Will a triangle team play most efficiently when there are three players on the court with most of the distribution? For example, If I believe I have four advantagous matchups when I am on offense should I choose three to give most of the distro to? Or should I just give more distro to each guy based on his matchup regardless of if that leaves me with only one guy with all of the distro or four or five guys with equal distrobution?

Based on the matchup.  You can still give all 5 guys equal distro in the triangle if they're all equal scorers.  The only small difference between handling of distro between triangle and motion/flex IMO is that you can better get away with having 1 or 2 guys who aren't good scorers on the court.  But you're always better off with 5 in a perfect world...

You need to get Coach Billy G in here for that one.  Dahs- actually I don't think you're correct about "better off with 5 in a perfect world."  If you have 3 equal good scorers that is just as effective as 5 equal good scorers in the triangle, while that is not true in the other offenses (this is info from coach billyg). 

I seriously doubt he (or any other good coach) would agree with that...

It is certainly the case that if you have only 3 guys who are good scorers in your lineup you are likely in better shape if you happen to be playing the triangle.  That doesn't mean that the ideal team wouldn't have 5 guys who could score the ball.  You lose more efficiency in the motion or flex by having guys who really can't score on the court, but again that doesn't mean it's not always best to have 5 scorers.  Of course, in the real world it's unlikely that you can have 5 perfect players starting.  I personally feel that in the triangle it is easier to give up scoring at 1 or 2 spots to maintain solid defense across the board.  But again - in a perfect world, on a perfect team, everyone could score the ball.

Ok well I found the coach billy g thread.

http://whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=450453&Page=1

Look at the first page and the long 2nd post from billyg.  If you don't want to read it he says "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".
 
(BTW this thread has some VERY useful info, I reccomend it to anyone and everyone.)

"As you need to be" and "as you can be" are not the same thing.

Aw c'mon Dahs ha you just won't give in will you :)?  "Do not see any measurable benefit"

I think I would look to exploit both angles. That is, have the distribution be between 3 scorers, but using the depth chart to exploit WHICH 3 scorers (assuming you have more than 3), are on the floor at the same time.

Posted by kashmir75 on 6/7/2012 11:11:00 PM (view original):
I think I would look to exploit both angles. That is, have the distribution be between 3 scorers, but using the depth chart to exploit WHICH 3 scorers (assuming you have more than 3), are on the floor at the same time.

This has been my experience as well.

Thanks guys, this adds more to my consideration than what I had been doing previously. Much appreciated.

I would think that it's pretty obvious that having five good scorers on a team is better than having three.  The more legitimate scoring options a team has, the harder they are to defend.  Instead of keying in on three guys defensively, you are now forced to deal with five.  Pretty simple math really.  Gotta go with Dahs on this one.