Would "any" zone defense work today?

[jncuse]

Teams put 4 shooters on the floor back in 2012. Heck, they did it in 2010. Kenpom noted a statistically significant trend of the Syracuse zone causing teams to shoot poorly from deep back then. No m2m defensive scheme could match it year in and year out.

Basketball hasn’t changed that much, imo.

That said, flexibility would be nice. And we need prototypical Cuse players at every position. Long, athletic, etc. If we have a weak link, we pay. We have about 2.5, maybe 3, weak links on this roster.

The zone defense is m2m defense that switches everything, essentially. There are some notable m2m defenses out there that switch almost everything. They tend to look like zone a lot of the time.

I think part of the reason it worked in 2009-2014, was that we had the athletes and length to provide floor coverage such that we forced longer threes, a few feet behind the line, without giving up much inside That is what likely caused the rate to be lower. We could adapt the zone to move it in/out as needed.

We just don't have that coverage anymore, at the top or back. We don't want to stretch our players to far out because we don't have the back end support.

And also its not only that more people shoot 3's now, its that players can shoot threes more effectively a few feet behind the line at this point.

Better personnel could certainly help us be a better zone in 2023. Just not sure if it can be exclusively run in 2023.

 

[CU44SE]

I think there are 2 aspects to this.


On one hand, I look at it similar to football. If you are a QB and offensive coordinator. Do you want to go against the same defense every single play? Do you think you may be able to make some adjustments if the team runs the same defense the entire game?

I think there is a place in the game for zone defense. I just don’t think you should only play zone defense.

I also think the biggest issue with our zone defenses recently was the lack of athleticism on the floor. look back at the past 10 years. We have continuously been missing long athletic players that we used to always have.

How many times did we play Marek out of position down low? How many times are we going to watch girard, cooney, buddy, even tyus not get out on shooters or not close off the lane from penetration? Not to mention all the new guys and transfers that have come in and only played 1 or 2 seasons. We are not getting anyone to stay and learn the defense. Braswell is the best wing defender I have seen in the past several years and Jim refused to play him until it was too late (injuries as well). We don’t have the prototypical athletes that we used to have.

When Syracuse used to play zone, it was not your Rec league zone. It was tall, long, athletic dudes closing everything off. Now Jim has sacrificed that for offense and shooters. And the zone has now turned into that rec league zone. Where we have smaller, slower guys that can shoot but don’t get after it on the defensive side of the ball. This isn’t the zone that Syracuse predicated itself on.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Failure to understand the context

Yep. Sports is all about momentum. Teams will regress to the mean over a whole season, but with the zone, once a team figures it out, they will light it up for the rest of that game, unless we make good adjustments.

Boeheim used to say he liked when teams made a couple early because it was "fool's gold" and we would adjust to take away that shooter, or that entry pass, etc.

But now, there are just too many good outside shooters, and pretty much every Division 1 school has several of them.

So, when a team has a guy who is not the star player start hitting shots from three, then it becomes "catching", the defense is forced to scramble (he's not the guy the scouting report told them to cheat towards...), and that leads to more open shooters, and they all have increasing confidence as more of them make open shots. How many times have we seen it snowball?

 

[JrodCuse]

Sure. The Miami Heat play a fair amount of zone.

Was watching the heat 76ers game today and both teams were playing 2-3 zone and it was kinda cool to see….but it’s not their primary D although I wouldn’t be surprised if the heat play it the most out of all nba teams.

 

[Brooky03]

Failure to understand the context

Lol sure

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

Do we know the zone is even why we were winning in the first place? Seems to me that when we have the horses, we win the games. What teams have overachieved?

I think the zone may provide an edge in the tourney because other teams are less prepared for it. But even our tourney runs came from pretty good squads (relative to our roster now).

In general though, I think running nothing but a 2-3 is a busted system.

 

[hoopsupstate]

For SU’s zone to be effective, it really needs two big athletic guards. They have better coverage and it makes it a lot harder to get the ball into the post. We’ve lacked this for about five years. It’s part of the problem. I think any zone you play it has to be a matchup zone. It has to be aggressive and if you have to communicate or you will get blasted.

 

[Orangezoo]

For SU’s zone to be effective, it really needs two big athletic guards. They have better coverage and it makes it a lot harder to get the ball into the post. We’ve lacked this for about five years. It’s part of the problem. I think any zone you play it has to be a matchup zone. It has to be aggressive and if you have to communicate or you will get blasted.

This is certainly the right starting formula, that said they also must be proficient ball handlers and not a liability on offense. The last time we tried with Battle and Frank... turnovers and offense were a major problem. Also - 6-5/6-6 is the new big guard not 6-3/6-3 like you get with Symir and Judah.

Even then because of more shooters now on the floor, teams will overload the slower of the two bigger guards and look to either create space at the top between them or swing the ball quickly to get a shooter set, even where a contest is more likely. It's a higher percentage play now with more shooters on the floor than force feeding the middle.

