[Paint Touches] Should Marquette play more zone?

[PaintTouches]

If you're wondering just how pretty those zone-D numbers were vs. Creighton, we got you covered. 

https://painttouches.com/2018/02/19/should-marquette-play-more-zone/

And if you're wondering why Wojo has been so hesitant to use the zone, got some of that in there too.

[Goose]

Because they would be no better at zone than M2M. I will give Wojo the benefit of the doubt of knowing which defense for the season would yield the most success.

[Its DJOver]

Good stuff.  I was really surprised that CU never had Hegner flash to the free throw line instead of Harrell.  As you point out, a big that can shoot is effective against a 2-3, and that is exactly what Hegner is.  If someone is hitting that shot, it forces Matt to come out farther, creating space in behind him that slashers could exploit, ie. the little baseline cut that Jae loved doing.

[Nukem2]

Good stuff.  I was really surprised that CU never had Hegner flash to the free throw line instead of Harrell.  As you point out, a big that can shoot is effective against a 2-3, and that is exactly what Hegner is.  If someone is hitting that shot, it forces Matt to come out farther, creating space in behind him that slashers could exploit, ie. the little baseline cut that Jae loved doing.

Nah.  Hegner is mostly a 3 point shooter.  Over half of his attempts are treys and the rest mostly outback's or layups.  Rarely a mid-range shooter.

[Windyplayer]

Nah.  Hegner is mostly a 3 point shooter.  Over half of his attempts are treys and the rest mostly outback's or layups.  Rarely a mid-range shooter.

Maybe, but surely Hegner would have been better than Harrell. The lattter looked like a dear in the headlights when he got the ball in the middle of the zone...and I begged him to shoot each and every time and then finally/thankfully he did.

[Its DJOver]

Nah.  Hegner is mostly a 3 point shooter.  Over half of his attempts are treys and the rest mostly outback's or layups.  Rarely a mid-range shooter.

Fair point, I was just surprised by CU lack of trying anything other than swinging the ball around the perimeter once we adjusted to stop the alley-oops.  Should be on coach McD to at least try something different.  I imagine that CU fans were feeling the same way as we felt when the amigos used to run the weave for 25 seconds, then throw up a three.  Also for Foster being one of their leaders, he vanished down the stretch, it was Thomas or nothing for them. 

[GGGG]

If you're wondering just how pretty those zone-D numbers were vs. Creighton, we got you covered. 

https://painttouches.com/2018/02/19/should-marquette-play-more-zone/

And if you're wondering why Wojo has been so hesitant to use the zone, got some of that in there too.

Really good stuff.

And why I keep saying that MU is going to be better defensively next year.  Will an assumed drop off in offense be overcome by this "better" defense?  I am not sure.

[jsglow]

Assuming M2N is out Wednesday or even limited to 'emergency only' status, I'm expecting a bunch of 2-3.

Two reasons:  1) Rowsey will need to play and be sufficiently fresh for 37+ minutes.  That takes a couple things.  First, he has to be able to avoid fouls.  Second, he needs to be able to 'rest' some on D.
2) The Johnnies like to play fast and drive.  We need to frustrate them out of that rhythm hoping that Ponds doesn't go off too much from deep.  Here's what we do know, they'll practice for it this week the way Creighton didn't.  Unfortunately the surprise element is gone but such is life.

Of course back in the day Al would have certainly employed the Box and One.  But I don't think that can work in the era of the 3 point line.  And I can't believe Wojo has taught it for even 10 minutes this year so installing it now would be crazy.  But might there be some 1-3-1 and could that possible be effective at all?  I'll hang up and listen.

[DCHoopster]

MU won the second half because Creighton did not hit the open 3's they got.  A zone is fine in short periods but after awhile good teams will eat it up.  Do you see
teams playing MU in a zone?  Not often as they have 2 shooters who can knock down open shots.  Against St. Johns, they will have to play zone as no one is capable
of guarding Ponds at all.  They expect to win against the Johnnies, they will have to figure how to stop him.  Al would have played a box and one.  Not sure Wojo knows anything about that D.  Again, sometimes you have to change things up, even a few times down the court, it would work as I am not sure the Johnnies would
understand how to beat it.

[Its DJOver]

MU won the second half because Creighton did not hit the open 3's they got.  A zone is fine in short periods but after awhile good teams will eat it up.  Do you see
teams playing MU in a zone?  Not often as they have 2 shooters who can knock down open shots.  Against St. Johns, they will have to play zone as no one is capable
of guarding Ponds at all.  They expect to win against the Johnnies, they will have to figure how to stop him.  Al would have played a box and one.  Not sure Wojo knows anything about that D.  Again, sometimes you have to change things up, even a few times down the court, it would work as I am not sure the Johnnies would
understand how to beat it.

We looked pretty poor against PC zone earlier this year.  Also Ponds career 3 point% is in the 20s.  The reason that he hit so many in NY was because Sam got switched on him and sagged, not wanting to give up lay-ups.  If Ponds is just chucking three's, I like our chances.

[MuMark]

We looked pretty poor against PC zone earlier this year.  Also Ponds career 3 point% is in the 20s.  The reason that he hit so many in NY was because Sam got switched on him and sagged, not wanting to give up lay-ups.  If Ponds is just chucking three's, I like our chances.

