MBB: Duke 77, Va Tech 63 Post-Game Thread

[mkirsh]

When I play in a 2-3 zone, I tend to play up top. Personally, I find it more tiring because you should be constantly moving in a zone, often across distance after a pass around the perimeter. In m2m, you just have to follow your man around. You don't have to move much if he doesn't move much; you can move slowly if he moves slowly. And it's easier to deny your man the ball than it is in a zone. And it's easier to box out for a rebound than it is in a zone.

As far as getting beat, that's probably true off the dribble. And it's definitely true in a pnr situation. But in a poorly executed zone you get beat all the time by wide open shots even if you're not giving up layups. I've always thought the idea that a zone is easier to play and/or more effective than m2m is a myth. When it works, the main reason often appears to be that the opponent just isn't used to playing against the zone and doesn't know how to play offense against the zone.

Agree, but will also add that zones can be good for certain matchups - zones can be effective at neutralizing teams that like to attack off the dribble but are not great at hitting spot up shots. Or zone traps can be effective against teams without good ball handlers.

[kAzE]

When I play in a 2-3 zone, I tend to play up top. Personally, I find it more tiring because you should be constantly moving in a zone, often across distance after a pass around the perimeter. In m2m, you just have to follow your man around. You don't have to move much if he doesn't move much; you can move slowly if he moves slowly. And it's easier to deny your man the ball than it is in a zone. And it's easier to box out for a rebound than it is in a zone.

I think the 2-3 is the most taxing on the two players on the top of the zone. Those are usually your best defenders. The corner players kind of get a breather. I played the corner in a 2-3 in a few rec leagues, being a relatively weak defender, and I much preferred that to chasing the other team's 2-guard around in M2M.

[CDu]

I think the 2-3 is the most taxing on the two players on the top of the zone. Those are usually your best defenders. The corner players kind of get a breather. I played the corner in a 2-3 in a few rec leagues, being a relatively weak defender, and I much preferred that to chasing the other team's 2-guard around in M2M.

It depends. In a good 2-3 zone, the two “forwards” (the outer two of the “3”) move easily as much as as the two up top. It is only in a lazy zone (where the forwards aren’t actively supporting out to the 3pt line) that the guards do all the work. Which is, of course, the case in your average rec league.

But in practice, the strong side forward should be as active as the strong side guard, and the weakside forward as active as the weakside guard. Only the center has a limited range of responsibility, generally from block to block and maybe up to the free throw line.

I would also say that man to man - if well organized - is as taxing as a well-organized zone. It requires constant communication and movement, even if you are off the ball. Man to man is only really easier physically at the pickup/rec level, and really only easier for the guards. For the forwards and centers, they probably find the zone easier physically. But that is more a statement about the quality of the defense being played and the cohesion of the offense being faced.

[hustleplays]

It depends. In a good 2-3 zone, the two “forwards” (the outer two of the “3”) move easily as much as as the two up top. It is only in a lazy zone (where the forwards aren’t actively supporting out to the 3pt line) that the guards do all the work. Which is, of course, the case in your average rec league.

But in practice, the strong side forward should be as active as the strong side guard, and the weakside forward as active as the weakside guard. Only the center has a limited range of responsibility, generally from block to block and maybe up to the free throw line.

I would also say that man to man - if well organized - is as taxing as a well-organized zone. It requires constant communication and movement, even if you are off the ball. Man to man is only really easier physically at the pickup/rec level, and really only easier for the guards. For the forwards and centers, they probably find the zone easier physically. But that is more a statement about the quality of the defense being played and the cohesion of the offense being faced.

So, I'm torn...I learned a ton about M2m vs zone from our erudite posters. Thank you Skydog for your intricate analysis of the relationship between our players and our schemes, Kedsy for your stats that refute the correlation between our young teams and poor D, and MKirsh for your identifying Tre, the particular M2M scheme and our overall personnel as ways to understand what we have seen with Duke D over the past years.

On the other hand, I humbly and magnanimously want to share the Cameron Crazie "It's All Your Fault!" award with HereBeforeCoachK for delving into Rec League analogy land. Honorable Mention goes to MtDevil, TruBlu,KAzE, CDU and, drum roll, please, to Kedsy, for offering non-data driven anecdotal, first person, and compelling, experience on the pros and cons, the benefits and challenges, of playing M2M vs. zone at merely mortal levels. Kedsy, what unempirically happens here, stays here, so not to worry.

If this Rec League conversation continues, I am tempted to post a poll on Rec League M2M vs. Zone, so you have been warned.

Full disclosure, thanks for contributing! I have learned a lot, and I've really enjoyed your recounting and drawing inferences from your rec league experiences.

Perhaps like you, this hiatus between real Duke-type games is very long, and it's fun to chat about basketball at all levels.

Finally, I would like to say that in my rec league experience, we cunningly disguised whether we were playing M2M or zone by calling it a matchup zone. Yep, someone was clueless about which person or area he was defending and the next person tried to help. Our poor opponents didn't know what kind of defense we were deploying.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

[HereBeforeCoachK]

When I play in a 2-3 zone, I tend to play up top. Personally, I find it more tiring because you should be constantly moving in a zone, often across distance after a pass around the perimeter. In m2m, you just have to follow your man around. You don't have to move much if he doesn't move much; you can move slowly if he moves slowly. And it's easier to deny your man the ball than it is in a zone. And it's easier to box out for a rebound than it is in a zone.

As far as getting beat, that's probably true off the dribble. And it's definitely true in a pnr situation. But in a poorly executed zone you get beat all the time by wide open shots even if you're not giving up layups. I've always thought the idea that a zone is easier to play and/or more effective than m2m is a myth. When it works, the main reason often appears to be that the opponent just isn't used to playing against the zone and doesn't know how to play offense against the zone.

The first part is absolutely true, unless you are playing a poor team M2M. The second is a myth most of the time. Coaches don't ever say "we went man because we needed some rest" or "went man because we were in foul trouble."