Its apparent...

[SoBeCuse]

I detect a change of opinion.

Ha! I could see it sure but if I were a betting man I wouldnt bet on it.

 

[FrancoPizza]

We couldn't play M2M this year if we wanted. With no bench our big men would be in trouble by the half. Coleman and TT?? :crazy:

Good thing our lack of foul trouble is keeping us right in these games.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Let me start by wishing dasher a happy birthday!

That said, with all due respect, what claim did I make that has no facts? That other teams play zone? Watching college basketball reveals that this is a fact. Many teams employ some form of zone. Baylor, Louisville, Duke, Georgetown, Pitt, Nova, Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio State, Oregon, St. John's, and many others all utilize zone defenses. Even Kansas uses zone defense to mix it up. Most of these teams don't play zone exclusively, but they do use them in their defensive arsenals.

Are these zones our exact 2-3 zone? No, but that doesn't mean that teams don't see and have experience playing against zones given that so many teams are using them at this point. Hence, our zone isn't a novelty anymore.

In fact, there are several "facts" that point to a need to evaluate the myths connected to the exclusive use of the zone in light of recent successes and failures.

Here is another fact:

We are 87th in effective fg percentage defense this year (which isn't over yet, to be fair). We were 59th last year. 66th in 2014-2015. 109th in 2013-2014. 5th in 2012-2013. 15th in 2011-2012. 24th in 2010-2011.

Effective fg% is a great stat to look at in terms of how effective a defense is because it accounts for all field goal attempts and their relative values. However, it isn't a perfect measure of a defense's effect on games because it doesn't account for creating turnovers, nor does it account for defensive fouls. Still, I reference it here because of the myth that our defensive three-point percentage somehow provides rationale for playing zone exclusively. Three-pointers are only part of an offense; two-pointers still count, too. (If I'm not mistaken, SWC75 has been promoting this point on this board for years.) Therefore, it makes more sense to look at a measure that accounts for both and weighs them appropriately when assessing a defense's effectiveness.

According to these rankings, over the last seven seasons we had three top-25 years (the last was four years ago, which was the best one) and a series of below-top-58 defenses. Based on these numbers, I'm not sure the evidence supports the claim that the zone provides elite defenses year-to-year, which some posters claim.

It also doesn't really demonstrate the zone's effectiveness when we have the "right players." After all, the last few years saw Jerami Grant, Tyler Ennis, Rakeem Christmas, Chris McCollough (injury is obviously a factor here), Michael Gbinije, and Malachi Richardson playing our zone (many of them at the same time) and then make the NBA in some fashion or another. Don't forget that Trevor Cooney is in the D-league. With so many talented players, we should question how many more "right players" a team needs before the zone is top-50.

One could argue that it takes "the right players" playing it, and playing it together, for several years before it evolves into a fully functioning machine. More on that below.

Before we get to that, let's add Opponent Turnovers Per Possession to account for turnovers:

We are 116th so far this season. 54th last year. 56th in 2014-2015. 15th in 2013-2014 (which may help explain, in part, the hot start that season and why the team cooled off late). 25th in 2012-2013. 16th in 2011-2012. 128th in 2010-2011 (this is a strange outlier given the effective fg%).

Again, three top-25 squads, and the other four are below 53. Even if we throw out 2010-2011 as an outlier, we'd have 3 in each group.

The best we can really say is the zone seems to work remarkably well (top 50 seems more than fair as a criteria for that) as a season-long defense about half the time over the last seven years, and that the last three years (including this one) just haven't been great defensively.

Back to the "players" answer. Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn on causation has to be more nuanced than simply "right players." Roster is part of the issue, especially in connection with early departures and the sanctions. However, many teams lose players early. It's part of the game. The sanctions have no doubt thinned the bench, but what about the players that we do have? Why the defensive dip in rankings (and wins), even when several players were on the roster prior to the sanctions really affecting recruiting? Why did it take Rak four years to "get it," and Roberson still doesn't seem to really grasp it? We can blame lazy players, but it's possible that the way the skills and concepts are taught isn't working, either. Teachers get what they emphasize.

