Would "any" zone defense work today?

[Orangezoo]

Increased reliance would work in our favor. Again, if we had the zone players we need, which we haven’t had. We want shooters shooting contested 3’s. Our good zones feasted on teams with a lot of good shooters because they wanted to shoot. Bad shooters won’t shoot contested shots.

Just read the numbers, the articles and literally everything else. I respect you feel differently but literally nothing supports your position but your own anecdotal views. It was a great weapon for a while its only a good weapon for limited windows of time even with ideal zone defenders. Ideal zone defenders are rare today because of how little it's played and because you sacrifice too much on offense. Plus.. and this is the kicker- the game has changed. Zone defenses equal more open shots. Read the 3man weave articles.

 

[Orangezoo]

I posted a bunch of stuff about 3pt shooting in this thread, though not specifically that I don't think.

I was looking for updated shot location data a month or two ago, but wasn't having much luck, what i did find was giving it for less than half of the games.

Unfortunately looks like your links posted then are dead. Damn

 

[grepal]

I was reading the post about the 2012 bench vs today's starters and was wondering about the criticism of the zone. I can remember years when the zone shut down teams especially when the team got into the tourny. The length and athleticism dominating teams who were unfamiliar with the it. So the question is, would one of those teams fair today as well as they did then? Or has the b-ball player of today (ie 3 pt shooters) advanced to the point that the zone as the main defense no longer working. Or could one of past team defensively succeed today? Hopefully some of the forum's historians might be able to point out which ones. Obviously too, those teams were better on the offense too but you need defense to succeed.

The zone press.

 

[Brooky03]

For trend analysis relative to Cuse, I think the last 8-10 years is the relevant period. That was the last time we’d stop teams that looked to shoot 3’s.

That’s what I consider when I consider the change in style/scheme. Of course there’s a more stark difference the further back we go.

 

[Orangezoo]

For trend analysis relative to Cuse, I think the last 8-10 years is the relevant period. That was the last time we’d stop teams that looked to shoot 3’s.

That’s what I consider when I consider the change in style/scheme. Of course there’s a more stark difference the further back we go.

In all honestly the difference is mainly from 10 yrs ago till now. 20 yrs is a better sample size for a statistical analysis but the biggest changes started right around 2013/14 and have accelerated since then. So even over a decade it doesn't really change the findings. The 3man weave article is within that time frame as well.

All of the points and data I've made- the reality is that rule changes to the game matter as well. The 3pt line, shot clock, player cylinder rules among others then paired with how many more players shoot the 3 at a younger age and teams reliance on it have modified the game and zone effectiveness. Don't forget how the reduction of fundamentals in AAU that we have all discussed for a decade can hurt when you have to play a more cerebral defense which the zone absolutely is.

 

[007]

Every 3 pt metric over the past 20 years speaks to a massive change in the reliance of the 3 pt shot.

More are made, more are attempted, more teams rely on it as a large chunk of their offense and fewer teams play zone.

The below is a great read and this is a couple years old and speaks to why it's a declining defense. The game is changing and the 3pt shot ever growing in usage. The study below points to the obvious directional changes. You have to use it in a multiple defense scenario in today's game vs alone.

The only caveat added is that teams don't practice it as much but that is a weaker and weaker cover for what the obvious trends show.

Zonal Shift - Part 1

www.google.com

Zonal Shift - Part 2

www.google.com

Thanks for posting those articles Orangezoo

Analysis based on data from a large sample size over a period of years vs personal opinions based on...watching games.

"Analytics have shown coaches and teams where the most valuable shots are, and most man-to-man schemes simply do a better job of taking those shots away."

 

[two3zone]

I think it works with the right players, if you’re going to have a weak defender he has to be hidden on the wing. Problem is, we have 3-5 bad defenders playing at a time. But even if the zone is working and you have the right guys, it shouldn’t be played 100% of the time.

We’ve been incredibly unathletic the past couple of years, last year, you could see the guys try, this year, can’t say the same.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Unfortunately looks like your links posted then are dead. Damn

yea, checked my computer and couldn't find any of the charts i had posted either.

I did find this site which is pretty interesting though CBB Analytics - College Basketball Analytics, Stats & Metrics, & Research

 

[two3zone]

yea, checked my computer and couldn't find any of the charts i had posted either.

I did find this site which is pretty interesting though CBB Analytics - College Basketball Analytics, Stats & Metrics, & Research

If only we shot the corner three like our opponents seem to do.

