Any advice here, probably shouldn't have tried messing with zone with one of my D1 schools.  I feel as if I have a decent team and if I ran press which I normally do.

Lafayette Knight D1


Thanks!

Granted offense is probably a bigger problem(Jones is 99 LP potential, Lowitz is 95+ LP, Hasdell is 72 PER(blue), but are all a bit weak ath/spd.

You need a lot more def (AND  BLOCK) out of your post players...

Your defense looks great to me, you've only let one team shoot better than 45% against you. Your inside defense is a little weak, but not terrible at all, and you can probably hide that depending on whether you like the 2-3 or the 3-2.
Since you don't have a great three point shooter and the guys that get the majority of minutes are just OK free-throw shooters, I would put your two starting guards, and maybe even Jones at -1, they should shoot a decent percentage even if they're not putting up many threes.

So it really just seems to be my offense is crap, I know I don't have the best reb/sb in my big men but I'm equal in rebounding, which isn't great but for the weakness there that's fine, what I can do is move to a 2-3 and get Swatski down low and more rebounds, but then I'd have to isolate Yarbough down low which is possible with 68 ath 97 reb 70 def and 81 sb he should be able to hold his own down low.  But I'm weak to 3's since I have none of my own.

Offensively I have no clue why. I guess Jones is doing alright I figured he would be a monster(he is also 99 LP hopefully by CT)  I assume Lowitz sucks because of his 6 bh even though he has 69 ath 90+ lp.  Hasdell is just not developed to contribute(65 ath 80 spd 97+ per 90+ bh B+ FT potential), Puccio's young and is just above average with 70 ath 75 lp 22 bh

Feel like I keep ruining this team, and experimenting with man and then zone was not my best decision...

couple things. i agree your offense is doing horrendously, like, just amazingly bad, for that SOS. so it makes it hard to say too much about anything else. but i will anyway.

your zone defense is doing fine, although you need to think of sb as a core for your bigs in zone, which is not the case in press. you don't have horrible sb, and you have it in your centers which goes a long way, but still, felt it was worth a mention.

the big thing i see is the way you are playing your zone defense is off. when you play a team like navy... they are shooting 31% 3s, not altogether effectively. what would you play them, with man or press? +2? you played them 3-2 zone +2, which is sort of analogous to a press +5 or a man +4. seems like you played some 2-3 as well, always with a heavy +. it cant really be the case that EVERY team you are playing is beast from behind the arc, i'm assuming.... so what is the deal? try to convert to man or press thinking, to get you started, and just shift up by 2, from a 3-2, and down by 2, from a 2-3. it doesn't exactly work like that, but it will get you close - at least, a lot closer than you are right now ;) so if man 0 is a "base" setting, then 3-2 -2 is a comparable base setting. 3-2 -2 is a quality set, i played that all the time when i ran zone, one of my favorite settings... your + 3-2s should only be broken out a few times a year against those teams taking 35% plus from behind the arc. why to play 2-3 vs 3-2 is hard to get into, but basically 2-3 is the best 2 point defense in the game, while 3-2 is the best 3 point defense in the game, so that is one way you can think about it (both of those "bests" are in terms of shooting %s you can hold the other team to).

why are you running so much slowdown? slowdown zone doesn't make a lot of sense with a fairly deep team, do you just think you suck that bad? hmm, i just now checked and realize this is a d1 team... i guess it is kind of bad. that sb is really poor, i take back what i said on that, that is hurting you - i was thinking d2 at the time, sorry.

last comment. high level, your team is ALL wrong for zone - which makes sense, if you just switched to it, especially if you were coming from press. think of zone as the opposite of press, which i know is your comfort zone... press, you need a lot of depth, and take advantage of that depth. zone will never get deep into the rotation, 10 men is the absolute most you can use, and 8 is perfectly fine (assuming its an even 8 man). zone is all about star power. take walkons, so you have more money, and use that money to recruit better players than you could play in the press. then, you will get to play those players 20 something % longer than you would in the press, which lets you get more out of your studs. your zone thinking has got to be all about star power. 

Wow. A lot of knowledge there.

gillispie, would you rate SB just as important as Reb, Ath, Def for a forward (from defensive perspective) in the zone?

