Does the zone defense help us or hurt us? Yao? [Archive]

acrophobia98

11-11-2003, 10:42 AM

The zone is a good rule; and you can witness that in international basketball, which is very exciting. The problem for NBA is take the middle of the road. Unlike international rule, the NBA adopts the zone but keep their three-point distance.

On the contrary, the international rule for three-point is much shorter. That allows the team with dominant centre to burn the zone defence with three-point inside-out game. And that can pile up the score fast.

In current NBA rule, you almost have nothing to do with the zone if the ref does not call foul like the first half of the Magic game. They double or treble team your centre with two-hand push even before he touches the ball. Your centre has no way to establish his position as the paint is full of studs.

I guess the Magic learnt that pain when TMAC has been doubled teamed by the zone defence all the time while all the other teamates are role players. Good thing for Rocket is, we have more than role players who can burn the zone defence.

:D :D :D

JuanValdez

11-11-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by DaDakota
The problem was the Iso offense...they should have made that illegal, and left it at man to man defense.

How the heck do you do that? The old illegal defense rules were getting too artificial and cumbersome. Allowing zones is just a way to simplify the rules. Despite what McGrady says, it was not done to increase scoring -- just make the game more interesting and less encumbered with silly technicals. I think it works great. The refs don't have to examine strategy, only technique. There's more passing and more players involved. Tactics have increased in complexity, both in defense and offense. Great move.

pasox2

11-11-2003, 11:51 AM

If they want to play international basketball, just go all the way to international rules. Re-stripe the lane. No goaltending calls. Closer threes. You'll get some more action.

If they want people to really watch and get excited, give us back man to man and watch the stars do superhuman things.

studogg

11-11-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by JuanValdez
How the heck do you do that? The old illegal defense rules were getting too artificial and cumbersome. Allowing zones is just a way to simplify the rules. Despite what McGrady says, it was not done to increase scoring -- just make the game more interesting and less encumbered with silly technicals. I think it works great. The refs don't have to examine strategy, only technique. There's more passing and more players involved. Tactics have increased in complexity, both in defense and offense. Great move.

Actually, it was done to increase scoring. Interest in the league was dwindling and scores were getting lower and lower. It was thought that allowing zone defenses would increase the passing and speed of the game and therefore put more points on the board. The iso plays that were being run by many teams, not just the rox, were thought to take too much time off the clock and result in a lower scoring less enjoyable game. During the sharpshooting seventies and eighties, this ploy may have gotten the scores even higher, but nowaday's there just aren't enough shooters to make this theory hold water.
Initially, during it's inaugural season, the zone defense rule was thought a bust because the scores were still so low. It was looking like it would be a one and done deal, and then teams like Sac and Dallas started to take advantage and have been the primary reason that it is still around.

IMO, McGrady has enough clout that the nba will take a serious look at changing the rule back at the end of the year. They are, unfortunately, in the business of marketing players. They want the Carters, McGrady's and Francis' taking it to the whole and making the highlight play. That's what sells.

rhadamanthus

11-11-2003, 11:57 AM

I thought that Larry Beil quite adequately defended the continued use of the zone in this column:

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=lb-badideas&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The relevant bit: "Which leads me to the next bad idea. We're hearing more and more NBA stars grumbling about zone defenses. The zone is killing scoring very much like reality TV is killing brain cells. Says the zone-busted Tracy McGrady: "Basically we're settling for more jumpers than ever. It's just tough to score that way."

Note to McGrady: Maybe you guys need to learn how to shoot. That's why the United States now struggles so much in international competition: We're busy dunking. While the rest of the world is working on shooting, we can't hit the broad side of Anna Nicole Smith.

So, eliminating zones would be another bad idea. "

Rocket River

11-11-2003, 12:05 PM

Thing is. . . beyond us 'purist'
the rest of the people don't want to see
a 3 pt contest
They want Dunks. . they want Highlights
While it appeals to some of us. . .the overall package sucks to others

If we wanted the CBA or international basketball . .. do you
think we would be watching more of it instead of the nba????

The zone sucks.

Question: Is the quest to take ATHLETICISM OUT OF BASKETBALL?

