RIP 2-3 zone?

[Brooky03]

Still amusing at least. So there's that.

And yes your numbers are your numbers... not anyone else's but they sure are yours.

So the official three point attempts and percentages are mine. Cool. I should charge money for them.

 

[Brooky03]

So according to some #'s...Today's shooters, who shoot from way deeper than back in the day, are just as efficient as their predecessors?

And same poster believes that has no effect on the zone?

Am I understanding that correctly?

I love when people debunk their own theories, then don't just double down, but go all in on it.

The line was moved back a foot. Some players are more comfortable shooting a little further away than that. They were comfortable shooting further away in 2014, too.

It’s not like it took 9 year olds watching Steph Curry time to grow up and start launching bombs like he did. He wasn’t the only one doing it. The lag was a few years before everybody did it.

Try again

 

[Brooky03]

And another thing - Remember when once in awhile out of the blue, Boeheim would send his two outside defenders to trap the ball handler as soon as he crossed mid court? Would result in a turnover more often than not. Haven't seen it in probably 10 years.

I suspect slow footed and/or short guards played a role there.

 

[BludOrange]

The line was moved back a foot. Some players are more comfortable shooting a little further away than that. They were comfortable shooting further away in 2014, too.

It’s not like it took 9 year olds watching Steph Curry to time to grow up and start launching bombs like he did. He wasn’t the only one doing it. The lag was a few years before everybody did it.

Try again

Lol, you discredited your own premise by admitting that percentages are the same and they are just as efficient from way deep. That should be the end of the conversation, but you'll continue to go all in. So, I'll add that you forgot all the other aspects of what happens when the zone is extended. You've yet to or refuse to talk about that part. I wonder why. You might not believe this, but every action by an offense, tends to force a reaction by the defense.

Your logic...'Now listen team, the zone doesn't need to extend past a foot deeper than the line, I want you to leave them wide open if any deeper than that, as they are just as likely to make the shot, the numbers don't lie'

Do you have any #'s for percentage of wide open 3's made and percentage of shots made when guarded vs our zone?

Can you breakdown the numbers for me of how many different players on a team would hit a 3 back then, as compared to now, Mr Numbers? Now do the numbers for multiple 3's made by multiple players from way back when compared to now.

Let me guess...you don't have those stats.

 

[Brooky03]

Lol, you discredited your own premise by admitting that percentages are the same and they are just as efficient from way deep. That should be the end of the conversation, but you'll continue to go all in. So, I'll add that you forgot all the other aspects of what happens when the zone is extended. You've yet to or refuse to talk about that part. I wonder why. You might not believe this, but every action by an offense, tends to force a reaction by the defense.

Your logic...'Now listen team, the zone doesn't need to extend past a foot deeper than the line, I want you to leave them wide open if any deeper than that, as they are just as likely to make the shot, the numbers don't lie'

Do you have any #'s for percentage of wide open 3's made and percentage of shots made when guarded vs our zone?

Can you breakdown the numbers for me of how many different players on a team would hit a 3 back then, as compared to now, Mr Numbers? Now do the numbers for multiple 3's made by multiple players from way back when compared to now.

Let me guess...you don't have those stats.

"way deep." A foot deeper.

I'd say try again, again, but I don't think you're going to get there. Nice try, dude.

 

[Brooky03]

btw, I realized I've been burying the lead. KenPom - you know, the most respected advanced stats guy in the game who some treat like Jesus - ranks defenses with a handy AdjD stat. It's neat. You should all check it out some time.

2015 - 20th best defense
2016 - 18th best defense
2018 - 5th best defense
2019 - 30th best defense
2021 - 77th best defense (top 25% for those wondering. Not great, but well within the range of good)

Wow, that zone really sucks.

2017 - 119th
2020 - 116th
2022 - 207th
2023 - 188th

The above numbers indicate the zone did not stop working until 2020. We've been going through all of this BS over a 3 year 'trend' that's really 2 years?

Jesus Christ. I'm all the way out on any dumpster fire arguments that the zone didn't work. I think I'll just copy and paste this for all future arguments about this.

 

[Orangezoo]

btw, I realized I've been burying the lead. KenPom - you know, the most respected advanced stats guy in the game who some treat like Jesus - ranks defenses with a handy AdjD stat. It's neat. You should all check it out some time.

2015 - 20th best defense
2016 - 18th best defense
2018 - 5th best defense
2019 - 30th best defense
2021 - 77th best defense (top 25% for those wondering. Not great, but well within the range of good)

Wow, that zone really sucks.

2017 - 119th
2020 - 116th
2022 - 207th
2023 - 188th

The above numbers indicate the zone did not stop working until 2020. We've been going through all of this BS over a 3 year 'trend' that's really 2 years?

Jesus Christ. I'm all the way out on any dumpster fire arguments that the zone didn't work. I think I'll just copy and paste this for all future arguments about this.

