Zone!

[rocky_warrior]

It was mentioned in another thread - but isn't it amazing how well this team can bust a zone.  I used to fear when a team went zone against us.  Now, I just have to wait a couple minutes for them opponent to abandon it

[mu_hilltopper]

I know .. last couple years, we'd cringe when the opponent would zone us .. how many times did we hear "any coach who doesn't just go zone against us should be fired"..

Then tonight?  I was sitting there HOPING they'd go back to zone.  -- of course, it didn't matter much.

[4everwarriors]

That's because the offensive genius has taken his circus elsewhere. We're not dribbling east-west 30 seconds into the shotclock anymore.

[Daniel]

Buzz has been excellent so far.  His passion, his work ethic, his determination to win runs all through this team, and the tema's desire runs through Buzz.

It is a joy to see.
We'll see tougher zones than what ND put up, but we would NEVER hear that MU cna handle the zone, and we would never feel great when we saw a zone defense against us.  We have made major inroads.

Whew.  GO MARQUETTE!!

[Marquette84]

There aren't too many ways to beat a zone when your guards are only shooting 31% from outside.

MU is effective at beating zones this year because McNeal is shooting 46% (up from 30%) and Matthews is shooting 38% (up from 31%). 

[MURFC]

There aren't too many ways to beat a zone when your guards are only shooting 31% from outside.

MU is effective at beating zones this year because McNeal is shooting 46% (up from 30%) and Matthews is shooting 38% (up from 31%). 

That would seem to make sense, but how do you explain the fact that we shot 22% from three-point territory against ND, and effectively broke down their zone D?

[1990Warrior]

Three point shooting is one way to get teams out of a zone - and seemed to be the only way Crean knew.  The other way is to have a good passer stand at the free throw line.  Get him the ball and then allow him to attack the zone.  This is what we did several times with Lazar last night.  On the play where I alluded to the Bilas comment, Burke (I think) set a nice pick so that Lazar could easily receive an entry pass and shoot.  It was a really nice play and refreshing to see.

[MR.HAYWARD]

There aren't too many ways to beat a zone when your guards are only shooting 31% from outside.

MU is effective at beating zones this year because McNeal is shooting 46% (up from 30%) and Matthews is shooting 38% (up from 31%). 

sooory 84 but you are dead wrong.  you have the cart in front of the horse a properly run zone offense gets good shots resulting in a good %.  a badly run one results in poor shots resulting in a bad %.  We are taking good shots in zones this year for the first time in memeory.  BTW this is not the first time we have shredded a zone.  we are seeing less and less zone as we have simply destryoed zones.  With ND it was there only chance their man defense was like playing aginst 3rd graders.

[Marquette84]

That would seem to make sense, but how do you explain the fact that we shot 22% from three-point territory against ND, and effectively broke down their zone D?

The flip answer is that most of them were due to ill-advised shots by James.

But realistically, we entered the game with a 19 game track record of good outside shooting.  That affects how ND plans their defense.

Think about the defensive game plan that Brey had to develop before the game.  Knowing that McNeal is shooting treys at a clip that rival Steve Novak's senior year--and Matthews not far behind--he decides that he's going to extend the zone and take his chances that MU can't break down the seams.  That left the middle wide open for Hayward to step in for those jumpers from the FT line, which MU took advantage of.   

Teams cannot effectively guard both the inside AND the outside while playing a zone.  They either extend the zone to cover outside shooters well.  Or they pack it in tight and prevent the ball from getting into the gaps between zones.

[CTWarrior]

Three point shooting is one way to get teams out of a zone - and seemed to be the only way Crean knew.  The other way is to have a good passer stand at the free throw line.  Get him the ball and then allow him to attack the zone.  This is what we did several times with Lazar last night.  On the play where I alluded to the Bilas comment, Burke (I think) set a nice pick so that Lazar could easily receive an entry pass and shoot.  It was a really nice play and refreshing to see.

Crean used Hayward at the high post against zones last year too.  Last night he flashed to the post and got the ball as soon as he got there rather than camping him out there, which if I remember correctly was what we did last year.

One reason we're shooting better on the 3 this year is because we are not taking desperation 3s at the end of the shot clock so much.  We are taking the first good shot this year rather than running clock looking for a better one.  With this group of players it appears to be the better offensive philosophy.

[Marquette84]

sooory 84 but you are dead wrong.  you have the cart in front of the horse a properly run zone offense gets good shots resulting in a good %.  a badly run one results in poor shots resulting in a bad %.  We are taking good shots in zones this year for the first time in memeory.  BTW this is not the first time we have shredded a zone.  we are seeing less and less zone as we have simply destryoed zones.  With ND it was there only chance their man defense was like playing aginst 3rd graders.

This is another instance when your hatred of Crean affects rational thought.  

Since this is the first time in memory that you can recall effectively beating a zone, let me refresh it for you:  we dispatched zones with just as much ease when Steve Novak was on the team.  
 
