Dare I say it again? Zone
- Thread starter KumarCat
- Start date
What's the obsession with a zone with a lot of fans? We have the longest most athletic players in basketball. We're not playing zone. Our def is better than most teams in history but it's still not good enough
You don't play zone against teams that can shoot. Having long arms in shooter's faces is a shooter's nightmare. I say this as someone who could shoot the lights out but couldn't jump over a phone book back in the day. I loved zones because I knew I was getting open looks. When an athletic big is on you man-to-man it is so much more difficult which is why our defense has been awesome this year.
Stop switching on defense as much and you get what you want. Most all the threes we give up are with a big man running out late.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
For the love of all that is holy, the best M2M team in the country doesn't need to play no stinkin' zone.
We've lost so many games this season because of our M2M.
I've said it hundreds of times, zone is for teams with inferior talent IMO. It's good for maybe 3 possessions a game, but if you play it all the time, your players suck or you're trying to hide someone. Or you're Jim Boeheim.
We've lost so many games this season because of our M2M.
I've said it hundreds of times, zone is for teams with inferior talent IMO. It's good for maybe 3 possessions a game, but if you play it all the time, your players suck or you're trying to hide someone. Or you're Jim Boeheim.
I'm going to have to agree with the poster that said were 31-0. I like that more than playing zone
OK, let's do a little basketball 101
The chief purpose of a zone is negate the interior strength of the opponent. It lends itself to better block outs and easier double teams of opponents post players. By its nature - it also makes passing into the post more difficult and should prevent dribble drives into the post. The weakness is that it becomes susceptible to an "overload" where a team that passes well and moves well without the ball (setting picks against the zone) should get open looks (high percentage looks) from the outside, along the baseline, the FT line, and in the seams. You also defeat it by working inside-out for open jumpers. Good outside shooting teams love to face a zone.
The chief purpose of man to man is to capitalize on individual athletic or skill capabilities in one on one situations. First, you play it to reduce the favored passing lanes, making it more challenging to move the ball around the court except by moving it further from the basket. Second, you do it to ensure a "body on" in blocking out, as in theory, every man defender should be in a position to "box out" on all shots. Third, you do it to deny the opponents key personnel the ball, the position, or the shot (i.e. Triple D defense) Fourth, you do it to upset the tempo of the opponent forcing them to take lower percentage shots or rushed shots. Fifth, if you have athletic superiority, it can effectively "shut down" inferior athletes who have less skill set in dribbling. The weakness of man to man is in unfavorable athletic matchups (quicker offense against slower defense), differences in heights, or post position establishment, and IF the opponent capitalizes on screens to create either step back jumpers, driving lanes, or favorable positions.
So let's examine our specific strengths....
1) Superior athletic capabilities in almost every match-up: This suggests man to man defense
2) Superior post position or front line height: This is an advantage in both, but especially in a man-to-man box out, as this should reduce the seams for an offensive player to come in for an offensive rebound. Shot blocking is also more effective because the gap between defender and offense is smaller (less likely to get "turned around")
3) Overall arm length: Again an advantage in both zone and man - but most effective in man-to-man because it creates shot alteration - EVEN from deep range - reducing opponents shooting percentages from the three point range. It also makes passing more difficult and the aforementioned post length lends itself to shot blocking and rebounding.
4) Quick feet / sound mechanics: Despite our size - we have exhibited good lateral quickness and the ability to turn defenders by getting our bodies in position to stop a drive. Good in a zone - but of more advantage in a man-to-man
5) Strong bodies: Our larger guards and big men (physical superiority) lend itself to both overpowering an opponent on offense, but also fighting through screens, blocking out, and rebounding. This strength is really ONLY manifested in a man-to-man defense.
In summary - our strengths are best displayed in a man-to-man!
THEN WHY THE HELL DO WE HAVE SO MANY DRIVES TO THE BASKET? (I hear you say)
1) Some of those happen in transition and would happen regardless of whether we play man or zone. The opponent attacks prior to our defense getting set. For example, Dakari picks up the ball at the top of the key, but no one else has gotten back below the FT line, or if they have - they've picked up their man. This essentially creates a Dakari vs a speedy guard starting at 20 feet from the basket. Usually, guards will win that battle with a layup.
2) Some of those happen because we "switch" on most screens. Georgia recognized this and intentionally ran "clear outs" - trying to replicate the scenario described immediately above in their half court offense. Their goal was to NOT allow UK bigs to "get set" on defense, but keep our bigs in motion. The goal was to get our bigs in foul trouble, or get the height mismatch down low, OR the speed mismatch up front. A pretty good idea!
NOW here's what happened against Florida. Initially, we were switching on all screens in the first half - but in the second half we did NOT! In other words, our bigs stayed with their bigs and we kept our guards on their guards. What the coach did (AND THIS IS THE ANSWER AS TO WHY WE DON'T PLAY ZONE) he ADAPTED i.e. Coach Cal "tweaked" our defense. Calipari changed the defense against Florida in the second half. The "switching" man-to-man is susceptible to the Georgia attack. The "fight thru" the screens is less susceptible.