Perhaps other factors are important to consider when explaining our recent difficulties, such as the move to the ACC, opposing teams more regularly playing against zones today than a decade ago, more teams seemingly possessing multiple players capable of shooting 35%-plus from three, and the consistent lack of fundamental skill execution (on both ends of the floor) year-to-year by new faces.

Additionally, some people argue that the zone can only be played effectively by rosters constructed with several players that are here for 3-4 years. The theory here is that players master the reads, slides, traps, etc. over that time, so they should be fully ready by senior year. Therefore, freshman and 5th-year grad transfers will struggle with the zone. Perhaps, but perhaps we then need to rethink what defense we teach and practice almost exclusively given the current climate of one-and-dones and early departures in general. Either that, or we have to be resigned to not recruiting top-rated recruits in hopes that all of our players stay.

If the argument is that we can't be an effective zone without a shot-blocking rim protector, perhaps a more flexible philosophy is needed for better consistency given the limited supply of said players.

Let's not forget that we are now eight seasons into the "exclusively zone" philosophy (with the occasional press sprinkled in, mostly in desperation moments). Early on, we saw a lot of wins. Since then, though, we've endured a lot of losing (more than Coach B historically has seen), and with it conversations about recruiting misses and player inadequacies. I'm not sure direct causation can be proven given the sanctions and early departures, but correlation exists. Because of this, these results and roster debates can't just be divorced from the fact that our staff has chosen to play one style of defense that they now have to recruit for every cycle, whether or not that's explicitly stated. If these players underperform, the coaches that recruited them precisely for the system aren't exempt of some blame. Players and coaches should be accountable.

Ultimately, it's clear a team needs players with developed skills to be successful. However, to leave the entire success of the program's defense to whether or not recruits fit a rather narrow physical description and fundamental skill profile with no possibility for using their skills in ways that may fit other schemes better seems a little myopic and flawed as a strategy. The constant roster turnover only exposes this strategy's flaws. Because no system is 100% successful at developing all players equally fast or to full potential, flexibility is a desirable trait.

One last point about the myth that last year's results show that the zone is a magic elixir in a tourney: again, we were losing by a large enough margin to both Gonzaga and Virginia with under seven minutes to play that Coach Boeheim employed the press. This tactic is usually used as a last gasp by Coach B. These teams failed to remain poised in the face of the press, and that changed the games and helped secure the victories. We were losing while playing zone exclusively. We closed the deficit and won when we adjusted away from this tactic.

Does this mean the zone played no part in these victories? No. It allowed lower-scoring games largely because of the tempo it forced on the games, which probably helped our comebacks. Nonetheless, the results suggest that remaining in the zone would likely have led to a losses, though there is no definitive way to prove that since we didn't remain in the zone. That said, it's logical to assume that, given his devotion to the zone, Coach B probably wouldn't employ the press if he believed we could win these games by simply continuing to play nothing but our half-court zone. He deserves credit for his decisions, whatever motivated them, to put the press on when he did. His adjustments away from only playing zone led to wins.

The end result, though, is that the rationale for exclusively playing zone can't be that last season's Final Four was built from the elixir it was in the NCAA Tournament, because it wasn't. At the very least, there is enough reasonable doubt to diminish the soundness of such a claim.

I'll reiterate--I'm not anti-zone. I have coached the zone and know firsthand that it can be an effective weapon. However, it is entirely reasonable to think that coaches are more regularly incorporating offensive designs to defeat zones, and that players are more comfortable playing against them, because zone defenses are more frequently encountered in games today. This truth does not have to be mutually exclusive from the truth that zones can still work, just like man-to-man defenses can still work even though teams encounter them regularly.