I am running my first zone team in years (under my other ID) at D3 and find the 3-2 very nice, and love the option of going 2-3 as well.  I have seen more zone national champs lately and it seems like they can be a match up problem against so many press teams.  Perhaps they get more FT advantages and can also get by on weaker benches as you said.  I think I undersold shot blocking with my current team though... but sill doing very well.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/31/2015 1:34:00 PM (view original):
couple things. i agree your offense is doing horrendously, like, just amazingly bad, for that SOS. so it makes it hard to say too much about anything else. but i will anyway.

your zone defense is doing fine, although you need to think of sb as a core for your bigs in zone, which is not the case in press. you don't have horrible sb, and you have it in your centers which goes a long way, but still, felt it was worth a mention.

the big thing i see is the way you are playing your zone defense is off. when you play a team like navy... they are shooting 31% 3s, not altogether effectively. what would you play them, with man or press? +2? you played them 3-2 zone +2, which is sort of analogous to a press +5 or a man +4. seems like you played some 2-3 as well, always with a heavy +. it cant really be the case that EVERY team you are playing is beast from behind the arc, i'm assuming.... so what is the deal? try to convert to man or press thinking, to get you started, and just shift up by 2, from a 3-2, and down by 2, from a 2-3. it doesn't exactly work like that, but it will get you close - at least, a lot closer than you are right now ;) so if man 0 is a "base" setting, then 3-2 -2 is a comparable base setting. 3-2 -2 is a quality set, i played that all the time when i ran zone, one of my favorite settings... your + 3-2s should only be broken out a few times a year against those teams taking 35% plus from behind the arc. why to play 2-3 vs 3-2 is hard to get into, but basically 2-3 is the best 2 point defense in the game, while 3-2 is the best 3 point defense in the game, so that is one way you can think about it (both of those "bests" are in terms of shooting %s you can hold the other team to).

why are you running so much slowdown? slowdown zone doesn't make a lot of sense with a fairly deep team, do you just think you suck that bad? hmm, i just now checked and realize this is a d1 team... i guess it is kind of bad. that sb is really poor, i take back what i said on that, that is hurting you - i was thinking d2 at the time, sorry.

last comment. high level, your team is ALL wrong for zone - which makes sense, if you just switched to it, especially if you were coming from press. think of zone as the opposite of press, which i know is your comfort zone... press, you need a lot of depth, and take advantage of that depth. zone will never get deep into the rotation, 10 men is the absolute most you can use, and 8 is perfectly fine (assuming its an even 8 man). zone is all about star power. take walkons, so you have more money, and use that money to recruit better players than you could play in the press. then, you will get to play those players 20 something % longer than you would in the press, which lets you get more out of your studs. your zone thinking has got to be all about star power. 

thanks a bunch for this I saw it when you posted and read it but I've been out the last day so haven't been able to reply until now.

I just haven't had luck with recruiting reb/sb in my big men, I know that's a really bad job for the zone.

This is my "first zone team(i just picked up another school that also runs zone at D1) and I really don't know what I'm doing with my plus/minus as I don't know how they correlate to the +/- of press.  I know 3-2 is much more effective against 3's and 2-3 is susceptible but gets the reb boost.  I've had trouble deciding on the 2-3 or 3-2.  The 2-3 I don't really have a Center Yarbrough has the reb/def and above average ath/sb to be isolated and Swatski is a great zone SF with his reb being nice.  In the 3-2 I am weak to rebounding and seem to waste Swatski's rebounding ability.

Offensively I guess I run slowdown since I don't think my team is that great.  Since seeing this I have run normal as my starting tempo, offense didn't seem any better though.

I know my big men are pretty bad especially for zone, I thought my guards are or will be fine, not sure what else needs to be different for zone guard defenders?

And as a low end/midmajor schools it's not bad as you said it was, is it?  I'm not expecting to be winning a NT game, but I thought I'd be competing for a CT champ and NT 1st round loss or at least a PI bid, but I lost to 5 sims in non conf which I didn't get.

It seems even with my lack of understanding of the zone defense it hasn't been the weakness on this team as I'm still a strong defensive team, it's just that the offense is garbage.

Maybe the converting by up/down 2 will help me gameplan better and the defense can take it up another notch to help me out a bit more.

