Painter realizes shortfalls

[Dryfly88]

I watch plenty of basketball, I watched every KState game and a significant number of Kansas games.
You can debate on which adjective I should use to describe it, but there's a reason that's it rapidly fell out of favor and no one has employed it except as a curveball set for a couple plays.
Just because you can point to a time when a coach used it in a singular game doesn't mean it's something we should use every time we're losing.
I don't even understand what you're proposing?

Go back and look at what you wrote. I'm debunking your claims. They're your words. You said nobody uses zone. You are absolutely wrong. You said it hasn't been effective for 20 years. Again completely wrong.

You tried to make blanket statements and tried to get cute with the old man crap and class basketball comparisons. Instead of just admitting you are wrong you just try to move the goal posts. I didn't ever suggest that we should use zone every time we are losing. I gave you a list of some of the most successful coaches and programs that used zone at some point last season (not 20 years ago). It was used multiple times for more than just "a singular game". Again, you aren't being factually correct.

What am I proposing you ask? That we all recognize that zone defenses have a place in the game and should be something that CMP has in his arsenal when it is needed. There may be many games where it's never used. Just like the teams I listed. But when the MTM is not being effective we have something else to go to. Could be for a couple possessions, could be for more. But it is there as a tool that we are prepared for. You are completely wrong in your statements and if you truly do watch a lot of college hoops you know you're wrong.

 

[mathboy]

I think some of the criticisms of Painter are justified, but I doubt they are anything he hasn’t already recognized and analyzed. However, I seriously doubt that the lack of zone defense is one of them. Somehow he must address the poor shooting we experience toward the end of the seasons. We’ve hit that wall several times recently. I’m not sure why our shooters who are relatively good shooters at the start of the year, can’t hit the broad side of a barn in the last 10-15 games. The over all stats look like we can’t shoot, but Loyer and Smith are (or were) deadly shooters.

As demonstrated in our NCAA loss, we were not defended at the 3-pt line, we just could not hit the wide open shots. Now, my pet peeve is the lack of our midrange game. Smith, Loyer, and Newman all drove past the three point line. Then it was only two action: pass to Edey, or throw back out to somebody on the three point line. I just hate that step back three. Why not rise and shoot an easy two point shot? FDU did it to us all game, avoiding the shot blocker. I watched LSU use that mid range jumper to bury Iowa In the women’s championship game. We need that in our arsenal.

 

[AAE09]

Go back and look at what you wrote. I'm debunking your claims. They're your words. You said nobody uses zone. You are absolutely wrong. You said it hasn't been effective for 20 years. Again completely wrong.

You tried to make blanket statements and tried to get cute with the old man crap and class basketball comparisons. Instead of just admitting you are wrong you just try to move the goal posts. I didn't ever suggest that we should use zone every time we are losing. I gave you a list of some of the most successful coaches and programs that used zone at some point last season (not 20 years ago). It was used multiple times for more than just "a singular game". Again, you aren't being factually correct.

What am I proposing you ask? That we all recognize that zone defenses have a place in the game and should be something that CMP has in his arsenal when it is needed. There may be many games where it's never used. Just like the teams I listed. But when the MTM is not being effective we have something else to go to. Could be for a couple possessions, could be for more. But it is there as a tool that we are prepared for. You are completely wrong in your statements and if you truly do watch a lot of college hoops you know you're wrong.

Yeah, as much as I appreciate the "my eye test is better because I watch more conferences" argument, here's a great article from Ken Pom to suggest you and any other posters suggesting a zone are wrong. Good coaches win despite making the wrong tactical decision.

KenPom: The success of playing zone vs. man-to-man defense

As more players at every position have become proficient at shooting the 3-pointer, the zone has become less effective.

theathletic.com

If you don't feel like being objective and reading the article here are some key points:

-Zone usage per possession has steadily declined year-over-year. The data only goes to 2019 in the article, and I don't have access to the database, but there's no reason to believe the trend has changed. And with Boeheim retiring because his defense is shit, and his acolyte Mike Hopkins likely to fired next year because his defense is shit, the percentage is likely to crater.

