Zone Defense, Player Development and Summer Basketball
I think differently than most people. Sometimes, my radical viewpoint gets me in trouble. This weekend, I engaged Hoopgurlz in a discussion of zone defense via twitter because of a post it made:
HG: In a game between elite athletes, we cannot be more imaginative than a zone defense? Can’t we just let the kids play each other?
I see this point made a lot. Why do we not want good athletes to be good, smart basketball players too? Why do we only want players to play in a style that fits their strengths? Shouldn’t players develop their weaknesses or other parts of their games so they perform well regardless of the style of play, defense, or offensive system?
I replied simply to the post with a link to two recent articles where I defended zone defense (I am not a zone coach. I just do not understand why people de-value it to such an extent):
Why does every1 hate zone defense? Are zones bad? http://tiny.cc/0hss5 Can you teach fundamentals w/zone? http://tiny.cc/mqkek
As I read through the tweets from HG and others, I realized that the disagreement about zones centers around the way that we envision basketball.
Most people, it appears, break down the game into two subsets: skills and strategy. For these people, skills are the technical skills like shooting, ball handling and passing, while strategy encompasses nearly everything else.
HG: Are club coaches teaching skills or tactics? Also these are exposure events and Nike Nationals uses shot clocks.
Now, I do not know why exposure events should have different rules than other games. HG covered the Nike Nationals and reported on scores like the games were important and outcomes mattered. It even referred to the tournament as the “unofficial club championship.” I also have no idea why a shot clock should matter to a discussion of man-defense versus zone-defense.
I hope that club coaches teach skills and strategy. Strategy is part of the game, too. However, I break down skills into four areas: Psychological, Technical, Tactical and Athletic. I hope that club coaches develop all four areas, not just one area.
Because I view the game differently, I have no problem with zones because I believe that the skills required to play successfully against a zone are worth developing. Others dislike zones because they feel that the only way to play against a zone is to memorize a zone offense (strategy) and if you’re practicing strategy, it takes time away from skill development.
HG: We never said we hated zones. We just don’t think it has much of a place in club ball. Club teams practice 2x a week. They’re supposed to teach zone offenses? Our stand has nothing to do with whether you can teach or evaluate individual defensive principles with zones.
Now, this is interesting because Hoopgurlz’s first response to me was:
HG: lots of college coaches hate the zones, too – they say it doesn’t show if they can defend at next level. We agree with them.
This brings up an important point: what is the point of these games? Hoopgurlz covered the games, the “unofficial club championship” like they mattered, but this comment seems to suggest that they exist solely for the purposes of the college coaches’ evaluations? Do these games matter or are they purely showcases? Should high school players spend their entire summers traveling the country simply to showcase for college coaches?
I also disagree with their premise. I can evaluate players in a zone defense and see if they can play at the next level. Furthermore, playing against a zone defense often reveals more about a player’s offensive skill set, in these environments, than playing against man-defense, as I responded via tweet:
watching players vs zones can tell a lot about IQ, spatial awareness, creativity, court vision, etc. that may be lost in m2m
As for practice time, most high school teams practice three times per week. Is the extra practice session per week the one where coaches should teach zone offenses?
Furthermore, the players at Nike Nationals are experienced, elite players while many high school coaches have inexperienced and unskilled players. With which group should we worry more about the amount of time devoted to skill development rather than strategy?
In the games that I watched last week, teams had multiple out-of-bounds plays and press breaks: if they have time to install these, don’t they have time to practice against zone defenses?
If the issue is that teams do not have enough practice time, the problem is the game to practice ratio, not zone defenses. Tennessee Flight won the Nike Nationals led by a player from Southern California; Cal Storm was arguably California’s best representative and featured players from Hawaii, Oregon and Colorado. If these teams gather players from around the country, how much do they actually practice anyway? Shouldn’t this be the issue?
Some of the teams likely played 20+ games in July without a real practice; blaming zones for the lack of skill development seems to miss the point completely.
During July, many people tweeted about the poor play at these and other tournaments. Among the comments were complaints about selfish play, too much dribbling, lack of passing, poor effort on defense, poor shot selection, bad shooting and more. Now, which of those tend to occur more against man defenses than zones?
For the past couple years, many have complained about the poor skill development (again, focused primarily on technical skills) compared to International players. Right or wrong, many characterize the International game as featuring more zone defense (I don’t know, as when I played and coached in Europe, I did not see any more zone than here).
