Revionist history.

[STEVEHOLT]

Since we were victorious, the fact that we got torched for six threes in a row in the second half and 14 overall becomes sort of an aside.

But I wonder how different the reaction would be today had we lost? Would the fact that our zone was "figured out" be more of a topic of discussion, especially against a team we were clearly more physical and athletic than? A team with limited ball handlers.

Would people be saying things like "the zone has to go?"

What I took from that painful stretch of watching three after three fall (which reminded me alot of the sweet 16 game vs MSU) was how nice it would be if we were able to at least play a passable man defense for at least a few minutes just to get them out of their rhythm. At least make it such that they did not know exactly where they could stand to get wide open looks.

I realize that after several minutes the zone adjusted somewhat on the entry passes to the free throw line, but jeez..it took forever.

And also realize that teams do make threes against man defense as well. In fact, Taylors threes were nearly all contested.. I mean come one..he is a high 30 percent three point shooter not a 50 percent three point shooter. He couldnt even see the bucket on some of those shots . They seemed flat and guided through the hoop by a higher power or at least drone technology.

 

[kingtidge]

And also realize that teams do make threes against man defense as well. In fact, Taylors threes were nearly all contested.. I mean come one..he is a high 30 percent three point shooter not a 50 percent three point shooter. He couldnt even see the bucket on some of those shots . They seemed flat and guided through the hoop by a higher power or at least drone technology.

That was the best perimeter passing team I think I've ever seen.

They were going to get open on our zone often, it was just a question of how many passes it would take.

The contested shots that they were hitting, however, did have some sort of paranormal quality to them tho... Beyond What...

 

[Cusefan95]

Would people be saying things like "the zone has to go?"

Really, we all know the answer to that question. Yes.

Not that I've seen a team hit 14 threes before - but I've seen good M2M defenses torn up and almost nobody ever says they should have switched to zone. Somehow it's acceptable to lose if you play M2M, but the zone is unquestionably the cause of a loss to a hot shooting team for Syracuse. But more broadly I agree - it would be great if Syracuse could play M2M as a change of pace...

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Equally odd and disturbing was that we made 27 field goals but only had 5 assists - and 4 of thosee were by Scoop. Only 6 turnovers, too. But that was the game plan in a way - iso your best athletes and let them go one-on-one. Can't complain about the result.

 

[Charlie]

Would the fact that our zone was "figured out" be more of a topic of discussion, especially against a team we were clearly more physical and athletic than? A team with limited ball handlers.

Would people be saying things like "the zone has to go?"

What I took from that painful stretch of watching three after three fall (which reminded me alot of the sweet 16 game vs MSU) was how nice it would be if we were able to at least play a passable man defense for at least a few minutes just to get them out of their rhythm. At least make it such that they did not know exactly where they could stand to get wide open looks.

I realize that after several minutes the zone adjusted somewhat on the entry passes to the free throw line, but jeez..it took forever.

And also realize that teams do make threes against man defense as well. In fact, Taylors threes were nearly all contested.. I mean come one..he is a high 30 percent three point shooter not a 50 percent three point shooter. He couldnt even see the bucket on some of those shots . They seemed flat and guided through the hoop by a higher power or at least drone technology.

I don't agree they figured out the zone but you are probably right and there would certainly be the regulars calling to get rid of it and they'd probably sway a few others too. The fact is and as you mentioned almost all of Taylors 3s were contested, or at the very least from beyond the NBA line and I think JB was okay with that. I think maybe they had 5 really clean open looks from 3. Sometimes it happens that you run into a team that is shooting so well you almost have to just tip your cap. There were only a couple of times during the game when I thought, how did that guy such an open look? If somebody had posted their shot chart of attempts and the proximity of the D before the game and said do you think they'll win? I would guess even most wisconsin fans would say absolutely no way?

So, to answer your question - yes people would be here calling for zone to gotten rid of. I am not one of those people.

 

[sufandu]

I said to myself about half way through the second half that if we lost I could except it. I thought that we were moving well on defense, but that Wisconsin was executing perfectly. I was happy that most of our threes came after we ran some offense, and that we took it to the basket aggressively for high percentage shots. Had they won, I think I would've said that Wisconsin was the better team that night and that they would never play (specifically shoot) that well again. As well as Keita played, I think that Fab would've given us a shot blocking presence that would have allowed us to refrain from shifting and helping quite so much (maybe limiting some of their good looks), but that is neither here nor there at this point. We survived and advanced and now we play a completely different style team.

 

[xc84]

I think Wisconsin executed well... but they could have wound up with the exact same shots and shot e.g. 33% (still good) from 3 point land... and we're not having this discussion. In reality, "executed well" means they made shots. Many of those shots they made were well outside of where they would be guarded tight even if they were facing man. To me, SU was a multi-faceted team that executed very well. Wisc. was a one dimensional team that put all their eggs in one basket.

