The affection that some here have for the 2-3 is baffling

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

Jim Boeheim was a legend. It was his defense. And when it worked, it worked, It baffled people. And Boeheim had the cache, as much as I hated it, to run that defense until the day he left. And he did.

But the fact is, at its BEST that defense left us vulnerable to less talented teams who got hot deep, even when the 3 wasn't necessarily as omnipresent as it is now. At its worst, which has become more and more commonplace in recent years, it leaves you completely exposed to modern 3 point offenses whose shooters are able to shoot from deeper and deeper by the year.

This is the chance to transition to a modern defense that allows us to more effectively cover modern offenses. Sure, you can have some zone to switch to from time to time. But it cannot and should not be the primary defense of a new coach in 2023. Maybe 10-20% of the time if you want. That's IT. Yet I still see people arguing that the 2-3 still has a place as a primary D.

I don't get it. What is with the strange personal attachment to a defense the failings of which have caused many of us to pull our hair out night after night in recent years?

Look, when you have the greatest to ever coach it in house, maybe there is hope that the D can still work more often than not. But with JB out of the building, the idea of sticking to a dated defense that has begun to fail us on a predictably regular level is just absolute folly.

Be sentimental about the person. He left yesterday. The effectiveness of the schemes left long ago.

 

[721Comstock]

Jim Boeheim was a legend. It was his defense. And when it worked, it worked, It baffled people. And Boeheim had the cache, as much as I hated it, to run that defense until the day he left. And he did.

But the fact is, at its BEST that defense left us vulnerable to less talented teams who got hot deep, even when the 3 wasn't necessarily as omnipresent as it is now. At its worst, which has become more and more commonplace in recent years, it leaves you completely exposed to modern 3 point offenses whose shooters are able to shoot from deeper and deeper by the year.

This is the chance to transition to a modern defense that allows us to more effectively cover modern offenses. Sure, you can have some zone to switch to from time to time. But it cannot and should not be the primary defense of a new coach in 2023. Maybe 10-20% of the time if you want. That's IT. Yet I still see people arguing that the 2-3 still has a place as a primary D.

I don't get it. What is with the strange personal attachment to a defense the failings of which have caused many of us to pull our hair out night after night in recent years?

Look, when you have the greatest to ever coach it in house, maybe there is hope that the D can still work more often than not. But with JB out of the building, the idea of sticking to a dated defense that has begun to fail us on a predictably regular level is just absolute folly.

Be sentimental about the person. He left yesterday. The effectiveness of the schemes left long ago.

I forget who posted the amazing chart (Flyrodder, maybe) about the entirety of D1 defenses vs the 3pt shot, with shooting % matched against assist rate:

Syracuse was literally ALL ALONE as an outlier at the bottom of the worst quartile.

IIRC, the average D1 D gives up 37% on 3's, and they are assisted about half the time.

Syracuse gives up FORTY SEVEN PERCENT on 3's!!!!
And they are assisted 72% of the time!!!

So, all our opponents had to do, was: pass, pass, pass, and wait for the inevitable wide open 3.
And then splash it.

The 2-3 zone was a weapon for us, for a long time.
That time is now long since past.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Yet I still see people arguing that the 2-3 still has a place as a primary D.

I'd like to know who these people are. Please step forward.

 

[syrBossHogg]

The 2-3 hasn't been *the* 2-3 in quite some time, maybe since the 2018 run. Even that year's defense is quite a step down from what 2013 was.

I think it'll be nice to utilize something different, but I do hope we see zone used once in a while.

 

[rrlbees]

I forget who posted the amazing chart (Flyrodder, maybe) about the entirety of D1 defenses vs the 3pt shot, with shooting % matched against assist rate:

Syracuse was literally ALL ALONE as an outlier at the bottom of the worst quartile.

IIRC, the average D1 D gives up 37% on 3's, and they are assisted about half the time.

Syracuse gives up FORTY SEVEN PERCENT on 3's!!!!
And they are assisted 72% of the time!!!

So, all our opponents had to do, was: pass, pass, pass, and wait for the inevitable wide open 3.
And then splash it.

The 2-3 zone was a weapon for us, for a long time.
That time is now long since past.

I posted a study a couple months ago that showed the zone was slightly better than m2m in 3pt% defense. Playing both defenses was 3rd.

But the problem is the number of 3s taken vs the zone is higher.

 

[Cuse181]

Jim Boeheim was a legend. It was his defense. And when it worked, it worked, It baffled people. And Boeheim had the cache, as much as I hated it, to run that defense until the day he left. And he did.

But the fact is, at its BEST that defense left us vulnerable to less talented teams who got hot deep, even when the 3 wasn't necessarily as omnipresent as it is now. At its worst, which has become more and more commonplace in recent years, it leaves you completely exposed to modern 3 point offenses whose shooters are able to shoot from deeper and deeper by the year.

This is the chance to transition to a modern defense that allows us to more effectively cover modern offenses. Sure, you can have some zone to switch to from time to time. But it cannot and should not be the primary defense of a new coach in 2023. Maybe 10-20% of the time if you want. That's IT. Yet I still see people arguing that the 2-3 still has a place as a primary D.

I don't get it. What is with the strange personal attachment to a defense the failings of which have caused many of us to pull our hair out night after night in recent years?

Look, when you have the greatest to ever coach it in house, maybe there is hope that the D can still work more often than not. But with JB out of the building, the idea of sticking to a dated defense that has begun to fail us on a predictably regular level is just absolute folly.

