PDA

View Full Version : Definition of a M-T-M vs. a Zone D?



duketaylor
02-25-2018, 12:37 AM
I'm asking here for opinions from our friends as to their definition of each and how they vary and/or are similar. I've coached a little on a very young level and have discussed this question with many accomplished coaches.

So, what's your definition of each and how they vary-or not?

I know this appears to be a simple response, but is it?

drummerdevil
02-25-2018, 12:38 AM
Very basically, man to man defense is where five players play closely on five specific players, and follow those people around. Zone defense is where everyone covers a specific part of the court and mostly stays in that area, no matter if someone's there or not. I'll let someone else give you more specifics, though, that's one of the DBR specialties.

MarkD83
02-25-2018, 08:26 AM
So what happens if a team is in mtm and you tell the players to switch every screen or

a match-up zone where you don't stay in one area even if there is no one there and you go find a man close by....

gocanes0506
02-25-2018, 09:24 AM
Who is guarding who doesn’t change the fundamental base of the defense. If you switch every screen, you still have one man following an undesirable matchup around the floor.

Matchup zones are similar. Your zone shape matches up with the shape of their offense and where the ball is. In the end if a player vacates the area, the defender doesn’t follow. The defender will just flow into his new area (off a player if away from the ball or takes another person on the ball side). More often then not, guys have predetermined responsibilities on how to morph the zone. A guy wouldn’t go from one side of floor to the other to morph the zone but, everyone’s responsibilities shift to the new side.
Matchup zones are basically man to man on the ball side and zone defense away from the ball.

MarkD83
02-25-2018, 10:32 AM
Who is guarding who doesn’t change the fundamental base of the defense. If you switch every screen, you still have one man following an undesirable matchup around the floor.

Matchup zones are similar. Your zone shape matches up with the shape of their offense and where the ball is. In the end if a player vacates the area, the defender doesn’t follow. The defender will just flow into his new area (off a player if away from the ball or takes another person on the ball side). More often then not, guys have predetermined responsibilities on how to morph the zone. A guy wouldn’t go from one side of floor to the other to morph the zone but, everyone’s responsibilities shift to the new side.
Matchup zones are basically man to man on the ball side and zone defense away from the ball.

I know my next comment is semantics but does lead to a point about young Duke teams.

In good MTM defenses the bold statement is also true. MTM defenders away from the ball hedge off their man and play help defense (take a charge, stop penetration, essentially zone defense).

In recent years Duke's young big men struggle with switches and hedges in the MTM. So if Duke would start the season in a match-up the young players would learn MTM principles but would not get burned by quick guards and ball screens because off the ball there would always be a defender ready.

Papa John
02-25-2018, 11:34 AM
I know my next comment is semantics but does lead to a point about young Duke teams.

In good MTM defenses the bold statement is also true. MTM defenders away from the ball hedge off their man and play help defense (take a charge, stop penetration, essentially zone defense).

In recent years Duke's young big men struggle with switches and hedges in the MTM. So if Duke would start the season in a match-up the young players would learn MTM principles but would not get burned by quick guards and ball screens because off the ball there would always be a defender ready.

Agreed. I think the problem that vexes young teams with MTM is understanding responsibilities and how they organically shift, which is further complicated by understanding things like when to hedge and when to switch on screens. Those who have coached youth basketball understand how frustrating this can be on the sidelines, because it really takes a looooong time for kids to internalize things you teach in practice to then execute them correctly during a game (and oftentimes only once or twice, while the rest of the time they’re running around like headless chickens, as you pull your hair out watching... but those one or two lightbulb moments sure are glorious!). I think a zone is easier to learn because responsibilities are far more intuitive, since you’re usually assigned an area, and that’s your responsibility. When you’re chasing a guy all over the floor in MTM, it’s far easier to lose track of what your responsibility might be given the current situation.

kcduke75
02-25-2018, 12:40 PM
It's easy.

One is a defense that Coach K used to love, and the other is one he loves now.

MarkD83
02-25-2018, 02:24 PM
It's easy.

One is a defense that Coach K used to love, and the other is one he loves now.

In addition, one you need 2-3 years to master and the other you need 2-3 months to master. With players leaving after 1 or 2 years maybe there is a reason Coach K is beginning to love zone.

NYBri
02-25-2018, 05:07 PM
Let’s confuse the matter: what are the basics of the Pack Line? :cool:

subzero02
02-25-2018, 05:18 PM
It's easy.

One is a defense that Coach K used to love, and the other is one he loves now.