My thing is. . . IF YOU CANNOT STICK YOUR MAN . . YOU DESERVE TO GET DUNKED ON. . . MAN UP AND STOP LOOKING FOR HELP LIKE A PUNK

Rocket River

Jeff

11-11-2003, 12:12 PM

The league thought they could increase scoring and passing by allowing the zone. They assumed that teams would play more of an international style of basketball, but they didn't adopt all the international rules like the narrower lane and the shorter three point line.

They also made a fatal miscalculation. They assumed that teams would run more to avoid allowing opposing defenses to set up in the half court. The problem is that the players in the NBA are FAR too athletic to give up big numbers in transition. The other problem is that the way to beat a zone is to shoot well from the perimeter. The NBA has some of the worst shooters ever in it now.

You cannot simply outlaw the ISO because it must have defined parameters. Prior to the zone, they had a rule against a complete strong side clearout. If you removed the four other players by putting them all to the left or above the freethrow line extended, you could be called for an illegal offense. The problem is that teams would compensate by sending one guy - usually a guard - to the same side as the ISO'ing player negating the illegal offense.

Teams in the NBA are too sophisticated for stuff like that. If they REALLY wanted to eliminate the zone and increase scoring they would require ONLY man-on-man defense. No double teaming. You could have players help from the weakside once the player made his move but no straight up double teams.

Personally, I think they are missing one significant aspect to the game - the size of the court. When they invented the game, they didn't envision a court full of guys bigger than 6'5". How many times this year have you seen guys called for being out of bounds because their foot touched the line?

If they really want to increase scoring, widen the entire court by 4 feet and narrow the lane to the international rules. It would not only make fast breaks more feasible by giving players more room to operate, but it would force defenses to make a desicion on double teaming and commit. You leave your man, and he'll have an extra couple of feet to get off a shot or get by you to the basket.

Plus, with the narrow lane, it will make the post up game more effective and eliminate three second calls.

If they really want to spread the floor to take advantage of the athletes, they need more floor.

Jeff

11-11-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by rhadamanthus
Note to McGrady: Maybe you guys need to learn how to shoot. That's why the United States now struggles so much in international competition: We're busy dunking. While the rest of the world is working on shooting, we can't hit the broad side of Anna Nicole Smith.

So, eliminating zones would be another bad idea. "[/I]

This is a classic argument by someone who doesn't really get it. "If you can't shoot, just learn." Well, duh!

The problem is that you are asking the NBA to fix a problem that they didn't create. Increasingly, high schools and college are ignoring the jump shot for the dominant athleticism of players. If a guy can dunk over everyone, why does he need to hit a jumper?

While that may be short sighted, if you are a coach in a highly competitive division in high school, you want the most dominant players because the pool is so dilluted. You don't care if he has good form or squares his elbow. If your kid can drop 50 every night on the opposing team without a decent jumper, it still means you go to state and keep your job.

Same thing applies to college where they have very specific roles to fill - the ball-handling guard, the athletic swing man, the big brusing low post man, the spot up jump shooter. If you are athletic and can run the floor, there is a place for you even if you can't hit a shot outside of 10 feet.

So, it is simply unreasonable to assume that the NBA can teach a kid what he never learned previously. Basically, if you come into the league as an average shooter, you can eventually be good. If you come in as a good shooter, you can be great. But, no poor shooters will end up as great one's except in the rarest of instances.

The author even mentions Europe but fails to mention that shooting is taught from about the age of 8 over there. The NBA can't fix what it doesn't control.

Most importantly, maybe guys like this don't care, but it isn't the 15-foot jumper that gets the highlights or the posters. It never has been and never will be. Basketball is about athleticism. It may not ALL be about dunking, but it is about excitement. It hasn't been about shooting since the ABA was invented.

The dunk and the athleticism of taking your man one-on-one is an integral part of the game of basketball. It is foolish to deny it and ignorant to assume that the American public wants Euro basketball to replace the American game.

JuanValdez

11-11-2003, 12:51 PM

I remember a quote from the time when Colangelo (the chairman of the committee that instituted it) objected to the criticism that the zone would decrease scoring. Essentially, he said scoring wasn't the immediate concern (like it was the last time they changed the rules to cut down on hand-checking) but he wanted to make the game more entertaining.

The season or two before, the NBA had made a big deal about falling scores and had made rule changes specifically designed to increase scoring. When, they made more changes, everyone was still on the increase-scoring mantra and, in fact, chanted it so loudly that Colangelo's objections weren't heard. Even now, looking at old articles, it is hard to find quotes without the writer's accompanying assumption that it is all about getting over the century mark again.