Fact of the matter is that you need strong outside shooting to bust zones.  If you can't make your outside shot, the defensive team is going to sit back in a tight zone and prevent the ball from getting inside.  

[DaCoach]

There aren't too many ways to beat a zone when your guards are only shooting 31% from outside.

MU is effective at beating zones this year because McNeal is shooting 46% (up from 30%) and Matthews is shooting 38% (up from 31%). 

Au contraire. The zone is much easier to beat than a good man-to-man. And while a quality 3 point shooting team will often win, shooting goes in streaks, good and bad. In the past we were typically poor against zones. Crean had our perimeter people dribbling east-west without much penetration. Actually, zones often try to protect slow footed defenders who are easy to beat off the dribble. However the key is getting the zone off balance by quick ball movement, preferably with ball reversal. That usually ends up with an out of position defender facing a offensive man capable of penetrating off a dribble. Now you have everyone in the zone trying to plug the leak in the zone. It creates a kick out and also a slide pass to a big man inside the zone whose defender has shifted out of position to stop the dribbler.

Another method is to do opposite the zone. When they have 2 defenders up top, we go with 1 guard. When they use 1, we use 2 guards. It's all about matchups and creating mismatches. A zone defense is usually a passive defense that is intended to cover slower defenders. One significant exception is Boeheim's Syracuse zone. They actually use it to trap the corners and at the top.

Bottom line is that a zone has holes in it. Last night we did a very nice job at times taking advantage of the inside holes. And the Burke downscreen on Harangody freeing up Hayward was a thing of beauty. What a difference a year makes. This team is prepared to beat the zone and doesn't have to rely on the three to get it done.

[rocky_warrior]

So 84 - you really don't think we have a better game plan against zones this year?  You really think it's all just better shooting by the players?

[IAmMarquette]

Combination of better shooting (stats don't lie) and better means of attacking a zone. Lazar gets so many more touches at the FT line and deeper this season than anyone did last season (or in any of the previous 9) and hits that 12-15 footer when he gets the opportunity.

[Pakuni]

Combination of better shooting (stats don't lie) and better means of attacking a zone. Lazar gets so many more touches at the FT line and deeper this season than anyone did last season (or in any of the previous 9) and hits that 12-15 footer when he gets the opportunity.

The perimeter shooting has been better, but not by much. Last year the team shot 35.3 percent from beyond the arc. This year they're up to 36.1. That's a pretty negligible increase, essentially one more out of 100+ shots is going in.
The question really is whether the better shooting is just a result of good fortune or sudden player development/improvement, or is it the result of a better means of attacking a zone, i.e. a better plan leads to better shots leads to a better shooting percentage.
I suspect both factors may be involved, but that the better plan is the predominant one. Just by watching the games it's obvious they're getting better looks against a zone than they had in years.

[StillAWarrior]

The perimeter shooting has been better, but not by much. Last year the team shot 35.3 percent from beyond the arc. This year they're up to 36.1. That's a pretty negligible increase, essentially one more out of 100+ shots is going in.
The question really is whether the better shooting is just a result of good fortune or sudden player development/improvement, or is it the result of a better means of attacking a zone, i.e. a better plan leads to better shots leads to a better shooting percentage.
I suspect both factors may be involved, but that the better plan is the predominant one. Just by watching the games it's obvious they're getting better looks against a zone than they had in years.

Also, since we're talking about only one more shot out of 100, I think it's fair to wonder if the improved shooting has come against the zone.  McNeal seems to be hitting a lot more threes this year, and not all of them have come against zones.

[Marquette84]

So 84 - you really don't think we have a better game plan against zones this year?  You really think it's all just better shooting by the players?

I don't know if its all just better shooting.  But I don't think that we'd be as effective against the zone if McNeal were still only shooting 30%.   

Crean's game plan for beating zones was just fine when we had Steve Novak and Travis Diener on the team.  Thus, I'm inclined to think that it's the players' colletive talents and not any particular game plan that defines success against the zone.

The perimeter shooting has been better, but not by much. Last year the team shot 35.3 percent from beyond the arc. This year they're up to 36.1.

The problem with this comparison is that it suppresses the fact that a significantly higher portion of the better 3 point shooters came from the bench last year.  Aacker and Fitz were the best outside shooters--but we had other problems when they entered the game.

Starters shot 142-418 or 33.8%, while the bench shot 104-297 or 37.2%.

This led to the defensive switching we saw from opposing coaches.  They would throw a zone at MU against our starters--Crean would put Fitz in, and the minute he stepped on the court, the other team switched back to man defense.    McNeal and James couldn't hit from outside.  Fitz couldn't penetrate, and didn't defend as well.  A real dilemma.


This year the starters are shooting almost 38%.  Buzz doesn't have to go to the bench to get a zone-busting shooter into the lineup.  His best players are the best against both zone and man defenses.

Au contraire. The zone is much easier to beat than a good man-to-man. And while a quality 3 point shooting team will often win, shooting goes in streaks, good and bad. In the past we were typically poor against zones. Crean had our perimeter people dribbling east-west without much penetration.