Season	% Zone
2014	21.1
2015	19.3
2016	20
2017	18.2
2018	16.2
2019	14.6

-Teams are overwhelming better off choosing one (man or zone) and sticking with it, despite game flow. "While man teams have outperformed zone teams in their respective conferences over the past six seasons, the teams that mix man and zone defenses are worse than both."
- Not only does opposing 3PA% and 3P% go up against the zone (i.e. higher PPP), but 2P% actually goes up (despite what you and z_one say)
- When tempo and player efficiency adjusted, teams that run zone on a possession have significantly lower defensive rating.
-Defenses that play zone allow significantly higher offensive rebounding rates (again despite previous claims)

So, yes, zone is dead. And only those who ignore statistics still think it's a viable choice.

 

[BoilerAndy]

24/7 also had an article today about the best possible matches for LJ Cryer. Not surprisingly Purdue was on the list. The concerning part was they specifically mentioned PU's desire to feed the post so much and whether the PU alliance would be willing to spend the $$ necessary to get him. He has said he wants to be a PG at his next school. I don't think feeding the post 90% of the time is what he is thinking of for a PG. Maybe CMP can convince him otherwise......

So are you helping out with the $$ part. You don't need the Alliance to make it happen.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Do you watch anything besides B1G? I ask because your comments would suggest you don't. Kansas, Kentucky, Duke all used some sort of zone multiple times this past season. Self even talked about how effective it was in a particular game during a press conference. I don't know of anyone on here that has suggested it be used as a primary defense, or even close to it. It's a tool that many coaches have in their arsenal to mix things up. No idea where the "old man" comment comes from? If anything, it would be an old man attitude to insist on doing the same thing no matter the opponent or the game situation.

How did Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke prove your point in the tournament?

 

[BoilerAndy]

Good point, having Zach have to guard some fast 6' guard off of a switch and watch him run right by him to the cup was clearly best way to go.

And that cost us the game? Did you even watch the 2nd half of the season? The NCAA game?

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Yeah, as much as I appreciate the "my eye test is better because I watch more conferences" argument, here's a great article from Ken Pom to suggest you and any other posters suggesting a zone are wrong. Good coaches win despite making the wrong tactical decision.

KenPom: The success of playing zone vs. man-to-man defense

As more players at every position have become proficient at shooting the 3-pointer, the zone has become less effective.

theathletic.com

If you don't feel like being objective and reading the article here are some key points:

-Zone usage per possession has steadily declined year-over-year. The data only goes to 2019 in the article, and I don't have access to the database, but there's no reason to believe the trend has changed. And with Boeheim retiring because his defense is shit, and his acolyte Mike Hopkins likely to fired next year because his defense is shit, the percentage is likely to crater.

Season	% Zone
2014	21.1
2015	19.3
2016	20
2017	18.2
2018	16.2
2019	14.6

-Teams are overwhelming better off choosing one (man or zone) and sticking with it, despite game flow. "While man teams have outperformed zone teams in their respective conferences over the past six seasons, the teams that mix man and zone defenses are worse than both."
- Not only does opposing 3PA% and 3P% go up against the zone (i.e. higher PPP), but 2P% actually goes up (despite what you and z_one say)
- When tempo and player efficiency adjusted, teams that run zone on a possession have significantly lower defensive rating.
-Defenses that play zone allow significantly higher offensive rebounding rates (again despite previous claims)

So, yes, zone is dead. And only those who ignore statistics still think it's a viable choice.

It could be that bad defense teams play both zone and man. It doesn't mean that zone or man defense or a combination is better or worse

 

[Baritter]

It’s also the coaches job to get players who can make shots in big games.

I don’t understand why Painter doesn’t tell them to start driving or cutting to the basket instead of shooting 3’s, when you’re shooting poorly. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like the players are always cutting toward the three point line, or having Edey near the three point line setting a pick or handing it to a guard coming around away from the basket,instead of back cutting toward the basket. Once in a while Furst or Gillis will back cut, but not very often. Seems to work though, when they do it. Just don’t do it enough. Also noticed when we did break the press, we didn’t attack the basket. I don’t know if that’s what Painter wants, but we always held it up and waited for the guards, and it let the defense get set up on Edey.

 

[AAE09]

It could be that bad defense teams play both zone and man. It doesn't mean that zone or man defense or a combination is better or worse

Putting aside that myriad data suggesting zone should be put out to pasture, Purdue was statistically a very good defensive team this year (and has been for many years), so why would we ascribe to a schema that objectively begets worse results? I.e.- If bad teams run zone or a combination thereof, it's a logical fallacy that playing a combination would make us better.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Putting aside that myriad data suggesting zone should be put out to pasture, Purdue was statistically a very good defensive team this year (and has been for many years), so why would we ascribe to a schema that objectively begets worse results? I.e.- If bad teams run zone or a combination thereof, it's a logical fallacy that playing a combination would make us better.

