Is the 2-3 zone obsolete with the way the game is currently being played

[Dave85]

There is so much emphasis on shooting 3-point shots. It seems that is all players want to do nowadays. I think someone once posted here 3-point shots are more effective in winning games based on the total number of trips a team has in a game.

So I've been wondering if the Syracuse 2-3 zone is maybe little obsolete with the way the game is currently being played on offense. It seems like teams are more interested in shooting 3s than shooting 2s.

Don't misunderstand me I think the 2-3 zone is the greatest thing basketball. There have been countless times over the last 35 years I've been watch Orange basketball when JB has taken a team with clearly less talented players and pulled out amazing victories. I'm just thinking maybe it's time to change the zone to be a little more effective in defending against 3-point shots.

Maybe it's time to play flip the zone and play a 3-2 zone or some other kind of match up zone that is more effective in defending against the 3. But still preserve the zone's quality of equalizing player talents. Maybe it's time for the defense to evolve.

Look at this video. People have been really studying how to beat the 2-3 zone.


Every year I hear people criticizing our defense that our players are just not playing well. Maybe it's not our players but other teams have finally cracked the 2-3 zone. Maybe JB needs to run 1-3-1 zone or something else to mix things up. It seems like teams really have our number nowadays. The Orange need to become more crafty in response.

Make sure you listen to the last 20 seconds of the video above before you comment.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Our 3pt % defense is usually pretty good.

 

[NYCorange]

Our 3pt % defense is usually pretty good.

Statistically, teams shoot more 3s against us (usually bad), but shoot a lower percentage as well (good). Idk whether it's a plus or not in the end.
Kenpom had an interesting series on 3pt defense that mentioned us a few times.
How defense works: an investigation | The kenpom.com blog
One last post on 3P% defense | The kenpom.com blog

 

[Cuseball]

2 Final Fours in 5 years probably says no. Although a zone like last year should make all defense obsolete!

Cuse

 

[wallacecuse]

This video is silly. It's an egregious sample, which is myopic in scope. Hardly an example of how to beat a zone. It's a display of a team with deeper, better talent that went to two straight title games beating teams that were unranked. Rak had to play passive that game since we did not have another viable post defender. Meanwhile UNC was rolling out Johnson, James, Hicks, Meeks, etc.

 

[newmexicuse]

Issue has never been the 2-3 zone. Issue was and still is the exclusive use of the Zone. You just have to have a secondary D for those moments when the other team is hot or has "figured' out the Zone. Also, I think m to m requires higher energy level and is a good change of pace when we are playing "flat."

We won our only title when during the tournament run when switched up the D's as necessary. I never understand why we have abandoned what worked during the the program's most glorious season.

I am a firm believer that even just changing from the Zone for just a few possessions here and there during the course of a game would be a big difference maker.

 

[OrangeDW]

We don’t play 2-3 zone the way we used to though. Our zone has adapted with the times. Our forwards didn’t used to come up nearly as high as they often do now.

 

[Col. Bleep]

In any sport there are strategies to beat particular defenses.
But being successful at it requires having the athletes, the coaching and the practice.
UNC had tremendous talent and obviously was well-coached.
There aren't many teams that could do that so consistently.

Some of our old Big East foes were pretty good at it because they battled the 2-3 regularly.
Louisville and Pitt still beat it far too often.

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

 

[Brooky03]

No. Our zone is good at defending 3's, we just haven't had good defensive teams lately. When the zone is played well, which there's plenty evidence of, teams can't just shoot over it, even if they're the college equivalent of the Warriors.

 

[Ghost]

No. Our zone is good at defending 3's, we just haven't had good defensive teams lately. When the zone is played well, which there's plenty evidence of, teams can't just shoot over it, even if they're the college equivalent of the Warriors.

The zone is fine, except to the extent it hurts us in recruiting/player development. When we have the size/speed we need, it's still capable of being better than almost any other defense teams throw out against opponents. It's those other factors that may be hurting us - but that's really difficult to quantify obviously.

Any defense is going to get sliced apart at times - if teams make shots, no defense is going to look good, but when the length is there, it's tough to beat.

 

[tbonezone]

100 % zone only is obsolete. in fact it never was in fashion. except for ...

 

[SoBeCuse]

It's a two way street...with the proper personnel, length, IQ, etc; the zone is a force. Do I wish we mixed it up? Sure. But, if said zone personnel are limited in terms of offensive skills then it can get rough to watch even if we are winning games.

 

[SoBeCuse]

No. Our zone is good at defending 3's, we just haven't had good defensive teams lately. When the zone is played well, which there's plenty evidence of, teams can't just shoot over it, even if they're the college equivalent of the Warriors.

I think if there actually was a college equivalent of the Warriors (and there hasn't been one yet) with some good coaching then it would be shredded. The zone would have to push up so far leaving all sorts of room everywhere else. Any intelligent team with even marginal personnel around the shooters should be able to distort and make it pay, IMO. But, of course, our offense still needs to score.

 

[IthacaMatt]

There is so much emphasis on shooting 3-point shots. It seems that is all players want to do nowadays. I think someone once posted here 3-point shots are more effective in winning games based on the total number of trips a team has in a game.

So I've been wondering if the Syracuse 2-3 zone is maybe little obsolete with the way the game is currently being played on offense. It seems like teams are more interested in shooting 3s than shooting 2s.

Don't misunderstand me I think the 2-3 zone is the greatest thing basketball. There have been countless times over the last 35 years I've been watch Orange basketball when JB has taken a team with clearly less talented players and pulled out amazing victories. I'm just thinking maybe it's time to change the zone to be a little more effective in defending against 3-point shots.

