Steph Curry killed our zone

[djcon57]

You agree with me, then - that Boeheim does have a “plan B”. (Full-court pressure in this example, which turns into the same 2-3 zone if they break the press.)

I was responding to a poster who was insinuating that we have no “plan B”, which you’ve helped me prove is an absurd statement to make.

I’d agree Boeheim does have a plan B. Absolutely no idea why he didn’t go to it last night until 2 mins left.

 

[malpearl31]

I’d agree Boeheim does have a plan B. Absolutely no idea why he didn’t go to it last night until 2 mins left.

I’m with you there. I thought we would press a lot more this year, was really disappointed that we didn’t.

 

[Brooky03]

Cuse would've absolutely demolished Davidson when Curry was there even if he went 12/12 from deep.

@me losers.

 

[Millhouse]

I’d agree Boeheim does have a plan B. Absolutely no idea why he didn’t go to it last night until 2 mins left.

No guard depth thanks to fh

 

[samspann1]

Opponents shot 32.9% from 3 against us and made almost 8 threes a game against us this year. Back in the days of peak zone... opponents made closer to 30% from 3 or even less against us.

Where does Steph Curry fit into this? There is a conversation going on in the NBA about how Steph ruined the game becaus every kid thinks they can be like Steph and high school games have devolved into 3 point shooting contests. The zone concept worked great before Steph Curry because we could give up open 3s and it wasn’t an automatic make. Teams would have have one, maybe two, guys who could shoot the three and we could game plan against them. Now, becaus Of Steph, every team has a legit 4 guys who can hit a three if they are wide open. This evolution has changed the offensive strategy in college hoops... it hit the NBA a few years ago but now it’s trickled down to college. The old way to beat the zone was to get the ball to the logo and dump it to the short corner for a layup or pass it to either 10:30 or 1:30 on the 3pt line for an open 3. This year the strategy seems to have shifted hunt the corner 3s and teams are making multiple passes to get a corner 3. In the games we have gotten destroyed by threes I feel like we have given up open corner 3 after open corner 3. Our strategy today is the center or 4 has to get out to guard that corner 3... which works great if you have Hakim. When you have Chukwu abd Sidibe you get exposed.

I don’t think playing our zone is going to work in the Steph Curry era of basketball. It we need to accept the zone will get bombed and try to outscore teams.

Re. your last sentence, if true, then we need a cohesive and versatile offense, which is something we haven't had since the '10 team. Pretty telling, as we've had 2 PGs drafted in the first round since then

 

[samspann1]

Have you guys ever noticed how the game passes JB by every single year when we lose in the NCAA Tournament? 32 teams will lose between yesterday and today and almost all of them will lose playing man to man defense. Every cockamamey theory about why the zone is outdated or ineffective is just emotional ranting. It's a defense. Everybody plays the defense they think will best help them win. Get a grip.

Maybe SWC75 could do his magic and run the numbers to look at the defensive efficiency and points per game allowed in the NCAA Tournament this decade amongst teams with at least 8 or 10 games played or whatever crietria. I would bet Syracuse is Top 5 and could be #1 in that metric. How can that be explained by "Steph Curry ruined the Syracuse zone" or "Charles Barkely says zone is the easiest defense to play against" or "Aliens!!" or pick your flavor of the minute theory?

Maybe, just ,ay

Have you guys ever noticed how the game passes JB by every single year when we lose in the NCAA Tournament? 32 teams will lose between yesterday and today and almost all of them will lose playing man to man defense. Every cockamamey theory about why the zone is outdated or ineffective is just emotional ranting. It's a defense. Everybody plays the defense they think will best help them win. Get a grip.

Maybe SWC75 could do his magic and run the numbers to look at the defensive efficiency and points per game allowed in the NCAA Tournament this decade amongst teams with at least 8 or 10 games played or whatever crietria. I would bet Syracuse is Top 5 and could be #1 in that metric. How can that be explained by "Steph Curry ruined the Syracuse zone" or "Charles Barkely says zone is the easiest defense to play against" or "Aliens!!" or pick your flavor of the minute theory?

Maybe, just maybe, the players we recruit to fit the zone negatively impact our ability to run a quality offense?

