my big concern with Boeheim is still the zone (steph curry effect?)

[Townie72]

You don't think it's fair to call out the defense? We were one of the worst defensive teams in the conference. We gave up 39% on 3's.

The defense was bad. But it was because of the players, not the defensive scheme.

Switching to M2M would have been worse, not better. If you cannot or will not play defense in Zone, M2M isn't going to improve things.

M2M is the defense all the teams we play have as their primary defense. They face it every game except when the play SU. They face it every practice. SU switching to M2M would be wonderful for our opponents. We would go from a defense they are less familiar with to a defense they see all the time.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The defense was bad. But it was because of the players, not the defensive scheme.

Switching to M2M would have been worse, not better. If you cannot or will not play defense in Zone, M2M isn't going to improve things.

M2M is the defense all the teams we play have as their primary defense. They face it every game except when the play SU. They face it every practice. SU switching to M2M would be wonderful for our opponents. We would go from a defense they are less familiar with to a defense they see all the time.

Then the coach needs to find better players.

 

[Brooky03]

Then the coach needs to find better players.

Profound insight

 

[Townie72]

Don't mind the zone, but the ability to switch in and out of defense can be really effective.

I have to think that sometimes based on the generally high nature of recruits we have had in the past that some of these players would excel at man defense. A guy like Battle should be an excellent on ball defender. Playing man can help sustain runs sometimes when you can get up in and defend man to man. A team like Louisville keeps applying pressure and gets teams rattled;the zone lets teams breathe on offense.

We want them to breathe and breathe and breathe. Right up till there's about 6 seconds left on the shot clock. Then we want them to jack up an off-balance 3 from 22 feet. That's the plan.

Then the coach needs to find better players.

Surely you know they are trying their damdest to get the best players they can. I think guys like Malachi and Battle demonstrate that.

When you have guys leaving early for the NBA --- because they are such good players --- it's like having a hole in your bucket.

But it's a competitive world. And there are lots and lots of schools bidding for the services of the best recruits. It's not like we get to choose who we want like Duke. They have to choose SU too.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Switching to M2M would have been worse, not better. If you cannot or will not play defense in Zone, M2M isn't going to improve things.

Kansas vs. Syracuse - Box Score - November 25, 2008 - ESPN

 

[Townie72]

Profound insight

I was reminded of "Captain Obvious" when I read this. But there's a lot of posters who feel that their job is to point out the problems or weaknesses and someone else's to implement the solution.

One of these is easy and the other is difficult.

 

[Townie72]

Kansas vs. Syracuse - Box Score - November 25, 2008 - ESPN

We were actually playing both defenses in those days.

 

[SWC75]

I wish we would do a better job attacking other team's zones. It's interesting that with more proficient three point shooting, more teams are playing some from of zone. Maybe an extended zone is the best way to maintain contact with shooters. But ti opens up the middle of the defense and yet we never put anybody at the top of the key to run the offense through. other teams do that and it kills us.

 

[upperdeck]

doesnt the point of this thread actually point to zone not against it.. 3 pt shooting is up.. the majority of teams play man not zone, so man defense isnt the answer either.. make them take tough shots and get the rebounds, do that no matter what D you play and you will be fine.

its like the STJ game where the made shots form 5-8 ft further out than they did any other game all year, kids get hot and make shots so you guard them harder. That issue alone killed our D, they continually lost track of shooters. game 1 of the NIT we shut down a really good shooter, game 2 we didnt even bother getting in the face of the kid making shots. Seems to me White was hot game 1 and they didnt shut him down playing man2man. it happens.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We were actually playing both defenses in those days.

Weird how a team that struggled with zone was able to execute a competent M2M.