I would call it a reluctant embrace more so than a love. He'd still prefer to play man to man if he had a team that could properly execute it.

UrinalCake
02-25-2018, 08:21 PM
Matchup zones are similar. Your zone shape matches up with the shape of their offense and where the ball is.

I was wondering about this. There were several times yesterday when Syracuse on offense would put all five players on one side of the court. In some cases we shifted the zone over so that all five defenders were on that same side of the court. In other cases we stayed in our original positions, so that one defender was essentially guarding nobody.

Two two biggest areas of weakness for the zone, at least the way we play it, appear to be 1.) the free throw line area, and 2.) the corner threes. Regarding #1, we seem to react differently depending on which player is trying to fill that space. If it's a guy capable of shooting then we'll pull a wing defender over to guard him, but if it's somebody we've deemed not worthy of guarding then we'll just let him catch the ball there and be wide open while we guard everybody else. Grayson has mentioned after both of our last games how the team has been studying the scouting reports and sticking to them well, so I think a big part of our zone is reacting differently based on the opposing team's personnel.

Regarding #2, I think we've gotten a TON better at guarding these corner threes compared to earlier in the year when we would sprinkle in some zone. We almost always have a big closing out on those corner shooters. With that said, Syracuse did get a few open looks and there were times where it looked like as soon as the pass was made to the shooter in the corner, our defender just conceded the shot even before it went up and retreated to the basket to rebound.

gocanes0506
02-25-2018, 10:24 PM
Urinal-

Every zone has its weakness

3-2 and 2-3 have a weakness at the free throw line.
A 1-3-1 doesn’t

2-3 and 1-3-1 have holes behind the basket about 6 feet, 45 degrees from the rim.

3-2 and 1-3-1 have a weakness in the corners if a team can overload a side (the defending gaurds playing high) and run a shooter across the baseline and into the corner.

I have noticed recently (and heard ) the team talks a lot more on defense.i think that is why we see more pursuit, switching of coverage, and closing in the soft areas. A lot more hollering about cutters and guys trying to sneak behind the defense. It can take guys a long time to understand the value of constant talking on defense.

Newton_14
02-25-2018, 10:31 PM
Great thread thanks to the OP for putting it up.

In high school I played for probably one of the best defensive coaches in our region and possibly State. (If only he could have been that good at offense, sigh :) ).

Starting on the ground level, in M2M there are two things you must see at all times. 1. Your man 2. The ball. Lose sight of either of them and you are begging for trouble. Where the ball is, relative to where your man is, determines the spot (similar to zone) you need to be in. If the ball is in the far corner and your man is out on the opposite wing for example, you should be practically in the lane with a straight line between your man and the ball. Now, this was in a time before the 3 Point shot and the M2M I was taught is different from K's M2M, because the weak side defensive assignment is different. In K's you don't leave the 3 Point shooter no matter what. If a teammate gets beat you have much further to go to try to provide help defense because you were on your shooter instead of sagging way off in a better help position. Our M2M had a lot of zone principles in that regard (weakside off ball position.). Also in the K M2M you have to fight through all the ball screens unless you are in the "switch on every screen" M2M which K sometimes uses. Others have mentioned the hedging by the bigs. It's critical that two things happen when hedging. 1. You as the big push the ball handler out and not let him get by you and into the lane. 2. When you hedge as the big, and your man rolls to the basket while you are hedging, the other big MUST leave his man and stop the screening big from scoring if the ball handler somehow gets him the ball. Meanwhile the big that hedged, has to race back into the lane to pick up the guy the other big left. If the hedging big is late racing to pick up his buddy's man, it normally ends in a dunk. If the ballhandler gets past the hedging big and into the lane, it usually means a layup or dunk. FWIW, in my opinion Lance Thomas was the best I ever saw at racing back into the lane after hedging to prevent Zoubek's man for example from getting the ball. He truly mastered that in my opinion. Zoubs developed into a great hedger too which often meant he did not have to race back to the lane because Lance never had to leave his man. Good tandem they became obviously.

In recent years K has using icing on ball screens which Troublemaker has explained many times so I won't repeat.

The current zone. People are calling it a 2-3 but it's really not in my opinion (just my two cents dont hammer me). There is a ton of help and recover going on out there for one thing. Grayson or Duval are out front near the top of the key, and there is a Duke defender up high on both wings probably one to two steps behind Grayson/Duval up top. When the ball swings to the wing shooter, the forward from the back line take him until Grayson or Duval move over to take him. Once there the forward drops back down covering the paint but also covering a corner three if needed. When the ball goes back up top, Trent or Javin move back up from the Forward position to cover the wing guy again. One of the bigs stands firm protecting the rim unless one of the forwards is late recovering to a corner 3. If that happens the big Sprints to the corner to try and get a hand up on the three and the other true big in the game moves down to protect the rim the center left open to chase down the 3.

