How much of a disadvantage is zone defense? Topic

Posted by jaymc2007 on 10/11/2014 1:55:00 AM (view original):
So I'm thinking for your sf/pf in a 2-3, it sounds like you want them more of a sf skill set who can rebound
i don't know for sure, but they use one formula, so it theoretically doesn't matter who plays where *from a defensive standpoint*. it definitely still matters from a rebounding standpoint, and offensively, and guard skills wise. its important to remember that... that zone is only different defensively, and all the reasons you had for wanting those players to do certain things, those still apply. don't over-cater to the zone at the sacrifice of rebounding and offense!

but in terms of just catering to the zone, my experience is it matters less than i thought, what your sf looks like. as long as you have strong defense at the 3 and 4, what kind of strong defense you have, it doesn't seem to matter as much. you still would rather have a more speed oriented defensive SF player in the 3-2, than in a normal defense. the pf in the 2-3 is tricky. him using a sf/pf equation suggests spd might be more important than in a normal set, but zone definitely values SB more than other defenses. usually the tradeoff is spd vs sb, strong ath/def players exist at all positions. and in terms of how zone affects that tradeoff, in the 3-2, you probably go more spd at the 3, more blk at the 4, but in the 2-3, you probably go more spd at the 3, and its unclear at the 4. in the end of the day, i still switch from 2-3 to 3-2 based on the opponent in many cases. my old theory on the importance of tailoring the 3&4 would suggest the team's natural alignment usually overshadows the opponent specific changes you could make - which is true in many defenses and systems all over the place (a lot of people will sacrifice natural alignment for opponent specific changes, to their detriment, its one of the top few most common mistakes of HD coaches in general). but i really don't think the specific shape of the 3 & 4 matters as much, that we all made it out to be more important than it really is.

in short, i still think the team-wide effects like going for a good amount of offense, keeping strong rebounding, having good guard skills at the 1 (especially passing) and 2, those kind of things are much more important than how you tailor your 3 and 4 to the flavor of zone you want to run. generally, i'd be open to running the 3-2 or 2-3. the 3-2 gets a bad rap in general (even more so than zone in general), but it is a really useful defense, from where im standing. it is hands down the best 3 point defense in the game, and you can get strong 3 point defense even playing a significant negative setting (in fact, i usually play the 3-2 from -3 to 0 against competitive opponents, sometimes i play a + but usually that is against teams who can only win if they get lucky on their 3s, like a sim or something, or sometimes against teams that are extremely reliant on the 3). 
10/11/2014 2:56 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 10/11/2014 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jaymc2007 on 10/11/2014 1:55:00 AM (view original):
So I'm thinking for your sf/pf in a 2-3, it sounds like you want them more of a sf skill set who can rebound
i don't know for sure, but they use one formula, so it theoretically doesn't matter who plays where *from a defensive standpoint*. it definitely still matters from a rebounding standpoint, and offensively, and guard skills wise. its important to remember that... that zone is only different defensively, and all the reasons you had for wanting those players to do certain things, those still apply. don't over-cater to the zone at the sacrifice of rebounding and offense!

but in terms of just catering to the zone, my experience is it matters less than i thought, what your sf looks like. as long as you have strong defense at the 3 and 4, what kind of strong defense you have, it doesn't seem to matter as much. you still would rather have a more speed oriented defensive SF player in the 3-2, than in a normal defense. the pf in the 2-3 is tricky. him using a sf/pf equation suggests spd might be more important than in a normal set, but zone definitely values SB more than other defenses. usually the tradeoff is spd vs sb, strong ath/def players exist at all positions. and in terms of how zone affects that tradeoff, in the 3-2, you probably go more spd at the 3, more blk at the 4, but in the 2-3, you probably go more spd at the 3, and its unclear at the 4. in the end of the day, i still switch from 2-3 to 3-2 based on the opponent in many cases. my old theory on the importance of tailoring the 3&4 would suggest the team's natural alignment usually overshadows the opponent specific changes you could make - which is true in many defenses and systems all over the place (a lot of people will sacrifice natural alignment for opponent specific changes, to their detriment, its one of the top few most common mistakes of HD coaches in general). but i really don't think the specific shape of the 3 & 4 matters as much, that we all made it out to be more important than it really is.

in short, i still think the team-wide effects like going for a good amount of offense, keeping strong rebounding, having good guard skills at the 1 (especially passing) and 2, those kind of things are much more important than how you tailor your 3 and 4 to the flavor of zone you want to run. generally, i'd be open to running the 3-2 or 2-3. the 3-2 gets a bad rap in general (even more so than zone in general), but it is a really useful defense, from where im standing. it is hands down the best 3 point defense in the game, and you can get strong 3 point defense even playing a significant negative setting (in fact, i usually play the 3-2 from -3 to 0 against competitive opponents, sometimes i play a + but usually that is against teams who can only win if they get lucky on their 3s, like a sim or something, or sometimes against teams that are extremely reliant on the 3). 
Good stuff as usually Gillispie.  Yeah, trying to figure out this formula for the zone should be interesting.  But, I have time to do it.  Deberry and the freshman class is my next chance to do something.  So I will let everybody know of any big findings!
10/11/2014 5:43 PM
bump for possum
3/9/2015 6:43 PM
Thanks Trenton!
3/9/2015 7:34 PM
short answer: a lot
3/9/2015 8:36 PM
Short answer.....Zone = Smith National Champion