 

[Townie72]

doesnt the point of this thread actually point to zone not against it.. 3 pt shooting is up.. the majority of teams play man not zone, so man defense isnt the answer either.. make them take tough shots and get the rebounds, do that no matter what D you play and you will be fine.

its like the STJ game where the made shots form 5-8 ft further out than they did any other game all year, kids get hot and make shots so you guard them harder. That issue alone killed our D, they continually lost track of shooters. game 1 of the NIT we shut down a really good shooter, game 2 we didnt even bother getting in the face of the kid making shots. Seems to me White was hot game 1 and they didnt shut him down playing man2man. it happens.

AWIII is the perfect antidote to the "M2M is the answer against the 3 pt shot" syndrome.

 

[SWC75]

Don't mind the zone, but the ability to switch in and out of defense can be really effective.

I have to think that sometimes based on the generally high nature of recruits we have had in the past that some of these players would excel at man defense. A guy like Battle should be an excellent on ball defender. Playing man can help sustain runs sometimes when you can get up in and defend man to man. A team like Louisville keeps applying pressure and gets teams rattled;the zone lets teams breathe on offense.

I don't care about the man to man- SU's record after JB concentrated on the zone shows that it was a good decision. And aggressive zone can have all the virtues of a man-to-man.

What I'd like to see is at least token pressure on every possession. Trap the guy who get the inbounds pass. Have a third guy set up to intercept the pass and a fourth guy playing centerfield past the mid-court line. The center defends the basket. If the pass is completed, one guy harasses the guy who received it and the others run back to take their positions in the halfcourt zone. It would produce some steals, increase the pace and cost the other time time to set up their offense without sacrificing too much on defense.

JB says nobody presses any more. But several teams I've seen in the NCAA tournament do and we do and do it fairly well when we commit to it.

 

[upperdeck]

I think we went into the year wanting to press more, we lost the big center on the backend and lost our other center and suddenly had no depth and then saved it for only when needed..

 

[TheEgg315]

I don't care about the man to man- SU's record after JB concentrated on the zone shows that it was a good decision. And aggressive zone can have all the virtues of a man-to-man.

What I'd like to see is at least token pressure on every possession. Trap the guy who get the inbounds pass. Have a third guy set up to intercept the pass and a fourth guy playing centerfield past the mid-court line. The center defends the basket. If the pass is completed, one guy harasses the guy who received it and the others run back to take their positions in the halfcourt zone. It would produce some steals, increase the pace and cost the other time time to set up their offense without sacrificing too much on defense.

Well you can say it was a good decision, but we don't really know if playing man would have produced more wins because he refuses to try. That is my main underlying issue. When ND was shredding the zone, shooting well, and dominating you HAVE to switch up your defense. That inability is just being flat out stubborn I'm sorry.

And the "token pressure" you're describing isn't token pressure. That's a full court trap. Token pressure is a 3/4 light pressure getting the guards to pass the ball back and forth a few times on their way up the court; forcing them to start their offense later in the shot clock.

 

[Townie72]

Yeah. Sure would be nice.

Not surprisingly you do not understand the reason or logic behind playing 100% zone. Or you never bothered to listen.

Most of it is in "Bleeding Orange". And the rest of it is in videos of JB explaining the zone and what he feels are the inherent advantages.

If you could play M2M and not lose anything on the implementation of the zone, that would be one thing. But JBs idea is that moving to M2M some of the time detracts from the effectiveness of the Zone.

Of course if you have read the book and have watched these videos, you know all that. But if you haven't ...

 

[Knicks411]

Ken Pom tracks 3 point % every year since 2002. ehre are the numbers

2002: 34.5%
2003: 34.7%
2004: 34.4%
2005: 34.6%
2006: 34.8%
2007: 34.9%
2008: 35.1%
2009: 34.2% (line was moved back this year)
2010: 34.2%
2011: 34.4%
2012: 34.3%
2013; 33.9%
2014: 34.5%
2015: 34.2%
2016: 34.7%
2017: 35%

So, this season is the second highest of all time, we are basically back to the levels we were hitting before the line was moved back.

I also did a weighted average, what I did was take the prior 3 years, and weight it 50% to the current year, 33% to the year prior, and 17% to the third year. So for example, the average for 2017 is 50% the 2017 average, 33% 2016, and 17% 2015. Obviously we need 3 years of data, so the first year for this is 2004.