Ponds is 14-28 from 3 during the 4 game winning streak they are currently on.

He is on a hot streak now......how long that lasts is anybody's guess.

[AZMarqfan]

One added benefit to the zone is that it lets us have Heldt and John under the hoop for rebounds rather than chasing ball-handlers up top with Rowsey and Howard down low. 

[tower912]

If zone was a cure all for bad defense, everyone would do it all the time.

[denverMU]

If zone was a cure all for bad defense, everyone would do it all the time.

So, because every team doesn't play zone, this years MU team, shouldn't play zone. Right?!

[tower912]

I think a team should play multiple defenses.  The zone worked against Creighton.  TAMU documented how it DIDN'T work last year when  the team made it the base defense.   Or, to put it another way, when Buzz surprised Boeheim by playing Gardner and Otule together, Marquette won that game.   It did not work in the rematch and did not work as a base offense or defense the next year.

I'm glad it worked against Creighton.  I am guessing it will be used extensively against SJU.   It will not surprise me if it is less effective against the Johnnies.

[brewcity77]

I think a team should play multiple defenses.  The zone worked against Creighton.  TAMU documented how it DIDN'T work last year why the team made it the base defense.   Or, to pit it another way, when Buzz surprised Boeheim by playing Gardner and Otule together, Marquette won that game.   It did not work in the rematch and did not work as a base offense or defense the next year.

I think this is absolutely spot on. It amazes me how it seems teams need to be one or the other. I'd like to see us use M2M, zone, press, and a little box-and-one against St. John's because it forces their players to keep thinking. Unless you are truly lights out at any one defense, I like the idea of mixing it up. As it seems that zone is pretty easy to implement on the fly (look at 2014-15 and the CU game) why not have it available on a nightly basis?

[Its DJOver]

I think this is absolutely spot on. It amazes me how it seems teams need to be one or the other. I'd like to see us use M2M, zone, press, and a little box-and-one against St. John's because it forces their players to keep thinking. Unless you are truly lights out at any one defense, I like the idea of mixing it up. As it seems that zone is pretty easy to implement on the fly (look at 2014-15 and the CU game) why not have it available on a nightly basis?

Agree that we should have multiple looks to throw at teams, even if just for a few possessions, and most players are familiar enough with a 2-3, or even a 1-3-1, but I can't imagine that many have any experience in a box-and-one.  I can just see Harry or Theo having absolutely no idea what their assignments are in a box-and-one or a triangle-and-two.  If this is something that we work on in the offseason, I can see it work for a couple possessions per game, but pulling it out of nowhere right now would be a mistake IMO, too many blown assignments.

[Loose Cannon]

I think this is absolutely spot on. It amazes me how it seems teams need to be one or the other. I'd like to see us use M2M, zone, press, and a little box-and-one against St. John's because it forces their players to keep thinking. Unless you are truly lights out at any one defense, I like the idea of mixing it up. As it seems that zone is pretty easy to implement on the fly (look at 2014-15 and the CU game) why not have it available on a nightly basis?

I think that Most Scoopers would agree with you and Tower with this defense.  (Sorry Boeheim)

[Daniel]

I'm guessing against St John's we come out 8n man and stick to it as long as we can, measuring ppp and fouls on us.   Then switch to zone for some possessions and see how we do.   It will be an experimental defense game - havent hey all been tho?   See what works, confuse the opponents as much as possible without confusing our guys.

[bilsu]

I am not sure the zone was good or Creighton was just bad at attacking it. Creighton is known for shooting threes, so they may not have faced many zones this year.

[PaintTouches]

I am not sure the zone was good or Creighton was just bad at attacking it. Creighton is known for shooting threes, so they may not have faced many zones this year.

I addressed it in the piece a bit, Creighton is in the top 9% of offenses against the zone, in terms of PPP, in 293 possessions. They are ranked 33rd overall, but have the 4th most possessions against zone of any team in the top 35. 

The zone MU employed wasn't anything special. The FT line was open all day, and they had 3 or 4 open shots from deep with no one within 5 feet they simply bricked. But that's the gamble with the zone, can you beat me with jumpers. On some nights/some halfs, 3 of those 4 open 3s are makes, and the zone is worthless.

But I think the key difference is it doesn't put opponents at the line (and keeps Hauser/Rowsey/Anim out of foul trouble). The 15 FTAs was the fewest MU gave up since the DePaul game by a significant margin. And only 2 attempts came in the second half. Putting opponents at the line isn't just bad from a defensive PPP perspective, and it is bad, it also allows the defense to set up and catch their breath. (Though without Howard I don't think the offense is very difficult to defend.)   

I just think of all the bad options, playing 2-3 zone (with only one of Howard or Rowsey) 70% of the time or so is the best. We know MU gets beat on P&R, we know MU gets beat from the stripe. Let's see if STJ, DPU and GU can beat them with jumpers.

[Stretchdeltsig]

One added benefit to the zone is that it lets us have Heldt and John under the hoop for rebounds rather than chasing ball-handlers up top with Rowsey and Howard down low.

Agree 100%.  We defend the rim much more effectively in a zone defense.  We are picked apart literally in a man to man.