Enjoyed the latest Miller/Deace Podcast

To play a zone, you need to keep your hands up and your mouth and feet moving. Defense is hard.
 
The fallacy in all of your arguments about high 3-pt% in today's game is that most teams do not have a player who can consistently shoot at a high %, let alone several shooters. Therefore, the theory behind the zone still applies in today's game - keep the ball away from the basket, force teams to shoot over you and play the odds.

Of course, you still need some degree of athleticism, defensive anticipation and effort to be successful, not to mention, a coach who knows how to coach it, none of which exists on the Hawks. So, basically, it's not the strategy, it's the Hawks lacking the tools and giving the strategy an embarrassing rep.

I do agree that zone is far more complicated to learn and execute than man, and, if you are going to be successful, then you have to devote significant practice time to it. Obviously, Iowa does not. What's more, most AAU teams, due to limited practice (maybe 3x / week?) devote even less time to it.

Iowa could have - and would've had - more success had it played box & 1, 3-2, even 1-3-1, rather than 2-3. These would've allowed for more adaptation to the hot shooter, allowed less close-out space, without completely discombobulating the entire defense. Then again, Indiana was frickin' hot, it happens (I know, ALOT) but that was unnatural, not JUST a function of Iowa's crappy defense.
 
lightning1 said:
Prairie high school has 3 kids that shoot 40% from 3pt range. And all 3 of them can hit from NBA range. I'd never coach a zone defense in college basketball, if I was serious about my job. Never, ever, ever. Too many guys can knock down shots from 23'-25'. I did a shot count on Indiana in another thread, with estimated distance on each shot. Out of 14 made 3pt shots, only 1 of those was at the 21' line. 12 of the other 13 were 22' to 25'. 1 was made at 26 or 27'. And they are one of the poorer 3pt shooting teams in the conference.
Even really long players in a typical zone defense would have trouble getting to 23' to challenge those shots.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't coach a zone as he standard defense or one to do all the time, but there are certain circumstances to run one. Maybe try to slow the pace down, back to a zone out of a press, protecting a player who may be in foul trouble.

It is going away more and more over the years secondary to the great shooting, though. Don't see it nearly as often as did in the 1980's. Thing is that it's not just the guards chucking them up anymore, it's also the BIG guys or the stretch 3 kind of players. They practice them all the time growing up. My son, for instance, has good size and looks like a stretch 3 at this point. Could play 4 or 2 or 3. Really has a body similar to Jared Uthoff's. Will see if that changes as grows older but he just has that athletic long look to him and he can shoot the 3.
 
lightning1 said:
Prairie high school has 3 kids that shoot 40% from 3pt range. And all 3 of them can hit from NBA range. I'd never coach a zone defense in college basketball, if I was serious about my job. Never, ever, ever. Too many guys can knock down shots from 23'-25'. I did a shot count on Indiana in another thread, with estimated distance on each shot. Out of 14 made 3pt shots, only 1 of those was at the 21' line. 12 of the other 13 were 22' to 25'. 1 was made at 26 or 27'. And they are one of the poorer 3pt shooting teams in the conference.
Even really long players in a typical zone defense would have trouble getting to 23' to challenge those shots.
Click to expand...

Well, then what happens is they get driven on. That is the game today. Shoot outside until they come out on you. When they do pump fake and/or drive on them and shoot or dish.
 
STILLBUSTER said:
The fallacy in all of your arguments about high 3-pt% in today's game is that most teams do not have a player who can consistently shoot at a high %, let alone several shooters. Therefore, the theory behind the zone still applies in today's game - keep the ball away from the basket, force teams to shoot over you and play the odds.
Click to expand...
If you're going to make that claim, back it up. What are the top 3-point shooters by percentage with a base # of attempts in the conference? I bet that data would not support your point. I think most teams DO have a player or two shooting in the high 30s.

The conference average seems to be about .360 as a TEAM. http://www.bigten.org/library/stats/mbb-confldrs.html So someone is shooting above that.
 
STILLBUSTER said:
The fallacy in all of your arguments about high 3-pt% in today's game is that most teams do not have a player who can consistently shoot at a high %, let alone several shooters. Therefore, the theory behind the zone still applies in today's game - keep the ball away from the basket, force teams to shoot over you and play the odds.

Of course, you still need some degree of athleticism, defensive anticipation and effort to be successful, not to mention, a coach who knows how to coach it, none of which exists on the Hawks. So, basically, it's not the strategy, it's the Hawks lacking the tools and giving the strategy an embarrassing rep.

I do agree that zone is far more complicated to learn and execute than man, and, if you are going to be successful, then you have to devote significant practice time to it. Obviously, Iowa does not. What's more, most AAU teams, due to limited practice (maybe 3x / week?) devote even less time to it.

Iowa could have - and would've had - more success had it played box & 1, 3-2, even 1-3-1, rather than 2-3. These would've allowed for more adaptation to the hot shooter, allowed less close-out space, without completely discombobulating the entire defense. Then again, Indiana was frickin' hot, it happens (I know, ALOT) but that was unnatural, not JUST a function of Iowa's crappy defense.
Click to expand...


Yea, I don't know why they aren't doing a 3-2 to at least cover the outside perimeter a little more.

I don't think they could rotate the back quick enough to run the 1-3-1, although done properly that zone can be fun to watch. Might as well give up a 2 instead of the 3's Iowa gives up. Iowa's length could pose problems for teams if running the 1-3-1 if they could trap fast enough.
 
NoBeer said:
If you're going to make that claim, back it up. What are the top 3-point shooters by percentage with a base # of attempts in the conference? I bet that data would not support your point. I think most teams DO have a player or two shooting in the high 30s.

The conference average seems to be about .360 as a TEAM. http://www.bigten.org/library/stats/mbb-confldrs.html So someone is shooting above that.
Click to expand...


I agree. I think most college teams have multiple players that can shoot at least in the 30% range, and 2-3 that are up in the 40% range.
 
NoBeer said:
As others have pointed out, your "average" percentage is off. Also you don't need to make as many 3 point shots obviously. If you shoot 15 threes and make 40% that's 18 points. If you shoot 15 twos you have to be at 50% or greater to make the same 18 points. Not always easy.
Click to expand...

Actually the average is 35% for college players. It may be higher for those the fall into the best player category.


https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/stat/three-point-pct
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top