Question on the Zone

[SoCalDukeFan]

This is a more general question than just about the Louisville game.

I know that Coach K and others are strongly against a zone defense and have rarely used it. Its almost philosophical. Why?

It works pretty well for some teams.

Thanks
SoCal

[MChambers]

I'm no coach, but I think proponents of the man to man would say it's more flexible and can be adjusted to another team's offense. Man to man also is thought to be better for rebounding, since everyone has a man assignment and can box out (although Duke generally doesn't rebound that well) and forces more turnovers.

Recent rule changes and the one and done phenomenon may mean that we are seeing the end of an era, in that man to man is becoming used a lot less. It makes me a little sad, because I have such fond memories of Duke's best teams playing suffocating man defense.

Here's a recent article on the rise of the zone defenses:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/12/08/hoop-thoughts-zone-defense-ohio-state-njit-michigan

[-jk]

Coach has said in the past that in man-to-man, the defense chooses who to defend. In zone, the offense decides. He likes to keep the initiative.

-jk

[lotusland]

I marveled at the tight mtm defense Nolan and Kyle played as upper classmen but, in truth, they kept a hand or two on the ball handler almost constantly.

[Dukehky]

I'm no coach, but I think proponents of the man to man would say it's more flexible and can be adjusted to another team's offense. Man to man also is thought to be better for rebounding, since everyone has a man assignment and can box out (although Duke generally doesn't rebound that well) and forces more turnovers.

Recent rule changes and the one and done phenomenon may mean that we are seeing the end of an era, in that man to man is becoming used a lot less. It makes me a little sad, because I have such fond memories of Duke's best teams playing suffocating man defense.

Here's a recent article on the rise of the zone defenses:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2014/12/08/hoop-thoughts-zone-defense-ohio-state-njit-michigan

We had better size in the front court than Louisville, and their offensive rebounding numbers were really strong, the zone was a big part of that. Zone defensive rebounding is the part of zone defense that requires the most practice and discipline. Otherwise, the rotations are pretty basic, especially if you're not trapping on the elbow extended wings like a lot of teams do.

[Clay Feet POF]

I posted this in the Post game thread, but it seems to fit here.

Since Wojo got the Marquette job, I’ve been checking their Board and here are some interesting things. I have to prefix this with the fact that Wojo and K talk everyday


1) Wojo inherits a undersized team, with a short roster (8 on rides). This is coupled with few of the returning players having played many minutes. ( 2 freshmen, 2 Transfers, and 2 without much playing time)

2) First few games were terrible with man to man, so Wojo switches to Zone which was a little better and conserved more of the players energy.

3) But Wojo has little experience with the Zone, so he goes and hires a former Syracuse walk on (Jake Presutti) as the Video Coordinator. Tyler Thornton (Grad Assistant at MU) commented this guy is very important in the Zoning schemes, it would be inter
esting to know if it was this K’s or Wojo’s idea.

4 MU’s defense has vastly improve (8 SPG) using many variations of the Zone with a little man to man.


My hunch is Duke will use a mixed bag of man to man and zone, with more variations of the zone as the season and players progress.

[Duke3517]

It's just not a long lasting effective defense. It will get beat if a team has a great shooting night.

[davekay1971]

Many coaches say the zone encourages passivity. You are in relatively set orientation and reacting to the offense. A man-to-man, on the other hand, encourages the defender to be aggressive - down low by trying to occupy the position the offensive player wants and by preventing entry passes, out on the perimeter by cutting off passing lanes, forcing your man to alter their path, and playing as close and aggressively as possible when your man has the ball. Upthread there was also the nice point that man-to-man allows the defense to choose the match-ups.

My high school basketball coach preferred man-to-man for the aggressiveness/passivity rationale. Still, when he taught us zone, he always emphasized that, to be good at zone, you had to be every bit as active and aggressive as you were in man-to-man - in this way it kept the zone from being a passive defense.

I never had much experience with a coach who preferred the zone. I'd be interested to hear a great interview with a coach like Boeheim or Tarkanian who are as devoted to the zone as K has historically been to man-to-man.

[Jarhead]

We had better size in the front court than Louisville, and their offensive rebounding numbers were really strong, the zone was a big part of that. Zone defensive rebounding is the part of zone defense that requires the most practice and discipline. Otherwise, the rotations are pretty basic, especially if you're not trapping on the elbow extended wings like a lot of teams do.

While watching the game my thoughts were that the other guys are sure getting a lot of offensive rebounds, but I decided that, well, yes they were, but they sure had a lot of opportunities. It makes sense to me that the team that is shooting well will have fewer offensive rebounds.

