and I have no problem with one big man who can't hit the water from a row boat. My ideal distro is 15%, 15%, 15% for SG, SF, Big. For the non-shooting PF/C, I try to focus on rebounding, shot blocking, and defense. Having a solid board sweeper is highly beneficial in this offense. (An example for all you baseball fans - think Ozzie Smith. Whitey Herzog said of him, I don't care if he doesn't drive in runs. He saves 100 runs a season in the field.)

Three shooters, as in one more than two not people who shoot three pointers, correct?

it's worth mentioning, the0nylsis, that flexibility in recruiting is also important. Don't get so locked into your preconceptions of roles that you miss useful recruits and try to find your perfect player for their position when that player isn't available. 

I just looked up my triangle/zone title team (not necessarily the best team I've had--actually very likely the worst title team I've had--but that's a fairly objective marker that it was a strong team), and my SG averaged 7.5 PPG and was primarily a defensive stopper. I basically had two scorers. My PG had 90 PER (as well as 75+ BH/P) and averaged 14 PPG. My PF had 70 ATH/90 LP and averaged 17 PPG. The other three starters averaged between 6 and 10. Usually, I don't expect my PG to be the primary backcourt scorer, but if it happens, it happens, and I'm perfectly comfortable playing a non-shooter at SG if I'm getting scoring elsewhere (my SG on my title team had 25 PER). 

I really do agree with emy though. Don't overthink it. I have noticed some differences (primarily with flex vs triangle, since I've run both of those extensively--high PER guys can dominate in flex, and high LP posts don't do nearly as much as you think they will), but by and large, a good player for flex is good for motion is good for triangle. The subtle differences are just that--subtle differences. They may be tie-breakers if you're considering a pair of similar players or considerations in the back of your mind as you recruit, but you don't turn down a good fake basketball player because they aren't quite right for your offense. I mean, I just mentioned how flex is all about the PER and gets relatively less out of LP. I've only ever won one D2 title, and it was a flex team that only had one player with 80+ PER and whose two leading scorers were a PF and a high SPD/LP/FT guard. That team was not tailor-made for that offense at all--it actually would've run much better in the triangle. But it still won because a good team is a good team. 

Exactly right Tarvolon, a good team is a good team regardless.

Side note, high LP players can be very effective in the Flex. Point of reference, check out Jose Rodriguez on my Post team. Right at 20.0 ppg on 56% shooting from the field. I can't give this guy ENOUGH distro. Last year I had the two-headed monster of him and a guy named Dikembe Abdella (who had pretty similar ratings) and those two by themselves basically carried my team to the Final Four. I've always seemed to be fortunate enough to have dominant big men with that Post team, but I also may have been unusually lucky too.

Huh. I have had some high-LP players do well in flex with high speed as well, but it's always been harder for me to get production out of posts in the flex than in the triangle. Have had multiple players in D3 with 60+ ATH and 80+ LP who were still averaging single-digit PPG at unexceptional efficiency their senior years. 

I usually have a top 60 SOS and am often in the top 25 FG% of D3 ,  my FG% avg is around .505% And i honestly don't know how exactly i do it or what i'm doing. i think it has something to do with me putting the value of Passing very high .  maybe has something to do with the dist. and having 3 guys that have the ratings you'd think would go good in the triangle,  some years my key offensive 4 or 5 has .600%

Agree with most here I have given up sweating the small stuff of the triangle. But feel you do need a lot of ATH and BH/P. In D2 I've started recruiting more "hybrid" post players and have had some success. Try to find those PF and SF that eventually develop a nice perimeter game. Having 3 great shooters, especially from your big men, seems like a good recipe for success. I've even found SF's before that during a career have played SG and PF. Makes recruiting more fun that way. Macro approach I guess. Seems to make the triangle run smoother. That being said I'm a career first round loser with a couple of sweet 16's to boot. I've hit my ceiling unfortunately.