Crean didn't have problems against the zone when he had Novak. 

Look, if you can find reference to a slashing guard who penetrates well being called a "zone buster" because of it, I'm willing to suspend disbelief. 

As far as I've seen, the only guys every called "zone buster" have a shooting touch like McAlarnery or Novak.

[RawdogDX]

I know that there were plenty of times we would run around and throw up something at the last second.  More than I'd like but not as much as some seem to remember.  I also remember plenty of games where we'd brick wide open three after wide open three, with plenty of bricked 18 footers mixed in. 

McNeal is deadly, no way we'd have seen half those zones if he had been shooting this way the last three years.  He's playing himself from possibly undrafted to 1st round pick and the only thing he's doing better is shoot the three.

Mathews has obviously improved as well.   That is not to say that buzz shouldn't get any credit but to act like your best player improving his 3 pt rate by over 50% over one summer isn't the main reason you are better against a zone is absurd.

[rocky_warrior]

Crean's game plan for beating zones was just fine when we had Steve Novak and Travis Diener on the team. 

Cool, so you're willing to concede that Crean's game plan was not fine after Steve and Travis were gone. Thanks...all I needed to know 


Fine Print: I think you're completely delusional for even defending Crean here, but so be it.  I wasn't even attacking Crean, just giving Buzz some props for getting the team to perform well against a zone.  I happen to believe if Crean was still here with this exact team our zone offense would be worse -- you seem to disagree.  That's cool, because it's a circumstantial argument anyway and there are no facts that can prove one of us right or wrong.

Also, in case you fail to take humor in any of this post, you need to incorporate some sort of humor training into your daily routine.  Peace Bro.

[Ready2Fly]

I don't know if its all just better shooting.  But I don't think that we'd be as effective against the zone if McNeal were still only shooting 30%.   

Crean's game plan for beating zones was just fine when we had Steve Novak and Travis Diener on the team.  Thus, I'm inclined to think that it's the players' colletive talents and not any particular game plan that defines success against the zone.

Ummmmm.... you just shot your own argument in the foot there.  Crean's game plan works when you have Novak, Diener, and McAlarney type shooters.  When you don't, like this team, you have to flash players into the middle and work inside out, not outside in.  Crean's game plan was not suited for his roster the last two years, therefore it was not a good game plan.

[ErickJD08]

I must say... I love the fast post set up by Matthews before the zone is properly set to get a quick two.  I saw that a bunch a times throughout the season.

[Big Papi]

Ummmmm.... you just shot your own argument in the foot there.  Crean's game plan works when you have Novak, Diener, and McAlarney type shooters.  When you don't, like this team, you have to flash players into the middle and work inside out, not outside in.  Crean's game plan was not suited for his roster the last two years, therefore it was not a good game plan.

I am not picking a side here as both sides have compelling arguements but it definitely helped last night that ND didn't really have an athletic big in the middle to jump out and defend that middle area.  It would be interesting to see how we would have faired against a Thabeet or Earl Clark manning the middle of that zone where their height and athleticism would negate any shot attempt from that area. 

[Pakuni]

I don't know if its all just better shooting.  But I don't think that we'd be as effective against the zone if McNeal were still only shooting 30%.   

Crean's game plan for beating zones was just fine when we had Steve Novak and Travis Diener on the team.  Thus, I'm inclined to think that it's the players' colletive talents and not any particular game plan that defines success against the zone.


The problem with this comparison is that it suppresses the fact that a significantly higher portion of the better 3 point shooters came from the bench last year.  Aacker and Fitz were the best outside shooters--but we had other problems when they entered the game.

Starters shot 142-418 or 33.8%, while the bench shot 104-297 or 37.2%.

Except, in reality, the "starters" aren't shooting any better. Jerel McNeal is shooting much better and Wes Matthews shooting is up a bit, though at 38 percent nobody's going to confuse him for a zone buster.
Otherwise, DJ's three-point shooting is down a bit (30 percent vs 31 percent last year), and Hayward's (38 percent to 45 percent) is down more than a bit. Burke's is, once again, non-existent.
Now, if you want to claim that MU's improvement against the zone is a result of McNeal's improved shooting, that's fine. I'm sure it's playing a part. But that completely ignores what we've seen from Hayward and Matthews on short jumpers in or around the key. Those are the kinds of open, easy shots the team was unable to create in the recent past and those - as much or more than McNeal's shooting - are what's helping MU perform significantly better against zones this season.

And if Crean's game plan against the zone was reliant on the roster including one of the better perimter shooters in the country, well then that's no plan at all.

[bma725]

This isn't exactly a new zone offense.  I remember Matthews and Hayward doing the exact same thing last year nearly every time we got zoned, one or the other was going to the hole in the zone near the free throw line. 

The difference is that they are more effective than last year.  In the past, they would either miss the shot or not get the ball.  Now they are making the shot when given the chance.

[mviale]

The best zone test will come against syracuse. This came always made crean need something more than  pepsi.