Wasn't expecting this team to be world beaters, so we can dispose of that. That being said, I wasn't expecting the team to be this horrid either. Any ideas for linups, distribution, anything at all now that this season is pretty much gone? I'm scratching my head here.

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=4562

Player is killing you at PG I feel like, in my experience a player like Taul would be better starting there with Player off the bench, probably 1-1 ast/to.
I would try to get Brittain down to about 8-10 minutes but keep a high distribution. 
Then I would try to use Black a little more at SG as a back up in addition to SF, I think he may score well there, at probably -1.
With those minutes you free up at the SF position I would get Chagoya some more playing time, he seems like a solid scorer, just not getting a ton of minutes. 
Short is probably your best scorer and should be high scorer like he is, but a good C should be shooting in the mid 50% even if he's the #1. So evening out your distribution a bit more may make him more efficient, and help the team score better.
For distribution I would have: #1 Short (I start with 10), #2 Brittain low minutes so you want him shooting (10, 0 3pt), #3 Taul if you do go with him at PG (8, -1), #4 Colangelo (7, -2), #5 Black (6, -1), #6 Chagoya (6, -2), #7 Hirano (6, -1) and I would have the rest of the guys between 2-4 with Moseley at 0.
Honestly looks like one of your bigger problems may also be I.Q. so it could just be a matter of time before the team improves. 

Admittedly there are two double overtime and an overtime losses, so some of it is probably just one of 'those' seasons. Where no bounces go the right direction.

PG: Taul | Brittain
SG: Player | Hirano
SF: Colangelo | Chagoya
PF: Mosley | Gross
C: Short | Clore

I'd drop Short's and Player's distro, up Colangelo's distro but stop shooting 3's with him. Brittain is the only one who I'd have shooting 3's.

Colaangelo is hitting 38% on threes. That is hardly hurting me. Black is hitting almost 40%. Why would I want to stop 38% and 40% from shooting any threes?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/2/2014 7:08:00 AM (view original):
Colaangelo is hitting 38% on threes. That is hardly hurting me. Black is hitting almost 40%. Why would I want to stop 38% and 40% from shooting any threes?

Because I believe that they would be more efficient scorers if they weren't shooting 3's (or at least fewer 3's). Colangelo has fairly few attempts so I'm convinced that his high percentage is a result of small sample size and he also has the ability to score as a driver, cutter, and in the post so I'd have him at -2 and allow him to better utilize all of his scoring abilities. I might keep Black on a -1 setting but I also wouldn't have him playing on my team.

From a zoomed-out perspective, I think your main issue is just that your team is lopsided.  Your littles are all sophomores, with one exception - and he doesn't have IQ's in your system.  They haven't developed enough to adequately support your upperclassmen bigs.  Factoring in IQ's, I can make an argument for Mosley being in your PG rotation.

The biggest deficiency on that team is that the player's are not well-suited to playing a triangle & zone.   Mosley & Clore, for instance, are great players that are wasted, while Zettlemoyer, Brittain, Chagoya & Gross don't belong at D2 at all.  I think you need to decide whether you are really committed to recruiting for that system.   If you like recruiting players like Colangelo, Mosley, Player & Clore, then start practicing motion & man right now!   Either way it's youth movement time.  You can switch it up when you get to the conference tourney, but you need to focus on developing your players at this point.  

You could also improve that team by putting a rubber band on your wrist.  Anytime you think of setting tempo to "up", you should crank back on that rubber band and let it smack down on your wrist...hard!  That'll help.   You should also notice, with that woeful rebounding, that playing 3-2 at + is out of the question and that team doesn't have a C to play 2-3, so that's out of the question altogether.

Last, as to development and depth, I think the idea of taking Player away from PG is insanity (that answer is different once you get to the CT).   I would set him to -1 and give him equal distro to Short.  Let Black (and Brittain) come off the bench to shoot threes to keep teams honest, but go like this:

PG - Player, Taul, Brittain
SG - Hirano, Black, Taul
SF - Colangelo, Black, Taul, Chagoya
PF - Short, Mosley, Chagoya
C - Clore, Mosley, Gross, Short

In the offseason, give Zettlemoyer & Brittain the shaft and don't be afraid to take a walk-on or two (assuming you stick with that system).  Good luck.

Curious why you wouldn't move Player Rogelio... I think he'd be much better at SG with his athleticism and lack of any real PG skills. His speed is good, much better than the rest, but was clearly turning the ball over way more than any PG should and he's clearly not getting very many assists. 

Posted by mikvitu on 12/2/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):
Curious why you wouldn't move Player Rogelio... I think he'd be much better at SG with his athleticism and lack of any real PG skills. His speed is good, much better than the rest, but was clearly turning the ball over way more than any PG should and he's clearly not getting very many assists. 

A lot of that is that the team's offensive IQs are poor and a great deal of uptempo has been played.   Sure, Player has a bad passing rating, but if you look further, he is improving well (for a low 30s WE guy) in every PG category.   I think, if you played Hirano and Taul at PG, they'd have a lot of turnovers, just based on a huge speed disadvantage (that their ratings would otherwise reflect at this point).  