We found the Hoops Marty.

 

[BludOrange]

Those two statements are not contradictions. How did you get that wrong?

I said that players shot from deeper than the line in 2014 and shot deeper than the line in 2022. And I also noted that the line was only moved back a foot.

With all due respect, are you drunk?

You were adamant that they only shot from a foot deeper and not way back or from any logos as I suggested.

You then contradict yourself and say some do shoot from way back.

So, thanks for playing and do learn to keep your stories straight Mr Numbers.

 

[BludOrange]

We found the Hoops Marty.

Was thinking the same thing.

 

[FrancoPizza]

If we have a taller team we might see it in the future.

I agree, if they have 13’ wingspans we can cut off all the passing lanes.

 

[Brooky03]

You were adamant that they only shot from a foot deeper and not way back or from any logos as I suggested.

You then contradict yourself and say some do shoot from way back.

So, thanks for playing and do learn to keep your stories straight Mr Numbers.

That's not what I was adamant about. You read it incorrectly. When you said 'way deep' I had assumed you watched basketball in 2014 and understood that players routinely shot from significantly deeper than the 3-point line back then. That is precisely what I alluded to when I said players were comfortable shooting from deeper than the line back then and now. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption that you watch basketball.

When I made reference to the line moving back just one foot, that contradicted absolutely nothing. For your point to make sense, you would need it to be true that players shot only at the line in 2014 and then miraculously started shooting 30 footers later because... idk, feelings?

Maybe you don't understand what the word contradiction means?

Good luck with life, bud.

 

[Orangezoo]

You were adamant that they only shot from a foot deeper and not way back or from any logos as I suggested.

You then contradict yourself and say some do shoot from way back.

So, thanks for playing and do learn to keep your stories straight Mr Numbers.

It was over a long time ago. This is just letting the walk ons take their open 3s.

 

[Orangezoo]

That's not what I was adamant about. You read it incorrectly. When you said 'way deep' I had assumed you watched basketball in 2014 and understood that players routinely shot from significantly deeper than the 3-point line back then. That is precisely what I alluded to when I said players were comfortable shooting from deeper than the line back then and now. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption that you watch basketball.

When I made reference to the line moving back just one foot, that contradicted absolutely nothing. For your point to make sense, you would need it to be true that players shot only at the line in 2014 and then miraculously started shooting 30 footers later because... idk, feelings?

Maybe you don't understand what the word contradiction means?

Good luck with life, bud.

^^^
When your debate strategy is the analytics version of O'Doyle rules...

 

[BludOrange]

btw, I realized I've been burying the lead. KenPom - you know, the most respected advanced stats guy in the game who some treat like Jesus - ranks defenses with a handy AdjD stat. It's neat. You should all check it out some time.

2015 - 20th best defense
2016 - 18th best defense
2018 - 5th best defense
2019 - 30th best defense
2021 - 77th best defense (top 25% for those wondering. Not great, but well within the range of good)

Wow, that zone really sucks.

2017 - 119th
2020 - 116th
2022 - 207th
2023 - 188th

The above numbers indicate the zone did not stop working until 2020. We've been going through all of this BS over a 3 year 'trend' that's really 2 years?

Jesus Christ. I'm all the way out on any dumpster fire arguments that the zone didn't work. I think I'll just copy and paste this for all future arguments about this.

Why even watch the games? You're #s and stats should already tell you the outcomes.

Wait, numbers don't tell the whole story and anything can happen? You don't say!




Ok, I'll go back to the hidden board now. The brass don't like when I stray over here.

 

[Brooky03]

Why even watch the games? You're #s and stats should already tell you the outcomes.

Wait, numbers don't tell the whole story and anything can happen? You don't say!




Ok, I'll go back to the hidden board now. The brass don't like when I stray over here.

Ohhhhh right, numbers lie and eyes don’t. Got it. When the numbers don’t work out your way just say that the games look different. Got it. Yeah you’re definitely making a lot of sense.

 

[Orangezoo]

Why even watch the games? You're #s and stats should already tell you the outcomes.

Wait, numbers don't tell the whole story and anything can happen? You don't say!




Ok, I'll go back to the hidden board now. The brass don't like when I stray over here.

There is no arguing when someone with a narrative to push starts going full on armchair analytics. Then discovers Ken Pom like it's not been referenced already ( 100x plus or more on this topic). Smile and wave.

 

[Brooky03]

There is no arguing when someone with a narrative to push starts going full on armchair analytics. Then discovers Ken Pom like it's not been referenced already ( 100x plus or more on this topic). Smile and wave.

You are the absolute king of armchair analytics.

“Narrative to push.” Coming from you, that’s hilarious.

 

[BludOrange]

There is no arguing when someone with a narrative to push starts going full on armchair analytics. Then discovers Ken Pom like it's not been referenced already ( 100x plus or more on this topic). Smile and wave.