[Kedsy]

It makes sense to me that the team that is shooting well will have fewer offensive rebounds.

This is true, which is why it's often interesting to look at the percentage of available rebounds grabbed by one team or the other.

Louisville snagged 40% of its available offensive rebounds in the game, which is a lot. For the season so far, Duke has allowed opponents to grab 27.2% of available offensive rebounds, much lower than the 40% we allowed against Louisville. Also for the season so far, Louisville gets 37.3% of its available offensive rebounds, not so far off the 40% they got against us.

On the other side, Louisville for the season has allowed a 31.3% offensive rebound percentage, and Duke has so far amassed a 37.9% off reb %, but in this particular game we only managed 20%.

[MarkD83]

It's just not a long lasting effective defense. It will get beat if a team has a great shooting night.

Man to man also gets beat when a team has a great shooting night (NCSU ~70% from 3).

On the plus side, I like man to man because it lets the defense dictate pace and players have to remain engaged.

On the plus side for zone, if your team is young and has a hard time communicating, zone works better.

[jv001]

It's just not a long lasting effective defense. It will get beat if a team has a great shooting night.

Happens against a man to man as well(State-Miami). Both m-m and zone must be played correctly to be effective. It is harder to rebound in a zone. GoDuke!

[Duke3517]

Man to man also gets beat when a team has a great shooting night (NCSU ~70% from 3).

On the plus side, I like man to man because it lets the defense dictate pace and players have to remain engaged.

On the plus side for zone, if your team is young and has a hard time communicating, zone works better.

Very true but what I'm trying to say is you can still use man to man if the team is having a good shooting night while the zone would just make it ineffective

[firstpost]

And let's not forget, the NBA uses man to man exclusively. If your job is to prepare the kids for the NBA, man to man makes a lot of sense. Not to mention, the NBA is using man to man for a reason. Probably the same reason you guys are alluding to (good shooters, matchup flexibility, etc.) Also, I've always felt that kids who played zone in college, took much longer to adjust to the NBA game.

[sagegrouse]

K has alluded to the M-T-M as a statement of his teams' aggressiveness: "We're coming after you!" Most of us have seen an effective Duke man-to-man, where the opponent has to set up at half court; those were other players and maybe other rules, but it was devastating on the opponents.

for example, Dave Odom of Wake to his players: "Run the offense!" Wake forward Loren Woods" We can't!"

[dyedwab]

And let's not forget, the NBA uses man to man exclusively. If your job is to prepare the kids for the NBA, man to man makes a lot of sense. Not to mention, the NBA is using man to man for a reason. Probably the same reason you guys are alluding to (good shooters, matchup flexibility, etc.) Also, I've always felt that kids who played zone in college, took much longer to adjust to the NBA game.

While I agree with rest of the post, the first sentence is no longer true. Zone (with a specific NBA wrinkle) is allowed in the NBA, though it is by no means the primary defense played.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-01-17/zone-defense-has-found-its-place-in-the-nba/52657598/1

[CDu]

The advantages of the zone are simple: it helps to protect you from being beaten off the dribble and by on-ball screens. Since your teammates are assigned an area and not a man, if you get beaten within your zone your teammates are usually in better position to provide help (especially once your man enters their zone). So the pick and roll is a much less effective strategy against a zone than it is against a man-to-man.

The weaknesses of a zone are also simple: it is a fairly predictable defense, and a well-coordinated passing attack can break down a zone (whereas a disciplined man-to-man ultimately requires you to beat your man either off the dribble or through off-ball cuts). The zone is also more susceptible to open 3s and more offensive rebounds.

So if you are not a good defensive team in terms of on-ball defense and pick-and-roll defense, the zone defense will help minimize that damage. The tradeoff is that you are going to give up more open jumpshots and rebounds. If you are really good at on-ball defense (especially on the perimeter) and your bigs are really good at communicating/switching on ball screens and pick-and-rolls, man-to-man is the better defense.

Obviously there are varying degrees to this (Boeheim recruits lanky and athletic defenders to make his zone less easy to break down, for example), but these principles largely hold.

So far this season, our PGs have had trouble staying in front of their man, and Okafor has had a lot of trouble with high ball screens. So even though Coach K HATES playing zone, it was perhaps a necessary "evil." And Louisville was a perfect patsy, because they have been a very poor shooting team this year (and had an exceptionally poor shooting game against us). We switched to zone, and they got tons of open looks and second chances. But they couldn't shoot this weekend, and we dominated them accordingly. Had we played man, they would have pick and rolled us to death with their extremely quick and aggressive guards (Rozier and Jones) and their athletic bigs (most notably Harrell).

