I think using a combo in D2 or D3 is a flat out mistake -- there are too many other areas to improve upon individually, not to mention in team offense/defense.

It's possible to have success with a combo at these levels, but I would submit that the success would essentially be coming despite the combo, not because of it, and that the success would be greater if there was a concentration on one off/def.

Running just a few minutes of a second defense may be even worse -- that's just throwing the minutes away.

At DI I can see more of an argument for a combo, as there is generally less individual improvement available.
(I actually used to run both man and zone with a couple DI schools back in the day, I believe I practiced 15 mins zone and 20 m2m. I scrapped it with the engine change a couple years ago because unfortunately the differences between m2m and zone were not as pronounced, so I no longer felt that it was truly worthwhile.)

this is one of the more interesting discussion topics out there, IMO. id like to share a story not all may be familiar with. early in the days of potential, players capped REALLY quick - like, many of them by end of freshman year or early sophmore year. even high potential guys were capped or nearly capped by the end of sophmore year. obviously, this lead to an egregious waste of individual minutes for just about all coaches. one coach, tannermcc, tried a different approach - he practiced all 3 defenses, i believe 15m each - and he would switch them up day to day as needed. he ended up winning at least a couple championships and i think it was more - which was rather impressive, its somewhat of a unique feat, as far as i know. about a year and a half later, seble replaced tarek (the old admin), and put out his first big change (by far his best work), curbing the individual growth time to be the much more reasonable curve we see today. this invalidated the 3 defense approach, but it still is an interesting data point.

as was stated, this is all a question of tradeoffs. there are really 2 tradeoffs - the individual vs team practice minutes tradeoff, and within team practice, the 3 set vs 2 set tradeoff (under the safe assumption a 4 set system is no longer viable). 

to me, there are really 3 ways you could use multiple defenses. the most intriguing is to use both defenses simultaneously within a season, tailoring to your opponent. however, i feel the way a defense tailors to your own team is pretty important, too. teams carefully crafted around a particular set really will not benefit much from this - if you have a 12 deep, ath/spd driven press team, is it ever better to play man or zone? i don't think so - and if you take into account the reduced practice minutes for press and that other set, compared to a highly practiced press defense, i would think - definitely not.

the second way is the combo defense - which i basically find to be useless in my own research. i agree with girt - those winning with combo defenses are winning in spite of that combo defense. i simply see the fatigue vs turnover tradeoff to be borderline worth it on its own - and thats not even taking into account all the minutes you have to expend.

the third way is to have two sets practiced so you can use whichever is most appropriate in a given season. this is a pretty unorthodox way to look at multiple defenses, but to me, it is the most viable in today's game. in d2/d3, with the level of control you have over team composition and evolution (with the lack of EEs), i just don't see it. in d1, i see more value. for the first time ever, i am going to practice two defenses, because i want to play a press in a fairly remote d1 recruiting area - and just can't guarantee the depth. so, ive decided, after a brutal start to a 9 man deep season, to practice zone as well. i don't anticipate switching in the season very often (especially not when my team is any good), but i do plan to use zone during years when the press would be a disaster (such as this one) to level out the boom or bust cycle that the press teams i've had typically endure. 

i think there's also a lot to be said for someone practicing 2 or 3 defenses just to simply play around with them and learn what works best. it seems very useful, from that standpoint. but from a trying to win standpoint, im pretty strongly in the 1 defense camp. there is decent value in going from 20 to 25m in your sets, so i prefer even on 50m team practice setups, to go with 2 sets, not 3. if you are going to go 2 defenses, i suggest it should not be for the combo aspect, but rather to either tailor to the opponent during the season, or to pick the one that better fits your team going into the season (which is clearly more relevant in high d1 with EEs, and with a lesser need for the practice minutes). the problem in d2/d3 is all the best players have a ton of growth, and so those individual minutes are just too valuable, i don't even go above 20 or 22m in a set in d2/d3 anymore. in d2/d3/low d1, its really hard for me to see multiple defenses being a viable tactic, outside of the learning experience.

Posted by bro_lunardi on 11/30/2013 9:54:00 PM (view original):
Is the difference between a B and A the same as from C to B? And are there varying ranges of an A+ IQ, like there is with prestige?

this is a pretty tough question, im not sure anyone in HD knows. ive went back and forth over the years. the problem is this - on one hand, it makes no damn sense to have letter grades like this if there are varying jumps between the grades. on the other hand, especially from an offensive standpoint (at least earlier in the HD days), there was such a stark contrast in performance between the A range and B range, where as going from F to B- was effectively meaningless, the guy was still useless (less the case today, the impact of IQ on offense was toned down at one point). 

this could change at any point, but here is where i currently stand on the subject. the difference between each letter grade is linear. however, that is taken on its own, and context is everything - you can never take anything on its own. i think most people accept offense is some equation that is fundamentally the combination of different offensive values - with some of those values multiplied together. for example, against quality teams, having great spd or per is basically useless without the other, if you need to shoot 3s.