 

[Fly Rodder]

I think it works with the right players, if you’re going to have a weak defender he has to be hidden on the wing. Problem is, we have 3-5 bad defenders playing at a time. But even if the zone is working and you have the right guys, it shouldn’t be played 100% of the time.

We’ve been incredibly unathletic the past couple of years, last year, you could see the guys try, this year, can’t say the same.

But, the right players can play M2M too. If you look at the articles that Orangezoo posted upthread the first one says this:

Boeheim reels in high-caliber athletes, often with a massive center manning the paint

If the zone is predicated on size and athleticism, what the hell are M2M defenses built around?

 

[Orangezoo]

So last post on this but did some more cursory digging. The concept that teams put a lot of shooters out on the court say 10-15 years ago vs today being the premise.

I looked at our BE opponents primarily. Only 3 teams - Gtown, ND and Nova were putting 3 and occasionally 4 shooters on the floor that were both capable and putting up a good volume ( more than 1 or 2 a game). Interestingly all teams we saw chinks in the armor when we played them as they attacked the zone well. This is mostly starting around 07ish time frame where these teams began shooting more 3s and more shooters on the court. Outside of that it was 2 shooters at most from the rest of the BE with some exceptions in a year here or there from Pitt, Providence and Seton Hall but low efficiency and lower volumes.

In 13/14 the tide began to turn where many BE teams you see shifted to more outside shooters on the court at the same time putting more shots up.. we were joining a league already full of teams that do this.

I looked at Miami and VT as well, who of course bolted for the ACC earlier. Not surprisingly they were adopting a more 3pt centric offense with more shooters on the floor while the old BE beasts, Ville, UConn etc included still stuck with a couple of shooters plus bigs and driving guards.

The ACC teams in general put more shooters on the floor albeit UNC being the outlier over the years going with offensive rebounding and size as the priority.

In general you can see the shift in tendency that correlates to the shift in the 3ball hurting us more as more teams decisively launched away and attacked the glass to then launch some more. They've only continued to get better at it as everyone has with it being such a key to the game. Maybe if I get a rainy weekend this summer I can break down this more into figures. Either way you can see teams making the transition. We should have had two titles in that period before things started shifting.

 

[Orangezoo]

If only we shot the corner three like our opponents seem to do.

View attachment 225474

Check the defense button too.. just be ready to cringe lol.

 

[two3zone]

But, the right players can play M2M too. If you look at the articles that Orangezoo posted upthread the first one says this:

If the zone is predicated on size and athleticism, what the hell are M2M defenses built around?

Didn’t say they couldn’t play man, but a change up on defense with athletic dudes would be awesome, when one’s not working you go to the other. Very tough to prepare against.

 

[hoopsupstate]

My issue with SU’s zone is that it moves on every pass and it doesn’t always have to. Match up with the guy in your area. If he stays, stay with him. Joe and Juda are always going back and forth and they don’t have to. Good teams will just pass it back from the guy who passed the ball and Joe and Judah can’t get back fast enough. Then it forces our forwards to come up and we’re screwed.

 

[blizz]

It's the officials. When teams play man to man they let guys grab on and hold other guys. When you play zone any kind of little touch or tap, they call a foul.

 

[two3zone]

It's the officials. When teams play man to man they let guys grab on and hold other guys. When you play zone any kind of little touch or tap, they call a foul.

90% of your posts are about the refs. Does that get old or boring?

 

[Scooch]

Lots of fantastic analysis in this thread. Big thanks to those who took the time to make such thoughtful posts.

 

[Ottoman]

Here are some offensive and defensive efficiency rankings from KenPom comparing us to Washington (the other 2-3 zone defense team). Syracuse and Washington aren't exactly the same because Washington integrates some m2m and press. It looks to me like the 2-3 zone has been fairly effective for Washington. At least a lot more effective than it has been for us. The trouble is their offense has had major struggles. Syracuse has the opposite problem. This tells me it is very difficult to recruit long, athletic players that are both quality offensive players and ideal zone defenders. Those would seem to be the top-40 kids neither us or Washington has been able to land on a regular basis.