I'll also say I greatly admire Coach Boeheim's coaching and accomplishments. His career may still be under-appreciated. Nevertheless, 40 years of past success does not exclude the possibility of current problems, which can include both roster issues and scheme choices and how they affect results, nor does it guarantee future success. I would hope Coach Boeheim, with all of his knowledge and experience, would be the first to admit this and reflect accordingly on the program's philosophy and techniques to improve them.

Likewise, myths and legends about a coach and his zone shouldn't be allowed to remove the necessity for authentic assessment and critical inquiry when evaluating the state of the program in any given moment.

I'm sayin'.

 

[Ish88888]

Agree for sure. The one thing you have to acknowledge is he's not just getting "7 guys." He is getting 7 studs, usually including 3-4 of the top 15th ranked players at least (and usually 2-3 of the top 5). You can't just roll the ball out and play, but that kind of talent makes blending them a little easier. His staff has had some turnover too but the machine keeps churning.

Cal is a great motivator and teaches his system well but I don't think he's an elite NCAA tournament coach. Maybe having mostly freshmen has hindered him in the tourney. It doesn't impact things in the SEC tourney because the conference sucks almost every year.

You are delirious. The bigger the talents the tougher it is. He gets these kids to buy in and share minutes. These kids go from the alpha scoring 40 in HS to 10-15/game. Its the hardest coaching job there is. The chemistry he attains. His half court offense vs SC yesterday was amazing. Something he isn't used to, but something SC imposes. He had his frosh and sophs cutting, slashing, screening, pounding the boards in the half court. Excellent coaching job. We suck at half court O. Gimme a break.

 

[iommi]

You are delirious. The bigger the talents the tougher it is. He gets these kids to buy in and share minutes. These kids go from the alpha scoring 40 in HS to 10-15/game. Its the hardest coaching job there is. The chemistry he attains. His half court offense vs SC yesterday was amazing. Something he isn't used to, but something SC imposes. He had his frosh and sophs cutting, slashing, screening, pounding the boards in the half court. Excellent coaching job. We suck at half court O. Gimme a break.

I agreed he's a great coach. Did you miss that?

So a coach would rather blend 7 borderline top 100 guys than 7 Burger Boys? I know the egos involved, I get it. Talent wins over egos. If you don't agree, so be it.

I also said I don't think he's a great NCAA TOURNEY coach. He obviously preps his team to play in general and he game plans very well.

 

[orangehomer]

My birthday is tomorrow and I am getting old but haven't we gone to two final fours in the last 4 years? And an elite 8 the year before that? And two one seeds in the past 7 years? When we have the right players, the zone works fine. We don't have the right players for any defense. Or any offense fort that matter. No pt guard.

happy birthday, by the way

 

[orangedave]

He won the only matchup that mattered... but this is just deflecting the point that JB can't or won't coach these guys in m2m. It's not that the players are defective which, amazingly, he wants you to believe. And even more amazing is that some still buy that story.

Does that mean that JB's losses to Roy Williams don't count because he won the only matchup that mattered in 2003?

 

[FrancoPizza]

Does that mean that JB's losses to Roy Williams don't count because he won the only matchup that mattered in 2003?

Roy canceled him out last year.

 

[dasher]

happy birthday, by the way

thx How do you guys know it's my birthday????

 

[two3zone]

thx How do you guys know it's my birthday????

Happy birthday!

 

[orangenirvana]

Here is another fact:

We are 87th in effective fg percentage defense this year (which isn't over yet, to be fair). We were 59th last year. 66th in 2014-2015. 109th in 2013-2014. 5th in 2012-2013. 15th in 2011-2012. 24th in 2010-2011.

According to these rankings, over the last seven seasons we had three top-25 years (the last was four years ago, which was the best one) and a series of below-top-58 defenses. Based on these numbers, I'm not sure the evidence supports the claim that the zone provides elite defenses year-to-year, which some posters claim.

Before we get to that, let's add Opponent Turnovers Per Possession to account for turnovers:

We are 116th so far this season. 54th last year. 56th in 2014-2015. 15th in 2013-2014 (which may help explain, in part, the hot start that season and why the team cooled off late). 25th in 2012-2013. 16th in 2011-2012. 128th in 2010-2011 (this is a strange outlier given the effective fg%).