Syracuse had a run from 2010-2018 as top defensive team playing a zone. Probably the coaching and players have a bigger impact on the results than simply man vs zone.

Picking a defense that matches your roster construction would improve results.

If you're playing with a large immobile big that's going to play drop coverage in man defense then you should probably consider zone.

Missouri Zone Article

Here's an article about how Missouri mixed in a zone on about a fourth of their possessions and improved their defense.

That being said Purdue's problems in the tournament have been mainly offensive. However, if you going to win the national championship you usually need to be top 10 in points per possession in both offense and defense.

Purdue from 2008 - 2023 has only had a top 10 defense 2 years in 2009 and 2010.
In the same time period Syracuse had a top defense 3 times in 2013, 2015 and 2018.

In recent years Purdue's offense improved but the defense lagged behind.
On offense in years 2023, 2022, 2019 & 2018 Purdue's offensive ranking in points per possession was 10, 2, 4 & 2.
But the defense for the same time period was 21, 86, 31 & 34.

Purdue has been imbalanced recently with a strong offensive but weaker defense.

In the tournament the offense seems to massively underperform.

 

[M51]

agreed. if Painter was really interested in changing, he would have done so 5 years ago. He didn't change a thing, and it's highly unlikely that he will.

Painter has been saying the same crap for 10 years. And done very little to make any changes. Guards cannot create own shot, no mid-range jumper, cannot finish at the rim. Under size 4’s, lead foot 3’s and 4’s. Issues against the press.

Team needs speed and quickness. More than one each at 1 thru 4. Very doubtful he adds much from the portal.

 

[Poprudy]

I think some of the criticisms of Painter are justified, but I doubt they are anything he hasn’t already recognized and analyzed. However, I seriously doubt that the lack of zone defense is one of them. Somehow he must address the poor shooting we experience toward the end of the seasons. We’ve hit that wall several times recently. I’m not sure why our shooters who are relatively good shooters at the start of the year, can’t hit the broad side of a barn in the last 10-15 games. The over all stats look like we can’t shoot, but Loyer and Smith are (or were) deadly shooters.

As demonstrated in our NCAA loss, we were not defended at the 3-pt line, we just could not hit the wide open shots. Now, my pet peeve is the lack of our midrange game. Smith, Loyer, and Newman all drove past the three point line. Then it was only two action: pass to Edey, or throw back out to somebody on the three point line. I just hate that step back three. Why not rise and shoot an easy two point shot? FDU did it to us all game, avoiding the shot blocker. I watched LSU use that mid range jumper to bury Iowa In the women’s championship game. We need that in our arsenal.

Agree you need it, but what player can you see creating that shot? Loyer did some of that early in the season and then it faded late. I really don't recall any player getting to that area for a mid pull-up. Some will say it's Zach's fault because we play inside out, but our guys just couldn't get past their man for this shot.

I still feel Loyer will make big strides at being able to get that mid pull-up off and getting his 3 back. He needs to get stronger and better stamina for the long haul. Smith worries me, because he benefited so much with Zach in there or the size to consistently compete against the bigger, stronger guards in the tournament.

 

[SCBoiler1]

Painter now gets that quickness and athleticism is missing in his teams. But still appears to be looking for a backup guard,not a game changer from the portal.

Hope this is ok to post from 24/7:

Purdue basketball coach Matt Painter puts disappointing end to season into perspective


Purdue had a terrific season, winning Big Ten regular-season and tournament titles, but one that ended in heartbreak with the second-ever No. 1 seed loss to a No. 16 seed at the NCAA Tournament. And at the Final Four, NCAA.com's Andy Katz asked Purdue coach Matt Painter to put the season into perspective.

"Well the two things that come out more than anything is that in the last six years, we’ve been a top-5 seed in every one of those tournaments," Painter said. "We’re doing some really good things, we’re doing things the right way. We’re growing our program, we’re winning championships, but we’re getting into the tournament and getting beat by the same team in almost the same game. Struggle shooting the basketball, turning the basketball over. And those two things together are gonna get you beat. And have to do a better job of taking care of the basketball.