I can't find the quote I wanted now. But, I found other quotes that say similar things, just not as well. Essentially, Colangelo's reasoning is that he hopes it'll increase scoring in the long-term (I suppose once it forces players to learn how to shoot jumpers), but the immediate concern was to make the game more fluid and not rely so much on iso. Here are some:

"I can't say the television ratings or the attendance figures were not a factor because they were, but we think the most important thing is it will improve the quality of the game overall," Colangelo said.

"Plain and simple, we weren't satisfied with the way the game looked like," Colangelo said. "This should make for better balance on the court and we should see more transition basketball."

"We're in a game where we see spot-up threes on fast breaks," Colangelo said.

Here, he's talking about the quality of the game and balance. I think what he's driving at is that he wants a greater mix of slow-down iso and transition ball.

From a Q&A:
Q: Why did you make those rule changes? What kind of affect do you think it will have on the NBA?

Jerry Colangelo: The status of the game presently, with as much isolation basketball being played and confusion over the illegal defense guidelines, and the evolution of the game led us to these changes. The changes are as dramatic as anything since the unveiling of the 24-second clock, in particular, allowing any defense to be played.

Obviously, here he's saying the primary motivation was to end iso ball and eliminate confusion in the rules. At first blush, he doesn't mention scoring.

Q: Do you think the no-illegal defense rule will increase scoring? what were the other incentives behind passing that new rule?

Jerry Colangelo at 5:10pm ET
The package of rules changes over a period of time should create higher scoring. Certainly more fluidity to the game, so I'm optimistic that these changes will be positive for the NBA.

When asked specifically about scoring, he says it should increase, but with qualifiers. One, it is only over time -- that is, the game has to evolve to accomodate the rules (which I understand to be the players need to develop different skills) for higher scoring to result after a lull. Two, it isn't just allowing the zone that'll increase scoring, but also the defensive 3-second rule and others that were passed at the same time -- it's the package. And then, after talking about points briefly, he re-emphasizes the main point: to increase fluidity.

Deuce

11-11-2003, 01:19 PM

Jeff, interesting ideas about improving the game. The idea of making the court bigger and the lane smaller is very interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing those additions made.

Funny, I think I read an article this year in which Rick Carlistle said if you want to improve scoring then make the "basket" bigger by 2 inch diameter. I personally think that is too much, just like I dont like the idea of raising the basket above 10 feet to accomodate the taller players.

But changing the court dimensions I think would be ok. Just dont mess with the basket itself.

ragingFire

11-11-2003, 01:23 PM

Jeff,
You made many good arguments that I agree with ... before I get to that ... let me be the devil advocate and say something for the other side.
The rule change came about because the thinkings were:
1) The ISO hurts the game. (Especially the ISO for the postman, ie. Shaq bullying people over all day long does not make for an exciting game). The league want a team game with lots of passing, thinking that would be more fun to watch.

2) More scoring will bring fans to the game, (like games of the 80s). For the 1st couple years, the league realizes scoring might go down, but in the future, once players improve the outside shots out of necesity, scoring will go up. I understand they will try to stick with this rule for a while (10 yrs+), allowing the players in high school, college to develop outside shooting skills.
The time will also allow for coaches to change their mind set on drafting players. More emphasis on shooting, less on athleticism.

IMO, there are other things the league can do to improve the scoring.

a) Call more fouls on defense. In the 80s, you could not breath hard on the offensive player without being called for a foul. There was no way you can lean, push , grab the offensive players like you do today. We need to make whatever rule changes to get back to that.

b) Changing the court dimensions is a good idea but it might be too hard to implement ... there are thousands of courts all over the country/ world that you need to redraw. Some of them might not have room for expansion.
The league could try to narrow the lane, shorten the 3pt arc.

jmwilliamson

11-11-2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by pasox2
If they want to play international basketball, just go all the way to international rules. Re-stripe the lane. No goaltending calls. Closer threes. You'll get some more action.

If they want people to really watch and get excited, give us back man to man and watch the stars do superhuman things.

I wish they would go with international rules. I think our players being accostumed to NBA rules hurts us in international competition because things like goal tending have become unnatural for them.