And with the recruiting I didn't do that I should've been taking walkons and never risked it for big players always sat back and kept a large carryover.  Probably could've gotten 1 great player 2 of the past 3 seasons if I had taken 1 walkon, but I didn't think that through.

Thanks again, I'm not as against the zone now with the conversion theory for gameplanning.

yes, thanks for that gill. I run zone with Lake Forest in in Tark. Great info.

Gillispie, I normally only play 2-3 zone. When playing outside shooting teams I would play +2 or +3. That would be the same thing as +0, +1 in m2m?
Also how does small forward play change when switching from 2-3 to 3-2? I would also assume you will get more rebounds in a 2-3. Thanks again for any info. I have made it to the s16 running zone but I have honestly been off that +2 most of the time which would have made a difference in a few close games.

Posted by texrangers_ on 1/2/2016 10:56:00 AM (view original):
Gillispie, I normally only play 2-3 zone. When playing outside shooting teams I would play +2 or +3. That would be the same thing as +0, +1 in m2m?
Also how does small forward play change when switching from 2-3 to 3-2? I would also assume you will get more rebounds in a 2-3. Thanks again for any info. I have made it to the s16 running zone but I have honestly been off that +2 most of the time which would have made a difference in a few close games.

edit: sorry this is so long, but the "what is the difference in 2-3 vs 3-2 with respect to SF" question is like, one of the hardest and messiest questions you can ask/answer in the entire game. it took me more than 5 years to have ANY answer. maybe in another 5 years ill have an answer that is moderately concise, but really, its a messy issue and i see no way around that. i know that i didn't do very well answering, but i did my best, hopefully its worth something to somebody...

yeah, i mean its not exactly the same thing, 2-3 +2/+3 as m2m +0/+1, but i think its a good way to start thinking about it. if you really want to get into zone, it would be good to study the impact of 2-3 and 3-2 + and -, not only in terms of 3 point defense in the general sense, but also splitting into the two components of 3pt defense - 3pta allowed (3 point attempts allowed) and 3pt% allowed. i am definitely not a zone master, but if i was a zone master, i expect i would be able to explain defense in terms of those two components, not just overall 3 point defense. my take is the 2-3 allows more 3 point attempts, so like a 2-3 +2 would probably allow more 3 point attempts than a man +0, but the 3pt % would probably be about the same. but i never was able to fully figure that out.

regarding the rest of your question, the 2-3 vs 3-2 difference in terms of the small forward is this. when you run a 2-3, the players are grouped together - by the defensive equations they use. its not intuitively obvious what that means, but its probably the most misunderstood thing about zone, so i just want to emphasize it (its so misunderstood because the way it was explained by admins was confusing, for years and years - i only just realized this when i ticketed seble myself less than 2 years ago!). anyway, if you have a 2-3, the pg/sg share an equation, the sf/pf share an equation, and the c has their own equation. then, in defending a shot, ALL FIVE players are averaged together, their defensive abilities. advanced note: the equations of each player also depends on distance from the basket. in a 3-2, the pg/sg/sf all run off the same equation, while the pf/c run off the same equation.

i might be overly redundant here but im still not convinced that is clear, so here is a quick example, and ill carry it through to how a sf is impacted. when its said that the defensive equation used is the same, its talking about the defense equation that weighs ratings and IQ and comes up with a "defensive goodness" for a player. so, lets suppose a guy is taking a shot from 18 feet. then, in a 2-3, you might have:
pg/sg equation:  def ability = 5 ath + 7 spd + 10 def + iq
sf/pf equation:     def ability = 8 ath + 5 spd + 10 def + 5 sb + iq
c equation:          def ability = 8 ath + 3 spd + 10 def + 9 sb + iq

then, your pg/sg would be evaluated based on the first equation (which is obviously over-simplified, but hopefully you get the idea). your sf/pf would be evaluated on the second equation, and the c would be evaluated on the 3rd. all 5 values would be averaged together, and then this is your defensive score for defending the shot in question (the shot from 18 feet).

in a 3-2, you might have:
pg/sg/sf equation:  def ability = 5 ath + 7 spd + 10 def + 1 sb + iq
pf/c equation       :  def ability = 8 ath + 4 spd + 10 def + 8 sb + iq

then, your pg/sg/sf get evaluated by the first equation, and the pf/c get evaluated by the second. then, all 5 are averaged together, and that is your score.