Let's say you took aejones' rule of thumb on guards; the only "D2 guards" on that team are Player = 143; Mosley = 141; and Colangelo = 131.  I am of the opinion that 20 points of passing doesn't overcome the value of 30+ points of ATH/SPD.   Heck, I'll double down.  Here's the starting lineup: PG - Player; SG - Colangelo; SF - Mosley; PF - Short; C - Clore.   Then slow the ball WAY down!  Bring Black off the bench to shoot 3s and give Brittain & Zettlemoyer the shaft right now.   

a couple things. first, most of what rogelio said is sound, but i think starting two guards with sub-40 passing is borderline insane. even mosely at pg id take before player or colangelo. the thing is, you have a set of players you are going to have to play, and passing is by a good margin the most important attribute for a pg - you have to line that passing up with the pg spot, as there is huge diminishing returns on that passing as you move down the chart. the ath and spd, not so much - you could argue the returns are actually higher at the 2/3 in general on ath/spd than at the 1. i am usually for "putting the best guard at pg" but that is really as tie breaker in my book (which is often when these questions come up). but this is not a tie breaker kind of situation to me.

that said, for growth purposes, with a team like this, do whatever is best for growth. but you can't just give brittain the shaft, if you care about success. he should be the biggest contributor on the team, as the only player with offensive talent. i guess short too, kind of, but not really.

i get where you are going with the triangle/zone thing, but really, this assortment of players fits nothing. the expectations are out of line, expecting much out of these guys, and the overall rating of the team greatly overstates the quality. the fundamentals of the game trump set dynamics, even though the set points are pretty valid and i generally agree, they are outweighed by things like making sure you get *some* quality in key areas like offense and guard skills. this team being devoid of offensive talent and a point guard is a hell of a lot more important than those few guys really suiting motion/man better, no matter how true it is. the reality is, this group of guys fits no system, at all, because all systems still rely off the same fundamentals like having bigs who can rebound, point guards who can pass, and *someone* (actually a few someones) who can score. although with the lineup you suggested, it would be way better in motion/man. so i agree, in a lot of ways, mostly because this is probably a NT motion/man team, but they just still aren't built for the game fundamentals, in any system.

so, OP, that is my answer... its a young team, and they don't really fit, so you can't evaluate individual talent here and expect result in line with individual talent, because the whole in this case is less than the sum of its parts. i don't mean to be harsh, but that is just the reality of the situation. team planning is THE most important part of the game, and this is a great example of it. some of these guys are talented and will be good eventually, but without any upperclassmen leadership in the back court, you are really just in bad shape team-wise. that is true for most teams with inexperienced back courts. i think you just have too high of expectations because you are looking at the individuals more than the team. also, jack brittian way up, 20 maybe 25ppg, maybe you will have a shot of competing on offense then. you could just go for def/reb and only compete on one end, and you could be quite good at those things, but i think you are guaranteed to suck if that is the plan. i think your best bet would be to suck it up and start britian and just try to have him carry the load, and then focus on reb/def from the 3-5. or 2-5. britain at pg probably makes sense so you can play your guard-ish but terrible passers at the 2 and 3.

just for the record, your team definitely can be more competitive with what you have, and should be, but i still think you are probably over estimating them. that said, a lineup of britain taking most of the shots at pg, then four of player, congelo, mosely, short, and clore, could work out pretty well. you have to live and die by britain to have a chance of being competitive at both ends. with that setup, you should be a lower end post season team, i'd think. honestly, if you go with rogelio's lineup, you might be better off playing motion even with no IQ.

edit: this is really a terrible post, but i am too tired to fix it, so please just ignore and forgive the terrible parts and take the advice which at its core i think is sounds, if you forgive the awful presentation of said advice.

Oh, I was expecting perhaps close to break even with the mismatched set of talent. I just wasn't thinking five and eleven. I wasn't estimating anything great, just not that su.cky. I quite realize I mis planned with the guards and a few players stopped developing in areas earlier than I thought they would. So trust me, I'm not overestimating them. But I was expecting a muddy struggling back and forth break even year instead of the epic suck I got. Of course, I suppose if the two double OT and the regular OT game had gone the other way I'd have pretty close to that.

I even said "I don't expect them to be world beaters, but didn't think they were THIS bad)

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/4/2014 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Oh, I was expecting perhaps close to break even with the mismatched set of talent. I just wasn't thinking five and eleven. I wasn't estimating anything great, just not that su.cky. I quite realize I mis planned with the guards and a few players stopped developing in areas earlier than I thought they would. So trust me, I'm not overestimating them. But I was expecting a muddy struggling back and forth break even year instead of the epic suck I got. Of course, I suppose if the two double OT and the regular OT game had gone the other way I'd have pretty close to that.

I even said "I don't expect them to be world beaters, but didn't think they were THIS bad)

i hear ya... i think there are some good suggestions here you could use to get your team playing at break even level. i actually would consider them a low end post season team going into the season, myself. its a shame all the talent is in the wrong places - like, if you have a team without a ton of talent, you really want a couple guys who can take the team on their back and carry the load, but strong defenders and rebounders are more glue guys that can do their particular job well and have an impact, but its really like making 1/5th of the team better on the defensive side, where as a killer scorer can make the team WAY better on the offensive side. i do think you can still turn things around if you go for a def/reb heavy lineup that features that scorer dude prominently, even though its probably too late to make a run at the post season. but you could have a shot at the CT maybe?

For some reason, also, i can build flex teams, i can build motion teams, I can build fast break teams ... But when intry triangle i always get a muddle. Which makes me stubbornly try it again...

I'll be checking back on this thread for more advice, as I just took over my first triangle team.  It needs better passing all around, but the description reads like it's only slightly different than motion in terms of selecting the side of the floor and the shooter for a scoring play.