What skills does a zone defense force an offense to emphasize? Passing, shooting and player movement. What skills do the most prevalent man offenses in club basketball (dribble-drive-motion) emphasize? Dribbling and shooting lay-ups.
If players do not move without the ball, do not pass well and do not shoot well, they will not play well against a zone defense. Since players struggle with these skills, does that mean we should vilify zones?
Maybe we should force these teams to play zone defense so teams cannot rely on one player bullying her way to the rim, taking a bad shot and playing volleyball for the offensive rebound!
Again, the central argument comes down to the way that we view basketball. If you view basketball as skills and strategy, and view strategy primarily as plays, then I see how a zone as well as presses require more strategy.
However, if you view skills as comprising four different areas, learning to play against a zone is just another area of skill development, like learning to run a pick-and-roll, learning to set screens, learning to shoot a floater or learning to throw a post-entry pass.
Playing against a zone does not require added strategy; instead, it requires an understanding of where and how to attack, as well as some simple principles. For instance, just as I teach players to follow behind a dribbler who penetrates toward the baseline against a man-defense, I teach players to fill the area vacated by dribble penetration against a zone. It is essentially the same skill, and, to me, it is a skill.
For me, strategy is the game adjustments that you make based on your team’s skills and strengths. For instance, when to call a timeout; when to play zone; when to foul late in the game; etc.
Strategy, in this sense, is unimportant until players have developed their skills to a reasonable level. For instance, with my junior varsity girls’, we never worried about these type of issues for the entire season; my only focus was athletic, technical, tactical and psychological skill development.
However, at the professional level, I incorporate strategy in every practice. I would end every practice with a situational game so players know how to play when up 3 with 12 seconds to go or down 5 with 31 seconds. At this level, strategy is very important, as players at that level should have mastered the basic skills.
The elite club level incorporates skill development with some strategy, as it is important for players to learn how to manage game situations. Also, since these players have gone through the three learning stages with most of their skills, practice drills can incorporate multiple elements – like a shooting drill that incorporates the pick-and-roll action or shooting off a flare screen as one would receive against a basic 2-3 zone. These drills refine the technical skills and introduce and develop the basic tactical skills, which then can be incorporated into small-sided games or practice scrimmages to develop the full open skills, which involve the decision-making component.
Of course, this type of practice requires a different approach than the normal block practice environment. This is how I think about the game, so zones present another skill to develop. For those who see the game in terms of skills and strategy, I understand their difference of opinion.
However, rather than blame zones for the lack of skill development, we should examine the game to practice ratio and possibly broaden our definitions of skills to incorporate all the various basketball skills and not just a certain aspect of the game.
Your piece conjures up all sorts of conflicting points. The most immediate one for me is the interest in player and team development versus the competitive nature that takes over for both coach and players once the basketball is tossed up. The assumption is that development and winning will coincide, even have a causality relationship, but not necessarily. So often once the ball is tapped and one side gets possession, it is winning at all costs and the game becomes individual player focused.
I’m also amazed at the lack of ‘transferred learning’. A practice or camp is generally divided into halves where the first half emphasizes development and the second half some form of scrimmage (3x3s, 5x5s, etc.). Too often, coaches do not use the scrimmage time for application of learning from the first half. Learning any new team concept or individual player skill must be immediately applied in a game setting in order to complete the transfer process. Not just on one day but intermittently over a series of days.
mnmike said this on July 31, 2010 at 4:11 PM |
I certainly agree with the lack of transferred learning, and I have touched on this frequently. I use a lot of small-sided games in my practices for this reason: once we see or practice a new skill (a new type of lay-up, a pick-and-roll, etc), I want to get sufficient repetitions in a more game-like environment. 5v5 play often fails to provide the requisite repetitions and offers limited time for immediate feedback – I wrote about this in this week’s Hard2Guard Player Development Newsletter (to subscribe, email hard2guardinc@yahoo.com).
As for competition vs. player development, I agree that there needs to be both. I think the level in the article – elite club basketball – is mostly a competitive, not developmental level, especially on the girls’ side since they mature quicker.
I believe that players play games to win, especially in these situations. However, a coach can manage things differently. For younger players at a more developmental level, you play to win, but you coach for development. For instance, this season, at the JV level, I played all 12 players in every half of every game regardless of the score. To me, that is a decision to put development ahead of winning. Similarly, I only had 4 OB plays, no press break and no specific zone offense – we relied on give-and-gos, spacing and pick-and-rolls regardless of the defense. Rather than spend time on plays or multiple defenses, I focused on skill development (all four skill areas). This is an example, imo, of a training emphasis as opposed to win at all costs, even though we played every game with the intent to win.
