PDA

View Full Version : Will the new rules changes necessitate more zone defense?



CDu
11-13-2013, 03:21 PM
This question was brought up briefly during the game broadcast last night, so I can't take credit for the idea. But the question did resonate with me. This board has had MANY discussions about zone defense over the years, but the new rules (or, more accurately, the stringent enforcement of most of the already-established rules) puts the question in a whole new light.

The benefits and weaknesses of the zone defense do not change with the new rules. The zone is still helpful in preventing dribble penetration and isolation mismatches. It is still problematic in that it allows shooters to get open more easily and it makes boxing out (like we do that anyway!) more difficult.

But while the strengths and weaknesses of the zone are more or less the same, it appears that the new rules change the relative value of each strength/weakness. It has become glaringly apparent that it will be REALLY difficult to defend players off the dribble with the new rules. The drivers have a huge advantage. As such, stopping dribble penetration is harder to do in man-to-man. So to limit dribble penetration, the zone gains an even bigger edge with the rules changes.

Now, stopping dribble penetration is just one facet of the decision to play man-to-man or zone. But this one example does, I think, illustrate that the calculus of deciding defensive strategy may need to shift. With these new rules, I think the question of whether or not it would be wise to go zone is worth revisiting. The zone would certainly help against dribble penetration and would force more jumpshots. More of these jumpshots will be open, and that's a weakness. It would also potentially hurt us on the glass, though given how bad we rebound in man-to-man one might question how much it would hurt.

Of course, the discussion is likely moot. Coach K has been steadfast in his preference for man-to-man defense, and it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But even in light of that reality, I do wonder if we would be better off with a zone defense. Thoughts?

MChambers
11-13-2013, 03:30 PM
I've wondered about this. Of course, Coach K has proven to be very flexible in his man-to-man, with 2010 being the best example. Maybe the new rules require a less aggressive man-to-man, along those lines.

Also, Coach K's teams have always been best at half court or three quarter court man to man. Zones are usually a disaster for Duke, and full court press hasn't usually been that good.

On the offensive side, if teams do use zones more, we have a good roster to attack that, with excellent shooters and versatile bigs.

BD80
11-13-2013, 03:33 PM
This question was brought up briefly during the game broadcast last night, so I can't take credit for the idea. ...

Of course, the discussion is likely moot. Coach K has been steadfast in his preference for man-to-man defense, and it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But even in light of that reality, I do wonder if we would be better off with a zone defense. Thoughts?

This was discussed a bit preseason, as several coaches speculated that the new rules would lead to more zone and would favor teams familiar with playing zone.

Coach K has had his team play zone. It was called "Orange."

It was Team USA, and assistant coach Boeheim was the architect, but it was Coach K's call. Considering that Coach K has compared this team to his Olympic squad with respect to versatility and lack of prototype center, some zone would not surprise me.

However, Coach K REQUIRES his team to play aggressive help side man-to-man. It is the identity of the team, and upon which a championship team can rely when shots don't fall. I think that improving the bread and butter is the first priority. I pray we see marked improvement heading into the conference schedule.

MChambers
11-13-2013, 03:52 PM
This was discussed a bit preseason, as several coaches speculated that the new rules would lead to more zone and would favor teams familiar with playing zone.

Coach K has had his team play zone. It was called "Orange."

It was Team USA, and assistant coach Boeheim was the architect, but it was Coach K's call. Considering that Coach K has compared this team to his Olympic squad with respect to versatility and lack of prototype center, some zone would not surprise me.

However, Coach K REQUIRES his team to play aggressive help side man-to-man. It is the identity of the team, and upon which a championship team can rely when shots don't fall. I think that improving the bread and butter is the first priority. I pray we see marked improvement heading into the conference schedule.
My memory is that even with Team USA (and Boeheim on the coaching staff) Coach K rarely used the zone. I remember him using it in the World Championships, after a timeout, when the other team had little time to shoot, but don't remember it being used as a staple.