In addition? Watch how quickly teams use a blow by when the zone extends with a big man sealing the lane for a driving lane. Teams have effectively been able to counter the various adjustments in the zone because whether their prep worm gets them a big lead or they shift to other effective approaches to attack it. This goes back into the 3man weave argument in where the inability to take away preferred open shots is one of the biggest zone flaws that has continued to evolve over time.

We always hear the term "be ready to shoot" and teams are ready now when then are being zoned.

 

[Goin' Deep]

BLUDORANGE nailed it a few pages back.
Unless you have tall, athletic players that have quickness, you can't play
zone ESPECIALLY a 2-3 zone.
Expecting your center to immediately sprint 7 yards to cover an open corner jumper...REALLY??
The 3 pt line has been moved out over 2 feet+ since its inception. May not sound like much but I remember Edelin and Gmac swooping in on a pass to a player taking an entry pass at the foul line. Now the gaps are wider making the entry pass easier and the 2 guards CANNOT leave shooters at the top of the key to drain 25 foot jumpers.
If you're going to TRY and play this zone, you're going to need guards that can play like they're
6'5" or better.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Prior to 2013 SU was an O team that played a zone to mask poor defenders and allow for a short bench. We had athletic players putting pressure on the opponent. We were more of a finesse team that tried to run teams out of the gym. So even if a mid major had shooters, they couldn't keep up. We ran into trouble against teams that played good D or athletic major teams with a lot of shooters (Seton Hall). Those WV teams had shooters but they weren't able to handle our athleticism.

That shifted to having taller less athletic less O oriented players in a more passive zone. We became a defensive team.

Think about all the players who wouldn't likely be looked at by JB today because they don't fit the Zone. Our Centers the last 10 years have all been giants. Does he even recruit an Otis Hill, Etan, or AO today? Heck he looks for Guards as tall as Hill now.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I think part of the reason it worked in 2009-2014, was that we had the athletes and length to provide floor coverage such that we forced longer threes, a few feet behind the line, without giving up much inside That is what likely caused the rate to be lower. We could adapt the zone to move it in/out as needed.

We just don't have that coverage anymore, at the top or back. We don't want to stretch our players to far out because we don't have the back end support.

I recall the 2009-2014 defense - the occasional times it was challenged back then was when it had to stretch and push out further. This is what the zone is asked to do now on a nightly basis in 2023. Anyone who has watched college basketball over the last 10 years has to be painfully aware of how offenses have adapted, both in ball movement and personnel.

It's a crime we didn't win another title in 2010 or 2012, but put those same players into 2023 and we'd be pulling our hair out losing several more games that we'd have no business losing. 34-3 would probably be more like 28-9. The difference is JB would probably break out trunk monkey in the 1st half before things got out of hand. I distinctly remember a game vs South Florida that year where we were down 20 in the first half playing zone before we erased the deficit by halftime with pressure defense (even one as undisciplined as ours). Even 2023 Colgate would probably give those guys a game when they'd have no business even sniffing an upset.

 

[Newhouser]

Hoops experts is our zone considered a match-up or traditional 2-3? I always thought match up meant someone was matched up with a man and we don't have that all the time. Was in a debate about it and was looking for more smarts on it.

 

[007]

For SU’s zone to be effective, it really needs two big athletic guards. They have better coverage and it makes it a lot harder to get the ball into the post. We’ve lacked this for about five years. It’s part of the problem. I think any zone you play it has to be a matchup zone. It has to be aggressive and if you have to communicate or you will get blasted.

For it to be even more effective...you can no longer play zone, any zone, exclusively. The current data is irrefutable.

At a minimum, and we've said before, combine the 2-3 with a 2-2-1 3/4 press, and continue to trap in the 1/2 court. Even then, you have to play some man.

In your day, wouldn't you have loved to coach against a team that only played one defense and had one desperation press?

For giggles, you should share with the board how many different defenses and presses your teams were able to run.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Hoops experts is our zone considered a match-up or traditional 2-3? I always thought match up meant someone was matched up with a man and we don't have that all the time. Was in a debate about it and was looking for more smarts on it.

Our zone is not a match-up zone, strictly speaking. We are more about rotations and our players are asked to cover much more space on the floor than John Cheney or Jerry Tarkanian used to ask their players to do in their zones.

Their zones were more "match-up" - the single player is not tasked with guarding half (or more of) the court. They switched as guys moved in and out of their personal zones to defend.

Boeheim's innovation with the 2-3 was to move the forwards higher up to take away the wing jumper, after the 3 point shot had been mainstreamed into the game.

Our zone is really a 2-2-1, with the forwards high, not defending the baseline or the corner jumper. This is outstanding at preventing the 3 point shot, without good ball movement to collapse the zone and then kick out to the opposite wing.

Over time, people figured out the entry pass to the foul line. We used to be able to simply pinch the guards to stop that pass, but that left the guards with too much ground to cover to get back out on the shooters if the ball went in and then out.

The other weakness of the way we play the zone with our forwards high, is that the baseline is open almost all the time. This is really our weak spot, because we have 1 guy, the center, who has to challenge the foul line entry pass, also defend the low block, AND cover corner jumpers that the forwards would ordinarily cover in a traditional 2-3.