Brian McCormick said this on July 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM |
An interesting comment about playing for Nolan Richardson in the WNBA:
“Most of us are used to so much structure, with so many sets and reads that when you’re free to read off each other it’s an adjustment,” Shock guard Shanna Crossley said. “This year has almost been one of deprogramming each individual player and everything we’ve known. But if we can continue to get people to buy into this system, we can be dangerous. Just because it’s rough right now doesn’t mean it won’t work.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/31/AR2010073102643.html
That’s an example of players weened in a system where each coach sees basketball as skills and strategy, rather than developing the four skill areas and empowering players to develop their game awareness/basketball IQ.
Brian McCormick said this on July 31, 2010 at 4:59 PM |
Brian,
The key question in this case isn’t:
“Is Zone Defense a good or bad thing in elite level youth basketball?”
The key question is:
“Is playing Zone Defense 100% of the time a good or bad thing in elite level youth basketball?”
There is nothing wrong with Zone Defense, per se.
There is a great deal wrong, however, with playing Zone Defense 100% of the time.
cheers
khandor said this on August 4, 2010 at 11:56 AM |
I tend to think that the reason people want to see exclusively man defense at the elite level is to see more one on one action. If a coach chooses to play man/zone all the time that is his choice. But for player development and a better chance to be successful I think you need to play both.
valleyj said this on August 5, 2010 at 9:47 AM |
Valleyj: I agree that HG wanted to see more 1v1 action. However, all summer, college coaches, independent scouts and the media who covers these games complained about the amount of 1v1 action, over dribbling, etc.
So, they say they want 1v1, but then they don’t want all the negatives that can occur when games denigrate to too much 1v1. But, they don’t want zones because the players do not look good against zones, either, because their supposed strengths are in 1v1 situations.
Rather than pointing out the lack of skills, and creating a discussion about the skill development, the coaches and media hide behind weak arguments like “stop playing zone” because they don’t want to get on anyone’s bad side.
If you don’t want to see a zone defense, develop some shooters and keep the ball moving. If you get ball movement and knock down shots, you won’t see much zone defense.
Brian McCormick said this on August 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM |
Brian, I totally agree with you. I would like to add that with better ball movement and shooting, the opportunity to play 1v1 actually opens up to the player so we could see that aspect of the game as well, without the constant unintelligent dribble.
valleyj said this on August 5, 2010 at 10:06 AM |
If I see a player pound the ball 4,5,6 times, I think the player sucks. If you can’t beat your defender on your first move or countermove, pass the ball.
I used to dislike zones because I grew up in a man-only league from 5th – 8th and many coaches felt my high school had an advantage because of our background playing man defense.
However, now I have no problem with zone defense because, in some ways, it is the only chance that players will have to learn to play the game because most coaches do not have 27 different zone offenses to run or they cannot clear out and let their best player go 1v1. Players actually have to figure out how to move to gaps, move the ball, probe, etc to create good shots. Often this does not happen because they do not see zones very often or for very long. But, in some ways, I wish they would so they would have to learn new things.
Also, the original tweet set me off because of two reasons:
1) I hate this idea that “athletes” can only play in a pick-up style environment. First, I think it is demeaning to the “athletes,” and second, if the athletes want to play college ball, they have to be more than 1v1 players.
2) Last summer, everyone had nothing but praise for the Swish team that won the Nike Nationals and was deemed the best team on the circuit. The Swish play exclusively zone. Nobody criticized them for playing zone, and they had players committed to UCLA, UConn, Cal, ASU and Stanford playing for them.
If the argument is the need to evaluate players in a man v. man situation, why not criticize a team that plays exclusively zone? If the argument is that teams do not have time to prepare for zones, shouldn’t that be a storyline when writing about Swish winning the Nike Nationals by playing zone?
Brian McCormick said this on August 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM |
————————–
re: Last summer, everyone had nothing but praise for the Swish team that won the Nike Nationals and was deemed the best team on the circuit. The Swish play exclusively zone. Nobody criticized them for playing zone, and they had players committed to UCLA, UConn, Cal, ASU and Stanford playing for them.
If the argument is the need to evaluate players in a man v. man situation, why not criticize a team that plays exclusively zone?
————————–
Those who saw that Swish team play last summer and failed to criticize them for playing Zone Defense 100% of the time were wrong.
Just because other people do wrong things does not mean that I must do those same things, also.