 

[djcon57]

No guard depth thanks to fh

We lost regardless. Unless you had money on the game, what does it matter if we lose by 20 or 2. We were not going to win that game hoping they would miss. It was obvious. We needed to try something else.

 

[OrangeFoo]

No guard depth thanks to fh

Yet we have a quick athletic guard, tailor made for pressing sitting on the bench as fresh as a daisy. The fact that JB didn’t go offense for defense with Carey and Buddy makes no sense given how poorly Buddy was playing on D. I don’t think it’s nepotism... I think it was JB being his usual stubborn self and hoping Buddy would get hot.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I’d agree Boeheim does have a plan B. Absolutely no idea why he didn’t go to it last night until 2 mins left.

Because it uses huge amounts of energy and we were playing short handed at altitude maybe? I dunno, just a guess. I'm sure you're happier just assuming Boeheim had no interest in winning the game and was just standing there with no clue of what to do or why.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Maybe, just ,ay


Maybe, just maybe, the players we recruit to fit the zone negatively impact our ability to run a quality offense?

That is massive conclusion to jump to. Tell me how you determined it to be a fact?

The funny aspect of all this is that I'd be fine if people said JB hasn't done a good job installing a coherent offensive strategy. I do think it has been weak. But why are you willing to say he is a horrible coach because he can't coach defense while at the same time blaming only the players for poor offense?

 

[djcon57]

Because it uses huge amounts of energy and we were playing short handed at altitude maybe? I dunno, just a guess. I'm sure you're happier just assuming Boeheim had no interest in winning the game and was just standing there with no clue of what to do or why.

Yeah man, I’m thrilled

If only we knew we were playing short handed and at altitude before the game. Maybe you could use a guy on your bench. Or don’t.

Either way...your are doing a great Townie Jr. routine here. I’m attempting honest discussion and youre acting like a jerk. So continue on.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Yeah man, I’m thrilled

If only we knew we were playing short handed and at altitude before the game. Maybe you could use a guy on your bench. Or don’t.

Either way...your are doing a great Townie Jr. routine here. I’m attempting honest discussion and youre acting like a jerk. So continue on.

Stating facts = being a jerk. Look in the mirror my man. You are looking for any way to justify your hurt feelings over the loss. I'm not happy we lost either. But teams lose. It does happen. The zone was not very good last night. Period. We got beat.

 

[samspann1]

That is massive conclusion to jump to. Tell me how you determined it to be a fact?

The funny aspect of all this is that I'd be fine if people said JB hasn't done a good job installing a coherent offensive strategy. I do think it has been weak. But why are you willing to say he is a horrible coach because he can't coach defense while at the same time blaming only the players for poor offense?

I don't think that i said any of that

 

[djcon57]

Stating facts = being a jerk. Look in the mirror my man. You are looking for any way to justify your hurt feelings over the loss. I'm not happy we lost either. But teams lose. It does happen. The zone was not very good last night. Period. We got beat.

Saying I’m “happy assuming Boeheim had no interest in winning” is literally the opposite of stating a fact.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I don't think that i said any of that

I know. Nobody is. They are saying we recruit people who can't play offense because they are selected for zone attributes. We do this because our coach is not good enough to coach M2M or not interested in playing man to man.

When the facts are much more inclined to the conclusion that if JB is guilty of any weakness or laziness it is in his offensive coaching not in his personnel scouting and defensive strategy. But for whatever reason people latch on to the zone kills our chances to win meme instead.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Saying I’m “happy assuming Boeheim had no interest in winning” is literally the opposite of stating a fact.

Fair enough. I apologize for that comment. Frustration on my part.

 

[CuseCPT]

And yet, we had the 30th best defensive efficiency in the nation. 300+ teams that play man were worse (against worse competition since we played the 33rd toughest schedule).

This would be a devastating argument if you could only play one defense or the other exclusively.

 

[HoustonCuse]

This would be a devastating argument if you could only play one defense or the other exclusively.

I don't understand. I used that stat to say the zone, even in a year where we didn't play it very well and faced top competition, was fully adequate and was in fact a top 10% defense nationally.

I think you are arguing that we should have a better defense to switch to when our top 10% defense is giving up too many points? From what JB has said, and it does make sense, he choses to focus the NCAA-limited practice time he has on a primary defense so that it can become as good as possible. This is probably how you get a top 10% defense in the first place.

