I have heard that when running triangle you should pile the distro on the best 3 players you have with at least one of those being a post player. I don't know if it's true or not but I have heard this. Are there any distro guidelines for the motion? Would it be even across the board? Or would you give the most distro to your best player or players? any help is appreciated. 

Anyone?

Triangle doesn't have to be piled onto 3 players, like any other offense it's best when you balance to all 5.  All your perimeter players should be good at BH, passing, and shooters, and you should have at least one scoring big man. It helps if both can pass.  It's best if your offense is balanced (I know this probaly didn't help but I think you're over thinking it, there isn't great variation between offenses).

I guess. I'm known for over thinking.

NO!! don't drink the cool-aid. offenses do matter. i know this is something the bulk of veteran coaches disagree with me on - and as a result - ive really thought about it a lot - but i maintain my position (thought a lot about why we might disagree - typically, i figure if me and a bunch of knowledgeable guys disagree, with them all agreeing against me, im probably wrong. but in this case, i think i understand why that is, so i maintain my position). 

i had a post, like at least 1 year, probably not more than 2 years ago, probably under this ID, but maybe gillispie. you may be able to find it. i commented in someone else's thread i think, about offenses. or maybe i made my own thread in response to some thread, so it could be found more easily? anyway, i put a ton of info in there about the differences between motion and triangle in particular, and i believe i commented on some of the other offenses too. im not sure if you can find it, i spent a couple hours (at least 2, maybe 4) putting that together, and i remembered WAY more about my super-intense time of playing this game than i do now. i was a far better coach back then. so, i could try to re-create, and ill happily answer some specifics for you, but i guess if you would be interested in spending 5 minutes looking for that thread, id be interested to know if you found it before answering anything, lol - if you found it, that would certainly give you better info. either way... ill probably drop in tomorrow to answer your question specifically...

I think more more important than the offense you run is the makeup of your team in a given season.

Some years your roster may lend itself to a balanced attack. Other years you may have two really good senior scorers and a significant dropoff after that, etc. etc. You should tailor your gameplan/distro to the strengths and weaknesses of your team.

If you set aside distro for a moment, and just speak to lineups, I always wanted a lineup type to work for a specific offense.  In my experience, the following player types are the most commonly used in HD, in order.  I am not saying that the player is always labeled by PF or C like the table, more the type of player, a C type player tends to be slower, better SB, better REB, worse guard skills than a PF type player for example.

1 - PG SG SF PF C
2 - PG SG SG PF C
3 - PG SG PF PF C

Early in the game, I always hoped I could assign an offense type to a set, for example motion works best with set 1, flex with set 2, triangle with set 3.  I just have found no evidence that proves that theory over what Girt said, play your best players in the best lineup you can come up with.

To answer your question about distro vs offense type, again, I'd hoped one offense would prove needing most even distro, one the most uneven, or one even works best with guard orientation (say flex), one with big man orientation (say triangle) and one with even orientation (say motion).  Again, I have my guesses, but I have found no evidence that trumps giving my best players the most touches, which supports Girt's theory

I use the same distro and line up system for all 3 systems, I currently have 8 d1 teams, 2 run flex, 2 run triangle, and 4 run motion.  My teams start
PG  SG SF PF PF - motion, best player is SG, but everyone is pretty equal except PG
PG SG SF SF C - motion, best Players are SF playing PF and SG
SF SG SG PF C - triangle, best players are C & PF
PG SG SF PF PF - flex, best Player is PF playing C and PG
PG SG SG SF C - triangle best player are SF playing PF and SG playing SG
PG SG SG PF PF Motion best players are two SG's
PG SG SG SF C Flex best player is SG playing SF, 2nd best is SG
PG SG SF PF C - motion best players are PG, SG and C

I do not deny that there is a best system to run three guards, or up tempo, or high distro to the SG or to the backcourt, etc & that one might tailor recruits to fit the system.  But much like defense, the same players that work well in FCP, work very well in zone, the key is to get the talent.  That by the way, is very true in real life.  My son has been coaching AAU for 3 years now, his current roster has nearly half kids who will play college oin scholorship, 15 to 17 year olds.  These kids know how to pretty much run everything, you call out 1-3-1 half court, they match themselves up into positions very well, you call out 4 out motion, dribble drive motion, swing, flex, they can run it, they get into the right spots without any coaching.  It is real life that talent trumps sets, but that to optimize things, the best set gets coached into that talent.  But this is a subtle thing, not an overriding theme.  That seems how HD works to me.

