On the history, I learned quite a bit since, quite honestly, I am not versed in the history of basketball and how it has been played somewhat differently over the years. Quest is not intended to be a history of basketball of site, but the history we are going to cover in this report is important, is interesting, and in effect is part of the rationale for the Quest to exist. So let's take a rare walk down memory lane.
Before we do, let's start out with a great description of the zone defense, and a very good list of advantages and disadvantages. Quoting here saves a good chunk of time, and gives you, the reader, a better quality report, because I could not write a description of zone defending as good as the one that follows, quite honestly. Quest for the Ring is not intended to be a run of the mill basketball coaching site, and so I don't want to spend a lot of time on detailed instructions for coaches. Quest is to be a site that pulls everything in basketball winning together, with defensive coaching specifics being only one component among many. Furthermore, I can see accuracy and high quality when I see it. So for these reasons, I decided to skip writing the zone defense description myself, and I am electing here to bow to a high quality exposition of zone defending:
Zone defense is different from man-to-man defense in that, instead of guarding a particular player, each zone defender is responsible for guarding an area of the floor, or "zone", and any offensive player that comes into that area. Zone defenders move their position on the floor in relationship to where the ball moves.
Zone defense is often effective in stopping dribble penetration and one-on-one moves. On a personal note, I believe that all kids must develop their man-to-man defensive skills first. I believe youth basketball leagues should limit the use of zones to the older age groups. On the other hand, some high school and college coaches treat zone defense almost as if using it were blasphemous, or an admission of inferiority! At the upper levels, I believe you should assess your team's strengths and weaknesses as well as your opponent's, and the game situation, and use whatever tool you need to try to win.
ADVANTAGES OF ZONE DEFENSE
1. Not all teams have quick, good man-to-man defenders. Or the offense may have a couple of outstanding players too quick to defend individually. Playing a zone can help against mis-matches such as these. You may have a tall, strong, but not particularly quick team. A zone can look intimidating with all your big guys stacked up inside with their hands up.
2. In using a zone, you can protect the paint area and force the opponent to shoot from outside. An example would be using the 2-1-2 or 2-3 zone which places a lot of defense in the paint and invites the offense to shoot from outside. This is a good way to see if the other team can shoot from outside. Not all teams can shoot the outside shot consistently. Even good shooting teams have off nights, especially under tournament pressure.
3. Your team may be in foul trouble, especially your big man. You can help protect him with a zone.
4. You can slow the game and control the tempo somewhat with a zone.
5. Although players must hustle regardless of the type of defense that is being played, sometimes when your team is fatigued, playing zone for a few minutes may help them catch their breath.
6. By changing defenses from man-to-man to various zones, you can keep the offense off-balance and confused.
7. If you use the full-court or half-court press, after the press is broken, it is easy to slip back into a half-court zone defense.
DISADVANTAGES OF ZONE DEFENSE
1. If your team is behind, you won't get enough pressure on the ball, and the offense can eat up a lot of time by holding the ball for a good shot. You must go man-to-man in this situation.
2. If the opponent is having a good shooting night, your zone is beaten, and you must consider going to the man-to-man to get pressure on the ball out on the perimeter.
3. There are not always clear-cut rebounding box-out assignments and sometimes the offensive player will slip inside for the offensive rebound and lay-up. See Zone Rebounding for help with this.
4. If you play zone most of the time, and rarely play man-to-man, your players may become complacent on defense and may lose their man-to-man skills. I would practice man-to-man 80-90% of the time, and zone the remaining 10-20%.
BASIC POINTERS FOR ALL ZONE DEFENSES
1. Try to keep the ball outside. Double-team the ball in the paint.
2. Be vocal, talk to each other.
3. Move, adjust your position relative to the movement of the ball.
4. Get your hands up and out, to shrink the passing lanes.
5. When the offense dribble penetrates, quickly close the gap.
6. Get to know your opponent and adjust. Over-protect against the best shooters, or the "hot" shooter, and sag off the guy who never shoots.