The way we play also leaves the center defending a lot of 2-on-1's if there is a successful entry pass to the post, and it also leaves us vulnerable to the alley-oop from guys running the baseline behind the defenders.

When you watch other teams play the 2-3 zone (Miami in the NBA, or Baylor the other night vs. Texas), the forwards are lower, in more traditional spots. This defends the corner jumper and minimizes the rebounding deficit because your forwards are in position to catch rebounds from corner shots that hit rim and bounce to the opposite side. 2/3 of all rebounds of corner shots go to the opposite side, and our forwards are NEVER in that position.

However, the traditional 2-3 zone leaves 2 guards to cover 3 shooting locations at the 3 point line - top of the key, and both wings.

That's why the "original" way to beat the 2-3 zone was the skip pass to the opposite side. But with our forwards high, and by using lanky guys to man the perimeter of the zone, we took that away.

Then Pitt figured out the foul line entry pass to collapse the zone, and the kick out or the dump-down to a back-door cutter, and that became the way to attack us.

So, with the traditional 2-3 zone, you can focus on defending better along the bottom, rebound better while giving up a few more open 3's, or (like SU) you can sell out to stop the 3 point shot, but you open up the entire bottom of your defense.

 

[IthacaMatt]

For it to be even more effective...you can no longer play zone, any zone, exclusively. The current data is irrefutable.

At a minimum, and we've said before, combine the 2-3 with a 2-2-1 3/4 press, and continue to trap in the 1/2 court. Even then, you have to play some man.

In your day, wouldn't you have loved to coach against a team that only played one defense and had one desperation press?

For giggles, you should share with the board how many different defenses and presses your teams were able to run.

I thought Boeheim's use of the 1-3-1 was very effective on the last one or two Buddy teams. It took away the foul line entry pass while still guarding all 3 shooting positions. It is the perfect change-up, when somebody starts hammering the foul line against the 2-3.

 

[007]

I thought Boeheim's use of the 1-3-1 was very effective on the last one or two Buddy teams. It took away the foul line entry pass while still guarding all 3 shooting positions. It is the perfect change-up, when somebody starts hammering the foul line against the 2-3.

I think you and I have had this discussion before. My apologies upfront for belaboring this point. FWIW, I am certain that JB has never played a traditional 1-3-1. Those rotations are entirely different and much easier to attack. The modification you are talking about is when JB stacked the guards at the top of the 2-3 making the configuration 1-1-3. But the rotations were still based on his version of the 2-3. The guard at the top of the 1-1-3 stack followed the first entry pass to the wing, and the guard in the back of the stack stayed in the middle to deny the high post entry. If the second pass stayed on the strong side, the 2nd guard stayed in the high post area. If the ball was reversed, the 2nd guard rotated out to cover that wing, and the other guard rotated into the high post.

I agree that was an effective change up and caused confusion. I'm not sure why we don't see it more often. I suspect that once it was on tape, other teams realized that it was not a 1-3-1 and continued to create the same 2-3 overloads.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I think you and I have had this discussion before. My apologies upfront for belaboring this point. FWIW, I am certain that JB has never played a traditional 1-3-1. Those rotations are entirely different and much easier to attack. The modification you are talking about is when JB stacked the guards at the top of the 2-3 making the configuration 1-1-3. But the rotations were still based on his version of the 2-3. The guard at the top of the 1-1-3 stack followed the first entry pass to the wing, and the guard in the back of the stack stayed in the middle to deny the high post entry. If the second pass stayed on the strong side, the 2nd guard stayed in the high post area. If the ball was reversed, the 2nd guard rotated out to cover that wing, and the other guard rotated into the high post.

I agree that was an effective change up and caused confusion. I'm not sure why we don't see it more often. I suspect that once it was on tape, other teams realized that it was not a 1-3-1 and continued to create the same 2-3 overloads.

I agree with you that he kept his normal 2-3 rotations, even though as the opponent brought the ball upcourt, it looked like a 1-3-1 (or 1-1-3, depending on whether you consider the forwards to be playing a higher line than the center).

But yes, we didn't play it like a traditional 1-3-1. It was more camoflage, to confuse the opponent from making their usual entry pass to the foul line.

Good post.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I recall the 2009-2014 defense - the occasional times it was challenged back then was when it had to stretch and push out further. This is what the zone is asked to do now on a nightly basis in 2023. Anyone who has watched college basketball over the last 10 years has to be painfully aware of how offenses have adapted, both in ball movement and personnel.

It's a crime we didn't win another title in 2010 or 2012, but put those same players into 2023 and we'd be pulling our hair out losing several more games that we'd have no business losing. 34-3 would probably be more like 28-9. The difference is JB would probably break out trunk monkey in the 1st half before things got out of hand. I distinctly remember a game vs South Florida that year where we were down 20 in the first half playing zone before we erased the deficit by halftime with pressure defense (even one as undisciplined as ours). Even 2023 Colgate would probably give those guys a game when they'd have no business even sniffing an upset.

I agree with your thoughts on the Zone. However back then we were trying to outscore teams and not hold teams down. So maybe Colgate still scores 80 on us, but we are scoring 90 on them like Auburn did.