The best basketball players are the ones with [i] the ability to play and [ii] the ability to play against, both, Man-to-Man and Zone Defense.
To teach your players only one of these, however … or, to allow them to function in an adequate way against only one of them, but not the other, as well … is to do them a disservice as a competent basketball coach.
khandor said this on August 5, 2010 at 6:14 PM |
Why does no one criticize Jim Boeheim for only playing zone defense at Syracuse?
Brian McCormick said this on August 5, 2010 at 7:31 PM |
Brian,
Two points.
1. To suggest that a very good coach like Jim Boeheim is someone who has never been criticized over the years for almost always playing Zone Defense would not be entirely accurate. In fact, IIRC, one of the reasons sometimes given by NBA personnel types for the general “over-rating” of marquee players who have come out of Jim’s Orangemen program is their general inability to defend at a high enough level of proficiency when placed in a mostly Man-to-Man defensive scheme traditionally associated with the NBA game … which includes a list of very good players that dates back to the days of Roosevelt Bowie, Louis Orr, Marty Headd, Hal Cohen, Dale Shackleford, Leo Rautins, Dan Schayes, Pearl Washington, Eric Santifer, Tony “Red” Bruin, Rony Seikaly, Rael Addison, Sherman Douglas, Stevie Thompson, Derrick Coleman, John Wallace, Billy Owens, Lawrence Moten, Dave Johnson, Etan Thomas, Jerry McNamara, Carmelo Anthony, Hakim Warrick, Donte Greene, Demetris Nichols, Johnny Flynn, Andy Rautins and Wesley Johnson, each of whom has had his individual deficiencies masked effectively by Gentlemen Jim’s famed 2-3 Zone D.
2. I, for one, have criticized Jim somewhat for doing this for the last 40 years … even though fully understanding his specific rationale for going with this defensive “system” of play, given what he has been able to accomplish at the major NCAA D1 level with a relatively small program like ‘the Cuse’ was starting out back in the days of old Manley Field House.
[NOTE: On the flip side of this issue, IIRC, you are also someone who has a particular fondness for the job Ben Howland has always done turning out under-rated but largely "NBA ready" players ... who are groomed, more-or-less, on his steady diet of Man-to-Man Defense.]
khandor said this on August 6, 2010 at 12:30 AM |
Khandor:
1. I realize that Boeheim has been criticized as a coach, as have nearly all coaches. However, I don’t recall much criticism of his zone usage (John Cheney for that matter too). I know some suggested that he would never win a national championship while playing zone, but he proved those critics wrong.
As for the NBA criticism, that creates a bigger debate on another topic: what is the point of college basketball? I wrote this post after some comments:
http://thecrossovermovement.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/college-basketball-showcase-or-development/
Is it a college coach’s job to develop players for the NBA? Or, is his job primarily to win games and championships, keep his players out of the headlines (for the wrong reasons) and graduate some of his players?
Should players choose a college that showcases their strengths and hides their weaknesses, like Syracuse’s zone, or one that develops their weaknesses to prepare them for the next level?
I defend Howland because I think the attacks and perceptions about him and his program are false and out-of-hand. I can’t think of a coach who has had as much recent success in terms of wins, tournament advancement and NBA player success who is criticized to such a degree, especially when the criticism has no basis in fact (usually centers around “bad” offense even though two seasons ago, UCLA was top 5 in the country in offensive efficiency. It might not be exciting (an opinion), but to call it “bad” when it is among the most efficient is completely inaccurate). I don’t agree that Howland was “holding back” Westbrook, Collison, or Mbah a Moute who was a 3-star or less player out of high school and part-time starter in the NBA as a rookie. Either the scouts who rank high school players are complete idiots who should have their sites shut down for being so far off the mark or these players developed and improved at UCLA.
That being said, I, personally, do not coach like Howland. He’s not my style of coach. OTOH, I don’t use a lot of zone defense either. I just do not see why people are afraid of zones and so dismissive of zones.
NFL teams plays man and zone coverage and I have never heard such criticism of a team that primarily plays one or the other. Maybe I’m not paying attention, but either seems to be an accepted form of defense. In basketball, zone has this perception of being “less than.”
Brian McCormick said this on August 6, 2010 at 9:07 AM |
Khandor:
Could this be why people criticize Howland despite the success of Westbrook, Love, Collison, Mbah a Moute, Afflalo, etc:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/05/the-limits-of-reason.html
Brian McCormick said this on August 6, 2010 at 1:23 PM |
Brian,
re: your link
I’m quite sure that I fall into the 10% category mentioned there, and I’m confident that you do, too.