7. Trap the corners.
8. Especially if you are ahead, don't gamble or get too zealous about trapping the wing and point guard positions. Keep pressure on the ball, but also protect the paint and force the outside, low-percentage shot.
SOURCE: this is an outstanding, fantastic site for coaches I just discovered. I knew there had to be at least one site out there on the net that was better than the half dozen sites for coaches I already knew about, and I finally found it: It's right here!
ZONE DEFENDING USED TO BE TOTALLY ILLEGAL
Now let's continue this discussion by looking at the history of rule changes regarding what defensive systems a team is permitted to use. The following is only the tip of the iceberg of all of the information that is available at the NBA site regarding all the changes in rules for and organization of games. Visit here for the complete history.
1947
• Zone defenses outlawed on January 11, 1947.
1966/67
• The following language was added to the Zone Defense Rule: "After the offensive team has advanced the ball to its front court, a defensive player may not station himself in the key area longer than three seconds if it is apparent he is making no effort to play an opponent. The three second count starts when the offensive team is in clear control in the front court."
1981-82
• Zone defense rules clarified with new rules for Illegal Defensive Alignments.
a. Weak side defenders may come in the pro lane (16’), but not in the college lane (12’) for more than three seconds.
b. Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint area).
c. Player without ball may not be double-teamed from weak side.
d. Offensive player above foul line and inside circle must be played by defender inside dotted line.
e. If offensive player is above the top of the circle, defender must come to a position above foul line.
f. Defender on cutter must follow the cutter, switch, or double-team the ball.
• After the first illegal defense violation, the clock is reset to 24 seconds. All subsequent violations result in one free throw and possession of the ball. If any violation occurs during the last 24 seconds of each quarter or overtime period, the offended team receives one free throw.
1996/97
• No illegal defense violation may occur when the ball is in the backcourt.
1999/00
• Any defense is legal on the strong side. Defenders must remain on the weak side outside the paint unless they are double-teaming the ball, picking up a free cutter or closely guarding an offensive player.
2000/01
• On the strongside, any defense is legal.
• On the weakside, defenders must remain on the weakside outside the paint unless (i) they are double-teaming the ball, (ii) picking up a free cutter or (iii) closely guarding an offensive player.
2001/02
• Illegal defense guidelines will be eliminated in their entirety.
• A new defensive three-second rule will prohibit a defensive player from remaining in the lane for more than three consecutive seconds without closely guarding an offensive player.
As you can see, to make a long story short, the zone defense was banned in 1947, but was made legal in steps from 1999-00 to 2001-02. From 1981 to 2001 when zone was totally legalized, there were several relatively awkward and complicated modifications of the total illegality of zone defending. You can see that the progression from 1981 to 2001 was in only one direction. During these 20 years, there was never any "relapsing" toward making the zone more illegal than it was.
Now there are many basketball observers who think it is a bad thing that zone defenses are allowed. And it's sort of like the Allen Iverson thing. Iverson has haters everywhere, but he has more haters among those who are the most fanatical fans, which would be the ones you see most often blogging and posting on the internet. Similarly, the zone defense is not all that hated by everyday fans, but among the hardcore internet crowd, the zone is much more hated. Indeed, if the hardcore fan zone defense haters could run the NBA, they would go back to 1947 and make the zone defense completely illegal.
THE CLAIM THAT ZONE DEFENDING WAS MADE LEGAL DUE TO "BAD, INFERIOR MOTIVES"
Many of those opposed to zone defending will start out with the claim that the NBA was not motivated by honest, informed motives, but rather by tainted, ulterior motives, when they made the zone defense completely legal in April 2001. For example, the blogger whose post motivated this report strongly hints that he thinks that the League's ulterior motive for making the zone legal was that the League was terrified that Shaquille O'Neal could not possibly be contained with man to man defending alone, so they changed the rule largely because of the impact of one player (and any subsequent players as talented and as huge as O'Neal)! More generally, he implies that the League wanted to damp down players such as Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and Dirk Nowitzki via the double teaming that zone defending allows but is illegal if zone defending is illegal.