"But we also have to do a better job with quickness. Eight years ago after we had lost for a couple years, I really went back to the drawing board about how we had to do things. Our evaluations have really, really improved. Our camaraderie as a group has really improved, and we’ve really made leaps and bounds, made some jumps, got to an Elite Eight, got to some Sweet 16s. But we keep getting beat by the same team, so we gotta get some subtle changes."



One of those subtle changes involves getting more athletic.

"With that, where I’ve erred is we haven’t had enough quickness," Painter said. "When we’ve had Carsen Edwards, when we’ve had Jaden Ivey, it’s given us that punch. And we just don’t quite have that same punch if we don’t have a guy like that if we turn the ball over and don’t shoot well. So your whole things is a coach is when you don’t shoot the ball well, can you still beat quality teams? And that’s what we gotta be able to do. So I think we gotta be able to make some subtle changes there and get more quickness. We have some more athleticism coming. I’m excited, obviously disappointed, but you gotta turn the other cheek and move on as a competitor and get better because of it."



Katz asked Painter whether Purdue would try to improve its team through the transfer portal



"Yeah, you know with us losing David Jenkins, we’ll definitely try to get a point, a combo to give us some quickness, somebody who can break somebody down, and also someone who can contain the dribble," Painter said. "Being able to do both of those things, I think would really help us. We have a guy sitting out that’s really in Cam Heide going to give us a lot of athleticism. Myles Colvin is very athletic, who’s a freshman who’s coming. So I think the length, the athleticism, we’ve made those improvements. We have a very good front-line with or without Zach (Edey). But if we can add that quickness, I think that would really help us."

I generally like Painter but how can you discuss your lack of athleticism this last season and then specifically point to a guy that you chose to redshirt as the solution?

And don't give me the player decides bull crap. Painter doesn't need to give them a choice and if he told any player they may be needed to contribute during the year, they wouldn't want to redshirt.

 

[MetMyWifeAtHarrys]

And that cost us the game? Did you even watch the 2nd half of the season? The NCAA game?

Duh. Did you?

 

[BoilerDeac]

It might be that he knows we don’t have the money to compete for the top class guards, and doesn’t want expectations to get out of hand.

Doesn’t need the top class guards to get athletic guards. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Stop blaming everything on money.

 

[steakman765]

Yep, athletic guards are the reason this idiot lost to Fairleigh Dickinson. FDU is so athletic.

 

[bonefish1]

It might be that he knows we don’t have the money to compete for the top class guards, and doesn’t want expectations to get out of hand.

Unless you know exactly how much the alliance can offer, maybe we should quit using the excuse of “we can’t afford him”.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Doesn’t need the top class guards to get athletic guards. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Stop blaming everything on money.

We don’t just need “athletic” guards. We need creating, scoring guards. Those cost money.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Unless you know exactly how much the alliance can offer, maybe we should quit using the excuse of “we can’t afford him”.

Until we win a portal bidding war, I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

[Dryfly88]

So are you helping out with the $$ part. You don't need the Alliance to make it happen.

How much have you given Andy? You seem intent on asking every poster this so why don't you lie about how much you have given your school?

 

[Dryfly88]

Yeah, as much as I appreciate the "my eye test is better because I watch more conferences" argument, here's a great article from Ken Pom to suggest you and any other posters suggesting a zone are wrong. Good coaches win despite making the wrong tactical decision.

KenPom: The success of playing zone vs. man-to-man defense

As more players at every position have become proficient at shooting the 3-pointer, the zone has become less effective.

theathletic.com

If you don't feel like being objective and reading the article here are some key points:

-Zone usage per possession has steadily declined year-over-year. The data only goes to 2019 in the article, and I don't have access to the database, but there's no reason to believe the trend has changed. And with Boeheim retiring because his defense is shit, and his acolyte Mike Hopkins likely to fired next year because his defense is shit, the percentage is likely to crater.