Posted by coach_billyg on 1/24/2012 12:47:00 AM (view original):
NO!! don't drink the cool-aid. offenses do matter. i know this is something the bulk of veteran coaches disagree with me on - and as a result - ive really thought about it a lot - but i maintain my position (thought a lot about why we might disagree - typically, i figure if me and a bunch of knowledgeable guys disagree, with them all agreeing against me, im probably wrong. but in this case, i think i understand why that is, so i maintain my position). 

i had a post, like at least 1 year, probably not more than 2 years ago, probably under this ID, but maybe gillispie. you may be able to find it. i commented in someone else's thread i think, about offenses. or maybe i made my own thread in response to some thread, so it could be found more easily? anyway, i put a ton of info in there about the differences between motion and triangle in particular, and i believe i commented on some of the other offenses too. im not sure if you can find it, i spent a couple hours (at least 2, maybe 4) putting that together, and i remembered WAY more about my super-intense time of playing this game than i do now. i was a far better coach back then. so, i could try to re-create, and ill happily answer some specifics for you, but i guess if you would be interested in spending 5 minutes looking for that thread, id be interested to know if you found it before answering anything, lol - if you found it, that would certainly give you better info. either way... ill probably drop in tomorrow to answer your question specifically...

Thanks coach, I will definitely search your post. I heard the triangle was best with three of your best players getting the most distro and passed the info along to a friend who runs the triangle and he started winning games. He was giving even distro to his player across the board at first then did a 20-20-20 distro with his best players and started winning. His othe players who had distro taken away actually scored close to the same amount of points which kind of lead me to believe there must be some formula as to best run different schemes. Maybe it's coincidence he actually started turning his season around winning games with this philosophy idk but I thought I'd ask the vets here and see what the consensus is.

Posted by oldresorter on 1/24/2012 9:16:00 AM (view original):
If you set aside distro for a moment, and just speak to lineups, I always wanted a lineup type to work for a specific offense.  In my experience, the following player types are the most commonly used in HD, in order.  I am not saying that the player is always labeled by PF or C like the table, more the type of player, a C type player tends to be slower, better SB, better REB, worse guard skills than a PF type player for example.

1 - PG SG SF PF C
2 - PG SG SG PF C
3 - PG SG PF PF C

Early in the game, I always hoped I could assign an offense type to a set, for example motion works best with set 1, flex with set 2, triangle with set 3.  I just have found no evidence that proves that theory over what Girt said, play your best players in the best lineup you can come up with.

To answer your question about distro vs offense type, again, I'd hoped one offense would prove needing most even distro, one the most uneven, or one even works best with guard orientation (say flex), one with big man orientation (say triangle) and one with even orientation (say motion).  Again, I have my guesses, but I have found no evidence that trumps giving my best players the most touches, which supports Girt's theory

I use the same distro and line up system for all 3 systems, I currently have 8 d1 teams, 2 run flex, 2 run triangle, and 4 run motion.  My teams start
PG  SG SF PF PF - motion, best player is SG, but everyone is pretty equal except PG
PG SG SF SF C - motion, best Players are SF playing PF and SG
SF SG SG PF C - triangle, best players are C & PF
PG SG SF PF PF - flex, best Player is PF playing C and PG
PG SG SG SF C - triangle best player are SF playing PF and SG playing SG
PG SG SG PF PF Motion best players are two SG's
PG SG SG SF C Flex best player is SG playing SF, 2nd best is SG
PG SG SF PF C - motion best players are PG, SG and C

I do not deny that there is a best system to run three guards, or up tempo, or high distro to the SG or to the backcourt, etc & that one might tailor recruits to fit the system.  But much like defense, the same players that work well in FCP, work very well in zone, the key is to get the talent.  That by the way, is very true in real life.  My son has been coaching AAU for 3 years now, his current roster has nearly half kids who will play college oin scholorship, 15 to 17 year olds.  These kids know how to pretty much run everything, you call out 1-3-1 half court, they match themselves up into positions very well, you call out 4 out motion, dribble drive motion, swing, flex, they can run it, they get into the right spots without any coaching.  It is real life that talent trumps sets, but that to optimize things, the best set gets coached into that talent.  But this is a subtle thing, not an overriding theme.  That seems how HD works to me.

I'm gonna guess since you have more motion teams that maybe you've had more success with it or its just your favorite set. Out of the 4 teams, which is your favorite and despite lack of any unrefutable evidence, which team do you feel is the best?

there are some good points in here. i had half a response typed last night before falling asleep, which sadly now is too redundant. effectively, what i said is this - the offenses are most definitely different. but the thing is this - to make the most for an offense, you have to recruit right for it, and then set up that team right. just taking a random collection of players and trying to fit them to an offense, you just wont see much difference in the offenses. and while offense is a significant factor, you always have to play your players first, and the offense second.

i will take one paragraph from my post yesterday verbatum though - just was talking about motion vs triangle in particular - at one point i played 2 teams super intensely, had a motion, had a triangle team, both with press - and i played them quite differently. at that time i became convinced the offenses were significantly different because i played my teams differently enough, with enough positive feedback, that it could not be coincindence. anyway:

