Question for MGoCoaches: Why don't more teams run the 2-3 like 'Cuse
As title states, I'm just wondering why, like the triple option or the air raid in football, there isn't at least one team per major conference that does something resembling what Boeheim does, and truly commit to the 2-3, given his repeated tournament and regular season success? Is it really that difficult to find the athletes capable of running it at a truly high level? I know one of his longtime assistants just brought it to Washington and seems committed to it, and they had a successful year, relative to the disaster they had in the last year under Romar.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:29 AM ^
aren't abundant. Hence not a lot of teams can run an effective enough zone. You need the length to make up for the many shortcomings (zones give up a ton of threes and a ton of OREBs).
March 19th, 2018 at 10:04 PM ^
March 19th, 2018 at 11:20 PM ^
wants to play in the NBA they need to play man to man defense -
Need to "learn" how to play man to man? Defense is about effort and your athletic ability, not scheme.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:31 AM ^
and then our coach, who admitted to not knowing how to teach defense, hired a guy that could teach defense, and now that he did, we're a significantly better man-to-man team?
There is a lot to teach in terms of how to play man-to-man defense. Switching and rotations can get fairly complicated and you rep it over and over until it becomes instinctual. And there are a ton of ways to play a man: force middle, force baseline, straight up, front the post, play behind the post, switch screens (and which type), fight through screens, hedge and recover, there are a ton of different ways to play man defense. And to be clear these aren't "schemes" so much as techniques/fundamentals that you have to be able execute.
So then scouting and coaching comes in play to figure out how best to play each team and each player based on his tendencies, what their actions are on offense, their strengths and weaknesses, your strengths and weaknesses, etc.
Effort is necessary but not sufficient to be a good defense. You can try hard but if you don't know what you're doing, you're only going to get so far. You also have to be smart (know where to be in any scenario) and be able to execute techniques to be good.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:21 PM ^
March 20th, 2018 at 10:40 AM ^
Was this intended to be a joke? There is so much scheme involved in playing man defense. And its just not what YOU are doing as a defender on the ball, but just as importantly off the ball...and not just as an individual, but as a team. Hedging, weak side help, rotation, communication, etc. It also starts with the scouting report...knowing the other team's sets, player's tendencies, strengths, weakenesses, etc
In the last game (think it was the first half), Teske's man set a weak side screen on the block. The other Michigan player got caught on the screen and the Houston player would have had an easy layup on the strong side except Teske pivoted, took a step, then put out his arm in the passing lane. He prevented an easy bucket and then went right back to his defender. Yes, it was great effort, but it was scheme and hours of drilling to get him to react that way.
March 19th, 2018 at 10:16 PM ^
March 19th, 2018 at 11:16 PM ^
I still don't get why he went to Syracuse instead, but even our decommits are beating MSU.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:25 PM ^
March 20th, 2018 at 10:04 AM ^
slap the floor in that 15 minutes? I say sit the bum untill he learns about being tough and showing that floor who's boss.
One of the many reason our JB was considered a good tourney team was because of the 131 which has been shelved for quite some time.
You need to compare short prep times in a tournament setting where it is not common vs their regular season record that wasn't that great considering they were technically the last team in.
The flip side is that MSU was horrible attaching the zone effectively.
Coach K should be ok against them. Decent coaching goes a long ways.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:53 PM ^
Zone is easier to be good at, but harder to be great at. Duke switched because they get some one or two and dones that they aren't around long enough to learn good man to man.
1/2 court D and many teams broke it which lead to numbers and a lot of pressure on the one defending the hole. The 2/3 and others are designed for half court and are used a lot due to fb like, you're assigned an area and it eliminate a lot of matchup problems that mano on mano produces. However, good passing and shooting teams will bust it and that's what you should see at this point in the tourney. But I don't think I'd even try it at the college level unless i had some long players or those capable of defending a lot of space.
Main point is the athletes that play it and the lack of familiarity in tournament settings.