so, what does this mean? well, first one high level comment, which hopefully helps make the above make a bit more sense, in context. some people have talked about using zone to "hide a defender". well, all 5 players average together on every shot, so you can hide one in the sense that the opponent cannot point a 20 ppg player at your ****** defender and let him run wild. but, your crappy player is still important on every shot. also, some people have said things like, well, my pg is my bad defender who i need to hide - so i need to play 3-2, so hes averaged with 2 other players, instead of just 1. i don't think it really works that way, its not that the pg/sg are averaged in 2-3 and pg/sg/sf in the 3-2, all 5 players are always averaged together, its just that those groups of players are evaluated off the same underlying equation.

so, when you look at a 2-3 vs 3-2, what that really impacts is how your team is going to play, defensively. there is a rebounding component - a 2-3 is slightly better than a 3-2, although because you usually play a 3-2 at a more negative setting than you'd play the 2-3, i think defense is really the focus. there is no impact on offense or turnovers, as best i can tell. the first defensive issue is defending 2s vs 3s, like we've already talked about - that is an opponent specific decision.

the second aspect of the defensive tradeoff in the 2-3 vs 3-2, is a YOUR TEAM specific issue - its not about the other team. we don't know exactly what those defensive equations look like, for the different players. but, we can safely assume, the per defense equation used in both the 2-3 and the 3-2 (which may or may not be the same - but at least, its probably pretty damn close, right?), its about per defense - speed will matter more, sb less, than in an interior defense equation. so, if you are playing a center at sf, who has 99 ath/def/sb, and 1 speed, then having speed be critical in their defensive equation, while shot blocking is either not a factor or is a small factor, well that probably isn't so hot for you. similarly, if your sf is a pure guard, who has 99 speed and 1 sb, then having them evaluated in the 3-2, where sb is a slight or non factor, is probably a lot better than having them evaluated as a sf/pf in the 2-3, which is most likely a hybrid equation half way between per defense and what you'd think of as a center's defensive equation.

i hope this is making some sense, because its fairly difficult for me to explain and i am trying, but i know its a tough subject... feel free to follow up with questions, or to let me know straight up where i am totally rambling and what is making sense, and ill try to clean it up.

anyway, when i look at my team only (my opponent-agnostic, base team setup), i usually do try to decide if 2-3 or 3-2 fits my team better, and primarily, that comes down to my sf, as i explained above. i am assuming, in a 2-3 and 3-2, the per defense equations are roughly equal, so my pg/sg are using the per defense equation no matter what. however, the pf and c are also using different equations, in the two sets. in a 2-3, your sf is running on a sf/pf equation (wing equation, if you will, if you think about 5 guys actually playing a 2-3 zone, where they start out standing), your pf is running on a sf/pf equation, and your c is running on a center equation. in the 3-2, your sf runs on a per defense equation, your pf and c run on a pf/c equation, which i suspect is like, half way between the sf/pf and c equations in the 2-3? 

sb matters significantly in the zone, and i think the major tradeoffs between the defensive equations, mostly come down to spd and sb, but also ath to some extent. meaning, defense matters a ton in all equations, but spd matters mostly in per defense, while sb matters mostly in inside defense. ath probably matters slightly more inside defense than on the per, but probably not by a ton. so, if i've got a pf, who is a center type, sitting there with 95 ath/sb and crap speed, i would rather him play in a 3-2 as a pf/c equation, than have him play in a 2-3 in a sf/pf wing defense type equation. i suspect the pf/c equation in a 3-2 is more like the c equation in the 2-3 than the sf/pf equation, because its really a paint defense role more than a wing defense, but i can't back this up from experience, its only what i would assume logically, which is a dangerous thing to do in this game ;) at least, its dangerous to put too much stock in it.

so, just to pull it together, if:
- my small forward is very guard-y, i am more likely for my base set to be a 3-2, probably like a 3-2 -2 or something.
- my small forward is very big-y, i am more likely for my base set to be a 2-3, probably like a 2-3 0 or something (generally when i play a 2-3, i know i am giving up 3 point defense, and gaining on the boards and for 2pt defense, the goal isn't to have your 2-3 base and your 3-2 base be the same, just for both of them to be solid)
- my power forward has poor sb and better speed, i am more likely to play a 3-2
- my power forward has great sb and poor speed, i am more likely to play a 2-3.

