I have been a fairly successful coach for awhile. Im great at press and decent with man. I can't figure zone out. If they are good off the dribble how - do I go. If they are good perimeter how + do I go. I know a lot depends on gameplan and good coaches change to beat you. I stay near 0 a lot because I don't want to give up too much either way

Hope this helps!

-1.5 in 3-2 is the same as 0 in press or man.

+1.5 in 2-3 is the same as 0 in press or man.

I use % of FGA as my metric to move the setting up in down.


My system looks something like this:
3-2 +2 50%+ 3FGA
3-2 +1 40-50% 3FGA
3-2 -0 36-39% 3FGA
3-2 -1 33- 36% 3FGA
3-2 -2 30-33% 3FGA
3-2 -3 25-30% 3FGA
3-2 -4 11-25% 3FGA
3-2 -5 <10% 3FGA

The other thing about zone is you can go between 3-2 and 2-3, if you have the right personnel. I agree with TJ. If they get most of their scoring from guards but don't shoot a lot of 3's I would go 3-2( -2 or -3). If they get a lot of production from bigs or from FT line in FB I'd go 2-3.

thanks guys

I am doing a rebuild and tempted to try zone. do you guys think it is possible to do very well (win NTs) with this defense? I have seen it, but it seems less common. I don't know if that's because it's an uncommon defense, or doesn't seem to work as well.

Also, do you think zone is particularly effective against the fast break offense?

I've ran zone for 11 seasons at CSU, Eastbay (full SoCal conference, by far my hardest recruiting situation) and have won 2 titles. I actually think zone is a worse regular season set (consistently lose games in regular season that I should not) than press because it requires more in depth game planning, but I like it more for the post season. I don't gameplan in the regular season because I use the regular season to collect data. Zone requires a lot more of a defensive gameplan because the fact that you can double (which affects positioning and 3-2 vs 2-3), toggle between 2-3 and 3-2, and only have to worry about offensive matchups (which allows you to be more willing to move people for offensive help. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks. That is a great point. I have used it in the past and grew frustrated at times. It does feel like a little more dynamic and that could be a good thing, but requires some more regular game planning. Sometimes it felt like my press defense was just so good it didn't matter what I did. I also may have not recruited very well for the zone defense. I imagine zone needs a little more shot blocking in general, and of course still needs players high in Ath, Spd, Def ratings. The other thing I didn't like about it was the negative impact on rebounding from what I recall.

Zone’s big strengths are flexibility, both in roster construction and in game planning. You can take walkons, redshirt projects, multiple ineligibles, and run a very effective team with as few as 8 players getting minutes. You can move guys around the lineup to exploit your opponents defensive weaknesses, without changing your defensive approach. You have the best FG suppressing defense at your disposal for both paint and perimeter, plus you foul less.

There is a downside, of course. You give up possessions. Rebounding is harder, and turnovers are sparse. I put a premium on rebounding bigs to address the former, and add a HCP to address the latter. Other approaches can work, too. It’s also not great if you want to “set it and forget it”, as Sportsbulls says.

I do something similar to TJ in terms of settings, but use a little different scale. For 3-2 I default to -2. For 2-3 I default to +1 (or 0 if I am extra confident in my 2 perimeter defenders, and want to take the extra boost on boards). My baseline for default is an opponent that takes ~33% 3FGA/FGA.

3-2 +2 (2-3 +4) 55%+ 3FGA, (AND 45% 3FGP)
3-2 +1 (2-3 +3) 50-55% 3FGA
3-2 -0 (2-3 +2) 40-50% 3FGA
3-2 -1 (2-3 +1) 35-40- 36% 3FGA
3-2 -2 (2-3 0) ~33% 3FGA
3-2 -3 (2-3 -1) 25-30% 3FGA
3-2 -4 (2-3 -2) 10-25% 3FGA
3-2 -5 (2-3 -3) <10% 3FGA

That’s the basic version. The advanced version I only really use in the postseason has me also considering what positions my opponent is getting scoring from, not just amount of 3s they take.

I will say, I play 3-2 now unless my personnel strongly favors 2-3. And even then, I’d generally rather play a 50 spd / 75 reb guy as the 3 in a 3-2 than a 2-3, unless my opponent is getting a ton of paint points. Most opponents seem to favor guard scoring - I think the system generally favors that - and 3-2 is more effective in that scenario. The only time I play 2-3 anymore is when I’ve been killed in recruiting or EEs for guards, and I’m stuck with 3 guards total, and a bunch of athletic rebounders. Probably only 2 or 3 seasons like that in my last 50 across 5 teams.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2020 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Zone’s big strengths are flexibility, both in roster construction and in game planning. You can take walkons, redshirt projects, multiple ineligibles, and run a very effective team with as few as 8 players getting minutes. You can move guys around the lineup to exploit your opponents defensive weaknesses, without changing your defensive approach. You have the best FG suppressing defense at your disposal for both paint and perimeter, plus you foul less.

There is a downside, of course. You give up possessions. Rebounding is harder, and turnovers are sparse. I put a premium on rebounding bigs to address the former, and add a HCP to address the latter. Other approaches can work, too. It’s also not great if you want to “set it and forget it”, as Sportsbulls says.

I do something similar to TJ in terms of settings, but use a little different scale. For 3-2 I default to -2. For 2-3 I default to +1 (or 0 if I am extra confident in my 2 perimeter defenders, and want to take the extra boost on boards). My baseline for default is an opponent that takes ~33% 3FGA/FGA.