Season	% Zone
2014	21.1
2015	19.3
2016	20
2017	18.2
2018	16.2
2019	14.6

-Teams are overwhelming better off choosing one (man or zone) and sticking with it, despite game flow. "While man teams have outperformed zone teams in their respective conferences over the past six seasons, the teams that mix man and zone defenses are worse than both."
- Not only does opposing 3PA% and 3P% go up against the zone (i.e. higher PPP), but 2P% actually goes up (despite what you and z_one say)
- When tempo and player efficiency adjusted, teams that run zone on a possession have significantly lower defensive rating.
-Defenses that play zone allow significantly higher offensive rebounding rates (again despite previous claims)

So, yes, zone is dead. And only those who ignore statistics still think it's a viable choice.

Can't read the article without paying. Did the article break down the win/loss % of the teams that used multiple defenses? Did they differentiate the teams that only use it a few possessions, versus a team that uses it 1/2 the time etc...? Interested to see that stat.

The "good coaches win despite making the wrong tactical decision" doesn't fly. Do you really think the Athletic has access to better information on basketball strategy than Bill Self, John Calipari or Coach K?

 

[Dryfly88]

I think some of the criticisms of Painter are justified, but I doubt they are anything he hasn’t already recognized and analyzed. However, I seriously doubt that the lack of zone defense is one of them. Somehow he must address the poor shooting we experience toward the end of the seasons. We’ve hit that wall several times recently. I’m not sure why our shooters who are relatively good shooters at the start of the year, can’t hit the broad side of a barn in the last 10-15 games. The over all stats look like we can’t shoot, but Loyer and Smith are (or were) deadly shooters.

As demonstrated in our NCAA loss, we were not defended at the 3-pt line, we just could not hit the wide open shots. Now, my pet peeve is the lack of our midrange game. Smith, Loyer, and Newman all drove past the three point line. Then it was only two action: pass to Edey, or throw back out to somebody on the three point line. I just hate that step back three. Why not rise and shoot an easy two point shot? FDU did it to us all game, avoiding the shot blocker. I watched LSU use that mid range jumper to bury Iowa In the women’s championship game. We need that in our arsenal.

Is there a reason why 2 things can't be improved on at the same time? Why can't he be more open to options on defense and work on better outside shooting? I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[AAE09]

Can't read the article without paying. Did the article break down the win/loss % of the teams that used multiple defenses? Did they differentiate the teams that only use it a few possessions, versus a team that uses it 1/2 the time etc...? Interested to see that stat.

The "good coaches win despite making the wrong tactical decision" doesn't fly. Do you really think the Athletic has access to better information on basketball strategy than Bill Self, John Calipari or Coach K?

It does. And it should fly. It's Ken Pomeroy, the Bill James of college basketball, using the same data all these coaches have. I don't take statistics as the end-all, be-all; but this is clear data. It's like when a manager has his clean up hitter bunt instead of swing away, despite overwhelming evidence that that is the wrong decision. It's rooted in feeling and history instead of trust in solid data science.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

Does he realize his shortfalls and what the 23-24 version of a team to make a deep March run? Based on all available info, he has not reached out to LJ Cryer. That makes me think no, he hasn’t.

 

[AAE09]

Does he realize his shortfalls and what the 23-24 version of a team to make a deep March run? Based on all available info, he has not reached out to LJ Cryer. That makes me think no, he hasn’t.

View embedded media

It's possible Painter has inexplicably not reached out to Cryer, but I'm pretty confident we fall into the "& others" part of that tweet.
Cryer just may not be that interested.

 

[Dryfly88]

It does. And it should fly. It's Ken Pomeroy, the Bill James of college basketball, using the same data all these coaches have. I don't take statistics as the end-all, be-all; but this is clear data. It's like when a manager has his clean up hitter bunt instead of swing away, despite overwhelming evidence that that is the wrong decision. It's rooted in feeling and history instead of trust in solid data science.

So by that chart, 15% of the defensive possessions are zone, correct? So we can now agree that the statement "nobody plays zone anymore" was completely false, correct?

Second, Is it possible that the teams that played both zone and man often were just not good defensive teams period? Isn't it possible that a good team (Kansas, Duke, PU, Xavier) could be effective and were effective but other teams in the 361 D1 teams were not and made it look worse than it was for the good teams? A specific example: What was Marquette's % of success playing zone vs MTM? How about Kansas?

I will never argue that playing a zone as your base defense is the way to go. I have and continue to argue that a good defensive team is able to use a zone in spots effectively. I know this to be true because I have seen it. It just defies logic that the teams/coaches I listed continue to use zone in spots simply because they have a gut feel. They see what is working or not working in any given game and adapt to that game. Are there any guarantees of success using a zone, of course not. But that is also true of MTM.