BD80
11-13-2013, 03:59 PM
My memory is that even with Team USA (and Boeheim on the coaching staff) Coach K rarely used the zone. I remember him using it in the World Championships, after a timeout, when the other team had little time to shoot, but don't remember it being used as a staple.

Some > never

Kedsy
11-13-2013, 04:10 PM
Of course, the discussion is likely moot. Coach K has been steadfast in his preference for man-to-man defense, and it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But even in light of that reality, I do wonder if we would be better off with a zone defense. Thoughts?

Two variables that are hard to know in this equation are: (a) how much would taking the time to teach and practice a zone take away from other essential things that the staff wants to teach and practice? and (b) how long will the rules be strictly called like they are now?

Some are of the opinion that after a few games of called a zillion fouls a game and getting the teams to back off their physical play, we'll then see a slow reversion back toward where we were (although I guess the hope is not all the way back). If it happens that way, then question (a) becomes more important, because spending time now on something we might not need or use in February/March/April (and thus *not* spending time on things we will need later) might make it more difficult to advance into late March or April.

CDu
11-13-2013, 05:01 PM
Two variables that are hard to know in this equation are: (a) how much would taking the time to teach and practice a zone take away from other essential things that the staff wants to teach and practice? and (b) how long will the rules be strictly called like they are now?

Some are of the opinion that after a few games of called a zillion fouls a game and getting the teams to back off their physical play, we'll then see a slow reversion back toward where we were (although I guess the hope is not all the way back). If it happens that way, then question (a) becomes more important, because spending time now on something we might not need or use in February/March/April (and thus *not* spending time on things we will need later) might make it more difficult to advance into late March or April.

Yes, a lot relies upon the unknowns of how long the officials will stick to calling fouls. If they revert, then the question is moot (we should stick with what we know as we did prior to this year). If this really is the dawning of a new age of officiating basketball, then the question becomes quite relevant. In the short-term, (a) is meaningful. In the long-term (i.e., past this year), it's less so. Presumably, as you instill the zone into your system, it requires less additional practice time to explain moving forward.

Kedsy
11-13-2013, 05:07 PM
Yes, a lot relies upon the unknowns of how long the officials will stick to calling fouls. If they revert, then the question is moot (we should stick with what we know as we did prior to this year). If this really is the dawning of a new age of officiating basketball, then the question becomes quite relevant. In the short-term, (a) is meaningful. In the long-term (i.e., past this year), it's less so. Presumably, as you instill the zone into your system, it requires less additional practice time to explain moving forward.

I agree. I was just thinking of this year. Eventually they'll stop calling the fouls. My guess is no later than this season's NCAA tournament (which if it happens then may cause trouble in and of itself).

MChambers
11-13-2013, 05:11 PM
Some > never
But I read CDu to be asking whether Duke needs to start using a zone as a regular part of its defensive scheme. I think it's much more likely that Duke sticks with a man to man, but emphasizes containment more, and picks up just outside the three point line. If we see a zone this year, it's only for a minute or so per game.

Indoor66
11-13-2013, 05:12 PM
I don't think they will quit calling the fouls. I think the players and coaches will adjust. The game will become more fluid without the chucking, checking, pushing and holding and the more skilled players will prevail. The game will go back to being played the way it was before it became a strength contest rather than a finese and skill contest.

MarkD83
11-13-2013, 07:12 PM
If you consider that the strength of a zone is that an off the ball defender can come over and stop someone driving to the basket, I don't see how a zone gains you any advantage. I have yet to see a help defender drawing a charge this year.

If you consider that a zone can protect someone in foul trouble thatn yes a zone helps, but so does playng 9 or 10 players.

El_Diablo
11-14-2013, 12:45 AM
If you consider that the strength of a zone is that an off the ball defender can come over and stop someone driving to the basket, I don't see how a zone gains you any advantage. I have yet to see a help defender drawing a charge this year.

If you consider that a zone can protect someone in foul trouble thatn yes a zone helps, but so does playng 9 or 10 players.