My response is that I don't see hardly any merit in this, not only because I don't see why the League would be concerned about just how offensively dominant the best offensive players are, but also because allowing zone defending is not enough to shut down or seriously reduce the effectiveness of any of those players anyway. If it were true that legalizing zone defending makes great offensive players a lot less great, it would be common knowledge by now, and the NBA would be having yearly debates at rules committee meetings about whether to make zone defending illegal again. If it has only a marginal effect, which is what it does, then what is the big deal?
And come on, could it really be true that any team with Shaquille O'Neal on it would automatically win the Championship if zone was illegal, because he would be impossible to be contained? Are you sure, laugh out loud. There would be no one on playoff teams who could at least slow him down, or foul him and have him miss free throws? But why would the League care even if he would automatically win?
But the most obvious and overwhelming put down of the silly O'Neal will automatically win argument is that O'Neal played for 7 years before the zone was made legal without winning a Ring, 4 years for the Orlando Magic and 3 years for the Los Angeles Lakers. So no, Shaquille O'Neal would not automatically win a Championship any year zone was illegal, because he actually didn't for seven such years. Come on, get a grip, zone haters.
And notice that this anti-zone defense blogger (who probably represents thousands of other like minded folks) is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, he glorifies man to man defending and wants to make it always required rather than always an option. On the other hand, he claims that the League concluded that certain players were impossible to contain via man to man defending. Well, if man to man defending is so great, there shouldn't be any players who can not be contained to one extent or another.
Finally, the blogger himself mentions that Phil Jackson thought that allowing zone defending would help Shaquille O'Neal defensively more than it would hurt him offensively, simply because he wouldn't have to chase a particular man around and could be near the hoop most of the time, where his defense is by far the most effective.
Due to the importance of this topic, to my desire to make this article as informative as possible, and to what for Quest is an unusual foray into history, I am going to once again extensively quote another article. This is the CNN-Sports Illustrated article that reported on the huge April 2001 rule change making zone defending legal. Here you can relive history in a pure way, and I can save valuable time by avoiding a rehashing:
NBA owners approved a package of four rules changes Thursday, including the elimination of the long-standing ban on zone defenses.
"This is a bold move on the part of the NBA to change the rules and allow something that we've spent many years hiding from -- zone defenses," Phoenix Suns owner Jerry Colangelo said. "This may be one of the most significant changes since the imposition of the 24-second shot clock."
Designed to improve the flow and pace of the game and reduce teams' dependence on isolation plays, the new rules will be tested during summer league play before officially taking effect next season.
The changes are:
# Eliminating all existing illegal defense guidelines.
# Establishing a defensive 3-second rule, limiting the amount of time a defensive player may stand in the lane when he is not closely guarding someone.
# Reducing from 10 seconds to 8 seconds the amount of time a team will have to advance the ball past midcourt.
# Eliminating touch fouls by allowing brief contact initiated by a defensive player if it does not impede the progress of the player with the ball.
The NBA did not release the result of the vote. A two-thirds majority was required for passage, meaning at least 20 of the 29 teams were in favor.
"We had more than 20," Colangelo said.
Several players and coaches are opposed to the changes, believing the NBA is making too big of a move in response to lower scores, declining television ratings and flat attendance figures.
"I don't think it's good at all. Zones will bring the games to a grind," Charlotte forward P.J. Brown said.
But the players and coaches didn't vote; their employers did.
Shaquille O'Neal had a one-word response.
"Stinks," the Los Angeles Lakers star said. "I have a lot to say, but not now.
Lakers coach Phil Jackson thinks the changes will help O'Neal.
"I think it'll be an advantage for Shaq, definitely, defensively," Jackson said. "It's going to keep him around the basket with a lot less movement.