 

[PurduePeteUSA]

Now, my pet peeve is the lack of our midrange game. Smith, Loyer, and Newman all drove past the three point line. Then it was only two action: pass to Edey, or throw back out to somebody on the three point line. I just hate that step back three. Why not rise and shoot an easy two point shot? FDU did it to us all game, avoiding the shot blocker. I watched LSU use that mid range jumper to bury Iowa In the women’s championship game. We need that in our arsenal.

Painter doesn't prefer the mid range game because of the analytics, which says to rely on layups or threes.

 

[BoilerUpThenHammerDown]

Painter doesn't prefer the mid range game because of the analytics, which says to rely on layups or threes.

You'd have to shoot midrange shots at 50%+ or just they aren't a good shot. The exception is if it opens up shots from other parts of the court. It's very simple math.

Purdue Stats

Loyer took the most midrage shots (94) and averaged 36% from far 2s aka midrange. That's only 0.72 points per possession.

Smith and Newman were both second with 47.
Smith - 42%
Newman 32%

Newman's midrange would be below 1 point per possession even if it was a 3 point shot because his accuracy is very low.

Michael Jordan shot midrange shots at 50%.
He was an anomaly and for him it was an efficient shot.

Jordan inspired a lot of young player to copy his style but they are not as efficient.

 

[Boilerfla]

Very interesting analysis, wonder what the analysis looks like at the 13 big 10 schools who didn’t win both the reg season and big 10 tourney championships…..?

 

[tjreese]

Painter doesn't prefer the mid range game because of the analytics, which says to rely on layups or threes.

analytics doesn't say that for a player or a group of players. A coach interprets a general consensus and then applies based upon his assumptions. The general assumption that is "true" for many and much of the time is layups and threes based upon the assumption that a layup has a better chance of being made than a longer 2 pt shot. A 3 pt shot with 50% more weighting on the make means you can miss more 3pt shots and be as efficient as a higher percent of 2s. The easy to follow answer as you know is 40% from the 3 is equal to 60% made for 2s. That is the simple math weighting of the shots and the general assumption of what most players will shoot and why many coaches want the three ball and the shot at the rim while trying to run the opposition off the line to keep them from hitting 3s while defending the rim all of which I know you know.

However, there is a LOT of basketball missed if an offense is restricted to two levels of offensive play instead of 3 and obviously if players have a good mid-range game those players will create problems for those teams not set up to defend the mid-range game...which for many years was basketball. Getting to the FT line and removing pieces from the court do not happen shooting 3s...and the worry of players not getting into the game as quickly when not being aggressive in penetration may be a reality. Similar thought from high school coaches that play man and zone are sometimes worried about starting in a zone due to being a bit more passive than starting out in man and then going zone. Anyway, the three ball is here to stay and one of the important areas of the game...like some of those outside the 3 ball and not getting all the way to the rim.

 

[mathboy]

analytics doesn't say that for a player or a group of players. A coach interprets a general consensus and then applies based upon his assumptions. The general assumption that is "true" for many and much of the time is layups and threes based upon the assumption that a layup has a better chance of being made than a longer 2 pt shot. A 3 pt shot with 50% more weighting on the make means you can miss more 3pt shots and be as efficient as a higher percent of 2s. The easy to follow answer as you know is 40% from the 3 is equal to 60% made for 2s. That is the simple math weighting of the shots and the general assumption of what most players will shoot and why many coaches want the three ball and the shot at the rim while trying to run the opposition off the line to keep them from hitting 3s while defending the rim all of which I know you know.

However, there is a LOT of basketball missed if an offense is restricted to two levels of offensive play instead of 3 and obviously if players have a good mid-range game those players will create problems for those teams not set up to defend the mid-range game...which for many years was basketball. Getting to the FT line and removing pieces from the court do not happen shooting 3s...and the worry of players not getting into the game as quickly when not being aggressive in penetration may be a reality. Similar thought from high school coaches that play man and zone are sometimes worried about starting in a zone due to being a bit more passive than starting out in man and then going zone. Anyway, the three ball is here to stay and one of the important areas of the game...like some of those outside the 3 ball and not getting all the way to the rim.