Be sentimental about the person. He left yesterday. The effectiveness of the schemes left long ago.

At its BEST it was a top 20 defense according to kenpom, 2016.

Edit check that - it was #6 in 13 and #5 in 18

 

[Cusefan0307]

I don't think there's many people that love the zone anymore.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

I don't think there's many people that love the zone anymore.

Wont link but there are many ive read in other threads which spurred this post

 

[Cusefan0307]

Wont link but there are many ive read in other threads which spurred this post

Sure, but they are heavily in the minority I would think.

 

[Fly Rodder]

I posted a study a couple months ago that showed the zone was slightly better than m2m in 3pt% defense. Playing both defenses was 3rd.

But the problem is the number of 3s taken vs the zone is higher.

Yeah, averages smooth out a lot of the noise. I did some minor math with 2P% and 3P% when compared with the average number of shots of each that SU gives up. It looked like the difference between an opponent shooting 32% from three and 37% from three against SU was about +10 points when measured against a "good" 2P% just based on shot attempt volume. There's an area where the extra 3PA don't mean much until they do and then it gets out of control very quickly.

 

[kirbivore]

no problem with zone in the toolbox going forward, I'm giving Red the benefit of the doubt that he won't use 100% zone. That's bonkers in today's game.

 

[Marty McFly]

I think the zone is a great weapon when we have the personnel to run it effectively. Unfortunately, in recent years the talent pool slipped exponentially. You can't compare this years squad to 2013 or 2018 in terms of the zone's effectiveness and come to the conclusion that the zone is outdated. That being said, if we don't have the personnel then ya, we need to switch things up. But I still think having the zone as a base D (assuming an upgrade of talent) and switching to a man or press when the opponent dictates it, will work.

 

[CardiacCuse]

I think the zone is a great weapon when we have the personnel to run it effectively. Unfortunately, in recent years the talent pool slipped exponentially. You can't compare this years squad to 2013 or 2018 in terms of the zone's effectiveness and come to the conclusion that the zone is outdated. That being said, if we don't have the personnel then ya, we need to switch things up. But I still think having the zone as a base D (assuming an upgrade of talent) and switching to a man or press when the opponent dictates it, will work.

agreeed. you simly cant have weak links in the chain...and there have been more than one in recent years.

joe buddy and jimmy were all very poor defenders and thats enough right there to sink it.

with the perfect mesh of players who also have multiple years in the system...it could still be great...(although, then, a great team with great shooters still leaves you vulnerable...a la villanova, michigan etc)

you hit the nail on the head: if you dont have the right players, you cant play it and you shouldnt...but JB did.

 

[Cuse'91]

I don’t feel it was Zone, but ALL Zone, ALL the time. Gives opponents an advantage to know that's all there're going to face. It was different when we had an athletic advantage over our opponents, but that hasn't been the case for many years now.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I don’t feel it was Zone, but ALL Zone, ALL the time. Gives opponents an advantage to know that's all there're going to face. It was different when we had an athletic advantage over our opponents, but that hasn't been the case for many years now.

Even the greatest athletes can’t move faster than the ball.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

I know we are smart in Syracuse, but I find it hard to believe that the Zone D is so good in today's game that virtually no one else runs it. Coaches, generally speaking, LIKE to do things that work.

 

[Wrinkle]

Jim Boeheim was a legend. It was his defense. And when it worked, it worked, It baffled people. And Boeheim had the cache, as much as I hated it, to run that defense until the day he left. And he did.

But the fact is, at its BEST that defense left us vulnerable to less talented teams who got hot deep, even when the 3 wasn't necessarily as omnipresent as it is now. At its worst, which has become more and more commonplace in recent years, it leaves you completely exposed to modern 3 point offenses whose shooters are able to shoot from deeper and deeper by the year.

This is the chance to transition to a modern defense that allows us to more effectively cover modern offenses. Sure, you can have some zone to switch to from time to time. But it cannot and should not be the primary defense of a new coach in 2023. Maybe 10-20% of the time if you want. That's IT. Yet I still see people arguing that the 2-3 still has a place as a primary D.

I don't get it. What is with the strange personal attachment to a defense the failings of which have caused many of us to pull our hair out night after night in recent years?

Look, when you have the greatest to ever coach it in house, maybe there is hope that the D can still work more often than not. But with JB out of the building, the idea of sticking to a dated defense that has begun to fail us on a predictably regular level is just absolute folly.

Be sentimental about the person. He left yesterday. The effectiveness of the schemes left long ago.

This is not a fair characterization. At its best, our zone was one of the finest and most vexing defenses in the entire college game, requiring extensive preparation and forcing the opponent to adopt an entirely foreign gameplan to win.

 

[All4SU]

The zone was Syracuse. That’s why people loved it. The zone was JB. JB was the zone. It made us unique. When it was being executed at a high level, it was a tremendous asset. It was the freeze option of basketball. It defined SU.

Things change. Programs change. Coach Autry will do what he wants to do. Whatever he does, I hope it is successful and helps define SU.

 

[upperdeck]

had we had a functional offense we win 7-8 more games and JB is still coaching.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Having watched this team for so many years, I feel like an expert on the 2-3 zone. I might be too old to learn a new defense.

 

[orangepassion]

It's because it has practically won us some games over the years, particularly in the NCAA Tournament against teams and coaches who didn't see it much. I hope we continue to utilize it as a weapon, in addition to M2M. Truthfully, our panic full court press needs just as much work-Too much all or nothing.