Thus, without going to a zone - you can address the issue of driving layups created by mis-matches.
ALL THAT BEING SAID....
IF we were to play zone - the best zone for our team would be a 1-3-1. But, I doubt that they've practiced it OR would use it for more than a possession or two - given our other strengths. The ONLY way I see us playing a zone would be to protect our bigs in case of foul trouble.
Incidentally, on the 1-3-1 you play it with Towns baseline, Lyles middle, and WCS up top and put the Harrisons on the Wings. On the platoon - Dakari baseline, Lee middle, Ulis top, Booker and a Harrison wings,
In summary, not totally disagreeing with the concept of a zone, but ONLY that is doesn't play to our strengths.
The chief purpose of a zone is negate the interior strength of the opponent. It lends itself to better block outs and easier double teams of opponents post players. By its nature - it also makes passing into the post more difficult and should prevent dribble drives into the post. The weakness is that it becomes susceptible to an "overload" where a team that passes well and moves well without the ball (setting picks against the zone) should get open looks (high percentage looks) from the outside, along the baseline, the FT line, and in the seams. You also defeat it by working inside-out for open jumpers. Good outside shooting teams love to face a zone.
The chief purpose of man to man is to capitalize on individual athletic or skill capabilities in one on one situations. First, you play it to reduce the favored passing lanes, making it more challenging to move the ball around the court except by moving it further from the basket. Second, you do it to ensure a "body on" in blocking out, as in theory, every man defender should be in a position to "box out" on all shots. Third, you do it to deny the opponents key personnel the ball, the position, or the shot (i.e. Triple D defense) Fourth, you do it to upset the tempo of the opponent forcing them to take lower percentage shots or rushed shots. Fifth, if you have athletic superiority, it can effectively "shut down" inferior athletes who have less skill set in dribbling. The weakness of man to man is in unfavorable athletic matchups (quicker offense against slower defense), differences in heights, or post position establishment, and IF the opponent capitalizes on screens to create either step back jumpers, driving lanes, or favorable positions.
So let's examine our specific strengths....
1) Superior athletic capabilities in almost every match-up: This suggests man to man defense
2) Superior post position or front line height: This is an advantage in both, but especially in a man-to-man box out, as this should reduce the seams for an offensive player to come in for an offensive rebound. Shot blocking is also more effective because the gap between defender and offense is smaller (less likely to get "turned around")
3) Overall arm length: Again an advantage in both zone and man - but most effective in man-to-man because it creates shot alteration - EVEN from deep range - reducing opponents shooting percentages from the three point range. It also makes passing more difficult and the aforementioned post length lends itself to shot blocking and rebounding.
4) Quick feet / sound mechanics: Despite our size - we have exhibited good lateral quickness and the ability to turn defenders by getting our bodies in position to stop a drive. Good in a zone - but of more advantage in a man-to-man
5) Strong bodies: Our larger guards and big men (physical superiority) lend itself to both overpowering an opponent on offense, but also fighting through screens, blocking out, and rebounding. This strength is really ONLY manifested in a man-to-man defense.
In summary - our strengths are best displayed in a man-to-man!
THEN WHY THE HELL DO WE HAVE SO MANY DRIVES TO THE BASKET? (I hear you say)
1) Some of those happen in transition and would happen regardless of whether we play man or zone. The opponent attacks prior to our defense getting set. For example, Dakari picks up the ball at the top of the key, but no one else has gotten back below the FT line, or if they have - they've picked up their man. This essentially creates a Dakari vs a speedy guard starting at 20 feet from the basket. Usually, guards will win that battle with a layup.
2) Some of those happen because we "switch" on most screens. Georgia recognized this and intentionally ran "clear outs" - trying to replicate the scenario described immediately above in their half court offense. Their goal was to NOT allow UK bigs to "get set" on defense, but keep our bigs in motion. The goal was to get our bigs in foul trouble, or get the height mismatch down low, OR the speed mismatch up front. A pretty good idea!
NOW here's what happened against Florida. Initially, we were switching on all screens in the first half - but in the second half we did NOT! In other words, our bigs stayed with their bigs and we kept our guards on their guards. What the coach did (AND THIS IS THE ANSWER AS TO WHY WE DON'T PLAY ZONE) he ADAPTED i.e. Coach Cal "tweaked" our defense. Calipari changed the defense against Florida in the second half. The "switching" man-to-man is susceptible to the Georgia attack. The "fight thru" the screens is less susceptible.
Thus, without going to a zone - you can address the issue of driving layups created by mis-matches.
ALL THAT BEING SAID....
IF we were to play zone - the best zone for our team would be a 1-3-1. But, I doubt that they've practiced it OR would use it for more than a possession or two - given our other strengths. The ONLY way I see us playing a zone would be to protect our bigs in case of foul trouble.
Incidentally, on the 1-3-1 you play it with Towns baseline, Lyles middle, and WCS up top and put the Harrisons on the Wings. On the platoon - Dakari baseline, Lee middle, Ulis top, Booker and a Harrison wings,
In summary, not totally disagreeing with the concept of a zone, but ONLY that is doesn't play to our strengths.