Which ever two guards are in the game playing up top are rotating constantly up top from top of the key to either wing and they are switching places as needed. I had floor seats in Section 17 last night (right beside Alison Williams which was nice :) ). Watching the defense in the 2nd half was a pure joy. The guys were constantly pointing and yelling to each other to "move there" "Hey get to the guy I left!, etc etc.

They are playing this zone extremely well and man it was fun to see it up close and personal.

Hope that made some semblance of sense.

Tappan Zee Devil
02-25-2018, 10:39 PM
Great thread thanks to the OP for putting it up.

In high school I played for probably one of the best defensive coaches in our region and possibly State. (If only he could have been that good at offense, sigh :) ).

Starting on the ground level, in M2M there are two things you must see at all times. 1. Your man 2. The ball. Lose sight of either of them and you are begging for trouble. Where the ball is, relative to where your man is, determines the spot (similar to zone) you need to be in. If the ball is in the far corner and your man is out on the opposite wing for example, you should be practically in the lane with a straight line between your man and the ball. Now, this was in a time before the 3 Point shot and the M2M I was taught is different from K's M2M, because the weak side defensive assignment is different. In K's you don't leave the 3 Point shooter no matter what. If a teammate gets beat you have much further to go to try to provide help defense because you were on your shooter instead of sagging way off in a better help position. Our M2M had a lot of zone principles in that regard (weakside off ball position.). Also in the K M2M you have to fight through all the ball screens unless you are in the "switch on every screen" M2M which K sometimes uses. Others have mentioned the hedging by the bigs. It's critical that two things happen when hedging. 1. You as the big push the ball handler out and not let him get by you and into the lane. 2. When you hedge as the big, and your man rolls to the basket while you are hedging, the other big MUST leave his man and stop the screening big from scoring if the ball handler somehow gets him the ball. Meanwhile the big that hedged, has to race back into the lane to pick up the guy the other big left. If the hedging big is late racing to pick up his buddy's man, it normally ends in a dunk. If the ballhandler gets past the hedging big and into the lane, it usually means a layup or dunk. FWIW, in my opinion Lance Thomas was the best I ever saw at racing back into the lane after hedging to prevent Zoubek's man for example from getting the ball. He truly mastered that in my opinion. Zoubs developed into a great hedger too which often meant he did not have to race back to the lane because Lance never had to leave his man. Good tandem they became obviously.

In recent years K has using icing on ball screens which Troublemaker has explained many times so I won't repeat.

The current zone. People are calling it a 2-3 but it's really not in my opinion (just my two cents dont hammer me). There is a ton of help and recover going on out there for one thing. Grayson or Duval are out front near the top of the key, and there is a Duke defender up high on both wings probably one to two steps behind Grayson/Duval up top. When the ball swings to the wing shooter, the forward from the back line take him until Grayson or Duval move over to take him. Once there the forward drops back down covering the paint but also covering a corner three if needed. When the ball goes back up top, Trent or Javin move back up from the Forward position to cover the wing guy again. One of the bigs stands firm protecting the rim unless one of the forwards is late recovering to a corner 3. If that happens the big Sprints to the corner to try and get a hand up on the three and the other true big in the game moves down to protect the rim the center left open to chase down the 3.

Which ever two guards are in the game playing up top are rotating constantly up top from top of the key to either wing and they are switching places as needed. I had floor seats in Section 17 last night (right beside Alison Williams which was nice :) ). Watching the defense in the 2nd half was a pure joy. The guys were constantly pointing and yelling to each other to "move there" "Hey get to the guy I left!, etc etc.

They are playing this zone extremely well and man it was fun to see it up close and personal.

Hope that made some semblance of sense.

"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Newton_14 again."


That was an extremely instructive and interesting post - Can someone help me with sporks?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-26-2018, 12:45 AM
"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Newton_14 again."


That was an extremely instructive and interesting post - Can someone help me with sporks?

I would.... But I can't either

Newton_14
02-26-2018, 12:49 AM
"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Newton_14 again."


That was an extremely instructive and interesting post - Can someone help me with sporks?