You got it TJ. Yes, a mid-range shot is a poorer percentage shot, but if we are missing threes, and the opponents are walling off the center, why not dribble within about 10-12 feet of the basket and elevate for an easy shot. Edey will most likely get the rebound.

 

[tjreese]

Go back and look at what you wrote. I'm debunking your claims. They're your words. You said nobody uses zone. You are absolutely wrong. You said it hasn't been effective for 20 years. Again completely wrong.

You tried to make blanket statements and tried to get cute with the old man crap and class basketball comparisons. Instead of just admitting you are wrong you just try to move the goal posts. I didn't ever suggest that we should use zone every time we are losing. I gave you a list of some of the most successful coaches and programs that used zone at some point last season (not 20 years ago). It was used multiple times for more than just "a singular game". Again, you aren't being factually correct.

What am I proposing you ask? That we all recognize that zone defenses have a place in the game and should be something that CMP has in his arsenal when it is needed. There may be many games where it's never used. Just like the teams I listed. But when the MTM is not being effective we have something else to go to. Could be for a couple possessions, could be for more. But it is there as a tool that we are prepared for. You are completely wrong in your statements and if you truly do watch a lot of college hoops you know you're wrong.

You have been consistent in suggesting that a zone should be a tool inside Matt’s toolbox to use at times. As you may recall I generally draw a line between high school and college ball in that something that works may or may not work in college. That is due to college players generally being more skillful and knowledgeable about the game. Still, I’ve thought sometime about the zone and your thoughts rather than just disregarding them. Purdue has never had issues with a zone and with the poor 3 ball shooting it would be easy to assume that Purdue should see a zone a lot. Even FDU that swarmed Zach used man to defend Zach's area or Zach rather than a zone to swarm him. Again, Purdue has cerebral players that were recruited leaning to skill. All this said and with a lot of consideration I can see a “condition” where a zone could help…and I’m pretty sure my reasons would be different than most.

In previous threads I have stated that I can do in man everything a zone could do gathering the same advantages and disadvantages as a pure zone, and that is true… and that high school is different than college in what works. Yet, I’m in agreement with you in that it “could” be a difference in some games. What a zone does whether in a zone press or a half court zone (and my zone comments are not match-up zone which is what most play) is that it requires “organization” to attack. This is why some teams “show zone” and then after eating some clock due to the offense getting organized, then matchup in man as the offensive team is about to attempt to score. It shows what the coaches want when it gets to defending a scoring attempt. Some want Zach in a zone so that he doesn’t have to defend in space, but that is only valid if the other players defend the space towards Zach so that Zach doesn’t have to…but that then opens up the 3 ball for the opposition. Like life there are no solutions...only trade-offs.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to many coaches to play zone knowing that experimentation over a 2-minute span could be the difference in a game. Still, I think after some thought that a zone could be useful if you really don’t have to worry about the 3 ball and can still grab the boards. I’ll add that “athletes” that maybe are not cerebral players or particularly skilled might be the mother lode in using a zone…since team organization may not be a strong trait of THAT team. Anyway, I can reason out today if Purdue is not particularly strong on keeping the ball out of the lane in man and played a team that has a collection of individual players lacking in organization somewhat, that can’t shoot the ball, then moving from defending the player to defending an area could work under those conditions…opposition lacking organization in attacking the D and poor shooters behind the arc and not worried about the gaps allowing opposition better chance at offensive board and so I have moved the needle under particular conditions in my mind that months ago I wouldn’t have considered the aspect when it might work knowing what man can do and that the opposition is less a threat in organization and shooting the ball behind the arc with man D being less efficient than the opposition's threat on offense behind the arc.

 

[mathboy]

The zone defense topic is always interesting, but this last team didn't really have an issue holding teams down. Most of the time we were able to defend with man-to-man very well, and gimmick defenses were not really needed. I suppose it would be fun to throw it at an opponent every once in a while, but you can't live with zone in the college game. More than a few times we frustrated the he out of the opponent's offense with the way we played defense - as is.

On the other hand, I would have like to have seen more running and jamming when we break the press. That would have stopped teams pressing us right away. If we could have broken the press with a resounding dunk each time, end of that problem.

I would also like to see more mid-range shots in our arsenal. That would have helped us in the tourney. The short 8-10 foot shot since our long-range shots weren't falling.