"We're going to have a zone, everyone's going to have one in their arsenal. It'll be good for basketball."
Colangelo chaired the select committee that proposed the changes.
"Our belief is that the game has evolved, and the product we have presently was one that needed attention," Colangelo said "The game has changed in the sense that we've lost a lot of fluidity. We've evolved into an isolation game because of our defensive guidelines, and we weren't satisfied with the way the game looked."
The current illegal defense rules will be scrapped, and teams will be allowed to play any defense they choose.
The one exception is that a defensive player will not be permitted to stay in the lane for more than 3 seconds if he is more than an arm's length away from his man. A violation will result in a technical foul.
"That will prevent and out-and-out zone from being played in the pure sense," Colangelo said. "There's going to be a lot more man-to-man defense than people think."
The 8-second rule is designed to entice teams to pressure the ball in the backcourt, which will theoretically produce more open-court action and encourage teams to push the ball upcourt.
"The only question I have, and this was my suggestion, is to start the 24-second clock when you cross halfcourt," Jackson said. "I think you should have a little time to explore the defense."
The modification of the touch foul rule is designed to put an end to the type of ticky-tack fouls that have become commonplace since the league banned hand-checking two years ago. Next season, defenders will once again be allowed to place their hand on the man they are guarding as long as it does not impede the offensive player's movement.
"I don't think there will be more scoring; I think there will be less," Orlando coach Doc Rivers said.
Colangelo said the league will be willing to make adjustments to the new rules, if necessary, after they have been implemented.
THE LAKERS AND JACKSON VERSUS THE CELTICS AND RIVERS
Since by a wide margin the most likely 2009 Championship is Lakers-Celtics, we have just discovered something very important and very interesting: Phil Jackson was in favor (in 2001) of legalization of zone defense, but Doc Rivers was opposed. Fast forward to 2009 and, sure enough, Jackson's Lakers use zone defending much more than do Rivers' Celtics. The Celtics are fanatical about man to man defending, whereas the Lakers are more flexible between which system of defending they use. Jackson seeks to use the best style for a given game, quarter, even a few minutes, whereas Rivers sticks with man to man most all of the time. This is one reason I'm looking for the Lakers to defeat the Celtics in a 7 game NBA Championship this June.
MORE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT ZONE DEFENDING
Another article, written when the huge rule change went into effect, has more insight:
But it means that the NBA considers making the game more exciting for the fans an important enough priority to change one of its oldest and quirkiest rules.
"I think it's a step in the right direction, and it changes some things in the strategy," says Dean Luplow, vice president and media director at Starcom Worldwide. "It's a nice indication that the NBA is taking a hard look at the game and maybe taking a back-to-the-basics approach."
The rule change also means that the NBA is willing to think outside the box.
The zone defense is associated with lower scoring games and slower play, and allowing teams to use it seems almost counter intuitive for a sport already criticized for being too boring.
Media folks tend to think that the new rule is a tradeoff. The game may become more exciting in the strategic sense, but it'll lose the big plays and one-on-one matchups that defined the NBA during its most recent heyday in the 1990s.
"Most of the criticism that the NBA gets is that it's a superstar game and that there's no strategy involved," says Hadrian Shaw, sports analyst at Paul Kagan Associates. "But the NBA wants to develop superstars."
"If [the NBA is] not happy with the product, then do it, do whatever it takes," says Shaw. "Right now, too many times you see players standing around. To get that out, you give up the scoring part. It all depends on the game you want to watch."
There is a little bit of argument by false hysteria here, or by gross exaggeration, if you prefer. Maybe a small percentage of big plays are lost, and the game is a little bit slower, but we are not talking about big changes. And there are still one on one matchups to a good extent, just not continuous and isolated ones.
