Not second guessing coach, just curious, but why don't we play more zone? It seems to work for a lot of good teams and, ideally, it would mask some of our defensive short comings...though our defense seems to have improved as of late.

Thoughts?

In order to utilize our athletic advantage we play man to man unless either the other teams has a very strong inside game or we have major foul trouble. A zone allows for open holes for three point shooters which is a big equalizer against Memphis. 99% of the time if we can hold the other team to a low 3 point percentage we will win.

We are playing some really good defense right now. Why would you be looking to change anything? Have you watched the Tigers play this year at all?

I don't care for our team to do anything that increases our opponents rebounding success against us.

(01-25-2013 03:44 PM)4Blue Wrote:  In order to utilize our athletic advantage we play man to man unless either the other teams has a very strong inside game or we have major foul trouble. A zone allows for open holes for three point shooters which is a big equalizer against Memphis. 99% of the time if we can hold the other team to a low 3 point percentage we will win.

This...No one left on our schedule should be able to force us into a Zone...But I am sure it will happen.

(01-25-2013 03:34 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  Not second guessing coach, just curious, but why don't we play more zone? It seems to work for a lot of good teams and, ideally, it would mask some of our defensive short comings...though our defense seems to have improved as of late.

Thoughts?

Thanks. I'm sure Josh would really value your input on zone defenses?

(01-25-2013 04:03 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 03:34 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  Not second guessing coach, just curious, but why don't we play more zone? It seems to work for a lot of good teams and, ideally, it would mask some of our defensive short comings...though our defense seems to have improved as of late.

Thoughts?

Thanks. I'm sure Josh would really value your input on zone defenses?

Just kidding. I figure you will get that reply sooner or later, so I just went ahead and knocked it out.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=540637

... our weakest defensive aspect right now is our 3 point defense. And you want to go zone? Zone forces more threes.

...plus when you athletically outmatch a team, which we have pretty much every team we have played, why would you want to take away one of our advantages?

... as someone else said, i'm sure we'll see some zone from time to time, but i'd assume we'd stick to M2M for the most part.

(01-25-2013 03:56 PM)covingtontiger Wrote:  We are playing some really good defense right now. Why would you be looking to change anything? Have you watched the Tigers play this year at all?

Blocks Per Game - 11th Nationally
FG % Defense - T-55th Nationally
Scoring Defense - 90th Nationally
Steals Per Game - T-7th Nationally
3pt FG % Defense - T-218 Nationally

Like I said in the last statement of my OP, we are getting better. However, I still see us getting beat off the dribble or miscommunication on screens from time to time. Thought a zone might help against that. Maybe just in spots...press/trap and fall back into a match-up zone?

But again, I'm not dogging the Tigers D. It's much better than earlier in the year

Memphis played zone some against Louisville, I think. I know Harvard game Memphis fits for awhile when the Crimson Tide went to a 2-3/1-3-1 for awhile.

Memphis, for the most part, has played good zone but as much as Shaq and Black get in foul trouble, pulling a zone out once in a while isn't a bad thing.

(01-25-2013 04:06 PM)adluther Wrote:  ... our weakest defensive aspect right now is our 3 point defense. And you want to go zone? Zone forces more threes.

...plus when you athletically outmatch a team, which we have pretty much every team we have played, why would you want to take away one of our advantages?

... as someone else said, i'm sure we'll see some zone from time to time, but i'd assume we'd stick to M2M for the most part.

Actually, a 3-2 does a better job against good perimeter shooting.

(01-25-2013 04:03 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 03:34 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  Not second guessing coach, just curious, but why don't we play more zone? It seems to work for a lot of good teams and, ideally, it would mask some of our defensive short comings...though our defense seems to have improved as of late.

Thoughts?

Thanks. I'm sure Josh would really value your input on zone defenses?

Actually he probably would seeing that he replies to almost every single email he gets

(01-25-2013 04:06 PM)adluther Wrote:  ... our weakest defensive aspect right now is our 3 point defense. And you want to go zone? Zone forces more threes.