Danny and the Miracles or Jimmy V's chips are fake news. We all been brainwashed. Analytics said there were was no way they could win.

After all... numbers don't lie, eyes do.

 

[Brooky03]

Danny and the Miracles or Jimmy V's chips are fake news. We all been brainwashed. Analytics said there were was no way they could win.

After all... numbers don't lie, eyes do.

Okay, you are drunk. Just stumbling around grasping for straws. I’m sorry your argument didn’t work out. Goodnight, dude.

 

[Orangezoo]

You are the absolute king of armchair analytics.

“Narrative to push.” Coming from you, that’s hilarious.

Try making an effort to counter the actual numbers shared instead of acting like a dog with a bone anytime you can play contrarian. You've added nothing but bluster and serving as your own hype man.

I'll take my mathematics degree and 15 years of working in actual analytics over your self professed expertise. For someone who has an issue with bullying you sure do your best effort to be one.

You actually make good points and posts and quite often- then go down these weird rabbit holes and act like a troll like your chilling with the Applebee's guy all night.

 

[Brooky03]

Try making an effort to counter the actual numbers shared instead of acting like a dog with a bone anytime you can play contrarian. You've added nothing but bluster and serving as your own hype man.

I'll take my mathematics degree and 15 years of working in actual analytics over your self professed expertise. For someone who has an issue with bullying you sure do your best effort to be one.

You actually make good points and posts and quite often- then go down these weird rabbit holes and act like a troll like your chilling with the Applebee's guy all night.

The numbers have been countered. Directly by my analysis earlier and then by the Kenpom numbers. For your argument to have any footing, Kenpom’s numbers would not have to be flawed, they would have to be inaccurate to the point of worthlessness. That’s not the case as much as you would like it to be the case.

When you lose you can admit it or fight it. You’re going to fight it. I admire your moxy. I won’t be clicking the ‘show ignored content’ button for a while.

It’s been a pleasure. Congrats on being good at math.

Long live the zone

 

[Orangezoo]

Let's leave this with an analytical thought but pivot to outcomes to keep it higher level. How many final four teams have there been since 2014 that played zone 75 pct of the time? How many sweet 16 teams?

There are 7 teams as of 2020 who played it more than 75 pct of possessions.. the biggest name besides SU, that stopped just prior to 2020 and made a final four and won a title after they stopped was Baylor. Explain why the # of programs where zone is used near the same levels as SU and has been continuously dropping over the same time period that SU has struggled while miraculously the other analytics show the 3pt shot has become a much bigger part of every teams offensive scheme over that time.

This is a basic ask forget the ask to go through the other more layered stats. The premise of this ask is that if there is no significant change in the 3pt shot analytics since 2014 then why is zone utilization and the # of teams going far in the post season using it at high rate not increasing but instead decreasing? Why not have these top 10 classes with zone size and athleticism out there playing it?

 

[Orangezoo]

The numbers have been countered. Directly by my analysis earlier and then by the Kenpom numbers. For your argument to have any footing, Kenpom’s numbers would not have to be flawed, they would have to be inaccurate to the point of worthlessness. That’s not the case as much as you would like it to be the case.

When you lose you can admit it or fight it. You’re going to fight it. I admire your moxy. I won’t be clicking the ‘show ignored content’ button for a while.

It’s been a pleasure. Congrats on being good at math.

Long live the zone

You never responded to a single one of the analysis posts. You just posted your own drivel. Hit reply on one of those and counter them. Otherwise - it's a blatant lie- like I said -your own hype man.

Newsflash- I've pointed to kenpom many times... you're making up your own things. Good day.

 

[Sherman20]

The numbers have been countered. Directly by my analysis earlier and then by the Kenpom numbers. For your argument to have any footing, Kenpom’s numbers would not have to be flawed, they would have to be inaccurate to the point of worthlessness. That’s not the case as much as you would like it to be the case.

When you lose you can admit it or fight it. You’re going to fight it. I admire your moxy. I won’t be clicking the ‘show ignored content’ button for a while.

It’s been a pleasure. Congrats on being good at math.

Long live the zone

The KenPom defensive efficiency numbers are what we’ve all been citing for years now to show the diminishing returns of the zone. It is a trend. We used to regularly be a top 25 defensive team, usually higher, but it’s cratered in recent years. We’ve had sub-100 defenses Three of the past four years. Last year we were sub-200. Yes, part of it is not having top-flight athletes, but part of it is that the zone is a huge challenge to have as your only defense in a world where the 3-point shot is king, so many players can shoot it well, and teams take a ton of 3s. Oh and the zone also kills us on the defensive glass.

2017 - 119th
2020 - 116th
2022 - 207th
2023 - 188th

 

[tptcuse]

Lots of pals, dudes, and buds in this thread. Fun stuff.