Again, three top-25 squads, and the other four are below 53. Even if we throw out 2010-2011 as an outlier, we'd have three in each group.

Keep in mind - this is out of 350 or so teams where Syracuse plays against much better offenses than the vast majority of those 350 teams.

So even if SU's defense finishes 60th in a particular category (to meet your ever-important "below Top 58" criteria) they're still in the top half of their conference and under the 20th percentile nationally without even taking strength of opponent into account.

And that's the "bad" seasons.

 

[Coach Orange]

Keep in mind - this is out of 350 or so teams where Syracuse plays against much better offenses than the vast majority of those 350 teams.

So even if SU's defense finishes 60th in a particular category (to meet your ever-important "below Top 58" criteria) they're still in the top half of their conference and under the 20th percentile nationally without even taking strength of opponent into account.

And that's the "bad" seasons.

Many of those teams don't get SU's athletes.

So if your measure is we look good compared to teams with far inferior athletes, which many of those 340+ teams have, then I guess you're correct.

 

[orangecuse]

Many of those teams don't get SU's athletes.

So if your measure is we look good compared to teams with far inferior athletes, which many of those 340+ teams have, then I guess you're correct.

I enjoy your posts and the technical expertise you offer. Thank you.

I watch quite a bit of college hoops, which includes non P5 games. Some of these teams may not be that good record wise, etc., but most of these games still have what appear to be really good athletes. I would imagine due to academic standards at various schools, kids wanting to play right away, overlooked, etc. that a large number of really good athletes are at many of these schools. I guess I'm questioning your premise that these schools you elude to have such "far inferior" athletes than us. I wonder how you're gauging/measuring that?

 

[jncuse]

I don't think the zone in itself is an issue at all. With the proper personnel it has shown to be effective even recently.

The issues this year are the following:
1) Personnel
2) Unwillingness to use other defences in light of #1.

 

[orangenirvana]

Many of those teams don't get SU's athletes.

So if your measure is we look good compared to teams with far inferior athletes, which many of those 340+ teams have, then I guess you're correct.

Those are the rankings you provided. If you don't like comparing SU to those "inferior" programs then don't do that.

Bottom line: you're massaging your statistical "evidence" to make SU look worse than they are. Why not offer a more honest argument?

 

[cuseinseattle]

Roy canceled him out last year.

When we were a 10 seed and somehow made the final 4 losing to Roy canceled out a national title? Classic Franco.

 

[FrancoPizza]

20th percentile nationally

But isn't that supposed to be our peer group? The top 50-60 programs. Who cares about the rest? If we're falling below that metric we have bigger issues.

 

[orangenirvana]

But isn't that supposed to be our peer group? The top 50-60 programs. Who cares about the rest? If we're falling below that metric we have bigger issues.

I think you're confused. Our "peer group" of top 50-60 programs are ranked anywhere between 1 and 350 in those defensive categories.

I think the fact that SU has never finished a season outside of the Top 3 in defensive efficiency in their conference (whether it be Big East or ACC) since the 2009-10 season speaks for itself about Boeheim's zone defense.

 

[Coach Orange]

Those are the rankings you provided. If you don't like comparing SU to those "inferior" programs then don't do that.

Bottom line: you're massaging your statistical "evidence" to make SU look worse than they are. Why not offer a more honest argument?

I will. Look at Louisville's numbers over the same time. Most would argue they are a legit peer. They are far better than us over that period in the same stats playing essentially the same teams. They are just one of several schools that can be looked at, but I bring them up because they also play a lot of (but not exclusively) zone. They show the zone can work, but that mixing it with a press and some man-to-man gets better results.

 

[Ish88888]

Keep in mind - this is out of 350 or so teams where Syracuse plays against much better offenses than the vast majority of those 350 teams.

