If anyone has experience with sustained D1 success using zone, or if you know of a thread discussing it, I would be very interested in learning about such approaches. Thanks for any insight.

Im failing miserably playing the Zone in the Big East Tark and switching to a M2M...It seems to be working ok @ BYU-Phelan which is a rebuild.

Thanks, mmt. What are the reasons you think are causing your failure (related to zone)?

Jskenner I run zone at illinois in Knight and I would tell you to recruit just as you would for guys in a m2m...maybe with a little more emphasis on rebounding especially in your guards but I also like all of my players to have high ratings in DEF as well...even though its a zone I feel like its far more effective if they are better defenders and more athletic to help cover more ground but that's just my opinion

Thanks, tbrown. That's really nice insight. The reason I am considering zone is that I am taking over Crum Virginia next season, and the program will either start as a C+ or more likely C. Even if I'm able to get the prestige up after a few years or more, I'll be competing against established A and A+ programs on the East coast. So I was considering the zone as a way to allow best use of low defense players with other talents, when such players happen along, having no more than 1 or 2 bad defenders on the court at once, and balancing them with other high DEF players. But if I need high defense across the board just like in man, then would you consider the advantages of zone (stamina, fouls, interior defense) worth the disadvantages of rebounding, perimeter defense worth it over the man (which Virginia currently plays)? Of course, I just listed several assumptions re: the engine in relation to zone, and feel free to correct me where I don't understand. Thanks again.

Posted by jskenner on 2/17/2011 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Thanks, tbrown. That's really nice insight. The reason I am considering zone is that I am taking over Crum Virginia next season, and the program will either start as a C+ or more likely C. Even if I'm able to get the prestige up after a few years or more, I'll be competing against established A and A+ programs on the East coast. So I was considering the zone as a way to allow best use of low defense players with other talents, when such players happen along, having no more than 1 or 2 bad defenders on the court at once, and balancing them with other high DEF players. But if I need high defense across the board just like in man, then would you consider the advantages of zone (stamina, fouls, interior defense) worth the disadvantages of rebounding, perimeter defense worth it over the man (which Virginia currently plays)? Of course, I just listed several assumptions re: the engine in relation to zone, and feel free to correct me where I don't understand. Thanks again.

hey there... welcome back ( i think... if you never left, never mind :)

i think zone got changed in the new engine to some extent. the advantage of fatigue is just not very big over man, i think seble made man defense better fatigue wise to help make man competitive with the press. but i think zone did get shored up a bit in some other ways. i was playing a zone/fb team in tark for a couple seasons in the new engine, and i really had no idea how to play either when i picked up the team a few months earlier. they did pretty well, nothing to write home about, but i was impressed how competitive the team was.

it wasn't really a team i paid too much attention to, so you have to take this with a grain of salt, but i was able to play them competently for a couple seasons on both sides of the new engine. before the new engine, i really benefited from the fatigue bonus of the zone, as the # of decent players i had was not up to snuff. however, after the new engine, when i actually was deep enough, i found i had to use that depth more. and looking around at some other zone teams, i am pretty sure it doesn't have a big fatigue advantage over man anymore (although a small one).

on the plus side, i don't think its rebounding disadvantage compared to man is very significant, either. the team i had played 3 bigs, and we were dominant on the boards. that was with a team, who against the other teams who finished in the top 10 that year, had maybe one of the best players on the court, maybe none in some cases. but even in the elite 8, when they lost to a powerhouse team, it was only by a couple points and i think we might have even won the rebounding battle. i don't think the 3 point gap between zone and man was close to what i expected either (which was a lot).

so, like i said, i really didn't look closely enough to know. but i have glanced at some zone teams lately, and what it looks like to me is, seble tried to deal with the defensive imbalances by making them all closer. i have little doubt in that last conclusion, because there are like 15 observations i've made in support of that and none i can think of against it. but the individual things could all be wrong - half of them i half made up based on my overall conclusion that the defenses all became more similar.

I definitely agree that there is not nearly as large a difference (in a bunch of areas) between m2m and zone in the new engine. (Which I think sucks, but oh well.)