2004: 34.5%
2005: 34.6%
2006: 34.7%
2007: 34.8%
2008: 35%
2009: 34.6%
2010: 34.4%
2011: 34.3%
2012: 34.3%
2013: 34.1%
2014: 34.3%
2015: 34.3%
2016: 34.5%
2017: 34.8%

So basically, the % was moving steadily up, by about a tenth of a percent per year, reaching 35% (34.98% but who's counting?), until they moved the line back in 2009. Not surprisingly, %'s went down that year, and it took a while for the moving average to catch up, and we still aren't quite at the level we were prior to the line moving out. Another year next year around 35% will get the 3 year average to right around 35%, where we were in 2008.

3 point shooting is steadily improving, which makes sense, but at the same time, we're not talking huge amounts. We allowed 863 3's this year. At 34% defense, that's 293.42 3's made. At 35%, it's 302.05. So an extra 10 3's over the course of the year. Which is a difference of 30 points, but it's really less than that, because some of those 10 threes that go from hits to misses result in offensive rebounds, and we'd give up some points off that.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Weird how a team that struggled with zone was able to execute a competent M2M.

I think that was a special case of the players not wanting to play zone though. It wasn't lack of ability it was lack of motivation. Jonny and PH were constantly begging JB to play man. He did it in that game and it worked. I'm not sure how this is a debate. When the zone has the correct type of players and is played well by those players, it is clearly a top 15 caliber defense on a national scale. In 2013 the zone broke records in the NCAA tournament.

 

[Townie72]

I think we went into the year wanting to press more, we lost the big center on the backend and lost our other center and suddenly had no depth and then saved it for only when needed..

And teams shredded our press. Once they got beyond 3/4 court it was an automatic basket and their 10 point lead became a 12 point lead.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Ken Pom tracks 3 point % every year since 2002. ehre are the numbers

2002: 34.5%
2003: 34.7%
2004: 34.4%
2005: 34.6%
2006: 34.8%
2007: 34.9%
2008: 35.1%
2009: 34.2% (line was moved back this year)
2010: 34.2%
2011: 34.4%
2012: 34.3%
2013; 33.9%
2014: 34.5%
2015: 34.2%
2016: 34.7%
2017: 35%

So, this season is the second highest of all time, we are basically back to the levels we were hitting before the line was moved back.

I also did a weighted average, what I did was take the prior 3 years, and weight it 50% to the current year, 33% to the year prior, and 17% to the third year. So for example, the average for 2017 is 50% the 2017 average, 33% 2016, and 17% 2015. Obviously we need 3 years of data, so the first year for this is 2004.

2004: 34.5%
2005: 34.6%
2006: 34.7%
2007: 34.8%
2008: 35%
2009: 34.6%
2010: 34.4%
2011: 34.3%
2012: 34.3%
2013: 34.1%
2014: 34.3%
2015: 34.3%
2016: 34.5%
2017: 34.8%

So basically, the % was moving steadily up, by about a tenth of a percent per year, reaching 35% (34.98% but who's counting?), until they moved the line back in 2009. Not surprisingly, %'s went down that year, and it took a while for the moving average to catch up, and we still aren't quite at the level we were prior to the line moving out. Another year next year around 35% will get the 3 year average to right around 35%, where we were in 2008.

3 point shooting is steadily improving, which makes sense, but at the same time, we're not talking huge amounts. We allowed 863 3's this year. At 34% defense, that's 293.42 3's made. At 35%, it's 302.05. So an extra 10 3's over the course of the year. Which is a difference of 30 points, but it's really less than that, because some of those 10 threes that go from hits to misses result in offensive rebounds, and we'd give up some points off that.

Great post. I would think the volume of 3's taken are also increasing?