 

[themorey]

I don't understand why it took Jimmy so long to extend the zone and force them to win by making 2's. The game would have been over much sooner.

 

[xc84]

I don't understand why it took Jimmy so long to extend the zone and force them to win by making 2's. The game would have been over much sooner.

Hopefully Jimmy is reading your post. He'll put you on speed dial for the next game.

 

[rstone7727]

I don't understand why it took Jimmy so long to extend the zone and force them to win by making 2's. The game would have been over much sooner.

We were ahead for most of the game. I think he is normally reluctant to change things as long as he has the lead but, yeah I question his thought process often. I have to bite my tongue sometimes and tell myself he has 890 freakn' wins and is arguably the best head coach in America.

 

[All4SU]

Yes, people would have complained about the zone. It's what people do.

I think JB plays defense like people rolling dice, or flipping a coin. He knows that if a couple go in, the next couple will miss. That statistically, things even out. Most times they do. If you change what you are doing in the middle of the game, you change the statistical odds, and make predicting probabilities just that much more difficult. He wants to stick with one thing and do it as well as possible, with adjustments to help his ability to control those probabilities.

He may be wrong. But it's the style that he believes works for him. Difficult to argue with the results -- MOST of the time.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I really think JB is more like a baseball manager. I've said this before: he plays the percentages. I think SeattleCuse posted the numbers; with Wisconsin's 3-pt shooting numbers over the course of the year, there was a 1 in 450 chance of them hitting 6 threes in a row. I think you have to take odds like that. Given those odds, we can't really assume it wouldn't have happened regardless of the D we played (although I agree they were able to get many open looks). Look at it this way: they shot 58% from the free throw line. Closer in and completely unguarded.

Now, for reasons I can't understand, the universe has decided that Sweet 16 games will be our great wall of China. Miracles regularly happen against us in these games and we also normally lay a complete egg offensively. The percentages favor that NOT happening though.

JB's winning percentage proves that playing the percentages does work. I think he has tilted the odds in his favor a little more of late with the personnel he has recruited at the G positions and also the tactics of guarding the 3-pt line. We sort of just have to live with the chances of a once every 10 years or so shooting performance like last night.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

The thing though is each game is its own statistical entity. over the course of an entire season, percentages even out. over the course of a 40 minute game, it is a total fallacy to just keep doing what you are doing because "percentages" dictate X or Y. a game like the wisconsin game, with such few possessions, is especially such a situation where you cant make long term bets...there is an actual game going on being played by players with biorhythms, there is no rule that states they have to start missing just because the math says so. i really think you need to adjust based on what is actually happening in front of your face..im not talking about a team hitting a few shots and getting lucky..im talking about an entire game's worth of something happening over and over and over again.

 

[KingOtis]

I'm a believer in the zone, win or lose. Once in a while, a team will get hot and there's really nothing you can do about it. They should cool off eventually, and if they don't, you tip your hat.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I'm a believer in the zone, win or lose. Once in a while, a team will get hot and there's really nothing you can do about it. They should cool off eventually, and if they don't, you tip your hat.

that is one philosophy and it works most of the time. it just doesnt seem to work as well against tournament level competition in a one and done type competition. perhaps the years we do not do so well in the tourney, we just dont have as good a team as we think..and its actually the zone that has hidden those deficiencies throughout the season... certainly if you watched carolinas game tonight you can see that a man to man team can get torched from three as well.

 

[KingOtis]

certainly if you watched carolinas game tonight you can see that a man to man team can get torched from three as well.

Exactly. And we torched Wisconsin last night.

As far as our recent tournament losses go, Vermont was the only game we were supposed to win and didn't because of the way they shot against our zone. Alabama just plain wanted it more. It was as if our guys were content with making the Sweet 16 the year after winning it all. They didn't show up. Oklahoma shredded the zone, but they were a better team anyway (plus Flynn, Devo and Harris were sieves). We had no chance against A&M with a hobbled G-Mac. Maybe we should have beat Butler without AO, but we weren't getting much further. And the Marquette game was a conference game. JB counts on facing teams unfamiliar with the zone that early in the tournament.

My point is that most of those losses weren't the result of a breakdown in the system. They happened for other reasons.

 

[Rossco123]

that is one philosophy and it works most of the time. it just doesnt seem to work as well against tournament level competition in a one and done type competition. perhaps the years we do not do so well in the tourney, we just dont have as good a team as we think..and its actually the zone that has hidden those deficiencies throughout the season... certainly if you watched carolinas game tonight you can see that a man to man team can get torched from three as well.