i've definitely had teams where i had extra players (as zone teams often do), where i would run different lineups, a smaller lineup playing 3-2 against great 3 point shooting teams, and a bigger lineup running 2-3 against poor 3 point teams, and i found that to work fairly well.

ok, ill hang up for now... but to any zone coaches out there, please don't be overwhelmed by the length and give up on it! 2-3 vs 3-2 is somewhat of an eternal mystery in HD, and i certainly haven't totally cracked the code, but i think i have the core laid out here, and i think all competitive zone coaches should really take the time to try to understand it... its too important to making zone work-able. zone gets a bad wrap, but its not a bad set. if you can understand and work with the info here in this post, and also embrace the core value of zone, which is allowing you to really focus on signing star power players, and being able to play them for more minutes, while being able to skimp on depth and take more risks in recruiting - then you can really put together a fine zone program!

edit: final advanced note (feel free to skip) - i never was able to figure out the implications of, "the defensive equations depend on distance from the basket". i mean, what it clearly means is, that for say, a center, when he is guarding a shot at 2 feet, its going to be a pure big man type equation, his speed may literally matter 0% on that. but for a 10 foot shot, the centers speed in trying to be a factor in that play, might matter. or something like that. but is this all there is to it? is it just more of the same - the per guys have per equations, which rely more on per def stats (spd) when its a true per shot, and that sb actually matters some for those folks on shots in the paint, even though they might not be anywhere near the basket? or is maybe the distance from the basket being used as a weight, of sorts? on a 3 point shot, it doesn't exactly make sense for a center to weigh equally with the other 4 - maybe the distance from the basket is used so that the guards count as a full weight, the wigs as 75% weight, and the center as 50% weight? or something conceptually similar to that? i don't know. i never could figure that out, or get a straight answer out of seble - although im not at all convinced i was able to ask the question in a way that makes any sense. nor am i convinced the question make sense here. but i think it would be worth someone, who was winning titles with zone, trying to be the best zone coach ever, to pursue this issue further. at stake, is the question - if you play guards with sb, how much impact does that have against a shot in the paint, by a post player? if we are to belive all 5 guys are averaged equally, and the distance factor in the equation for the guard serves to make sb more of a factor, then maybe the sb of a guard does actually matter - but not in defending guards persay - rather, in defending shots in the paint! regardless of who takes that shot.... i don't know, its interesting. i wonder if the other defenses use distance in their defense equations, as well? i think ill ticket and ask that - if all sets use distances in their equations - then those equations are probably more about making spd matter more no matter who the defender is, when they defend a 20 foot shot, that kind of thing. but if only zone uses distance in the defense equations, then it might be more about weighing the players, to better control how all 5 players defend every shot? ok, im pretty sure im making zero sense at this point. cya :)

^haven't thought that hard since grad school.

Who shoots and what type of shot is important as I understand it.....I believe the "positions" are weighed differently depending on those two factors.....for example a 3 point shot against the 2-3 is probably something like 60% PG/SG, 30% SF/PF and 10% C.

Well I am back, I managed to correct things last season my way to the CT champs and NT bid.  Lost my two best players.  However thought I returned a decent team and here I am sucking it up.

LINK

 I now have 3 sim losses all teams I feel I should've beat ,  I thought I figured out the +/- settings when Billy explained how they compare to press, but I've been destoryed from 3 in those games or given up 54 fta in 3ot and shooting 34% from FT line with all players at fairly fresh and normal tempo.

Offensively I have lowitz who is okay ath is enough at the level I expect to compete with.  the 6 bh hurts at D1 though. Hasdell hasn't been playing well I figured 65 ath 82 spd 90+ per and 87 bh would make him a great scorer, he will reach the mid/upper 90's soon too, but he is shooting 45% and 44% from 3, starting at 0 and now up to +2 on the 3 point scale.

This team has been so frustrating and it's my fault for being an idiot and trying man and then being even dumber and then trying to mess with Zone.