comments?

its true cause its only works against man to man. against a zone, a motion offense is usually limited and screens are minimal. this is from real life of playing and watching basketball.

The zone does take away the the pass to the deep low post and that is part of running the flex but it can still work. I don't want to sound like I know everything about the flex because I certainly don't. What I do know is you have to have good three point shooters to stretch that zone and that will allow cutters to get behind the zone.

Having said that I believe the zone is more effective against the flex then a man to man.

When I played we ran a modified flex. It worked fine against a zone, you just had to modify when and where the picks were set. Some ways it worked better then against man because its harder to switch on the screen.

Wisconsin runs their flex-ish offense against zones all the time. Their offense is never super effective, but it does seem to work better vs. man, vs. zones they shoot a ton of 3s, but that is to be expected, right?

We were a small ball team I was the tallest at 6'3 and played SF. We usually ran a 4-1 spread offense where I would go back and forth from wing to high post. Three point shooting was our best attribute so we did better against zones especially lazy ones.

Yeah that makes sense. Flex teams vs. zones do a lot of cutting to the high post and then a pass to whoever is open, since one of the defenders usually turns their head to see where the ball went.

Quote: Originally posted by reinsel on 5/11/2010Wisconsin runs their flex-ish offense against zones all the time.  Their offense is never super effective, but it does seem to work better vs. man, vs. zones they shoot a ton of 3s, but that is to be expected, right?

i don't really know what type of offense Wisconsin runs as i don't usually watch Big 10 basketball, but there is a common misconception about Wisconsin's offense being not super effective. as Ken Pomeroy proves statistically, they were 17th in the nation last season in "tempo free" efficiency despite being 340th of 346 DI teams in terms of pace (meaning they score well despite a low point total).

the were also 36th in 2009 and 28th in 2008.

nothing against you reinsel, i always here that Wisconsin does not have an effective offense and it's simply not the case.

I guess. I am a UW-Madison grad and bigtime fan.

Their offense is ok. I think they really pick apart weak defensive teams well, and that probably explains it. They are really at the mercy of the refs though, because they NEED a tightly called game to win against a good team. Lots of FTs = Badger wins.

Quote: Originally posted by reinsel on 5/11/2010I guess.  I am a UW-Madison grad and bigtime fan.  Their offense is ok.  I think they really pick apart weak defensive teams well, and that probably explains it.  They are really at the mercy of the refs though, because they NEED a tightly called game to win against a good team.  Lots of FTs = Badger wins.

i would agree with you that they do a good job picking apart bad teams. West Virginia did this as well though they really played well in the NT as well.

i think the biggest reason they are efficient on offense is that they always, year after year, have one of the lowest turnover/possession %s in the nation. In the last 7 years, they've never been worse than 60th, and in 6 of those 7 years they have been in the top 22 in TO% per possession.

in general, teams that protect the ball as well as they do tend to perform very well, though Michigan State is always an outlier in this category each year.

Quote: Originally Posted By reinsel on 5/11/2010Wisconsin runs their flex-ish offense against zones all the time. Their offense is never super effective, but it does seem to work better vs. man, vs. zones they shoot a ton of 3s, but that is to be expected, right

Wisconsin is known for running a triangle set offense in real life.....

Actually, Bo runs the swing offense, which is a derivative of the motion offense. Truth be told, he's really gotten away from some of the base principles of that offense in the last few years, such as guards posting up, which he rarely does any more.

We've actually struggled the most against m2m pressure defenses that extend out beyond the three-point line, largely because we don't have many players who can attack, beat that pressure and create (and partly because I don't think Bo makes great adjustments to have us attack more against those types of defenses).

And I think that's correct summerteeth, that our overall offensive efficiency #'s are skewed because we are so good at taking care of the ball. My educated guess would be that if you looked at offensive efficiency purely on possessions that didn't end in a turnover, our efficiency would be just average.