Old engine, I used to run zone and eventually hcp/zone, but I only could get so far with it and eventually went fcp. With the thought that defense positioning will mean more and supposedly the press is less effective than it was according to some, has anyone played a season with the zone or hcp/zone and enjoyed it more, or found improvements?

My team in Allen runs zone, and I think the new engine has made us even stronger defensivley. Not because the zone is better, but because the other D's seemed to have been made a little weaker in my opinion.

I find myself fouling way less than the teams I play in press or M2M, and playing a +2 in zone against 3 point heavy teams leaves us better off inside than with other defenses.

It also helps that my team is good to start with and everyoen seeing signifigant minutes has a good IQ

I just never felt that the zone worked the way it was supposed to in this game and if it is more closer to what it should be, it can be a great defense.

Looked at the defenses for the new engine in all three divs--eight sample conferences in IIba III, eight in Wooden III 12 in Iba II and all of them in Iba I, all 15-25 games or more in the new engine.  Found that zone still lags.  Tossed out all teams that were transitioning from press to either zone or man.  Results in Div III-human coaches only-man 63%  Zone 48%  Press 72% winning %.  Div II  Man  59%  Zone 49%  Press 64%  Div I  Man 60%  Zone 56%  Press 60%.  Draw your own conclusions.  Me--press is still viable; would favor motion-man or motion-press or flex-man or flex -press.  Too few humans run FB any more to get a good read, and personally have no idea what to do with the triangle--like assigning distro.  Lots of teams do a good job with the zone, but....

THere hasn't been longenough for people to learn new systems yet.  You can't make any judgments on what people choose for defenses yet.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 6/23/2010 8:00:00 PM (view original):
THere hasn't been longenough for people to learn new systems yet.  You can't make any judgments on what people choose for defenses yet.

OK, when I looked at defenses in the new engine, wanted to look at teams that had played the same defense the previous season (under the old engine).  If that team had switched from one season to the next, there would still be residual ability to play the old defense--easily spotted.  I screened those teams out.  That also screened out the teams that played combo defenses.  Was only interested in isolating defenses, to see how they were faring under the new engine.  In other words, if a team used press the last year of the old engine and press under the new engine, it was readily apparent from their IQ at the various defenses.  My sample for Div I, for example, screened out some 40-odd teams that were in transition from one defense to another--or played some form of combo.  So the study screened out "people learning new systems".   Did a study on eight Div III conferences under the old engine.  Those conferences, chosen at random, must have done well in OOC, because net record was well over .500.  Zone was 44%; man, 53% and press a whopping 63%.     Probably would have tended closer together had the sample been larger, but FB-Press was the way to go.  As noted in the last post, zone still lags in the new engine, especially in Divs II and III, but even some in Div I.   Press was still significantly better than man in the Div III sample; somewhat better than man in the Div II sample, and about even with man in Div I.   Hope this clears things up.   What I learned, as noted earlier, is that reports of the death of the press are a bit premature.  Now, reports of the death of the FB? .....

There is still and issue:  GIven the change in matchups, which effect specifically man to man defenses, there is likely still a bit of a learning curve with M2M.  I wodul not be surprised if M2m starts doing better as people figure it out;l