 

[tjreese]

You got it TJ. Yes, a mid-range shot is a poorer percentage shot, but if we are missing threes, and the opponents are walling off the center, why not dribble within about 10-12 feet of the basket and elevate for an easy shot. Edey will most likely get the rebound.

A good 3pt shooting team misses 60% of the shots and so 60% of those possessions don't place the opponent in foul trouble...don't remove players from the court...don't allow your team to get to the FT line as much and enhances a less aggressive demeanor in the game for starters. Yes, the 3 ball is important, but making the opposition defend you in three areas instead of two can also expose a defensive flaw. I just think the 3 ball shot is much more significant than mathematical weighting that is an easy go to...

 

[tjreese]

The zone defense topic is always interesting, but this last team didn't really have an issue holding teams down. Most of the time we were able to defend with man-to-man very well, and gimmick defenses were not really needed. I suppose it would be fun to throw it at an opponent every once in a while, but you can't live with zone in the college game. More than a few times we frustrated the he out of the opponent's offense with the way we played defense - as is.

On the other hand, I would have like to have seen more running and jamming when we break the press. That would have stopped teams pressing us right away. If we could have broken the press with a resounding dunk each time, end of that problem.

I would also like to see more mid-range shots in our arsenal. That would have helped us in the tourney. The short 8-10 foot shot since our long-range shots weren't falling.

So most presses were "zone" presses and they require for most teams organization to attack. Organization suggest more than one player in play. Had Purdue had more players with the skill set to execute against the press, the press wouldn't have been an issue. Zach dictates a lot of the O and D in what he can and cannot do.

 

[Jbigler1986]

Anyone suggesting a zone against a modern offense is an old man telling at cloud. It's as dead as class basketball it was last used in. A gimmicky box and 1 scheme at this point, used for a couple plays to neutralize a specific player. There's a reason nobody in college basketball uses it. You old heads might as well hope that the NCAA removes the shot clock and Painter try a Four Corners offense.

Teams throw in zone defense all the time to change up the tempo. We also never full court press anyone either. Once again it changes the tempo.

 

[Dryfly88]

A good 3pt shooting team misses 60% of the shots and so 60% of those possessions don't place the opponent in foul trouble...don't remove players from the court...don't allow your team to get to the FT line as much and enhances a less aggressive demeanor in the game for starters. Yes, the 3 ball is important, but making the opposition defend you in three areas instead of two can also expose a defensive flaw. I just think the 3 ball shot is much more significant than mathematical weighting that is an easy go to...

The only correction I would make TJ is you're assuming no offensive rebounds off of a missed 3.

 

[z_one]

In talking about our 3 point shooting woes I have had a thought about that issue for some time. When other teams press and we run our usual response, we burn 8 to 9 seconds off of the clock to get across the timeline. We then set up our offense and attempt to go to Zach for the highest percentage shot. We grind another 8 to 10 seconds off of the clock and then go into a last second three before the clock expires. As a result many of our 3s are "forced" shots. Many are off balance and rushed. Not all are of course, but still there is the pressure of trying to hit a last second shot. Not to end the half or the end of the game, but multiple times through out the game. Missing those last second threes then works on a players confidence. Worried about missing, they pass around more in key possessions sometimes passing up good shots because the last miss is on their mind. Open shots should be taken. With so many shots being "pressure" shots, I think it weighs on a shooter's confidence. What do you guys think?

 

[BoilerMaker P]

How did Kansas, Kentucky, and Duke prove your point in the tournament?

Well, they all made it past their first game, so there’s that.

I think the point was that traditionally successful programs who have previously won both their conference and had some NCAA Tournament success are able to adapt to different styles of play or throw different looks at their opponents.

 

[tjreese]

The only correction I would make TJ is you're assuming no offensive rebounds off of a missed 3.

No, that is a true possibilty. A team quick enough to get long 3s that miss is quick enough to play decent pressure on D many times, but even with that rebound...if it results in another 3 there was no penalty to the other team on the 60% missed. There are all kinds of situations where this and that could happen, but think many only consider the weight of the shot and there are many other things is why I stressed some of those things. Mostly is was just me thinking a bit about a zone and the criteria when it might be of value of which I'm all for in high school usage and can find a situation where maybe I can't do exactly the same thing in man due to the offensive deficiencies of the other team coupled with maybe the deficiencies of Purdue, but I'm sure I'm more restrictive in the applications than some in the forum...