So if you wanted to spend the limited resources you have on multiple defenses, you might expect to have a Top 30% Man and a Top 30% zone for instance. So you could have an elite defense or you could have mulitple fair defenses. Overall splitting your resources to buy multiple less efficient defenses is a net negative. That is the argument JB makes. I have no reason to question it as the logic is sound.

 

[Cusefan95]

Our offense was, and has been, a joke for several years. There’s no sane way to blame our recent performance on the zone...unless you make up some fiction that we’re recruiting crappy offensive players to play zone defense. It’s such an absurd proposition on its face, I’m astonished how many people cling to it so dearly here.

If we start getting some better offensive players, I think the zone would look much better. Not so much better that the zone haters wouldn’t still complain about it endlessly - but better.

 

[44cuse]

Most years I think Syracuse's season comes to an end when the team can't string together a couple decent offensive trips when they really need a basket.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

44cuse

 

[djcon57]

Our offense was, and has been, a joke for several years. There’s no sane way to blame our recent performance on the zone...unless you make up some fiction that we’re recruiting crappy offensive players to play zone defense. It’s such an absurd proposition on its face, I’m astonished how many people cling to it so dearly here.

If we start getting some better offensive players, I think the zone would look much better. Not so much better that the zone haters wouldn’t still complain about it endlessly - but better.

Paschal. Frank Howard at point guard. Long armed fowards galore. No smaller shooting guards since Dion, I guess?

I believe they feel their some players ability to defend in the zone is worth more than others ability to score,pass,drive. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that.

 

[Millhouse]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

44cuse

hopefully hughes can be bailout small forward we can rely on in those spots next year

 

[Millhouse]

Paschal. Frank Howard at point guard. Long armed fowards galore. No smaller shooting guards since Dion, I guess?

I believe they feel their some players ability to defend in the zone is worth more than others ability to score,pass,drive. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that.

i believe that too. john gillon was so good, such a good shooter but the opposition just killed us with 3s. i get as frustrated as anyone about this. gillon was the best point guard we've had in ages but not the best for this system

 

[samspann1]

I don't understand. I used that stat to say the zone, even in a year where we didn't play it very well and faced top competition, was fully adequate and was in fact a top 10% defense nationally.
.

How did the "top competition" that we faced this year fare against the zone?

 

[CuseCPT]

I don't understand. I used that stat to say the zone, even in a year where we didn't play it very well and faced top competition, was fully adequate and was in fact a top 10% defense nationally.

I think you are arguing that we should have a better defense to switch to when our top 10% defense is giving up too many points? From what JB has said, and it does make sense, he choses to focus the NCAA-limited practice time he has on a primary defense so that it can become as good as possible. This is probably how you get a top 10% defense in the first place.

So if you wanted to spend the limited resources you have on multiple defenses, you might expect to have a Top 30% Man and a Top 30% zone for instance. So you could have an elite defense or you could have mulitple fair defenses. Overall splitting your resources to buy multiple less efficient defenses is a net negative. That is the argument JB makes. I have no reason to question it as the logic is sound.

The problem with this line of thinking is that basketball is judged by individual game results, not season averages. The OP's hypothesis is that with the emphasis on the 3 point shot at all levels of basketball, there are now more teams that possess the shooters to take advantage of the zone.

So assuming that the other variables stayed relatively the same (ie, we are still recruiting the same caliber of players, etc.) one would probably expect an increase in the number of losses a team that played a defense that was vulnerable to good 3-point shooting would endure over the course of a season and the overall season defensive averages could still stay relatively the same.

Of course all of this is impossible to prove one way or another, but frankly I don't think it's the craziest explanation for a program that used to consistently used to finish near the top of its conference to one that seems to be consistently stuck near the .500 mark in conference play.

As an aside, I remember being baffled by Dontae Greene. When I first saw him warming up I was expecting Hakim Warrick, Part II. Hell, Dontae is 2 inches taller than Hakim. Yet he seemed allergic to the paint and loved to hang around the arc looking for 3 pointers. Looking back he wasn't an anomaly, he was just the first of a new breed.