I completely agree. I do not think running a zone defense would actually provide an advantage with respect to the new emphasis on the rules. Why? Because the problem to be overcome is not lack of help, it's that when a defender is in close proximity to the offensive player, basically any minimal contact is getting whistled. That will happen to an individual zone defender just as easily as to an individual man-to-man defender--the ballhandler just needs to attack that defender off the dribble.

EDIT: I suppose an indirect benefit of a zone is that players aren't generally running around as much on defense, so over time they can move their feet better (without fouling). But I think focusing on proper guarding technique will go a LOT farther than teaching zone principles when it comes to dealing with the new emphasis on the rules.

kAzE
11-14-2013, 03:08 AM
I was thinking about this just now, and I realized, we have kind of the perfect personnel to run a 2-3 zone, Syracuse style. Think about it, what do you need for that style of defense? You need 2 front court players who are tall, athletic, and preferably with long arms (Jefferson and Parker), and 3 guys on the perimeter who are quick, have good hands, and preferably with long arms (Sulaimon, Hood, Cook).

So Hood and Cook don't fit the wingspan requirements as much as those other 3 guys, but you could really make a strong argument that our personnel would be able to run that defensive scheme with some success. Whether or not Coach K thinks it's worth the time investment is another question.

Cook and Thornton are more of a fit for the man-to-man/weak side help scheme, but Sulaimon, Jefferson, and Parker might be even more effective in a zone. Hood seems to be a good fit for either one, he's quite versatile defensively.

Josh Hairston seems like a dinosaur in this new age of freethrowshootingcontest-ball. I'd like to see more of Ojeleye and what he can do defensively. We know he's an athletic freak, and he's really, really strong. He's also an energy guy. Those things help on defense. I find it hard to believe he can't contribute just as much as Hairston, if not MORE. Hell, I think MP3 might be better defensively than Hairston. At least he can alter some shots. Just make sure he never, ever touches the ball on offense if at all possible.

I like Hairston as a kid and as a teammate as much as the next guy, but when his most important contributions to the team as a player on the court are being physical and taking charges, that's just not gonna work out with these new rules.

sagegrouse
11-14-2013, 06:26 AM
I was thinking about this just now, and I realized, we have kind of the perfect personnel to run a 2-3 zone, Syracuse style. Think about it, what do you need for that style of defense? You need 2 front court players who are tall, athletic, and preferably with long arms (Jefferson and Parker), and 3 guys on the perimeter who are quick, have good hands, and preferably with long arms (Sulaimon, Hood, Cook).



I am sure other posters will join me in admiring your Sisyphean efforts to sell a zone defense to Coach K. ;)

sage

smvalkyries
11-14-2013, 02:25 PM
I agree completely with El diablo- a zone defense won't help the whistle blowing problem very much. I really wonder if any of you supporting the no contact rule application have ever tried to guard a basketball player. They are so quick and good now that it is virtually impossible to stop penetration without contact. The best slashers don't cut around people trying to avoid contact but instead drive as close to the defender as possible (right off the shoulder) so as to limit the defenders reaction options. It's really the offensive drivers who initiates brush contact which gives the defender no chance at all if he can't fend it off. Similarly I have no idea how a post defender can even hold his position and maintain any kind of foot positioning if he has to use his body and not an armbar to hold off the offensive players backing him down.
I also have a small bone to pick with all those extolling the physicality of soccer-yes I know it is painful to be kicked in the shins but if soccer really was a physical game wouldn't strength matter more and wouldn't the players spend at least a little time in the weight room and try to put on a few pounds of muscle on their 150 pound frames?
Finally there is skill in playing defense too- let's at least give the defenders a fair chance to compete- Leave the rules the way they were.

Henderson
11-15-2013, 03:39 PM
There are a couple threads the past few days (and more than a couple messages) about the new interpretations and what effect they'll have on the game. Maybe all that stuff can be collapsed into a single thread?