So even if SU's defense finishes 60th in a particular category (to meet your ever-important "below Top 58" criteria) they're still in the top half of their conference and under the 20th percentile nationally without even taking strength of opponent into account.

And that's the "bad" seasons.

Colgate, SCST, and North Florida are pretty deep in that list of 350. Also, the ACC doesnt exactly light it up minus UNC , ND, and FSU.

 

[Coach Orange]

I enjoy your posts and the technical expertise you offer. Thank you.

I watch quite a bit of college hoops, which includes non P5 games. Some of these teams may not be that good record wise, etc., but most of these games still have what appear to be really good athletes. I would imagine due to academic standards at various schools, kids wanting to play right away, overlooked, etc. that a large number of really good athletes are at many of these schools. I guess I'm questioning your premise that these schools you elude to have such "far inferior" athletes than us. I wonder how you're gauging/measuring that?

That's kind of you to say. Thank you.

I think it depends on what we mean by "talent" and by "mid-major." If we define talent in terms of pure athletic gifts, any team could occasionally get one of these players. After all, Steph Curry went to Davidson. That said, the upper mid-majors--Conference USA, Missouri Valley, West Coast, etc.--may have some comparable athletes to the P6 teams (Power 5 plus Big East), but likely not as many per team every year. But the small conferences--Patriot League, etc.--don't have nearly the number of athletes in the P6 profile.

When these teams play their peers, the stats are likely to be like us playing Pitt, Virgina, Louisville, UConn, or other teams we may consider peers in terms of talent. However, those small-conference teams play programs with far more superior talent in the pre-conference season. Those talent discrepancies are just likely to skew stats so that more teams in the small conferences will be lower in the overall NCAA rankings. The Opponent Effective FG% rankings demonstrate this. Year-to-year, very few P6 schools appear lower than 275.

Please understand that I'm not saying one of these teams couldn't pull an upset over a P6 team in a game. It happens in the NCAA Tournament every year. However, these rankings are for entire seasons, not just one game. For many of these teams, those seasons include some double-digit losses (sometimes multiple blowouts) to teams with superior talent.

For example, Maine of the American East played Duke this year. What do you think the final score was? 94-55. Imagine what Maine's Opponent Effective FG% for that game was and how it affects them in the overall Opponent Effective FG% rankings. They also lost to Providence by 20.

Another example: North Florida is 4-1 in conference this year. Good team, right? Their record stands at 9-13, and they lost to Miami (didn't we beat them?) 94-56. They lost to Auburn 83-66. They also lost to some team named Syracuse 77-71 before losing to Arkansas 91-76.

Weber State is leading their conference standings right now. They lost to Stanford by 18 and BYU by 11, while second-place North Dakota lost to Iowa by 11.

One thing to note: these teams have to go on the road for many of these games. Home games may close the gap some, but not enough in all games to suggest major reshuffling of the overall season rankings.

Not all teams have equal talent. In essence, Syracuse should, in theory, be at least top-60 most years in major defensive categories built around having 7-9 games a season against lesser talent. Top-60 is good, but it's certainly not elite by any means.

I hope this helps clarify.

 

[Coach Orange]

I think you're confused. Our "peer group" of top 50-60 programs are ranked anywhere between 1 and 350 in those defensive categories.

I think the fact that SU has never finished a season outside of the Top 3 in defensive efficiency in their conference (whether it be Big East or ACC) since the 2009-10 season speaks for itself about Boeheim's zone defense.

Most coaches I have encountered in clinics and in discussions don't use straight-up Defensive Efficiency as one of the most important stats, though, because of its flaws.

Very few P6 schools rank below 275 year-to-year in Effective FG% (a stat many coaches do value), and most are in the top 120. Given that there are 75 programs in the P6 conferences (and this includes Rutgers! ), to be lower than top-60 given the talent discrepancies and home-court advantages in pre-conference games doesn't suggest an "elite" defense, even when UConn and Gonzaga-type programs outside of the P6 could claim a few of the spots year to year.