It’s just that sometimes, perhaps, any of us can put the blinders and fail to accept the validity of someone else’s perspective on a situation, simply because that’s not what we choose to think, for our own specific reasons, none of which are connected with the actual facts.
You believe in the value of Man-to-Man Defense, as a sound basis for playing and learning about the game … because this is what you choose to have your own team’s play, predominantly; which is not to say that you object to Zone Defense, either, because – when the right situation calls for it – you are certainly willing to have your own teams use this style/type of defense, as well.
This is a proper way to approach the game, IMO, as opposed to either of the other two available options: ii. Playing Man-to-Man exclusively; or, iii. Playing Zone exclusively. You are interested in building a complete basketball player, from the ground floor up, which is the best way to go about coaching the game.
[NOTE: As well, what each of us might be off suggesting to other coaches who deal with young players, is to simply have them play "Bob Knight Style Man-to-Man-Defense-which-is-really-Man-D-on-the-ballside-and-Zone-D-on-the-nonballside-at-all-times" ... and, thereby, creates a hybrid "version" which is simultaneously, neither one or the other, but both at-once.]
Those who criticize Howland for what you’ve suggested in the past are just as wrong as those who’ve failed to criticize Boeheim, or Cheney, or last summer’s Team Swish, in the face of their wide-spread on-court success.]
khandor said this on August 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM |
Sorry …
I forgot to include my response to this question.
——————
re: Is it a college coach’s job to develop players for the NBA? Or, is his job primarily to win games and championships, keep his players out of the headlines (for the wrong reasons) and graduate some of his players?
——————
It’s his/her job to teach players … through the aid of basketball … how to become the best person, and player, they are capable of becoming, on and off the court. The goal of post-secondary education is to help someone become a well-educated human being.
khandor said this on August 6, 2010 at 3:33 PM |
Khandor:
First, I teach man2man primarily because I feel that I am better at teaching m2m and I believe that the schemes do not matter as much as the execution of a given scheme and the player’s confidence in their approach.
Second, I argued elsewhere that every good man defense includes zone and every good zone defense includes man, which I suppose is like your Knight comment. In fact, I had one professional team ask me after a game what defense we played; she guesses, box-and-1, triangle-and-2 and 2-3-zone before I told her that we were in man defense, but we switched everything on the weakside to keep a bigger player in the paint for help defense against a lob, as we fronted the post, their best player. They never figured out our defense and consequently we won by 20 points against a far more talented team.
Third, as for the purpose of higher education, I suppose that is the ideal, but is that a practical application for BCS football and basketball? If that is the goal, how many coaches would rate as excellent along those lines? Should coaches like Calipari, Pitino, Kiffin and others keep their jobs if that is truly the goal?
Brian McCormick said this on August 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM |
Brian,
————–
re: Third, as for the purpose of higher education, I suppose that is the ideal, but is that a practical application for BCS football and basketball?
————–
Unfortunately … and, to the detriment of all concerned, even those who might not realize yet what they’ve lost in the process of gaining what they have acquired along the way … a great many of the BCS athletic programs stopped being concerned with the authentic objective of “higher education” quite some time ago, as both you and I are well aware.
Doesn’t mean, however, this is still not the right/best/better way for us to approach this situation.
PS. FWIW, when it didn’t have the dark brown background, and the font size was larger, it was much, much easier to read the terrific content on this blog. All good coaches know the benefit of specific feedback.
Cheers, and Keep On Truck’n
khandor said this on August 7, 2010 at 8:54 AM |
Style is a matter of opinion, I suppose, and yours is the the first comment of dissension about the new design. I received several emails that said they loved the way that it looks. I don’t think that I did anything to the size of the font; I’ll see if I can make the default font larger. But, I love the black background personally.
Brian McCormick said this on August 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM |
True enough … style, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your particular M.O., though, is that of being a beacon of bright “light” in a barren wilderness. It may well be the case that it is ‘the combination’ of the “darkened background” … which tends to shroud your otherwise illuminous ideas about the game … and the “smaller font size” [at, least, compared to your previous incarnation of the site] wherein lies the problem, from my perspective. These older eyes don’t see quite as clearly, smaller type, as they once did.
khandor said this on August 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM |
I’m not very proficient with the wordpress stuff. I tried to find a default font to change, but failed. I guess I missed the symbolism – that was always my issue with my English classes, even though I was a Literature major!
Brian McCormick said this on August 8, 2010 at 11:07 AM |