I recently took over a couple of teams that run triangle for the offense. My question is this. Since in the triangle there are mainly 3 people running the offense, what do you do for the dist if your PG (best ball handler) is not a great perimeter shooter? If their dist is low, will they still be one of the 3 people in the triangle? Or should I just switch offenses?

I generally prefer my Triangle to consist of my SG, SF, and one of my bigs. When I recruit, I look at shooting from the PG as a bonus and I couldn't care less if they can't hit the ocean from a boat.

You don't need your PG to be a scorer.   I think it is actually MORE efficient if the non-scorers all have high passing ratings.   I keep meaning to try the  PG-PG- as role players in the triangles and have my 3-4-5 be the scorers but I can never seem to recruit that right.

really? i would think simply because your PG always runs your offense and it kind of trickles down that having your scorers be your guards and your small forward would be the most efficient triangle.  Less turnovers = more attempts that way.  For instance my california tech team has about three decent scorers but they all lean toward my bigs, and I score about 10 points less than some better scoring teams because of that.

My guess is that the event tree of a position goes something like:

1. Is there a turnover before the shot?  (which the PG weighs heavily in)
If no...
2. Who takes the shot?  
(based on matchups and distro)

3. Does it go in?
     (There are probably a gizillion components to this but the NON SHOOTERS' PASS ratings are probably a component)

thats my impression as well, which is why teams that have scoring guards seem to fare better offensively than scoring bigs.  but thats also kind of logical. as a big theres only so many places on the floor you can score from even if you are dominant athletically and have good low post scoring. with guards you can run to the basket, set up a shot, score from all over the floor if you have good per speed ath and bh.

the triangle offense does NOT work off 3 players in this game. yes, you want a 3rd offensive scorer more than you want just 2 on the floor, but its the same sort of bump you get anywhere else (and less than in motion, actually). there are significant diminishing returns the whole way as you add scorers, the first being the most important by a mile, and the 5th on the floor the least (the 5th player can actually approach 0 i believe, in terms of contribution in net offense, depending on the first 4). so, naturally, people zero in on that 3 scorer number - but you can place the same emphasis on the magic 3 number in ANY offense, although motion DEFINITELY noticeably hums better with 4 or 3 and 2 halves.

in terms of scorer, you ALWAYS want strong per scoring, so having low scoring at the 1/2 and higher scoring at the 3/4/5/ is never really what you want. i prefer my scorers to be ANY two of the 1-3 because thats where i put my strong per scorers, and one big - or even better - all 3 at the 1-3 plus half a scorer at the 5. per offense is overpowered in this game.

again, DO NOT try to relate HD's triangle to real life triangle. i studied real life triangle in decent detail because of ahalusa's (or whatever) offense thread and what he said it meant about triangle in game, and when i was killing it at SIUE (5 titles in 7 years, 14 straight elite 8s), i had already ruled out the possibility that this games triangle is based on real triangle. its just an offense where you can adjust disto unevenly between players, that thrives on strong perimeter shooting - in which high per ratings are key, with lower emphasis on spd than flex, lower emphasis on ball handling than motion (still high emphasis on both). of the 4 offenses, without a doubt, its triangle or flex who values per most highly, and i would give triangle the edge. big man play benefits significantly from per as well in triangle (and all offenses really), which is NOT something i believed for a long time - but then again, i never let my bigs score, so i never really noticed.

But in theory, aren't you better off having your best PASSERS not be the guys with the highest distro?  

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/25/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
But in theory, aren't you better off having your best PASSERS not be the guys with the highest distro?  

Yes, but that is true in any offensive set.

Posted by jbasnight on 10/25/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/25/2012 12:59:00 PM (view original):
But in theory, aren't you better off having your best PASSERS not be the guys with the highest distro?  

Yes, but that is true in any offensive set.

i disagree - but even if i agreed, id say well yeah, but thats a small factor, massively massively outweighted by this games' slant towards per scoring and also the major disadvantage you give yourself by being so 1 sided on offense in general.

anyway, i disagree, and quite strongly. think of passing as primary a turnover reducer. the more you shoot, the more you turn it over, so the more you need turnover reducing stats (bh and pass). for example, i value passing about 2x as much in a big who scores a lot, compared to one who doesn't (a lot on my scale of no bigs score a lot, i mean this might only be a 4ppg vs 10 ppg scenario in which i double the value of passing for that big). bh, id probably triple it for an offensive big with some per over a non-offensive big, because it not only reduces turnovers but increases his scoring ability, which passing doesnt do (well, it does, but not in a % sort of way - its like, getting you more shots/less turnovers, but it doesnt help in the way how bh does increase your fg% and 3pt% when you actually get the shot off).

honestly, if anyone reading this followed my many rants about the uselessness of individual assists for a pg, this effect really ties in. a high pass/spd/bh pg is going to help his team a lot no matter what his per/lp are. but if he scores a bunch, his assists plummet - but having specifically watched it, i dont think it takes away from the extent to which he helps his team mates get open looks. its hard to say for sure because introducing a scorer increases the efficiency of everyone else, but im pretty confident on this one (you know, by comparing like, 3 offensive lineups where the pg is or is not a primary scorer - i think the team is effectively in just as good of shape from a team mates fg% standpoint, assuming the pg doesnt have worse passing to get that offense, which is usually the case - but not always, often its just a defense trade which helps make the comparison).