GladiatoRowdy

11-11-2003, 01:43 PM

Personally, I like the ability we have to zone up when we need to. Zones encourage more passing and ISOs have declined dramatically, which is going to be good for basketball. Basketball is a team sport and the teams that should win are the ones who know how to play as a team, not those that have two guys who just ISO all over the place. I like the ball movement we are seeing lately and I enjoy seeing the Rockets shooters scoring over the zone.

I like the changes and believe we should keep them. Players will learn how to shoot again and we will STILL have the spectacular dunk, we just won't have them on every play.

rhadamanthus

11-11-2003, 01:43 PM

Jeff, while I certainly respect you and your position, here are some counter-arguments:

This is a classic argument by someone who doesn't really get it. "If you can't shoot, just learn." Well, duh!

The problem is that you are asking the NBA to fix a problem that they didn't create. Increasingly, high schools and college are ignoring the jump shot for the dominant athleticism of players. If a guy can dunk over everyone, why does he need to hit a jumper?

I don't think it's fair to not place any blame on the NBA here. I think it is pretty obvious that the NBA and its media partners like to highlight the big dunks and power moves more then the shooters. And what made the high-school players ditch the jump shot in favor of dunks anyway? Why, the desire to emulate their high-flying NBA role-models naturally. The NBA might not be the only cause of this problem, but they certainly did not help to undo the damage either...

While that may be short sighted, if you are a coach in a highly competitive division in high school, you want the most dominant players because the pool is so dilluted. You don't care if he has good form or squares his elbow. If your kid can drop 50 every night on the opposing team without a decent jumper, it still means you go to state and keep your job.

Again, I would argue this could be equally pinned on NBA players who dominated the rim, encouraging high-school followers (and their coaches) to use the same tactic. I just don't think its feasible that high-school play influenced the NBA more then the opposite. That just doesn't make sense. Kids model their play on the pros, not vice-versa...

Same thing applies to college where they have very specific roles to fill - the ball-handling guard, the athletic swing man, the big brusing low post man, the spot up jump shooter. If you are athletic and can run the floor, there is a place for you even if you can't hit a shot outside of 10 feet.

So, it is simply unreasonable to assume that the NBA can teach a kid what he never learned previously. Basically, if you come into the league as an average shooter, you can eventually be good. If you come in as a good shooter, you can be great. But, no poor shooters will end up as great one's except in the rarest of instances.

True, but the college argument can again arguably be turned around.

The author even mentions Europe but fails to mention that shooting is taught from about the age of 8 over there. The NBA can't fix what it doesn't control.

Most importantly, maybe guys like this don't care, but it isn't the 15-foot jumper that gets the highlights or the posters. It never has been and never will be. Basketball is about athleticism. It may not ALL be about dunking, but it is about excitement. It hasn't been about shooting since the ABA was invented.

The dunk and the athleticism of taking your man one-on-one is an integral part of the game of basketball. It is foolish to deny it and ignorant to assume that the American public wants Euro basketball to replace the American game.

Personally, I think that is kind of sad. I think you are right, don't get me wrong, but to say that what we all want to see and should want to see is dunking and one-man exhibitions pollutes the "image" of basketball sport as I see it. I want a team game. I want the passing and the shooting as well as the dunking. What the league has done is not only try to revitalize the "scoring" aspect of the game, but also (inadvertantly perhaps) renew the "team play" concept and "other-moves-besides-dunking" concept.

I like that.

--rhad

Sane

11-11-2003, 02:09 PM

Well, to answer the original question, it helps us.

We have the perfect team to beat zones.

Yao - dominant big man, frees up shooters, and superb passer.

Francis - Can penetrate through defenses, draw attention, then dish out.

Pike - quite possibly the best shooter in the league alongside Wes Person.

MoT, Francis, Yao - Can all hit the midrange J VERY consistently, a mustwhen you have shooters to spread the floor and a dominant C to demand attention under the basket.

JVG knew what he was doing when he signed Pike. I've said very often that Pike, despite the limited minutes he'll get, will make a HUGE impact on this team. His mere presence on the floor makes up for his defensive defficiencies, because if they double Yao, either Francis or Pike will burn them all day. Pike will take this team up a notch, and don't be surprised if he sends the vastly improved Mobley to a 6th man role.