[Kedsy]

On the plus side for zone, if your team is young and has a hard time communicating, zone works better.

I think communication is critical to play an effective zone. It's not exactly the same sort of communication, but in many ways it's even more important to communicate properly in zone than it is in man defense.

[CDu]

I think communication is critical to play an effective zone. It's not exactly the same sort of communication, but in many ways it's even more important to communicate properly in zone than it is in man defense.

I would agree that it is important to communicate in zone. I would disagree that it is more important to communicate in zone than it is in man-to-man. It is critically important in both defenses.

I would argue, however, that it is a little easier to communicate in zone defense, for two reasons: (1) because you don't have to worry about keeping track of a specific player, and (2) the types of things a particular player needs to communicate are simpler. In man-to-man, your communication patterns have to change depending upon whom you are guarding and where you are guarding them. In zone, you are just keeping track of your zone and letting folks around you know when significant changes are happening in/around that zone.

[Kedsy]

I would argue, however, that it is a little easier to communicate in zone defense, for two reasons: (1) because you don't have to worry about keeping track of a specific player, and (2) the types of things a particular player needs to communicate are simpler. In man-to-man, your communication patterns have to change depending upon whom you are guarding and where you are guarding them. In zone, you are just keeping track of your zone and letting folks around you know when significant changes are happening in/around that zone.

I don't entirely agree. You have to communicate when one zone is flooded. You have to communicate when an opponent is in the seam between zones. You have to know when to trap. Know when someone needs to step up to help. Figure out what to do in transition and then how to break out of that temporary D into the normal zones. Make sure a shooter is never left alone. Know when to expand the zone a little and when to contract it. When the ball swings, the zone has to move, the players have to react in concert, as one, then similarly react when something goes wrong, and then again to recover to the normal shape of the zone.

In my own limited, low-level experience, communicating in a zone is harder than communicating in man. Possibly because I play a lot less zone than man, and possibly because my level is just so much lower that it's not comparable. But I certainly don't think it's any easier to communicate in zone than it is in man.

[MarkD83]

I don't entirely agree. You have to communicate when one zone is flooded. You have to communicate when an opponent is in the seam between zones. You have to know when to trap. Know when someone needs to step up to help. Figure out what to do in transition and then how to break out of that temporary D into the normal zones. Make sure a shooter is never left alone. Know when to expand the zone a little and when to contract it. When the ball swings, the zone has to move, the players have to react in concert, as one, then similarly react when something goes wrong, and then again to recover to the normal shape of the zone.

In my own limited, low-level experience, communicating in a zone is harder than communicating in man. Possibly because I play a lot less zone than man, and possibly because my level is just so much lower that it's not comparable. But I certainly don't think it's any easier to communicate in zone than it is in man.

I'll clarify my communication comment a bit. The lines of communication are simpler. You are mostly communicating with the guys in adjacent zones. In addition you can assign a leader for each area. I noticed that Amile was doing the most talking on the baseline and every other big man just had to listen to Amile. The same thing occurred up top with Quin. In addition if you do mis-communicate in a zone the consequences are less than in a man to man. If the guards mis-communicate there are always 3 bigs near the basket to prevent a drive. In Duke's typical man to man if there is a mis-communication Duke always seems to be stuck with a big man around mid court not covering anyone.

[jv001]

I don't entirely agree. You have to communicate when one zone is flooded. You have to communicate when an opponent is in the seam between zones. You have to know when to trap. Know when someone needs to step up to help. Figure out what to do in transition and then how to break out of that temporary D into the normal zones. Make sure a shooter is never left alone. Know when to expand the zone a little and when to contract it. When the ball swings, the zone has to move, the players have to react in concert, as one, then similarly react when something goes wrong, and then again to recover to the normal shape of the zone.

In my own limited, low-level experience, communicating in a zone is harder than communicating in man. Possibly because I play a lot less zone than man, and possibly because my level is just so much lower that it's not comparable. But I certainly don't think it's any easier to communicate in zone than it is in man.

What is a match up zone and how does it differ from a 2-3 or 1-3-1 zone? Is it a defense that Duke could use effectively? Can Kedsy and Cdu shed some light on this for me. GoDuke!

[CDu]

I don't entirely agree. You have to communicate when one zone is flooded. You have to communicate when an opponent is in the seam between zones. You have to know when to trap. Know when someone needs to step up to help. Figure out what to do in transition and then how to break out of that temporary D into the normal zones. Make sure a shooter is never left alone. Know when to expand the zone a little and when to contract it. When the ball swings, the zone has to move, the players have to react in concert, as one, then similarly react when something goes wrong, and then again to recover to the normal shape of the zone.