The biggest thing the anti zone defense folks are trying to do is to very sneakily plant the false idea in your brain that there isn't any man to man defending within the zone defending construct. Nothing could be farter from the truth. Zone defending is the framework and it is the starting point for defending. In zone defense, man to man defense of some kind is going to be the finishing phase of the overall defensive effort. As such, even with zone defending, man to man defending is still where the pedal hits the metal, so to speak.
And more:
The advantage of the one-on-one game is that it tends to produce high-scoring games with exciting plays, like slam dunks, when the player with the ball breaks free.
The disadvantage is that you really have only two players in play, the man with the ball and his defensive player. The remaining players on both teams stand on the other side of the court, doing nothing.
Well if you are a youngster or a youngster at heart who loves dunks so much that passing is boring, I guess this is true; I guess this would be your argument in favor of banning zone. As for the "disadvantage," I'll pass on that one, even though it was meant for my side of the debate: I don't think players would be just "standing around" even if zone defending was illegal.
And finally:
At the same time, zone defense forces the offense to be more creative. So fans should see more movement and action on the television screen, even if the ball doesn't go up and down the court as much.
"The idea that scoring baskets is the only way fans can enjoy basketball underestimates the intelligence of the fans," says Kahle. "They can enjoy the strategy.
"The other side of the zone type defense is that it forces more outside shooting. And with more outside shooting, there'll be more missed shots, and missed shots can be exciting."
Also, by opening up the options available to coaches, the zone defense should provide for more unpredictability in the game. Fans won't always know what's going to happen when a certain player gets the ball.
"From a fan's point of view, it might drive some interest," says Shaw.
"With the zone, big plays would be more rare. It'll put the emphasis back on shooters, which is a lost art in the NBA."
OK here I cosign on everything; this is the heart of why I vastly prefer the zone being legal, and ready to be used effectively by the smartest coaches and managements.
NOW BACK TO OUR BLOGGER-COACH
Now getting back to the blogger whose post I encountered motivated this, here is the heart of his anti-zone defense arguments:
“Playing a zone allows teams to hide the players that are defensive liabilities on the court. In a zone, such players can continuously get beaten like a San Diego Chargers cornerback without seriously impairing the team’s ability to play defense. In essence, the NBA just took away the requirement that you must be a good athlete to play basketball.
The zone defense rule is to the NBA what the motorized cart is to golf. It allows people who do not have the physical ability to play at a top level the chance to participate in the one part of the game in which they still have talent and fake it for the rest of the time.”
So what we have now, is an NBA that has developed into a blend of tight one on one defensive teams like the Celtics and the Cavaliers who lead the league in defense and teams like the Warriors and the Kings and the Pacers who allow over 107 points per game. Guys like Kevin Garnett, Ron Artest, Bruce Bowen, pride themselves in being called great defenders. Those skill sets get lost in a zone as the focus is forcing players to a spot, running traps, allowing jump shots. The Magic have become a force in the league this year as guys like Jameer Nelson, Hedo Turkolglu and Rashard Lewis have become deadly from outside to counter the zones teams are using to contain Dwight Howard. The league has become a breeding ground for the jump shot, which is a good thing as it was a dying art not too long ago, but has been instrumental in teams ability to break down the zones thrown at them. As a high school coach, I teach my players that the best way to break a zone is to shoot and force them out of it. Teams like the Hornets with Chris Paul, Peja Stojakovic, David West and Tyson Chandler love when teams play zone against them as they have the skill to exploit it. The addition of Mo Williams has improved the Cavaliers over all offense as they can now have another shooter to hurt teams who triple LeBron.
OK, first we can notice some barely covered up hostility in this basketball coach, fanatic, and blogger regarding players who are good or great shooters but who are not very good man to man defenders. Which is what I would call a "relatively small opinion." By that I mean he is trying to condemn zone defending because he has a preference for players who can play great man to man defense over players who can not, regardless of the offensive capabilities of the players, and regardless of whether the player who can't play great man to man defending can nevertheless defend well in the zone context. It's just a preference the coach-blogger has, it's not as if a fundamental foundation of basketball is being violated if players who are great shooters but poor man to man defenders are allowed to play the NBA game and make a lot of money.