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think that was a special case of the players not wanting to play zone though. It wasn't lack of ability it was lack of motivation. Jonny and PH were constantly begging JB to play man. He did it in that game and it worked. I'm not sure how this is a debate. When the zone has the correct type of players and is played well by those players, it is clearly a top 15 caliber defense on a national scale. In 2013 the zone broke records in the NCAA tournament.

Townies contention is that if you can't (or won't) play zone effectively, you wont play MTM effectively either. So yeah I know they weren't motivated. That's the thing.

I am not anti zone, and I don't think playing Man to Man would have solved any issues this year.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Not surprisingly you do not understand the reason or logic behind playing 100% zone. Or you never bothered to listen.

Most of it is in "Bleeding Orange". And the rest of it is in videos of JB explaining the zone and what he feels are the inherent advantages.

If you could play M2M and not lose anything on the implementation of the zone, that would be one thing. But JBs idea is that moving to M2M some of the time detracts from the effectiveness of the Zone.

Of course if you have read the book and have watched these videos, you know all that. But if you haven't ...

Ive read his book a few times, and I found his justifications weak at best.

 

[Townie72]

Great post. I would think the volume of 3's taken are also increasing?

Great point! That's the key to the statistic.

It's surprising when you see a 15' jumper these and that shot was the mainstay of college basketball (and high school basketball) for decades.

 

[GooseMutt]

Not the Curry effect, call it the small ball effect. Teams play a with 3 guards and 2 forwards makes the zone have to spread and be susceptible to dribble penetration. Also a lot for kids are working with good personal trainers a few days a week and are becoming g better shooters.

No wonder we can't find any guards

 

[Lucid]

Ken Pom tracks 3 point % every year since 2002. ehre are the numbers

2002: 34.5%
2003: 34.7%
2004: 34.4%
2005: 34.6%
2006: 34.8%
2007: 34.9%
2008: 35.1%
2009: 34.2% (line was moved back this year)
2010: 34.2%
2011: 34.4%
2012: 34.3%
2013; 33.9%
2014: 34.5%
2015: 34.2%
2016: 34.7%
2017: 35%

So, this season is the second highest of all time, we are basically back to the levels we were hitting before the line was moved back.

I also did a weighted average, what I did was take the prior 3 years, and weight it 50% to the current year, 33% to the year prior, and 17% to the third year. So for example, the average for 2017 is 50% the 2017 average, 33% 2016, and 17% 2015. Obviously we need 3 years of data, so the first year for this is 2004.

2004: 34.5%
2005: 34.6%
2006: 34.7%
2007: 34.8%
2008: 35%
2009: 34.6%
2010: 34.4%
2011: 34.3%
2012: 34.3%
2013: 34.1%
2014: 34.3%
2015: 34.3%
2016: 34.5%
2017: 34.8%

So basically, the % was moving steadily up, by about a tenth of a percent per year, reaching 35% (34.98% but who's counting?), until they moved the line back in 2009. Not surprisingly, %'s went down that year, and it took a while for the moving average to catch up, and we still aren't quite at the level we were prior to the line moving out. Another year next year around 35% will get the 3 year average to right around 35%, where we were in 2008.

3 point shooting is steadily improving, which makes sense, but at the same time, we're not talking huge amounts. We allowed 863 3's this year. At 34% defense, that's 293.42 3's made. At 35%, it's 302.05. So an extra 10 3's over the course of the year. Which is a difference of 30 points, but it's really less than that, because some of those 10 threes that go from hits to misses result in offensive rebounds, and we'd give up some points off that.

Time to move the line back again, to NBA distance?

Hey, I'm just asking the question, and before you rip my head off, consider this. If the NBA is drafting on POTENTIAL, they might start to see a little less of it in first and second year players if they're hitting a lower percentage of threes. It would also, I think, benefit the players AND the NBA in the long run, because they'd be getting "better prepared" NBA prospects.

 

[Townie72]

Ive read his book a few times, and I found his justifications weak at best.

Oh Boy! So you substituted your expertise for his.

Kudus for your honesty at least.

But can you see why other might find this not compelling?