I did well in the Tark Big East with zone for a while, and at my previous job with Hampton I made the Final 4 running a zone, with West Virginia my best run was an Elite 8. I switched to M2M after a season where I had 5 starters who were Juniors and Seniors and 4 of the 5 had 99D and the other was 92 I believe and 4 of the 5 were over 90ath and the other was 86 and that same season I had overall the fastest team in Tark and the only 99ath/99sp/99D player in Tark and had way too many games where I couldn't stop anybody including my 2nd round loss where I gave up over 50% shooting to a team that was fairly equal in talent.

also, jskenner, the advice tbrown gave is right - in fact, def is very important in all defenses now.

Posted by coach_billyg on 2/18/2011 12:37:00 AM (view original):
also, jskenner, the advice tbrown gave is right - in fact, def is very important in all defenses now.

this sounds like a silly question, but - you mean it wasn't that important for defense before? Or that its value has increased relative to others now? 

I've always wondered something about zone. For a long time around here it seems (and maybe its just perception) that a lot of the more successful coaches used press. those that didn't all seemed to run m2m. The only time you'd see zone was where someone was trying to hide ****** players. What if zone isn't really inferior on its face, but its inferior coz its being run with ****** players? Has there been more than a couple zones run with good players? Are those few examples of successful zone teams an example of running it with good players and having it work? 

I would say having a 3 that can rebound and block well is absolutely imperative for a 2-3 zone. 

A guy like Colorado's Brian Dominowski from our conference in Phelan would be what I would shoot for. That and 95+ shot blocking from my bigs. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=1758676

Also, I think the biggest problem with the zone is that a truly balanced team seems like they simply just need to make their shots and that the zone can only do "so much" to defend. I would follow Minnesota in Phelan closely, dwoeflin has had good success with the zone everywhere he's been and seems to be a building a very solid zone defense team as he goes along. 

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=13918

I;ve been running a bit of zone lately. I've been sucking a lot lately too! I also implemented triangle at the same time so that might be it. Anyways, take my advice knowing I'm a bad coach but really really experienced with 80+? seasons at D1 with zone.

Recruit as if for man BUT if a 4 or 5 star guy has low DEF, get him. He'll probably be cheap! Overall though you want lots of DEF with speed/athlet.
C's & PF's NEED to have good BLK rating (90+). Of course you can't always get bigs like that but try try try. I'll stick my neck out here and just say I strongly believe BLK rating in zone is stronger than BLK rating in the other defenses. Oh, and don't forget ATH multiplies the BLK rating. Remember blocks aren't just blocks but include altered shots. 

I find that with an average team running zone as a 3-2 (3 guys on the perimeter) your defensive 3 pt % will be good. If you have 3 smalls with good speed and def your opponent will average around 27% - 29% from three. The smarter coaches near the end of the season will more and more funnel their offense inside where their 2 pt fg% will be about equal to your 2 pt fg%. And so you will NEED to have bigs who can rebound. If you can have 2 bigs with 90 REB then you are set.

When running a 2-3 (2 perimeter guys) everything is opposite from above. Your better opponents will "bomb" away! Having 2 guards with 90 SPD and DEF is a blessing in this case. Rebounding tends to be ok if you have competent bigs. The 2-3 can plug up the paint worse than a basement toilet. 

Individual gameplanning is rather easy... scout your opponent and see if they get most of their points from inside or outside, at what % they're shooting from there, and then choose applicable defence. 

In closing, recruit...
PG= SPD & DEF
SG= SPD & DEF
SF= SPD & ATH & REB & DEF
PF= ATH & REB & DEF & BLK
C = ATH & REB  & DEF & BLK

Posted by jskenner on 2/17/2011 6:10:00 PM (view original):
Thanks, mmt. What are the reasons you think are causing your failure (related to zone)?

I think its 2 fold; 1) Ive never played a zone so not sure I am running it properly; 2) My conference is loaded...Although...it seems like playing a zone your team just goes through the motions and isnt really playing defense...

I asked the question in the last developer chat. I run two zone teams and wouldn't again unless held by gunpoint.



Have you noticed any data that shows that zone defense is tough to win with? Seems that Press and M2M win the lion's share of NT titles. (stinenavy - Hall of Famer - 3:24 PM)

I have noticed that zone teams have a lower overall winning percentage. I'm not sure if that's a product of the way the engine handles zone or if the teams running a zone just aren't as good. It's something I'll look at more closely.