78 worthy14sure 35-0 8-0 18-0 9-0 16-0 1 9 55 A+ Conf Champion
CT Champion
National Champion
3/9/2015 9:17 PM
should we announce every time a team that doesnt play zone wins?
3/9/2015 9:20 PM
Posted by bbunch on 5/1/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
For the 2nd straight season, I got bounced out of the NT early (2nd round) with my S. Arkansas Allen team - last time as a #2 seed, and this time as a #1 seed. 

I feel like I had the  better roster both times, but both times the exact same thing happened....my squad committed a ton of turnovers, but our soft zone defense forced just about none. 

Check out this box score - we significantly out shot and out rebounded  them......but the turnover differential was huge. Note that our starting SF, with his very solid 60 passer rating, had 0 assists and 5 turnovers.  

www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx


Now, dan's team had a very solid FCP defense.....and he built a good squad. This isn't to disparage what he's done. It's more the strange nature of the box score, and how the turnovers made such a difference when we had advantages in all other categories.  

So I ask....is it at all possible to realistically win a title running a zone in DII??? Is the power of the press that important?

I believe that in last season's national tournament in DII Allen, 13 of the 16 teams left ran press, and the other 3 ran man. This season, 10 of the sweet 16 teams run press, 4 run man, and 2 run zone. It seems like press is still the very dominant defense.

I've won multiple titles with press and man in DII with other teams. Is it foolish to try to win with a zone? Is press still a magic bullet? What do you guys think? I  had planned to win titles with all three kinds of defenses in my HD career - but I think the zone is just too weak. 

Also...if I continue this route....how could I better build a zone team that could beat a good press defense? Or is it just a waste of time?


I'm a fan of the zone D. Never spent much time in DII, but I will say that you definitely can be successful and win titles with the zone. It is more versatile than the other D's and if used correctly, can be very effective at neutralizing your opponents strengths. It takes patience to learn, but can be very rewarding.
3/10/2015 3:58 PM
bump
1/2/2016 2:43 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 10/10/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
all 5 players are averaged together in defense of every shot. its just that the groups of players run off the same formula. so in the 2-3, the pg/sg have one formula, the sf/pf have another, and the c has a third. but then all 5 are averaged in to defend each shot. the formulas for each group change with the distance from the basket though so its not like a c's sb is super important in defending a 3, like it is defending a layup.
Bump, regarding recent discussion on the C and groupings in zone.

FWIW, this is one area where my understanding is very close to gil’s.
12/29/2017 1:43 PM
I spent many seasons in a zone trying to get it to work, and to be honest it all boils down to the big men. In a 2-3, you better have an amazing C with high ATH/DEF/REB/BLK or it is simply not going to be that effective. In a 3-2, now your PF and C have to be very good. If you can tailor your recruiting strategy with that in mind then it can work, but it's not easy. I switched to man and have never regretted it.
12/29/2017 1:52 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 10/10/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):
all 5 players are averaged together in defense of every shot. its just that the groups of players run off the same formula. so in the 2-3, the pg/sg have one formula, the sf/pf have another, and the c has a third. but then all 5 are averaged in to defend each shot. the formulas for each group change with the distance from the basket though so its not like a c's sb is super important in defending a 3, like it is defending a layup.
I've read this a hundred times over the last three years and don't have any idea what it means...
12/29/2017 2:37 PM
I'm guessing there is one formula that measures all 5 guys defensive ratings 90(PG), 70(SG), 70(SF), 80(PF), 90(C) which averages to 80. However, if the shot is closer to the basket and the center picks up that player, it might be closer to an 82 defensive rating, since the center has a higher defense, while averaging the defense of all 5 players?

Or maybe if it were a mid range shot, the 3 and the 4 would pick him up. 70+80=150/2=75. But since the 5 guys on the court's D rating is 80, it would be more like 76?

Not sure, just guessing here.
12/29/2017 2:46 PM
I'm also wondering how the 3-2 is grouped. Would it just be a 1-2-2 where the PG is alone and 2/3 and 4/5 are together?
12/29/2017 2:50 PM
Posted by thewizard17 on 12/29/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):
I'm also wondering how the 3-2 is grouped. Would it just be a 1-2-2 where the PG is alone and 2/3 and 4/5 are together?
No. It's PG/SG/SF and PF/C.
12/29/2017 2:59 PM
◂ Prev 1...11|12|13|14 Next ▸
How much of a disadvantage is zone defense? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.