In fact, to me he argued himself to losing the argument when he pointed out, indirectly anyway, that good or great shooting but poor or very poor man to man defending players can be part of a decent defense if that defense is a zone defense. To me it's not that zone defending is covering up nasty deficiencies, rather, it's that zone defense is giving managers, coaches, and players another option for defending. As long as that option doesn't involve violence or any other affront to the foundations of basketball, why on earth should it not be allowed?
Even if I was kind of a man to man defending fanatic, I still would be very reluctant to endorse limiting the freedom of managers, coaches, and players to choose a method of defending that is best for them (in each game, quarter, and so forth).
So once again, what is the big deal if great shooters sometimes are poor man to man defenders? If you want basketball to be theoretically more defensive in nature, more like American football (and European football too actually) than yes, you are going to be fiercely defending the importance of man to man defending. But what if you don't want that? What if, like me, you want there to be a sport that is slightly biased in favor of offense rather than defense? If that is your position, then zone defending is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
GEORGE KARL IS NO PHIL JACKSON...
when it comes to many things, including the subject of zone defending. The Nuggets' 2008-09 defense, which actually is almost exactly the same overall efficiency as the 2007-08 defense, has been built around an extremely energetic, hard charging style, with of course man to man rather than zone defending being the method used most of the time.
In a recent Denver Post article, Karl was asked by a reporter about his views on zone defending. Karl responded in such a way that it is clear that he doesn't think it's a good idea, and/or a feasible idea, for the Nuggets to be able to shift between the two systems as necessary. He wants the Nuggets to continue to be focused laser like on man to man defending. He implies that zone defending is for wimps, and/or that zone defending is for basketball dummies.
"I'm not a zone guy," Karl, a man-to-man master, admitted. "I think you should have one out there, but I don't know how it works or why it works — but I know it does work. At least in man-to-man, when something goes wrong, we know who made the mistake and I can yell at someone or direct someone. In zone, I don't have any idea.
"I don't know exactly where we'll go with it, but our basketball I.Q. is stronger than it was last year — and our size is bigger — so maybe we can tinker with matching man-to-man and zone in the same possession
And:
Observing matchups and situations that give us trouble, we might think about the zone, but we don't want to take away (from) the fundamental development that we're going through right now with the man-to-man.
"There's a confidence that comes with playing defense."
So there you have it, according to the Denver media, Karl is a "man to man master" laugh out loud.
Meanwhile, Phil Jackson, who is most definitely no dummy, will go back and forth between man to man and zone, in accordance with what is best for his team in any particular game and quarter. Jackson considers, among god only knows how many other things, the matchups, the rotations and, in the playoffs, the number of games won by each team so far, to decide which defending method to use.
True, Doc Rivers, like Karl, vastly prefers man to man, but Rivers has several players who are among the best man to man defenders in the League as we speak. So of the three, Jackson, Rivers, and Karl, who is the real dummy here, laugh out loud? It's Karl, because Karl doesn't really have enough playoff caliber man to man defending capability on his squad, yet he foolishly thinks that the costs of establishing zone defending as an option for the Nuggets in the playoffs outweigh the benefits. He is heading into the playoffs, come hell or high water, with man to man defending as the only real option. Quality zone defending will not be something that was established through regular season repetition.
By the way, is not known whether Karl knows that last year's defense, which was a lot less energetic, a lot less team oriented, and more individualistic, and involved more zoning and less man to man, but which on the other hand featured more high quality, experienced defenders, such as Marcus Camby and Eduardo Najera, was actually equivalent to this year's. Either he knows but is playing along with the hype that the defense is better this year, that has come about due to the big changes in the way the Nuggets defend, or else he actually doesn't know that there really isn't any substantial improvement in net results when all is said and done. Either way, it isn't a very good thing: Karl is either helping to advance a false belief among the fan base, or he is too dumb to be aware of the reality of the comparison.