I would... But I can't either

Thanks to you both. Your comments here are appreciated and more than enough. Share those sporks with others in the thread. There have been some really good posts.

gep
02-26-2018, 01:18 AM
Great thread thanks to the OP for putting it up.
...
The current zone. People are calling it a 2-3 but it's really not in my opinion (just my two cents dont hammer me). There is a ton of help and recover going on out there for one thing. Grayson or Duval are out front near the top of the key, and there is a Duke defender up high on both wings probably one to two steps behind Grayson/Duval up top. When the ball swings to the wing shooter, the forward from the back line take him until Grayson or Duval move over to take him. Once there the forward drops back down covering the paint but also covering a corner three if needed. When the ball goes back up top, Trent or Javin move back up from the Forward position to cover the wing guy again. One of the bigs stands firm protecting the rim unless one of the forwards is late recovering to a corner 3. If that happens the big Sprints to the corner to try and get a hand up on the three and the other true big in the game moves down to protect the rim the center left open to chase down the 3.
,,,


Don't hammer me either:cool: But to my totally untrained eye, it appeared to me that every so often, it really looked like a 4-1 zone. Basically, 4 guys lined up about the top of the key line, with 1 under the basket. I thought that looked kinda interesting...

Newton_14
02-26-2018, 01:41 AM
Don't hammer me either:cool: But to my totally untrained eye, it appeared to me that every so often, it really looked like a 4-1 zone. Basically, 4 guys lined up about the top of the key line, with 1 under the basket. I thought that looked kinda interesting...

You are exactly right. It starts out as just that actually. At times it looks like a 4-1, at times it looks sorta like a 2-2-1, and other times it looks similar to a 1-3-1. K and staff have really worked some magic this time. And those ever changing looks keeps the offense confused, which is lowering their offensive efficiency quite a bit.

It really was neat to see it from about 35 feet away down on the floor where we were standing. It gave me a much different viewpoint than the games I have had to watch on TV.

PackMan97
02-26-2018, 03:58 AM
Let’s confuse the matter: what are the basics of the Pack Line? :cool:

The basics are to make your opponent no longer want to play basketball and instead do something fun like watch grass grow or paint dry.

Saratoga2
02-26-2018, 06:19 AM
Let’s confuse the matter: what are the basics of the Pack Line? :cool:

Pack Line is MTM with the player with the being closely guarded by his man and the other 4 pulled in within about 16 feet of the net but still with MTM should their player be passed the ball and others within help distance. Easier to learn and effective for clogging up the lane and rebounding but potentially weaker should a team have a number of quick release perimeter players. UVA is the best example of that defense working, while others do play it, maybe not for the full shot clock as they do.

CDu
02-26-2018, 07:08 AM
Don't hammer me either:cool: But to my totally untrained eye, it appeared to me that every so often, it really looked like a 4-1 zone. Basically, 4 guys lined up about the top of the key line, with 1 under the basket. I thought that looked kinda interesting...


You are exactly right. It starts out as just that actually. At times it looks like a 4-1, at times it looks sorta like a 2-2-1, and other times it looks similar to a 1-3-1. K and staff have really worked some magic this time. And those ever changing looks keeps the offense confused, which is lowering their offensive efficiency quite a bit.

It really was neat to see it from about 35 feet away down on the floor where we were standing. It gave me a much different viewpoint than the games I have had to watch on TV.

A zone doesn’t have to hold the same exact shape at all times to be a particular zone. It is a 2-3. The responsibilities of the players in the 2-3 depend upon where the ball is on the floor and where the off-ball offensive players are. Watch Syracuse play their 2-3 zone and you will see many of the same things.

A good zone will often look different at different times in a possession/game. Otherwise, it is incredibly easy to beat. If the “3” guys just stay down closer to the baseline at all times and the “2” guys both stay parallel at the 3pt line, then positioning four offensive players on the 3pt line all above the free throw line and the fifth at the free throw line would result in a ton of wide open 3s.

That our players’ responsibilities in the 2-3 require them to move around doesn’t change what type of zone it is. You both are correct that our 2-3 looks at times like a 4-1, a 2-2-1, and a 1-3-1. It also sometimes looks like a 3-2. But that is all positional shifting based on the offensive alignment. It is still a 2-3 zone.

Troublemaker
02-26-2018, 10:24 AM
In addition, one you need 2-3 years to master and the other you need 2-3 months to master. With players leaving after 1 or 2 years maybe there is a reason Coach K is beginning to love zone.

Yes, let's also give credit to the physical talent of these youngsters as well. The zone would not be so great if we didn't have the size, length, and athleticism of this group. In other words, OAD 4 Life!