ill use this as its the best example i can think of. say you are playing d2, and you have a guy who is 40 spd/per with high/high in both. he starts useless. when hes 50/50, hes still useless (on offense). when hes 60/60, if you are a good team, hes STILL useless - ok, maybe he can have like a couple distro and score a couple points, so its a slight bump, but not much. at 70/70, he can play a supporting role very competently, the net impact on your offense from 60/60->70/70 far exceeds the growth from 40/40->60/60. at 80/80, he can be a really good scorer for you, doubling or maybe even tripling his production at 70/70. so, even though the value of ratings are linear - the end result when you put them through the equations, compare to the defense you are facing, all that - is that there is a very non-linear curve. its very flat, at the low, useless level - and then when ratings get high, the utility sky rockets. there is nothing linear about that!

i consider IQ to work similarly. its part of the equation for just about everything, but using offense as the example, its definitely a factor in your offensive ability - a very substantial one. whatever values IQ runs off of, i cannot speculate - but i feel like, once you churn it through the offensive equation, compare to the defense, you get a curve very similar to the offensive curve off spd/per. you can grow and grow, from an F to a B-, and get nothing - just like the guard who went from 40/40 to 60/60 and got nothing - because you still suck too much to do anything (technically, both can now do a little, but you get the point, hopefully :). around a B+, guards finally become usable IMO, but not in the lead scorer kind of way, more in the good supporter way. by an A, with nothing else changed, they can now take on that lead scorer role. so anyway, while i think there is linear improvement in the IQ conversion to an actual number - i think the end result is very non linear. this is especially true on offense, but i think defense and rebounding work similarly, albeit to a lesser extent. offense is clearly the king of the law of diminishing returns in all aspects of this game, and IQ is no exception.

a variation of gill's concept is the second defense as an insurance policy.  I like having depth.  I try to recruit for depth.  I cant help but do it that way.  It may well be a flaw in my approach, but it is what I do.

Especially where I run press, I will for some teams spend a few minutes on another defense mostly as insurance against a recruiting calamity.  If I totally blow it and have to play a season with 7 or 8 guys, I have at least some leg up on running man or zone rather than press.

I have at times - especially when my team is veteran, high in IQ and also low in potential, invested some more in the second defense and flipped among, fcp, half court and pure man or zone.  I agree that it is rare that the combo approach is the best solution but in some rare cases it can be useful - where the tradeoffs happen to favor it. 

When I do this and it works out, I end up with a deep press team, that has strong DEF ratings and also has some man IQ - so that next season it COULD become an 8 deep man defense team

All very interesting points.  So it seems the consensus appears that a combo defense (probably regardless of level, but I'm experimenting at low D1 with 20 min zone, 5 min press) is pointless.  My thoughts on it were flexibility in playing HCP/Zone at times and more importantly (to me) in late game situations to have the option of a press that has some rating in it - not the 0 mins of practice F/D- that a someone could easily have.  I'm in year two, so it's somewhat of a moot point, but I would think by senior year I should still have solid A's in the main defense and B's in the secondary press, maybe even higher depending on the player.

It seems to me that for the most part coaches gravitate to a particular set and learn it so they can recruit/play it accordingly.  For whatever reason, I started M2M, but have started to dabble a little in others as I added more teams.  I'm much more interested in Zone now (at all levels), although I do have one press team just to see how it works.


To me, in my limited experience, it's the player and their growth that matter the most.  Sets tend to dictate the type of player recruited or how the team is built, but wouldn't flexibility always be a good thing?  How each coach divvies up their 130 mins is up to them, and I'd never want to leave growth on the table, but squeezing a point or two here or there and still being able to cap out growth I could only see as good.  Maybe he graduates with a 2.1 instead of a 2.9, but all those 5 mins of secondary defense spread over 4 years could make him a B+ in a secondary set that could have an impact.

The flexibility of a secondary set really is a long term thing I think.  I'm sure my assumptions are totally wrong, and 22-25 mins practice of one set over 4 years is better than 20 mins in one and 5 mins in a secondary, but that's the thing about this game - there's all these little things that you can tweak and try :)

ETA: And a note after reading gillispie's comments again - I'm in no way shape or form anticipating winning in the postseason with this approach, this is messing around and seeing how it plays.  With very small data sets and not apples to apples I can't really compare the limited combo with straight D, but I can tell some differences early on.  How much of that is players in one case being better than others I'm not sure yet.

guyo, i actually like the using press for end game settings approach, its a pretty interesting way to go. i found that doing everything solely for what is best for winning more or less ruins the game, so these small kind of experiments are a great idea, IMO. and i could see a pretty good case being made that a 50m team practice setup would be better with 20/20/10 than 25/25. its probably still 25/25 that is best but i dont think it is a foregone conclusion... diminishing returns are pretty tough up there, and being able to press late could be pretty useful. seems like a cool experiment to me, anyway :)

Thanks gillispie, I thought it was interesting too :)  

For what it's worth, your post on Zone being an advantage for low D1 absolutely influenced my decision to start to play that.  I think it makes a lot of sense, and especially when paired with Triangle so that you can minimize weaknesses by having more "wiggle room" than a more traditional Motion/M2M.  Yes, at high D1 that works, but I can't get 5 guys that can all score and play D.