This m2m thing is so old school and soooo tired. Whiski zones us last night we loose! Izzo one of the old die hard gets what’s been coming to him for years. Intransigent old fart that he is.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

the vermont game was the most maddening game of all time because they were just so ing bad and it was like we played them with one hand tied behind our backs. if we just turned up the heat for two mintues its a blow out. i am very confused as to what happened in that game to this day

 

[HoustonCuse]

that is one philosophy and it works most of the time. it just doesnt seem to work as well against tournament level competition in a one and done type competition. perhaps the years we do not do so well in the tourney, we just dont have as good a team as we think..and its actually the zone that has hidden those deficiencies throughout the season... certainly if you watched carolinas game tonight you can see that a man to man team can get torched from three as well.

Also Kentucky's vaunted man-to-man gave up 90 points in a regional semi-final tonight to a middle of the road Big Ten 10 team. If our team gave up 90 in a Sweet 16 game, we'd devour our young and burn down the city.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Also Kentucky's vaunted man-to-man gave up 90 points in a regional semi-final tonight to a middle of the road Big Ten 10 team. If our team gave up 90 in a Sweet 16 game, we'd devour our young and burn down the city.

kentucky let them score 90 so they could score 100. it was more fun for them.

 

[Scooch]

The thing though is each game is its own statistical entity. over the course of an entire season, percentages even out. over the course of a 40 minute game, it is a total fallacy to just keep doing what you are doing because "percentages" dictate X or Y. a game like the wisconsin game, with such few possessions, is especially such a situation where you cant make long term bets...there is an actual game going on being played by players with biorhythms, there is no rule that states they have to start missing just because the math says so. i really think you need to adjust based on what is actually happening in front of your face..im not talking about a team hitting a few shots and getting lucky..im talking about an entire game's worth of something happening over and over and over again.

But see, you can't coach that way if you're committed to a probability-based approach. If you change your approach too quickly then you potentially blow the odds that you supposedly believe in.

Think of it in football terms... If you're a running team and you get stuffed for no yards in your first 6 runs you don't abandon it and throw the ball 60 times the rest of the game. Maybe you abandon after a while, but not that quickly.

When should we have abandoned the zone in that crazy run? After the 2nd make? The 4th? It's pretty arbitrary, no? And really it wasn't so much about the zone as it was a couple players losing their man in it. That happens in every D.

Honestly, every SU fan I was watching with thought we played great all game. So did Wisconsin. The other time is trying too, it's not just about us.

And at the end of the day, we have up all of 63 points. We should always win when we give up 63 points. We're an offensive team, always have been.

 

[Cusefan95]

The thing though is each game is its own statistical entity. over the course of an entire season, percentages even out. over the course of a 40 minute game, it is a total fallacy to just keep doing what you are doing because "percentages" dictate X or Y. a game like the wisconsin game, with such few possessions, is especially such a situation where you cant make long term bets...there is an actual game going on being played by players with biorhythms, there is no rule that states they have to start missing just because the math says so. i really think you need to adjust based on what is actually happening in front of your face..im not talking about a team hitting a few shots and getting lucky..im talking about an entire game's worth of something happening over and over and over again.

JB makes a lot of adjustments...he's one of the best at in-game adjustments. What he doesn't do is completely abandon his core principles. No good coach does. He's got faith in the zone, he'll tweak what they do in it - but he won't switch to a completely different defense very often (and in the last few years, at all). Somehow that means he doesn't make adjustments, which simply isn't true.

I'd rather lose doing what I do best, than lose because I tried to do something I seldom do and am not as good at as my bread and butter. Obviously that's JB's approach as well. It's like the old Bum Phillips quote, ya dance with who brung ya...

 

[BlueCurtain]

JB was convinced he didn't have to play another second of m2m after April 2003. From 1996-2003 he at least gave m2m a chance to bring them back after the zone was getting obliterated.

 

[KingOtis]

JB was convinced he didn't have to play another second of m2m after April 2003. From 1996-2003 he at least gave m2m a chance to bring them back after the zone was getting obliterated.

Speaking of "Revisionist History."

 

[RF2044]

Since we were victorious, the fact that we got torched for six threes in a row in the second half and 14 overall becomes sort of an aside.

But I wonder how different the reaction would be today had we lost? Would the fact that our zone was "figured out" be more of a topic of discussion, especially against a team we were clearly more physical and athletic than? A team with limited ball handlers.

Would people be saying things like "the zone has to go?"

I remember seeing a special about the 1996 NCAA game against Georgia, where John Wallace hit a long three after taking it coast to coast to give us the win.

In talking about the game, JB said that he nearly called timeout when we struggled to get the ball inbounds, eventually getting it to Wallace. But since Wallace was our star, he let it ride. Luckily, J-Dub hit the shot and the game goes down in program lore.

But JB acknowledged that it was one of those things where if Wallace misses the shot, he would have gotten crucified for not calling the timeout. Paraphrasing how he put it, but since Wallace hit the shot, it was a brilliant coaching move.

It all comes down to players making plays.

Hindsight is 20-20.