Oh, the revenge of OAD supporters like me has not even started. It ain't even begun yet. Don't let this program win a 2nd national championship in 4 years using freshmen-dominated rotations. Don't let our 2 best defenses of the past 7 years be played by our two youngest teams (although that seems inevitable at this point).

sagegrouse
02-26-2018, 10:40 AM
I know my next comment is semantics but does lead to a point about young Duke teams.

In good MTM defenses the bold statement is also true. MTM defenders away from the ball hedge off their man and play help defense (take a charge, stop penetration, essentially zone defense).

In recent years Duke's young big men struggle with switches and hedges in the MTM. So if Duke would start the season in a match-up the young players would learn MTM principles but would not get burned by quick guards and ball screens because off the ball there would always be a defender ready.

Even JWill, on TV just recently, said that, as a freshman, he would run into the screener and stick like "velcro" -- couldn't follow his man.

flyingdutchdevil
02-26-2018, 10:47 AM
Yes, let's also give credit to the physical talent of these youngsters as well. The zone would not be so great if we didn't have the size, length, and athleticism of this group. In other words, OAD 4 Life!

Which is why zones usually don't work for experienced, fairly athletic, solid-lengthed players like what Duke had from inception-2014.

Given Coach K is getting the cream-of-the-crop talent-wise and athletically, zone makes so much more sense.

I'd argue that zone woulda been a really good system last year with solid length (Amile, Tatum, Jackson, Bolden) and terrible 1-on-1 defenders (Kennard, half of Giles).

HereBeforeCoachK
02-26-2018, 11:09 AM
A zone doesn’t have to hold the same exact shape at all times to be a particular zone. It is a 2-3. The responsibilities of the players in the 2-3 depend upon where the ball is on the floor and where the off-ball offensive players are. Watch Syracuse play their 2-3 zone and you will see many of the same things.

A good zone will often look different at different times in a possession/game. Otherwise, it is incredibly easy to beat. If the “3” guys just stay down closer to the baseline at all times and the “2” guys both stay parallel at the 3pt line, then positioning four offensive players on the 3pt line all above the free throw line and the fifth at the free throw line would result in a ton of wide open 3s.

That our players’ responsibilities in the 2-3 require them to move around doesn’t change what type of zone it is. You both are correct that our 2-3 looks at times like a 4-1, a 2-2-1, and a 1-3-1. It also sometimes looks like a 3-2. But that is all positional shifting based on the offensive alignment. It is still a 2-3 zone.

All of that is valid, and I'd only add that there are a lot of hybrid defenses too....a match up zone is one with significant man to man principles, while a soft man to man that always goes underneath pics and/or switches has zone principles, etc....and then there's the "amoeba" D and other hybrids. Then of course you can trap, or not, with a press, out of Z or m2m.....

This all changes too. Used to be, before players could hit 27 footers, that count 3 points, that zones would pack it in and be superior rebounding defenses in general compared to man to man. Now that zones spread out so much, they are often weaker defensive rebounding defenses than man to man.

Troublemaker
02-26-2018, 12:39 PM
You are exactly right. It starts out as just that actually. At times it looks like a 4-1, at times it looks sorta like a 2-2-1, and other times it looks similar to a 1-3-1. K and staff have really worked some magic this time. And those ever changing looks keeps the offense confused, which is lowering their offensive efficiency quite a bit.

It really was neat to see it from about 35 feet away down on the floor where we were standing. It gave me a much different viewpoint than the games I have had to watch on TV.

N_14, my friend, I've been trying to PM you.

Clear some space, please :-)

https://i.imgur.com/SZA2NlA.png

rsvman
02-26-2018, 12:55 PM
..... Used to be, before players could hit 27 footers, that count 3 points, that zones would pack it in and be superior rebounding defenses in general compared to man to man. Now that zones spread out so much, they are often weaker defensive rebounding defenses than man to man.

This.

Back in the day, there was no advantage for an offense to shoot long-distance shots. We actually WANTED the other team to shoot from out there. So zones could really essentially pack it in and protect the paint and mid-range jumpers. It was a win for the D if the other team took 20-24 foot shots all game long.

Man-to-man was also different back then. Most of the time, the instruction from a coach was "stay between your man and the basket." More aggressive m2m schemes that pressured passing lanes and all that started to really round into form back in maybe the mid-80s (if memory serves). I seem to remember that Georgetown was one of the first schools to adopt a more aggressive defensive scheme that pressured players well outside the place where they could effectively shoot the ball. They also started to clog the passing lanes quite a bit, too.