BUT, I'm tinkering with seeing what happens when you have a zone with 5 guys that can play D.  The low allotment for press is just to give me options, my zone defenders aren't necessarily press type guys, but I do think there can be something to be said for late game or even having the option to HCP/Zone once the IQs are good enough.

And a caveat, this is all at low D1.   I don't think combo could work, even at this small setting, in D3.  Probably not in D2 either.  I kept reading how D1 was different, and it is.  In a variety of ways.  I may well go back to 22/22 for my sets, maybe even 25/25, but I'm going to give this 4-8 seasons and see how I think it plays.

guyo, glad you found that helpful. a few other people have mentioned that same post about zone in d1 to me causing them to play it, so maybe this follow up will be helpful, too? the wiggle room aspect you describe is great - both on the zone and triangle side (with the combination allowing you to totally focus on O for some guys while partially neglecting D, while totally neglecting O for some guys while really focusing on D + reb/guard skills).

the other side that is huge, that is very important for recruiting, is that you can 1) make the most of your best players because of the minutes played (even more so on offense with triangle), and 2) tolerate walkons. the first point is very important because it means you really have to try to get a star or two - especially on offense where the first great guy is worth SO MUCH. this doesnt need to be an elite BCS guy or anything, but for example, heres a guy we signed at our mid major UTSM in knight - 98 ath, 85 spd, 60 reb, 96 def, 54 sb, 80 lp, 96 per, 49 bh, 70 pass, 80 sta, c+ ft.... we didn't get nearly as much as we could have playing triangle/zone as we did playing our motion/press. now obviously that guy is pretty amazing but even a significantly less amazing version, who is strong on offense, can be just so awesome for you in a zone defense because he can play 30mpg in close games consistently (more with great stamina). 

now, taking that need to get a star, with the fact that you are a mid major and can't really have your way with anybody, it means you have 2 options. 1) fight really hard for a local, or 2) scout a bunch of states and send a lot of evals to find that guy with the right high/highs who can grow into a BCS caliber scorer. he can be less than a BCS caliber player but you need a couple BCS caliber scorers to really make triangle/zone cook (so like a 90 spd/per guard with only 60 ath/def who the big boys don't want). both of these approaches require additional funds, which makes planning to take a walkon or two every season an extremely valid approach. in close games, your top 5 guys playing 30mpg means you only need 50 mpg from the whole damn rest of the team! with a common backup 4/5 being pretty easy to accomplish, and a common backup 1/2 happening decently often (or else maybe a combo 2/3), your top 7 guys are so important, and really if all you have is 8 with 4 walkons, that won't really hurt you fatigue wise. of course, more guys means you always play more upperclassmen, but point is, its VERY easy to tolerate the walkons as part of the strategy.

the biggest reason IMO more people dont shoot for walkons, even in say the typical m2m situation, is because they are afraid of screwing up and getting 1-2 more than they bargained for - which can really be detrimental, in some cases. the zone system for low d1 is just so much more forgiving to botched classes. and when you are shooting high for your top couple players, as a mid major, its pretty darn easy to miss. so its like, if you are going to play zone, you need to take risks - because you are more rewarded when they work out than everyone else, AND you are less harmed when they dont. people always tell me im a bit nuts for the emphasis i place on aligning strategy with the set you play, but really, if you play zone like you'd play man or press, its just going to suck. its super important to take the risks, get some great offensive guys, so you can ride them harder than anyone (50% more time from a stud in zone than press is fricken gigantic). and if you wiff, not much harm done :) i do think zone is rough in high level d1 because the top teams can so consistently fill up on talent, but at lower programs where that BCS caliber scorer is a treasure to be... well... treasured :) zone really makes sense, to get the most out of him you can!

If I put minutes into a secondary defense, other than FCP, I'll practice zone, but will only get them to a C+ . I've always felt that offensive IQ was much more important than defensive IQ or at least for the teams I've had.

If I'm running a FCP against a 3 guard offense with good BH/pass skills, I may want to go to a secondary defense, such as a zone, even if the IQ is only at C+. Most importantly, it doesn't require a lot of minutes to get to that grade mark. It may mean a couple of more fouls per game or a steal less per game, but not really worth the practice time to get the secondary defense to an A+.