AND NOW BACK TO OUR BLOGGER-COACH
Here is how he summed up his position at the end of his long post:
So, as I ponder the few benefits of the zone, I find them sadly outweighed by the overall weight they have brought to the game. I have thought for a long time now that the zone should be removed again and players like Jason Kapono would have to either figure out how to run quicker or retire. Imagine a league where you had to have defensive skills to make the roster. No longer would a pretty jumper from the corner be your ticket to the show. That, if no other reason, is why today’s players, though much better athlete’s than the Celtics and Lakers and Pistons and Spurs and Jazz and Knicks and Suns and 76ers of the 80’s and earlier, would have a very difficult time playing in that era as they just don’t have the skills on the defensive end of the floor. The zone has taken away the players responsibility to defend the man in front of them up and down the floor and has produced many one dimensional “stars” that the league is willing to promote as great players. I am not that easily sold marketing hype. There are many good players in the league today, but many of those players rely on zone defense to cover their butts most nights. Today’s top teams rely on tough man defense as Glen Davis found out. Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kendrick Perkins all can defend their position well and Rajon Rondo is figuring that out as well. Teams like the Suns with Steve Nash, Amar’e Stoudemire rely on zone defense and find it difficult to get past a fundamentally sound team like the Spurs who have solid on ball defenders like Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. The Cavaliers have committed themselves to defense and have the lowest points per game allowed in the league thus far.
Will someone get this guy a kleenex already, he's just about crying because of the "heavy weight" the game is bearing as a result of the zone defense. And seriously, he seems to be paranoid about players such as Jason Kapono. What did Kapono ever do to him, other than have a style and/or a skill set he doesn't like? The blogger-coach will have to have both the zone defense and the 3-point shot removed from the game in order to be happy, because there would still be relatively poor man to man defenders on rosters even if zone were illegal, on account of the necessity of having good 3-point shooters. But if the 3-point shot were removed from the game, I would need a kleenex, let me tell you.
How about the amusing contradictory irony where on the one hand he says today's players are better athletes, but on the other hand, they would not have been able to survive as players in the 1980's, when the zone was quite illegal? I mean, are they better athletes or not? Do you seriously believe that today's players are mostly such lousy man to man defenders that they would not be playing if it were still the 1980's? Why can't a lot of players be good at shooting and good at man to man defending at the same time?
And more basically, the nickname for basketball is hoops, so why do you seem to be kind of hostile toward players who can make a lot of hoops?
And by the way, the League does not "promote" players, the managers, coaches, and fans do. And many fans actually prefer players who can make a lot of hoops while they are bad man to man defenders, over the reverse type players.
Sorry, I'm not buying even a small part of this argument.
A RANDOM QUOTE FOR GRINS
Before we bring this long report to a close, I can't resist, for grins, throwing this quote, that shall remain anonymous, I stumbled on:
The zone defense the NBA allows removes a players ability to challenge and expose a players lack of skill defensively as it can hide them quite well.
Laugh out loud, you didn't eat your brain food! On my worst days I don't fail like this. Great offensive players are still free to challenge players who are not good defenders, even when they are "hiding" in the zone context. You can run, but you can't hid, you lousy defender you, laugh out loud.
MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE
This was my original response to the Blogger-Coach's post:
I love your article, it's outstanding, thank you.
Especially since it gives a new insight into a shortcoming of George Karl.
I'll make some quick comments:
Count me as a major proponent of zone defense. Making the zone defense illegal goes against the concept of basketball being a team sport.
As for reduction of scoring, it's a minor reduction overall. As for key offensive players being totally neutralized by zone defending, that's an exaggeration. The really great offensive players will and have developed ways to succeed against the zone, and the truly good teams and coaches will develop workarounds against the zone for their team offense.
Also, who wants even more whistles and stoppages than there already are?