Interesting, billy. What you're saying is the opposite of what I have found: That guys without the ability to score need to be able to pass to contribute. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a guy who can't score and can't pass (unfortunately, a lot of such recruits seem to get generated these days) is pretty much worthless. With scorers, I've always found BH a lot more valuable than passing. (Edit: I guess you are saying the same thing--I just have never noticed the value of passing as it relates to a guy's ability to score.

Posted by jbasnight on 10/25/2012 7:57:00 PM (view original):
Interesting, billy. What you're saying is the opposite of what I have found: That guys without the ability to score need to be able to pass to contribute. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a guy who can't score and can't pass (unfortunately, a lot of such recruits seem to get generated these days) is pretty much worthless. With scorers, I've always found BH a lot more valuable than passing. (Edit: I guess you are saying the same thing--I just have never noticed the value of passing as it relates to a guy's ability to score.

jbas - of course, a guard who cant score and cant pass is pretty much useless. i 100% agree but that is sort of a different issue. well, if you include bigs in your statement - i really disagree - an elite reb/def big can have total **** lp/per/bh/pass and still kill it for you. anyway, to be clear, you say "guys without the ability to score need to be able to pass to contribute" is the opposite of what im saying. but the opposite of that statement is that guys can contribute without the ability to score or pass - and if you mean guards - i definitely am not saying that. what im saying is, if you have a good passer and a great one, both guards, both able to contribute - and one has the ability to really shoot it - id rather him be the great passer, too (for less net turnovers). ignore position in that statement, its a general one. so, my statement is the value of passing increases with scoring ability, and the opposite is, the value of passing decreases with scoring ability - which are both pretty different than your statement. so its entirely consistent for me to 100% agree that a guard who can neither pass nor score is worthless. 

so for example, just to be clear, because i dont think ive done a great job in that dept - say you have 2 guards, both start with good passing, mediocre offense, and mediocre defense. you can pick 1 to have good defense, 1 to have good offense, and 1 to have great passing - but you cant give either guy all 3. what im saying is, give the offense and scoring to the same guy, because he will do a better job containing turnovers, and basically no matter who gets the passing, the team mates are effectively benefitting equally from the increased offensive production it brings to them, and the better turnover rate it gives them (one players passing decreases turnovers of the whole team). and, give the guy who can neither score well nor pass greatly, the defense, because again, it doesnt really matter which guy gets it (forget about complex game planning scenarios). so the only real interaction there is that the guy who shoots more wants the passing, so that he can convert more attempts at shooting into shots, instead of committing TOs. 

and you are also correct that bh is a lot more important for scorers than non scorers, like you suggest in the edit, im saying the same thing. and i agree that it trumps passing - like i said - bh directly increases fg% and 3pt%, and cuts TOs, while passing just cuts TOs. so its pretty easy to miss - because you look at your scorer, and hes still pulling the same fg% and 3pt%. and usually our guards at least have solid bh/pass so the impact you might see from going from 2 to 2.5 TOs/game is probably going to result in about a 1ppg loss, and that TO margin corresponds to a significant increase or decrease in passing. in response, you might just up their distro, and never have really thought twice about the little extra turnovers - or you might never notice at all.

Huh.  Stuff like this makes me wonder if I could have won anything had I actually crunched numbers, or used spread sheets, or ran regressions, or did any of those fancy analytical things instead of just eyeballing it like I have been forever.

Posted by emy1013 on 10/26/2012 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Huh.  Stuff like this makes me wonder if I could have won anything had I actually crunched numbers, or used spread sheets, or ran regressions, or did any of those fancy analytical things instead of just eyeballing it like I have been forever.

im a baller too, an eyeballer that is, except for the recruiting tool i wrote that i never really used (i use yatzr's now though). and that was mostly so i could tinker with formulas on what made a recruit good to help me solidify my opinions on the subject. ive never done any of that fancy regression stuff myself, or anything like that. well, assuming we arent counting my dynasty lists and longest streaks calculations, i never did anything related to like, the actual games, like some people.

Posted by emy1013 on 10/26/2012 1:05:00 AM (view original):
Huh.  Stuff like this makes me wonder if I could have won anything had I actually crunched numbers, or used spread sheets, or ran regressions, or did any of those fancy analytical things instead of just eyeballing it like I have been forever.

I agree with you.  Analyzing too deeply can be a detriment to a teams sucess.

Except for the opening two days of recruiting, I dont spend a whole lot of time analyzing my teams.  I might spend a bit of time changing the practice plans once every 12-15 days or so but other than that, I just let them play.