however, motion and triangle are pretty similar in some respects, like any offense. for example, in any offense, you always want your best offensive player to take the most shots. in any offense, more offensive players are better than fewer, holding all else the same. but the simple reality is that there is always a tradeoff, you can't hold it all the same. so usually you are giving up something for more offensive talent, and the different offenses have different sweet spots where that tradeoff starts to break even. for example, the 1st great offensive player you have in either set is going to be more valuable in triangle than motion, and the 5th great player is more useful in motion than triangle. but in both cases, if you can hold talent level constant (a critical assumption to this kind of analysis), you are always better to have 1 great offensive player than 0, and to have 4 than 5 (because that 5th, you always would be better with better def or reb etc). so, when i say things like, that 1st great offensive player is better in triangle, for a little perspective, that doesn't mean you'd give a player 20 ppg in triangle and 12 in motion. but it may be like, 20 ppg in triangle, and 18 in motion, or maybe as much as 25 to 20. the biggest thing i will caution you is this - playing to offenses is like game planning. it can be beneficial, sure, but if you aren't really looking for it, its easy to miss. and, if you arent really controlled in your changes, its REALLY easy to over compensate. i can't tell you how often you hear things like, play motion with 5 even distro players, or run triangle with 3 players even (both of which are very far off, generally speaking). you can very easily hurt yourself more than you can help yourself by overcompensating. so id advise caution and restraint when messing around with this stuff. you might have a set of 5 players, running motion, at a 14-12-10-7-5 distro, and the same 5 playing triangle might be 14-12-8-5-2. that is just rattled off, not exactly accurate. to me, that represents a substantial difference, but from another perspective, its quite subtle.

i will just add to that, if you take a talent level, take a team that is set up perfect (both in team planning, picking the players and their synergies, and in game planning) for motion, and switch them to triangle, and play that team against the same team running motion - the motion team probably wins 80% of the time. it really is quite significant. but that is with the right recruiting AND right team setup. as you learn, it might be a 55%/45% advantage, OR a 40/60% disadvantage! but that doesn't mean its not worth it.

anyway, enough non-concrete BS. so yeah, i agree with girt and OR. you have to play your players first, and the offense is definitely secondary. but that doesn't mean its not a significant factor. you asked specifically about triangle and motion. the 3 players even on triangle is a myth, there is absolutely nothing there. the reason that myth is spread around, IMO, is that 3 offensive players per lineup is often the best arrangement of players from a team planning standpoint - but not at the same distro. obviously, holding all else the same, 5 is better. but given the reality of tradeoffs, i find 3 to be great for triangle. motion you are really better off to have 4 guys who can contribute. not to say those 4 should be even. you always, in any offense, want your better players taking more shots. but to what extreme? in triangle, you can take a ******, 20lp big, and give him 0-1 distro, and it really doesn't affect your offensive efficiency. similarly, you can have 4 super stars, add a 5th, and not see any measurable benefit (ive been there, for sure). really, with triangle, once you get past 3, and maybe a 4th taking like a 5 ppg amount of shots, you are as efficient as you need to be. and 2 players can carry the load (on a single line up) pretty effectively. motion you definitely are less efficient with like a 12-10-3-2-0 type distro, that will wreck your efficiency. HOWEVER - if you have 2 great offensive players, and 3 ****** ones - that 12-10-3-2-0 in motion will always outperform a 8-8-8-8-8. no doubt, not even close. so, you want to think, how can an offense run effectively? and try to find players to optimize that. but, then, you have to play around your players primarily.

 so, to summarize - triangle is way more effective than motion with 1 or 2 players carrying the heavy load. 3 is ideal. motion starts to be efficient around 3 offensive players, honestly 3 strong offensive guys and 2 guys aroudn 5 ppg is fine. a 12-10-7-5-5 type thing is ok, you don't need 5 stars, or, just 1 terrible guy is fine too. but a 12-10-8-1-0 is not going to run great in motion. so its hard to draw hard lines, you need 3 players, you need 4, but im trying to give you a bit of a feel for it. once you get to 4 solid players or 3 solid with 2 decent offensive players, motion really hits its stride, and can be super effective. in any offense, you are always better to have your best player better than the rest (offensively), and to give him the ball more. so don't take it that way. i think people take it that way a lot of times and it really gives gearing your team for a particular offense a bad wrap. play your team first - but build them with an offensive in mind, or more accurately - with a system in mind. and then you can coach them that way, too. but the kind of things OR was suggesting, looking for an offense best for a set of players (PG SG SG PF C) or that kind of thing, it really doesn't work like that. its really more about the quantity of offensive players, and the extent to which you can take advantage of your stars, etc... all of the offenses, for example, can be extremely, extremely successful with a 3 guard set. or with a traditional pg, high scoring sg sf c, high rebounding pf. 

does that kind of make sense?

Yes very much so! Thanks coach this clears up a lot!

coachBG your information is always priceless!

Great job Coach I actually understand what you are saying and it actually makes sense.  Thanks for your knowledge.

One last question. Do you take stamina into consideration when assigning distro? I have a few guys who have vastly superior conditioning to other players and was wondering if their distro is valued more highly seeing that they can play longer. For instance if I have a guy with 90 stamina and 12 distro, would he be equivalent to another player with 78 stamina and 15 distro? I was thinking if the first player ends up running with bench players he may dominate the ball based on who's on the court and their given distro.

I just go off what HD defines the offenses. Example. It says in Flex you dont need a big man to be succesful. You need speed and passing. The flex spreads the floor to penetrate for open outside shots or drive and attack type offense. I real life. Flex is not like that.