...plus when you athletically outmatch a team, which we have pretty much every team we have played, why would you want to take away one of our advantages?

... as someone else said, i'm sure we'll see some zone from time to time, but i'd assume we'd stick to M2M for the most part.

It is not a given that zones are ineffective against 3 point teams, or that they even force more three's. It depends on how well you close out shooters. Syracuse is in the top 20 nationally in 3 point percentage defense.

(01-25-2013 03:34 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  Not second guessing coach, just curious, but why don't we play more zone? It seems to work for a lot of good teams and, ideally, it would mask some of our defensive short comings...though our defense seems to have improved as of late.

Thoughts?

Last 5 games teams have shot a combined 35.4% against us. Oddly enough they have shot almost as well from 3 as they have from 2 (31.8 vs. 37.2).

(01-25-2013 04:10 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 03:56 PM)covingtontiger Wrote:  We are playing some really good defense right now. Why would you be looking to change anything? Have you watched the Tigers play this year at all?

Blocks Per Game - 11th Nationally
FG % Defense - T-55th Nationally
Scoring Defense - 90th Nationally
Steals Per Game - T-7th Nationally
3pt FG % Defense - T-218 Nationally

Like I said in the last statement of my OP, we are getting better. However, I still see us getting beat off the dribble or miscommunication on screens from time to time. Thought a zone might help against that. Maybe just in spots...press/trap and fall back into a match-up zone?

But again, I'm not dogging the Tigers D. It's much better than earlier in the year

We are nowhere near as good on defense as people try to act like. We arent bad, but nowhere near a "good" defensive team.

(01-25-2013 04:33 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 03:34 PM)HometownTiger Wrote:  Not second guessing coach, just curious, but why don't we play more zone? It seems to work for a lot of good teams and, ideally, it would mask some of our defensive short comings...though our defense seems to have improved as of late.

Thoughts?

Last 5 games teams have shot a combined 35.4% against us. Oddly enough they have shot almost as well from 3 as they have from 2 (31.8 vs. 37.2).

Problem is a huge chunck of that was due to UAB going 0-13.

Otherwise, ECU shot 42% (9-21)
Rice 8-18 (44.4%)
Tulane 6-16 (35%)
Harvard: 4-16 (25%)

last season we played some 1-3-1..I haven't seen us use it as much this year...if at all.

(01-25-2013 04:40 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  last season we played some 1-3-1..I haven't seen us use it as much this year...if at all.

We have used it a few times, mostly after the Bahamas. It doesnt have the same punch without Barton on the point. He was so long and still fast enough to trap the ballhandler on the side and then swat the ball when the ballhandler tried to pass. It was a thing of beauty and should have been used a lot more. We just dont have anyone who can replace Barton to be anywhere near as efficient in the 1-3-1.

(01-25-2013 05:25 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 04:40 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  last season we played some 1-3-1..I haven't seen us use it as much this year...if at all.

We have used it a few times, mostly after the Bahamas. It doesnt have the same punch without Barton on the point. He was so long and still fast enough to trap the ballhandler on the side and then swat the ball when the ballhandler tried to pass. It was a thing of beauty and should have been used a lot more. We just dont have anyone who can replace Barton to be anywhere near as efficient in the 1-3-1.

...and Wes before that.

In a 1-3-1 with this squad, I would see DJ at the top, Joe on the baseline and a combo of Geron/Chris/AT on the wings with Shaq/Tarik in the middle.

Our current defensive efficiency of 88.5 points per 100 possessions is pretty good.

Currently there are 27 teams with better efficiencies, but typically that number is in the top 5-15.

And clearly we are still capable of improving, but we are on the right track.

As for zone, we use it pretty regularly but situationally.

I think a pretty accurate assessment would be that Pastner prefers m2m but is much more willing to use different zones in particular circumstances than his predecessor.