Maybe it's time to play flip the zone and play a 3-2 zone or some other kind of match up zone that is more effective in defending against the 3. But still preserve the zone's quality of equalizing player talents. Maybe it's time for the defense to evolve.

Look at this video. People have been really studying how to beat the 2-3 zone.


Every year I hear people criticizing our defense that our players are just not playing well. Maybe it's not our players but other teams have finally cracked the 2-3 zone. Maybe JB needs to run 1-3-1 zone or something else to mix things up. It seems like teams really have our number nowadays. The Orange need to become more crafty in response.

Make sure you listen to the last 20 seconds of the video above before you comment.

There's no need to look at a 3-2, our 2-3 zone doubles as a 4-1 when the forwards come up high.
With the shorter shot clock (and continued pressure to speed it up / shorten the shot clock even more), teams have less time to run an offense. We were just terrible last year defending the top and defending the interior.
Just a couple years ago, we were setting records with this defense.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

100 % zone only is obsolete. in fact it never was in fashion. except for ...

UNLV under Tark. (The infamous amoeba defense) MSU with Magic. UK with Jack Givens. SU with JB.

 

[IthacaMatt]

There is so much emphasis on shooting 3-point shots. It seems that is all players want to do nowadays. I think someone once posted here 3-point shots are more effective in winning games based on the total number of trips a team has in a game.

So I've been wondering if the Syracuse 2-3 zone is maybe little obsolete with the way the game is currently being played on offense. It seems like teams are more interested in shooting 3s than shooting 2s.

Don't misunderstand me I think the 2-3 zone is the greatest thing basketball. There have been countless times over the last 35 years I've been watch Orange basketball when JB has taken a team with clearly less talented players and pulled out amazing victories. I'm just thinking maybe it's time to change the zone to be a little more effective in defending against 3-point shots.

Maybe it's time to play flip the zone and play a 3-2 zone or some other kind of match up zone that is more effective in defending against the 3. But still preserve the zone's quality of equalizing player talents. Maybe it's time for the defense to evolve.

Look at this video. People have been really studying how to beat the 2-3 zone.


Every year I hear people criticizing our defense that our players are just not playing well. Maybe it's not our players but other teams have finally cracked the 2-3 zone. Maybe JB needs to run 1-3-1 zone or something else to mix things up. It seems like teams really have our number nowadays. The Orange need to become more crafty in response.

Make sure you listen to the last 20 seconds of the video above before you comment.

A 1-3-1 might be the right change of pace, because it takes away the guy at the foul line.
It leaves you vulnerable to the corner 3, though, because the wings have a long ways to cover.
But as a change of pace to the 2-3, that might work really well, because it would be taking away the 1 thing teams have figured out that beats the 2-3.

 

[Dave]

100 % zone only is obsolete. in fact it never was in fashion. except for ...

By all means, lets come to a consensus! Then we can form a committee to inform JAB of our findings along with a binding resolution.

 

[cuseinseattle]

Our zone at times becomes a 4-1 and this video is just a basic how to attack video that you can see at most coaching clinics. They have this for both defense and offense. If you go to a coaching they will have Roy Williams talk about the secondary break, boeheim will talk about zone defense and someone will talk about attacking zone and running various continuity offenses. I think we do a pretty good job adapting the zone year over year. I think the last few years recruiting has been our issue not the zone.

 

[two3zone]

View attachment 110819

I can't wait to use this.

Well done sir!!!!

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Statistically, teams shoot more 3s against us (usually bad), but shoot a lower percentage as well (good). Idk whether it's a plus or not in the end.
Kenpom had an interesting series on 3pt defense that mentioned us a few times.
How defense works: an investigation | The kenpom.com blog
One last post on 3P% defense | The kenpom.com blog

Its not readily available publicly at the college level, but the metric isn't so much 3p% defense as the expected values of the shots that are being given up. My expectation of shot chart data would suggest against SU teams shoot 3s further from the line at the top of the key and the wings playing close to the baseline give up less attempts from the corners which are the most valuable.

 

[nccusefan]

UNC is not unique in the way they attack the zone. In recent years both they and Louisville have had success against the zone because they had more talent than Syracuse. The team that always bothers me is Pitt. They have had a lot of success against the zone by putting someone at the high post that is a threat to shoot, drive, or pass out of that position. That along with their clutch and grab style of fouling, I mean defense have made them a tough game for us.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Haven't watched the video so excuse me if this has been discussed there. One major problem with our zone, and the reason we often see a 4-1 variation of it these days, is that there are so many more good 3-point shooters playing now. Kids shoot 3s more often than they shoot layups. And these kids don't just sit on the line, they take a step or two, or three back and can still knock them down with regularity. If the line were to move back a bit, the zone would have a resurgence for a bit, but the players would eventually adjust. Especially when you can get some bigs who can knock down foul line jumpers, or pass as well as the UNC bigs did/do.

 

[HOFCeluck]

OK so I don't know where he is so I'll be Townie:

OP we play zone 100% because Jim Boeheim has been oaching here for forty years and obviously knows more about basketball than you. Therefore I suggest that you are not a real fan by questioning JB and maybe you should go root for Colgate or something.

But in all seriousness I want the ten minutes I wasted watching that youtube back. There is absolutely nothing in there of substance that I haven't learned watching Syracuse games.

 

[Eric15]

2 Final Fours in 5 years probably says no.

The 2016 season is not a blueprint for future success. We lost 14 games that year.