Jeff

11-11-2003, 02:24 PM

Juan: There are those who believe that Colangelo got so involved in the rules changes because it was his team - the Suns - that would be most helped by zone defenses. Clearly, they still suck at defense so it didn't help. :)

The fact that no coaches or players were involved in the rules changes simply made a mockery of the game. At the time, I thought it was a horrific idea to have guys like Colangelo and Stu Jackson deciding the fate of the game. Still do.

rhadamanthus: I'm not saying the NBA doesn't have a responsibility in the matter. Of course they do. But, my point is that there were easily as many high flyers in the late 70's and early 80's. No one was better at it than Dr. J and yet shooting was still at a premium.

IMO, the problem lies with the sponsors, particularly the shoe companies who give large "grants" to high schools and colleges who produce the flashiest athletes. If you are a high school coach that consistently turns out high calliber athletes, you get jobs at Nike summer camps or running these high school "all star" exhibitions. Kids get free apparel and shoes.

Their main concern is filling the stands and great singular athletes do that.

It wasn't until the mid-90's that we really started to see the effect of that. Michael Jordan and the NBA were blamed but the truth is that it wasn't until these major sponsors began targeting young kids around the same time that we began to see the serious fall-off in shooting.

I'm not saying the NBA isn't to blame. I'm just saying that you can't just expect a poor shooter to enter the NBA and become great. That doesn't happen. However, I totally agree that the league has a responsibility to help foster the growth of fundamental basketball skills at the middle school, high school and college level. That is good for everyone.

wizkid83

11-11-2003, 02:45 PM

Personally I believe that Zone hurts us more because it makes it hard for the guards to Iso. We won 45 games with the Iso because the lack of Zone forced people to play 1 on 1 against Francis/Mobley and people just aren't gonna be able to stop those two 1 on 1 from the three point line. And unlike when you have a dominant center, where a double team forces the shot outside, since the guards start from the outside, a early double would give up a shot inside. We saw how much more difficult it became for Cat and Steve after they started allowing the Zone.

We have great individual talents in Cat, Steve and Yao, and since the zone takes away the 1 on 1, the impact of those three diminished ad our role players are foced to step up for this team to win.

Bob

11-11-2003, 03:12 PM

The zone helps the Rockets on defense. Other than Yao and Jackson we don't have a team of good man-to-man defensive players.

Rocket River

11-11-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Jeff

The author even mentions Europe but fails to mention that shooting is taught from about the age of 8 over there. The NBA can't fix what it doesn't control.

I'm still waiting on someone to tell me what High School
Dirk N. , Peja S. and Boki Nachbar graduated from . . .
or even IF THEY DID

We like to scream how fundamental the Euro are
[I still say they only fundamental on ONE END]
but not willing to lessen the rules on our athletes

NO WAY any high school coach could get as much time
with his players as Dirk, Peja, and Boki's coaches had with
them . . .plus they were drawing a check from what I have heard.

Rocket River

Rocket River

11-11-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Bob
The zone helps the Rockets on defense. Other than Yao and Jackson we don't have a team of good man-to-man defensive players.

watch Mobley play defense sometimes. . . or at least watch with
only half of your mind already made up.

rocket river

swilkins

11-11-2003, 03:29 PM

canoner2002

11-11-2003, 03:42 PM

[i]
In current NBA rule, you almost have nothing to do with the zone if the ref does not call foul like the first half of the Magic game. They double or treble team your centre with two-hand push even before he touches the ball. Your centre has no way to establish his position as the paint is full of studs.
[/B]

Zone or not, refs have to call those pushes. Currently, the games are more and more like wrestling. I understand the NBA want player to play physicle to make games exciting, but it has gone too far. Holdings and shovelings are rarely called. Even NFL has rules against illegal use of hands.

ragingFire

11-11-2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by swilkins
I disagree on this. IMO, whistling tickey tack fouls will never allow the offense to establish a rhythm. Rather, they should whistle Shaq's shoulder-slam more.

The idea is not to use the whistle to stop the game.
The idea is to make defensive players back off and stop playing defense so hard. That will happen once they are in foul trouble. Of course, people can argue that they like to see in-your-face defense ... Ok, it's fine , but you can't have it both ways. Do we want less scoring or more scoring? Choose 1.