I like the idea for several reasons: It saves energy, especially if your team is not that deep. It can save fouls, most notably the ticky-tack soft shit that ruins so many games.
And you dare people to pass over it--great move if you have LENTH and quickness--and of course you dare them to hit their shots. The zone also puts you in position to box out and get the rebounds on the misses.
I've wondered why myself. I also like the 2-1-2 zone.
I could have been way more wrong, by saying something like, "I prefer the 789 zone defense where dogs and gorillas kill midgets"
I think, and I've seen it and coached it, and played it, that zones are ripe for defensive rebounds--although I see your point as they force more jump shots which can cause longer rebounds, out past the zone defenders.
But--how are Syracuse's defensive rebounding stats? I'm not gonna look it up.
March 19th, 2018 at 11:45 PM ^
...because above all else they recruit length. They've got the personnel to be a good rebounding team, and they aren't.
March 19th, 2018 at 10:41 PM ^
and gave up something like 29 offensive rebounds. Just one game, but they are below average statistically and roll out one of the biggest lineups in the country. They're athletic too.
Makes no sense if their zone was good for rebounding.
March 19th, 2018 at 11:34 PM ^
and if you have "coached" it and played it and think it's good for defensive rebounds, congrats on "coaching" in your church rec league.
The reason it gives up so many more rebounds than man defense is that defenders in man defense are already naturally in good rebounding position near their man, especially post players that are usually between their man and the basket. They simply turn and box out.
With a zone, defenders are generally not near offensive players (because that's how offenses play zones - they get in the gaps and open areas) so it's a much more random free-for-all for defensive boards.
Kenpom actually determines a team's "defensive footprint" (link) based solely on their statistical profile. The worse a team is at defensive rebounding, the more likely they are to run a zone.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:38 PM ^
It's time for some "Data Points" and some "Sample Sizes" and some charts.
16/17 season: 341/351
Less energy on D, extra energy on O. It is known.
March 19th, 2018 at 11:36 PM ^
Syracuse has the 1st, 4th and 7th players in the country (!!) in minutes played per game. Three of their players basically do not come out of the game.
As a coach, I'd contest that zone is automatically better at conserving energy than man.
At any advanced level (HS and up) it's all about the three-point arc. If you play zone, you don't get to sit back unless you are the middle guy. In a 2-3, those top guys have to be moving constantly to close out shooters; same with the low wings. And it more difficult moving because you can't anticipate as easily as you can with man. Also, some matchups in man are going to be less work - the spacing the floor just a shooter is easier to defend than being in zone. (Not to say he's easy to defend; you have to work pretty hard to be in help and then recover to any shooter).
All comes down to matchups, as with anything in basketball.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:58 PM ^
But a common strategy is to take the best offensive player on the opposing side if they play man to man and run him constantly through screens to wear him down.
I would rather conserve my pt guard and wing jump shooter with a quadrant to cover rather than running through a maize of screens.
But a common strategy is to take the best offensive player on the opposing side if they play man to man and run him constantly through screens to wear him down.
I would rather conserve my pt guard and wing jump shooter with a quadrant to cover rather than running through a maize of screens.
March 19th, 2018 at 11:37 PM ^
you have to be really tall/long to be good at it. And tall/long players aren't overly abundant.
March 20th, 2018 at 12:33 AM ^
zones are easier to run and far less complex. That's a big reason why Beilien ran one for so long. He didn't have to spend as much time on it and could focus on offense.
That's why Duke has gone zone this year. Their freshmen couldn't get all the intricacies of man defense such that they were terrible so they just said, ok, you're really tall, stand here and defend anyone and anything that comes within 10 feet of you (yes, zone isn't that simple but it's much more simple to run).
Disagree. Both have their intracacies. The problem is that you're going to play against man 90% of the time. So, when you are playing your offense against man, you are practices both offense and defensive principles.
When you practice zone, you're doing it for a smaller chunk of what you'll see. So, from that perspective, I actually think zone can be trickier to get done because you simply can't spend as much time on it.