In my own limited, low-level experience, communicating in a zone is harder than communicating in man. Possibly because I play a lot less zone than man, and possibly because my level is just so much lower that it's not comparable. But I certainly don't think it's any easier to communicate in zone than it is in man.

I am going to disagree with your disagreement. I would say it is easier to communicate in a zone, for the following reasons (and counterpoints to your post):

The two sequences (overloads/seams) you've identified are no more complicated than noting ball screens, switches, and help defense assignments. But note that in a zone, you are only responsible for a certain area. So it is much easier to recognize those sequences in zone than in man-to-man, where you could find yourself in numerous different spots on the floor and numerous scenarios.

Trapping is only an issue if you are trapping, which you could do in a man-to-man just as much as you'd do it in a zone (in man-to-man, it's called doubling). And since an individual is only really trapping in their area of the floor, it's a bit easier because the location of your trapping assignment doesn't ever change (whereas in man-to-man, anyone could be responsible for the trap depending upon where they are).

And again, in transition, figuring out what to do in transition is just as much of a requirement of man-to-man. In transition, you'll regularly see a good man-to-man defense calling out a switch (because someone's man leaked out). And it is much easier to switch back into the normal zone because you aren't looking for the right chance to switch men (you don't want to switch in man when your partner is on the other side of the court). In zone, you just work with your partner on your side of the floor. If he's back, you stay in your zone. If he's not, and his area is in more danger, you fill his zone until he recovers.

Knowing to cover a shooter is also just as much an issue in man-to-man communication, because the opponent is almost certainly running multiple screens (on and off ball) for a good shooter. Whereas in zone, you're again just tracking an area. So it's harder because you have to be looking for off-ball screens for said shooter when man-to-man is in play.

And expanding/contracting the zone is no different than expanding/contracting the man-to-man (i.e., extending pressure on the ball).

As for the ball movement, this is actually pretty easy. You again have specific assignments in a zone wherever the ball is. There are only so many places that the ball can be, so you are only moving to a few different spots on the floor. Whereas in man-to-man, when the defense breaks down, your assignment can be completely different depending upon where you are on the floor and where the breakdown occurred.

Again, the reason that the zone simplifies things is because it reduces the area of the court for which you are concerned. You are making all the same types of communications; it is just that now you are only having to do it in the same settings over and over again. Whereas in man-to-man, you could be asked to do anything depending upon where your man goes and where the breakdown happens. There are just way more possible scenarios for each player to face in man-to-man.

I'd argue that the reason you think you communicate better in man-to-man than zone is because (a) you and your friends do not play much zone (as you said) and (b) you are overestimating how good a job you are doing communicating and helping each other in man-to-man. At least that has always been my experience in playing pickup games and rec league games.

[Kedsy]

What is a match up zone and how does it differ from a 2-3 or 1-3-1 zone? Is it a defense that Duke could use effectively? Can Kedsy and Cdu shed some light on this for me. GoDuke!

I'm not really a zone expert, but a 2-3 zone (made famous by Boeheim's Syracuse team and is also what Duke played under Bill Foster in the '70s) is generally a more passive zone than a 1-3-1 zone (which is what our women's team often plays). It's easier to pack in a 2-3 to keep the other team away from the basket while daring them to shoot, while the 1-3-1 is often used to trap the opponent in one of the four corners of the half-court and to make it difficult to make good passes.

The matchup zone, made famous by John Chaney's Temple teams, is sort of a combination of zone and man-to-man, meaning away from the ball it looks like a zone but on the ball it's more like man-to-man. The advantages are you don't give the man with the ball a lot of room to maneuver but you also don't have to worry about pick-and-rolls as much because you switch all the time, so that the defender guarding the ballhandler changes as the ball moves between zones. My understanding is that the matchup zone is difficult to master (similar in that regard to the packline), so I'm not sure whether it's a defense available to Duke in the short term.

[CDu]

What is a match up zone and how does it differ from a 2-3 or 1-3-1 zone? Is it a defense that Duke could use effectively? Can Kedsy and Cdu shed some light on this for me. GoDuke!

I have never played matchup zone before. My teams in high school were strictly 2-3 or man-to-man. But my understanding is that a match-up zone is not a specific type of zone, but more accurately how you play the zone. It's perhaps most akin to the idea of a strict man-to-man (i.e., no switching) versus a switching man-to-man defense. You can play matchup zone in any form of zone (2-3, 1-3-1, 1-2-2, etc).

