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

[General20]

Nice post General, but you missed one of the biggest downsides of the Zone. It is hard to rebound in a Zone D, particularly our zone D where the wings extend.

Truthfully I don't think its that big of a deal. I know its the one thing people harp on over and over, and it is harder to rebound out of a zone. But rebounds by themselves are meaningless. For rebounds to really count you have to convert them into second chance points and Syracuse is actually pretty decent at preventing second chance points even when they let up the rebound.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Truthfully I don't think its that big of a deal. I know its the one thing people harp on over and over, and it is harder to rebound out of a zone. But rebounds by themselves are meaningless. For rebounds to really count you have to convert them into second chance points and Syracuse is actually pretty decent at preventing second chance points even when they let up the rebound.

I'd have to see this evidence. Maybe you're right. One thing it does however is put the defense out there again potentially for another duration of the shot clock limiting offensive possessions.

 

[newmexicuse]

Truthfully I don't think its that big of a deal. I know its the one thing people harp on over and over, and it is harder to rebound out of a zone. But rebounds by themselves are meaningless. For rebounds to really count you have to convert them into second chance points and Syracuse is actually pretty decent at preventing second chance points even when they let up the rebound.

Totally disagree, second chance points can be backbreakers, particularly, if they happen after the team has defended well for thirty seconds and then an at the buzzer shot is hoisted up only to lose the rebound.

Also, is there any reason to think that there is a statistically significant difference in second chance scoring percentages ?

The second chancers hurt.

 

[Dave85]

Thing is, it's not a fact. Using stats from Team Rankings (because I couldn't go back as far with NCAA.com), the numbers disprove your argument.
View attachment 110858

What the numbers say is that in 7 of the last 9 years, we are in the Top 14th percentile of 3-point FG defense, twice finishing in the Top 10, 5 times finishing in the Top 30. In the country. So, in the last 9 years the worst we have finished in the country in 3-point FG defense is middle of the pack. Last year, yeah, we weren't great. But we were better than over 200 other teams. And in many years, we were stellar.

This analysis is not exactly deep data analytics. But hey, whatever dogma floats your boat.

 

[Dave85]

How do SU fans not know that we've been regularly among the best in terms of three point percentage defense? Do they come here and post but not watch the games? Its embarrassing. As I said from the beginning this thread is silly.

Maybe you need to take off your Orange glasses sometimes and analyze the data without bias.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Totally disagree, second chance points can be backbreakers, particularly, if they happen after the team has defended well for thirty seconds and then an at the buzzer shot is hoisted up only to lose the rebound.

Also, is there any reason to think that there is a statistically significant difference in second chance scoring percentages ?

The second chancers hurt.

Right. This isn't a data issue. Backbreakers like you said. Having to play another shot clock (assuming no putbacks/second chance points and there are plenty of those) is demoralizing and extra energy spent having to defend more. Not to mention taking away from offense.

 

[orange79]

This analysis is not exactly deep data analytics. But hey, whatever dogma floats your boat.

So, are you rebutting the data? Or conceding the point?

 

[Dave85]

So, are you rebutting the data? Or conceding the point?

I'm saying let the data speak for itself. But I'm not sure the data you present is completely meaningful. You may be right or you may not be. As I said, this requires real analytics taking into account enough factors making the analysis meaningful.

Speaking of defense, Syracuse must find a way to stop opposing teams this season.

Last year, Syracuse gave up 71.0 points per game. That was the most allowed by the Orange since the 2008-09 season.

But the SU defense was even worse in ACC play. Conference foes torched Syracuse for 75.4 points per game.

Syracuse basketball: 5 key questions facing Orange as practice begins

Last year's defense was one of the worse ones we've had in years. I hope it's just a single year anomaly.

 

[Orangepace]

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.

Early in the season I'd agree with you. But as the tournament closes in, typically JB has shown willingness to change the pace with the full court press. Now, I think the SU press sucks, but after lulling the opponent to sleep, it's insanely effective. It, simultaneously coupled with Mr. Richardson finding the ocean, delivered Syracuse to one of those Final Four trips.

 

[tbonezone]

if you only got one pitch ...good luck. the better hitters are gonna figure it out.

 

[two3zone]

I'm saying let the data speak for itself. But I'm not sure the data you present is completely meaningful. You may be right or you may not be. As I said, this requires real analytics taking into account enough factors making the analysis meaningful.



Syracuse basketball: 5 key questions facing Orange as practice begins

Last year's defense was one of the worse ones we've had in years. I hope it's just a single year anomaly.

It was bad because there were too many new pieces to it, especially at the front of it. Hopefully Battle and Howard have the needed experience to make it strong again because we literally have 0 experience in the back.

Any year we have a lot of changes in player personnel we're going to have issues with the zone.

 

[moqui]

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. (snip)

short answer: no
long answer: most players suck at shooting 3s & the zone is designed to bait them into doing exactly that