As someone who grew up in Syracuse, and graduated from NU, I can honestly say I have no idea why more teams don't play the 2-3 zone. I think Coach Collins and Coach Boeheim coached together on the Olympics so Chris must have seen a little first hand how it really works.
(((I thought insidenu had a weird analysis of the zone and I thought I would add my own set of positives and negatives to supplement.)))
Positives:
-Makes teams shoot from the outside and challenges all shots in the paint with multiple players.
-Protects the bigs against fouls, and from being dragged away from the basket chasing people around.
-I'm not sure this is completely true because the guards and wing forwards have lots of real estate to cover but I think players exert less energy than they would in a man to man. (if you ever saw the six overtime game with Syracuse and UCONN, you saw one team with a lot more energy than the other)
-Defensive strategy on a game by game basis is easier to learn for players. Find the shooters!
-Defensive strategy is easier to modify in game. (if you watched Louisville/SYR last night ,Harrell was unstoppable in the first half and then non-existent in the second half, it was a clear zone shift)
-In the tournament and non-conference, you face many teams that never play against the zone and have no idea what to do with it. They spend a lot of time passing it around the outside and wind up throwing it away a few times trying to get it into the middle.
-Its obvious where the gaping hole is in the zone (the middle) but its not easy to get the ball in there, and often times when it is easy to pass it in there, it is because the defense has given you that. Smart zone teams let bigs with questionable hands and jump shots catch it there and pivot around until they pass it into the fourth row.
Negatives:
-Sometimes teams get hot from deep three and can make it hard on you. (this is also fixable in game)
-There is a weird stigma that zone defenders don't know how to play man to man, and will not be good in the pros because this is the way they played in college. (This is a rich man's problem --- lets get players who have to stress about draft position and go from there)
-Rebounding can be harder. Finding the players to box out is a little trickier but not terrible.
-It can make the game a little boring to watch, most teams eat the shot clock trying to find a way to break it down.
-After you win a national championship, the court is named after you, and you are inducted into the hall of fame, you still may want to continue coaching and people are going to ask you about retiring constantly. THE WORST.
I haven't figured out why most teams don't play this way. It feels like Boeheim is a precursor to a moneyball style concept for basketball. Dunks are higher percentage than threes...how do you make teams take more threes? (A very simple logical, easy to describe, moneyball concept)
Needless to say --- I'm super excited for the last two wins and hopeful for the future!
(((I thought insidenu had a weird analysis of the zone and I thought I would add my own set of positives and negatives to supplement.)))
Positives:
-Makes teams shoot from the outside and challenges all shots in the paint with multiple players.
-Protects the bigs against fouls, and from being dragged away from the basket chasing people around.
-I'm not sure this is completely true because the guards and wing forwards have lots of real estate to cover but I think players exert less energy than they would in a man to man. (if you ever saw the six overtime game with Syracuse and UCONN, you saw one team with a lot more energy than the other)
-Defensive strategy on a game by game basis is easier to learn for players. Find the shooters!
-Defensive strategy is easier to modify in game. (if you watched Louisville/SYR last night ,Harrell was unstoppable in the first half and then non-existent in the second half, it was a clear zone shift)
-In the tournament and non-conference, you face many teams that never play against the zone and have no idea what to do with it. They spend a lot of time passing it around the outside and wind up throwing it away a few times trying to get it into the middle.
-Its obvious where the gaping hole is in the zone (the middle) but its not easy to get the ball in there, and often times when it is easy to pass it in there, it is because the defense has given you that. Smart zone teams let bigs with questionable hands and jump shots catch it there and pivot around until they pass it into the fourth row.
Negatives:
-Sometimes teams get hot from deep three and can make it hard on you. (this is also fixable in game)
-There is a weird stigma that zone defenders don't know how to play man to man, and will not be good in the pros because this is the way they played in college. (This is a rich man's problem --- lets get players who have to stress about draft position and go from there)
-Rebounding can be harder. Finding the players to box out is a little trickier but not terrible.
-It can make the game a little boring to watch, most teams eat the shot clock trying to find a way to break it down.
-After you win a national championship, the court is named after you, and you are inducted into the hall of fame, you still may want to continue coaching and people are going to ask you about retiring constantly. THE WORST.
I haven't figured out why most teams don't play this way. It feels like Boeheim is a precursor to a moneyball style concept for basketball. Dunks are higher percentage than threes...how do you make teams take more threes? (A very simple logical, easy to describe, moneyball concept)
Needless to say --- I'm super excited for the last two wins and hopeful for the future!