Do you think it's a coincidence that George Karl doesn't like the zone much? No, he doesn't like it because he has no clue how to offensively succeed against it other than the simplistic and easy to damp in the playoffs fast break. For example, this is connected with his inability to understand the importance of having good 3-point shooting as a stand alone goal.
To me the advantages of allowing zone outweigh the disadvantages by a very good margin.
His responses were:
I agree that it does play well into the team concept of this great game, but i think at the level of skill and athleticism this league has, it is used to slow the game down as a rule. As we have seen the players adjust to the zone, the shooters are better at hitting shots, but i feel the overall skill of the player has suffered as guys like Jason Kapono can earn 5 million a year to shoot the ball. when he doesn't hit 3's he is useless to the Raptors or any team whether they play zone or man to man. he has a very specific skill set and earns a lot of money to shoot. Many players have developed one dimensional games and play in this league with little concern or desire to pay the price to play man defense. And the really good teams this season are rising up the charts with inside and outside games and solid defense, both man and zone, but use the zone usually with the second units from what i have seen...thanks for the post! i enjoy reading what people think and i still think that the zone at the nba level has a place, but the best overall teams use it sparingly for pace changes or for a change of tempo effect on defense. i can't see teams that rely on the zone, like the Raptors, succeeding at the NBA level because the shooters are just too good.
And I said:
Well if you live by the sword you die by the sword. The Raptors chose to be a zoning on defense, and shooting against the zone team, but this year they have "not made their shots," so they are having a miserable season and the coach is fired. So their strategy failed this year. The Raptors have to figure out whether they had the wrong strategy, or whether they didn't implement correctly.
But if the zone defense was not allowed, the freedom of teams to choose substantially different defenses and offenses goes away, so the premium on good coaching and managing the franchise is sharply reduced. The range of choice for coaches and managements goes way down. I think coaches and managers should play a role and be responsible if they don't choose and implement correctly.
If a franchise thinks man to man defending works better, they can go that route. And obviously, a team using man to man defending can on offense use a floor spacing, passing offense that is all about defeating the zone, but is not all that relevant against man to man. This is the general formula the Spurs have used. But the Suns with their zone defense had them beat in 2007; they lost only because of intervention from David Stern in the form of having to play a game without Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw.
Aside from this increasing the importance of the coaches and managers choosing the right strategy and succeeding with it, the other thing I like the most about allowing zone defense is that it increases the importance of playmaking and passing. I really appreciate these aspects, more than the Nuggets' 2009 strategy of endless drives to the hoop.
It's a team game, come on, pass the ball around a little. Have a few plays for passing to your best scorers in their favorite spots. I always love it when I hear Bill Walton practically shout "NICE PASS" as the zone is defeated by a great pass to a player who has slipped through the zone and is ready to make the dunk.
WHY THIS SUBJECT WAS IMPORTANT SPECIFICALLY TO THE QUEST FOR THE RING
Were it not for zone defending, there would be less rationale for a site like Quest for the Ring, because one of the main premises here is that there is more to winning the Ring than meets the eye; more than the skills and efforts of the players you see on the court. By allowing any half way reasonable, non-violent form of defending, the League is mandating that every franchise management and every franchise coaching staff must choose how they are going to defend. On the flipside, the League is mandating that the management and coaching staff of every franchise must also choose well how they are going to succeed offensively, in two different situations, against the man to man and the zone. In other words, the managements and the coaches have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Franchises who don't have smart enough managers and coaches to pick the right defending for parts of games, games in general, and seasons in general, are going to be at a disadvantage to franchises who do. In case you have not noticed the obvious, I love strategies and tactics. The last thing I want is restrictive rules that make it easy for dumb managers and coaches to succeed despite their being dumb.
Also, if zone defending is legal, there is maximum freedom, which is the norm in sports, and is virtually always going to be better than less freedom.
You Can Post Your Response to Anything on Quest Here