In the matchup zone, everyone is guarding a man. But they are only guarding the man within their zone. When the man leaves their zone, they drop that assignment and look for a new one. The main exception is that if your man has the ball, you are actively defending him. It is the four off-ball defenders that are rotating in the zone. Whereas in a standard zone, you're only loosely concerned about anyone in particular and are following the movement of the ball.

Really, a matchup-zone can look a lot like a constantly-switching man-to-man. Which is why a lot of folks get confused into thinking we play more man-to-man than we do. When we do a ton of switching on high ball screens up top, it can look like a zone but is really a man-to-man; the tell-tale sign is to look for a defender crossing a side of the court. If you see a player follow another player across the court on or off ball, we are almost certainly in man-to-man. If everyone stays in the same general quadrant of the floor, we're most likely in a zone.

[Kedsy]

I'd argue that the reason you think you communicate better in man-to-man than zone is because (a) you and your friends do not play much zone (as you said) and (b) you are overestimating how good a job you are doing communicating and helping each other in man-to-man. At least that has always been my experience in playing pickup games and rec league games.

You could be right, I'm not sure. I do know that in a couple of my games I'm often out there with several former Division III players (all of whom are so much better than I am, I probably shouldn't even be on the court) and when we play zone there seems to be a lot more communicating than when we play man. It could be, as you say, because we're more familiar with what to do in a man-to-man setting so there's more non-verbal or semi-verbal communication than when we play zone, or it could be something else. Can we agree that communication is critical in both settings and leave it at that?

[jv001]

I'm not really a zone expert, but a 2-3 zone (made famous by Boeheim's Syracuse team and is also what Duke played under Bill Foster in the '70s) is generally a more passive zone than a 1-3-1 zone (which is what our women's team often plays). It's easier to pack in a 2-3 to keep the other team away from the basket while daring them to shoot, while the 1-3-1 is often used to trap the opponent in one of the four corners of the half-court and to make it difficult to make good passes.

The matchup zone, made famous by John Chaney's Temple teams, is sort of a combination of zone and man-to-man, meaning away from the ball it looks like a zone but on the ball it's more like man-to-man. The advantages are you don't give the man with the ball a lot of room to maneuver but you also don't have to worry about pick-and-rolls as much because you switch all the time, so that the defender guarding the ballhandler changes as the ballhandler moves between zones. My understanding is that the matchup zone is difficult to master (similar in that regard to the packline), so I'm not sure whether it's a defense available to Duke in the short term.

Thanks to Kedsy and Cdu for the information. I remember that Chaney's Temple teams were pretty physical. It sounds like the match up zone should be pretty good in stopping dribble penetration but if it's like the 2-3, it is harder to rebound out of it. I'm for anything that will make Duke better defensively. Stopping the dribble penetration and successfully defending the pick and roll should be priority number one. After those two, should come the players getting confidence in their shooting. I hope we see continued improvement tonight. GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

Really, a matchup-zone can look a lot like a constantly-switching man-to-man.

I read a quote once (don't remember who said it) along the lines of, a good zone looks like man-to-man and good man-to-man looks like a zone. Ultimately, I suppose, each boils down to defending actively, keeping between your man and the basket, and helping your teammates.

[CDu]

You could be right, I'm not sure. I do know that in a couple of my games I'm often out there with several former Division III players (all of whom are so much better than I am, I probably shouldn't even be on the court) and when we play zone there seems to be a lot more communicating than when we play man. It could be, as you say, because we're more familiar with what to do in a man-to-man setting so there's more non-verbal or semi-verbal communication than when we play zone, or it could be something else. Can we agree that communication is critical in both settings and leave it at that?

We can certainly agree on that last part (and I think I did so in my first reply! :))

[CDu]

Thanks to Kedsy and Cdu for the information. I remember that Chaney's Temple teams were pretty physical. It sounds like the match up zone should be pretty good in stopping dribble penetration but if it's like the 2-3, it is harder to rebound out of it. I'm for anything that will make Duke better defensively. Stopping the dribble penetration and successfully defending the pick and roll should be priority number one. After those two, should come the players getting confidence in their shooting. I hope we see continued improvement tonight. GoDuke!

The ultimate takeaways are these:

- whatever defense you play is going to have its strengths and its weaknesses. Neither zone nor man-to-man are foolproof.
- the type of defense you play should depend on your team and your opponent. Running the same defense regardless of opponent only works if you are REALLY good at it.
- the success of any defense you play is dependent on how well you can mask whatever deficiencies that defensive strategy has. Communication is huge, always.