Taking this from the Wazzu game thread because it's something I've been thinking about for a while and wanted to spin it off.
This is proof that even a broken clock is right twice a day - so props to MacLean for finally finding that time. The hardest thing in sports isn't hitting a baseball, it's getting a young team to play TEAM man to man defense. This is the main reason that I think Coach Calipari at Kentucky is one of the best coaches in the game - and criminally underrated. Yes, the man can recruit, but that's all you hear about. You never hear about the fact that he routinely gets one and done's who know their key to getting drafted is to score to play lockdown D. In his time at Kentucky, the worst D he's ever had by AdjD on KenPom is 88th in the nation (98.1 points per 100 possessions) - and that was the year they made the NIT because Nerlens Noel was hurt. Over that time, he's averaged a ranking of 24th in the nation (it goes up to 15th if you take out the Noel year) and he's been top ten 4 out of the 8 years. I think AAU basketball gets a bit of a bum rap, and it's not the purely evil entity that everyone makes it out to be, but they don't teach D to the level that they should there. And in HS, most of the time the kids aren't forced to play quality team defense. So freshmen come in behind the 8 ball.
That's where zone is helpful, and why I think we've seen so much success from it this year. It's easier to coach and put into place and be passable than man to man is. Now that said, I honestly believe that the ceiling for man to man is so much higher that it makes sense to use if you can get the team to buy in. In fact, looking over the top 20 defenses according to KenPom, only 2 (Syracuse and North Carolina) are "mostly zone" and 4 are "inconclusive". The rest are all "mostly man". In fact, the highest zone D in the nation is Syracuse - a team that has been doing zone D for so long it's ingrained in their blood and probably leading to their success - and they're 11th in the nation.
Other than "pop & play", the big benefit to zone is that it can help hide a shortened bench. You don't exert as much effort on D in zone vs man to man (or a pressing man to man, which we've seen Tad bust out occasionally in the last few seasons) so you can save some guys. Or if you have a defensive liability, it's a convenient way to hide them. So it's not like zone defense doesn't have it's positives. And we're showing it this year as it single handedly turned our season around. But I don't think it's the answer, and I hope Tad is on the same page as me.
The big negatives with zone defense is as Pachoops has said - it's a "calculated risk". It can work - especially when it's a rarity because teams don't see it as much - but it also opens you up to some potentially serious flaws. The big thing in advanced stats is the "four factors" - eFG%, Turnover %, Offensive Rebound % and FTA/FGA. Basically if you can limit the amount of three pointers you give up (eFG%), don't turn the ball over, keep your opponents off of the boards and get to the line a lot, you're going to win a lot more than you lose. Zone defense seriously hampers you to two of those - eFG% and offensive rebound %. Because the D isn't extended as far, it opens you up to outside shooters. I think that's a reason that we didn't see it as much last night vs other games (note: I missed a portion of the second half because I was chasing my almost 2 year old around). As for offensive rebounds, the big benefit to man vs man is that you're on a guy so blocking out just involves turning your ass around and ramming into them. On zone you have to locate and it tends to lead to scrambling and/or missed opportunities.
With a team as young as ours, I feel like this next off-season should be dedicated to nothing but defensive principles (cue the "Tad sucks at offense" crowd's angrily jeering). I personally feel that with defenders like Bey and DeLeon on the roster, that gives us a solid start for building a damn good defensive team. Add in a solid defender like Namon and guys with incredible potential like Walton and Lazar and I feel like going zone would be like buying a Ferrari and keeping it in first gear the entire time.
This is also where I note that I, personally, am a big believer in man to man defense over zone. This year has opened my eyes a touch to times where it's worthwhile to run with, but I feel like with the athletes that we're assembling, and Tad's preferred player type (long arms who can switch and guard numerous positions) this zone defense should be a one year stop gap and for use in situations in which we want to throw opponents off guard.
This is proof that even a broken clock is right twice a day - so props to MacLean for finally finding that time. The hardest thing in sports isn't hitting a baseball, it's getting a young team to play TEAM man to man defense. This is the main reason that I think Coach Calipari at Kentucky is one of the best coaches in the game - and criminally underrated. Yes, the man can recruit, but that's all you hear about. You never hear about the fact that he routinely gets one and done's who know their key to getting drafted is to score to play lockdown D. In his time at Kentucky, the worst D he's ever had by AdjD on KenPom is 88th in the nation (98.1 points per 100 possessions) - and that was the year they made the NIT because Nerlens Noel was hurt. Over that time, he's averaged a ranking of 24th in the nation (it goes up to 15th if you take out the Noel year) and he's been top ten 4 out of the 8 years. I think AAU basketball gets a bit of a bum rap, and it's not the purely evil entity that everyone makes it out to be, but they don't teach D to the level that they should there. And in HS, most of the time the kids aren't forced to play quality team defense. So freshmen come in behind the 8 ball.
That's where zone is helpful, and why I think we've seen so much success from it this year. It's easier to coach and put into place and be passable than man to man is. Now that said, I honestly believe that the ceiling for man to man is so much higher that it makes sense to use if you can get the team to buy in. In fact, looking over the top 20 defenses according to KenPom, only 2 (Syracuse and North Carolina) are "mostly zone" and 4 are "inconclusive". The rest are all "mostly man". In fact, the highest zone D in the nation is Syracuse - a team that has been doing zone D for so long it's ingrained in their blood and probably leading to their success - and they're 11th in the nation.
Other than "pop & play", the big benefit to zone is that it can help hide a shortened bench. You don't exert as much effort on D in zone vs man to man (or a pressing man to man, which we've seen Tad bust out occasionally in the last few seasons) so you can save some guys. Or if you have a defensive liability, it's a convenient way to hide them. So it's not like zone defense doesn't have it's positives. And we're showing it this year as it single handedly turned our season around. But I don't think it's the answer, and I hope Tad is on the same page as me.
The big negatives with zone defense is as Pachoops has said - it's a "calculated risk". It can work - especially when it's a rarity because teams don't see it as much - but it also opens you up to some potentially serious flaws. The big thing in advanced stats is the "four factors" - eFG%, Turnover %, Offensive Rebound % and FTA/FGA. Basically if you can limit the amount of three pointers you give up (eFG%), don't turn the ball over, keep your opponents off of the boards and get to the line a lot, you're going to win a lot more than you lose. Zone defense seriously hampers you to two of those - eFG% and offensive rebound %. Because the D isn't extended as far, it opens you up to outside shooters. I think that's a reason that we didn't see it as much last night vs other games (note: I missed a portion of the second half because I was chasing my almost 2 year old around). As for offensive rebounds, the big benefit to man vs man is that you're on a guy so blocking out just involves turning your ass around and ramming into them. On zone you have to locate and it tends to lead to scrambling and/or missed opportunities.
With a team as young as ours, I feel like this next off-season should be dedicated to nothing but defensive principles (cue the "Tad sucks at offense" crowd's angrily jeering). I personally feel that with defenders like Bey and DeLeon on the roster, that gives us a solid start for building a damn good defensive team. Add in a solid defender like Namon and guys with incredible potential like Walton and Lazar and I feel like going zone would be like buying a Ferrari and keeping it in first gear the entire time.
This is also where I note that I, personally, am a big believer in man to man defense over zone. This year has opened my eyes a touch to times where it's worthwhile to run with, but I feel like with the athletes that we're assembling, and Tad's preferred player type (long arms who can switch and guard numerous positions) this zone defense should be a one year stop gap and for use in situations in which we want to throw opponents off guard.