3-2 +2 (2-3 +4) 55%+ 3FGA, (AND 45% 3FGP)
3-2 +1 (2-3 +3) 50-55% 3FGA
3-2 -0 (2-3 +2) 40-50% 3FGA
3-2 -1 (2-3 +1) 35-40- 36% 3FGA
3-2 -2 (2-3 0) ~33% 3FGA
3-2 -3 (2-3 -1) 25-30% 3FGA
3-2 -4 (2-3 -2) 10-25% 3FGA
3-2 -5 (2-3 -3) <10% 3FGA

That’s the basic version. The advanced version I only really use in the postseason has me also considering what positions my opponent is getting scoring from, not just amount of 3s they take.

I will say, I play 3-2 now unless my personnel strongly favors 2-3. And even then, I’d generally rather play a 50 spd / 75 reb guy as the 3 in a 3-2 than a 2-3, unless my opponent is getting a ton of paint points. Most opponents seem to favor guard scoring - I think the system generally favors that - and 3-2 is more effective in that scenario. The only time I play 2-3 anymore is when I’ve been killed in recruiting or EEs for guards, and I’m stuck with 3 guards total, and a bunch of athletic rebounders. Probably only 2 or 3 seasons like that in my last 50 across 5 teams.

One of the major weaknesses of using a rubric like this and posting it on the forums is people can dick with you in the postseason my massively changing their tendencies if they have a versatile team. My Illinois team would be in your 3-2 -4 category but I would be totally comfortable taking 26 threes in a game.

So.... it shocks me in the NT you guys wouldn't consider ratings as well as stats? Raider was saying he stays near 0 so coaches can't change up and burn him. Would you be more likely to play -4 if my Illinois team didn't have 3 guys over 90 per?

Zone is hard because you have to greatly vary positioning to be successful, but against good coaches in High D1 that seems really damn hard.

I wouldn’t say I don’t look at ratings. It’s just not a big factor, certainly not until the postseason. In discussions about doubleteams, I’ve said I also consider doubling a high percentage 3pt shooter while going deep negative, and a team like cubbies would be a good candidate for that approach.

I’m generally not too concerned about a coach’s countermoves playing 3-2 negative. The hedge is pretty much built in. It’s very tough to torch a good 3-2 team from outside, even at -4 or -5. A little bit more common to have a coach who has relied on outside shooting choose not go against the teeth of a 3-2 defense, cutting back on the 3pt tendency a bit. At the end of the day, the quality of defenders you put out is quite a bit more important than the positioning.

And anyway, I could count the times an opposing coach did something much different than what I was expecting on 2 fingers probably. Most coaches do what they do in the postseason because the coach is comfortable with it, and that’s what has worked. It’s generally a good idea for everyone to avoid being completely predictable, but to some large extent, a team gets to the postseason executing a type of game strategy, and changing it up a great deal is not likely to be very successful.

”Zone is hard because you have to greatly vary positioning to be successful, but against good coaches in High D1 that seems really damn hard.“

I really don’t find this to be true in either sense. I don’t think you have vary positioning greatly to be successful, and the amount of variance really isn’t that tough to figure out.

Posted by shoe3 on 5/27/2020 6:22:00 PM (view original):
I wouldn’t say I don’t look at ratings. It’s just not a big factor, certainly not until the postseason. In discussions about doubleteams, I’ve said I also consider doubling a high percentage 3pt shooter while going deep negative, and a team like cubbies would be a good candidate for that approach.

I’m generally not too concerned about a coach’s countermoves playing 3-2 negative. The hedge is pretty much built in. It’s very tough to torch a good 3-2 team from outside, even at -4 or -5. A little bit more common to have a coach who has relied on outside shooting choose not go against the teeth of a 3-2 defense, cutting back on the 3pt tendency a bit. At the end of the day, the quality of defenders you put out is quite a bit more important than the positioning.

And anyway, I could count the times an opposing coach did something much different than what I was expecting on 2 fingers probably. Most coaches do what they do in the postseason because the coach is comfortable with it, and that’s what has worked. It’s generally a good idea for everyone to avoid being completely predictable, but to some large extent, a team gets to the postseason executing a type of game strategy, and changing it up a great deal is not likely to be very successful.

”Zone is hard because you have to greatly vary positioning to be successful, but against good coaches in High D1 that seems really damn hard.“

I really don’t find this to be true in either sense. I don’t think you have vary positioning greatly to be successful, and the amount of variance really isn’t that tough to figure out.

I've had a ridiculous amount of success against 3-2 teams playing low with a high LP 3 and high per guards.

“I've had a ridiculous amount of success against 3-2 teams playing low with a high LP 3 and high per guards.”

Cool. I don’t doubt it. Illinois averages 90+ in ath and def, likely top 5 in the world in speed, Reb, LP, BH, and P, and reasonably close to the top 25 in perimeter. Just guessing. It’s going to be *significantly* better than 95% of the teams it faces. Your success with that team is based in elite quality, not the position of your opponents defense, or your ability to trick them. The OP question was about how to optimize zone related to what the opponent is doing, and that’s the question I’m addressing. The way to beat a team like Illinois, whether it’s zone, press, or man, is to slow down and pray, or perhaps to prevent them from getting all those 4-5 Star recruits every season. ;)

Thanks - very interesting read.

"Also, do you think zone is particularly effective against the fast break offense?"

i haven't found it more effective vs the fastbreak set but I have found it super effective vs the "I don't shoot 3's and try to draw a gazillion fouls" type of offense.