NCAA D1 offense and defense efficiency rankings (ranked 1 to 363, with 1 being the best team in each category)

2022-23
Syracuse: Offensive Efficiency: 66, Defensive Efficiency: 187
Washington: O Efficiency: 179, D Efficiency: 51

2021-22
Syracuse: O: 15, D: 207
Washington: O: 158, D: 103

2020-21
Syracuse: O: 24, D: 77
Washington: O: 135, D: 134

2019-20
Syracuse: O: 21, D: 116
Washington: O: 112, D: 31

2018-19
Syracuse: O: 59, D: 30
Washington: O: 110, D: 18

2017-18
Syracuse: O: 135, D: 5
Washington: O: 140, D: 73


Average 2017-2023
Syracuse: O: 53, D: 104
Washington: O: 139, D: 68

 

[IthacaMatt]

I was reading the post about the 2012 bench vs today's starters and was wondering about the criticism of the zone. I can remember years when the zone shut down teams especially when the team got into the tourny. The length and athleticism dominating teams who were unfamiliar with the it. So the question is, would one of those teams fair today as well as they did then? Or has the b-ball player of today (ie 3 pt shooters) advanced to the point that the zone as the main defense no longer working. Or could one of past team defensively succeed today? Hopefully some of the forum's historians might be able to point out which ones. Obviously too, those teams were better on the offense too but you need defense to succeed.

I was surprised to see Baylor play it on a few possessions against Texas. They kept the forwards lower than we do, and so the baseline wasn't so exposed. But that left 2 guards to cover the 3 point line in 3 places - top of the key and both wings.

 

[IthacaMatt]

This supposed monumental shift in 3 point shooting equates to three extra 3-point attempts per game and one more make. Those are the numbers

Yeah, it doesn't sound like a lot, but you have to admit, every team in every league has at least 3 or 4 outside shooters now. And they all have deeper range, because coaches don't yell at them for taking shots 3 feet behind the line. There's more chance of an open look that way. If you have good mechanics, it's not that much harder of a shot.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If only we shot the corner three like our opponents seem to do.

View attachment 225474

I always thought that the corner jumper was the hardest shot, because you have no backboard for depth perception. But then the corner jumper became a "specialty shot" because it was often open. So, if you could learn the muscle memory to measure and make that shot with consistency, that's a big advantage. That has also had something to do with the decline in effectiveness of zones.

 

[IthacaMatt]

So last post on this but did some more cursory digging. The concept that teams put a lot of shooters out on the court say 10-15 years ago vs today being the premise.

I looked at our BE opponents primarily. Only 3 teams - Gtown, ND and Nova were putting 3 and occasionally 4 shooters on the floor that were both capable and putting up a good volume ( more than 1 or 2 a game). Interestingly all teams we saw chinks in the armor when we played them as they attacked the zone well. This is mostly starting around 07ish time frame where these teams began shooting more 3s and more shooters on the court. Outside of that it was 2 shooters at most from the rest of the BE with some exceptions in a year here or there from Pitt, Providence and Seton Hall but low efficiency and lower volumes.

In 13/14 the tide began to turn where many BE teams you see shifted to more outside shooters on the court at the same time putting more shots up.. we were joining a league already full of teams that do this.

I looked at Miami and VT as well, who of course bolted for the ACC earlier. Not surprisingly they were adopting a more 3pt centric offense with more shooters on the floor while the old BE beasts, Ville, UConn etc included still stuck with a couple of shooters plus bigs and driving guards.

The ACC teams in general put more shooters on the floor albeit UNC being the outlier over the years going with offensive rebounding and size as the priority.

In general you can see the shift in tendency that correlates to the shift in the 3ball hurting us more as more teams decisively launched away and attacked the glass to then launch some more. They've only continued to get better at it as everyone has with it being such a key to the game. Maybe if I get a rainy weekend this summer I can break down this more into figures. Either way you can see teams making the transition. We should have had two titles in that period before things started shifting.

Terrific post.

 

[IthacaMatt]

It's the officials. When teams play man to man they let guys grab on and hold other guys. When you play zone any kind of little touch or tap, they call a foul.

A legit problem. We do get called for more touch fouls. You can't reach in a zone, but you can hack in man-to-man, as long as the motion is downward. If you hack across arms, it gets called. Swipe down and you may knock the ball loose, and will probably get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

This supposed monumental shift in 3 point shooting equates to three extra 3-point attempts per game and one more make. Those are the numbers

Failure to understand the context

 

[CuseFaninVT]

My issue with SU’s zone is that it moves on every pass and it doesn’t always have to. Match up with the guy in your area. If he stays, stay with him. Joe and Juda are always going back and forth and they don’t have to. Good teams will just pass it back from the guy who passed the ball and Joe and Judah can’t get back fast enough. Then it forces our forwards to come up and we’re screwed.

Interesting, because one of the hallmarks of our good defenses was moving with every pass. I remember B Triche speaking specifically to this.