DavidS

11-11-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by rockbox
I agree but I would much rather have Iso's than the zone.

rockbox,

DaDakota is right. The zone was put in to force players to learn team oriented passing, using picks, and screens (something they should have learned from the NCAA). Skills that our supposedly "super stars" have lost over the years. Just because you are a shooting guard, or small forward, or power-forward, doesn't mean that you should lose passing skills (or even set-plays designed for the pass/score).

Too much emphasis has been put on the scoring player (iso), rather than the basketball player (multi-talented; Isiah, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kareem). Talent varies from player to player, so the "gifted" ones will still have the ability to "wow us." They just need to learn the other stuff as well.

The reason that the zone was implemented is that players that only used (learned when young) the ISO -- for their main weapon -- are finding it difficult to succeed in this league. I'm glad. Because if they refuse. Their game will suffer. So McGrady can cry all he wants. The league is telling him to learn how to play team ball. It's not like he's going to forget "how to score." That will always be there! And he WILL continue to work on it, I can assure you!

So, new player coming in will need to know how to score AND pass! At least the ones that want to make the most of their talent. Because it will be a necessity.

So the zone forces a player to pass because the players coming in didn't know how, and weren't expected to change their ways anytime soon. So, we have the zone. You WILL PASS!

Francis has changed. Murbury has changed. So, McGrady can too.

P.S. The zone has more to do with "system or team passing" rather than actuall "passing skill."

DavidS

11-11-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Rocket River
I'm still waiting on someone to tell me what High School
Dirk N. , Peja S. and Boki Nachbar graduated from . . .
or even IF THEY DID

We like to scream how fundamental the Euro are
[I still say they only fundamental on ONE END]
but not willing to lessen the rules on our athletes

RR, is doesn't matter where they learn the fundamentals, as much as that they DO! Also, most of the time when people talk about fundaments basketball, they are talking about the offensive end. Because, that's were USA ball is suffering (shooting, and team oriented scoring).

So, we're not saying that Europeans don't need to improve on the defensive end. We're saying how much better their young players are learning the basics very well.

And given time, they'll learn the defensive part too. Ten years ago, the idea that international players were a hot commodity would be crazy or that any pro-Team USA would have been beaten by Argentina or Spain.

Originally posted by Rocket River
NO WAY any high school coach could get as much time
with his players as Dirk, Peja, and Boki's coaches had with
them . . .plus they were drawing a check from what I have heard.

Rocket River

Ok, so you've pointed out an advantage that europe players have. Now what are we going to do about it? Give excuses?

Rocket River

11-11-2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by DavidS

Ok, so you've pointed out an advantage that europe players have. Now what are we going to do about it? Give excuses?

PAY THE PLAYERS!
lose NO PASS NO PLAY
Lose a bunch of those rules about how much time a player and
coach can have.
Lose all that academic crap

Screw all that . . . just make better players!!!!! :mad: :rolleyes:

My point is. . . SSSOOOO MANY of us want to handcuff our players
on one hand . .then wanna praise players that don't have the restraints

I think we need to look at the fact that the NBA is a legit job tract
and perhaps we should treat it like a craft etc. . .. and have
people are tracted that way

If you want EURO type players. .. you need to get EURO type rules too. . . . ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT?

Rocket River

DavidS

11-11-2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by rhadamanthus

A funny thing happened. Kids perception of the game was wrong. They saw all the flashy dunking and incredible scoring from the past greats: Mike, Larry, Magic, Isiah...but little did they know what it took to become that great.

The scoring was the focus in these young kids. Because, well, quite frankly, it was "eye candy" and "spectacular." And the league took advantage of that because these young players, in all reality, were very good at dunking (great athletes). They were Spectacular. WWE style! But gets what? Fool's gold. The rest of their game was suffering, and it show on the court when you watched the games.

Enter zone.

Originally posted by rhadamanthus

Personally, I think that is kind of sad. I think you are right, don't get me wrong, but to say that what we all want to see and should want to see is dunking and one-man exhibitions pollutes the "image" of basketball sport as I see it. I want a team game. I want the passing and the shooting as well as the dunking. What the league has done is not only try to revitalize the "scoring" aspect of the game, but also (inadvertently perhaps) renew the "team play" concept and "other-moves-besides-dunking" concept.

I like that.

--rhad

rhadamanthus, don't you think that the offensive scoring EASE (improving the scoring aspect) on a team level is directly related to the "team play" concept?

The iso's were way out of control with the young talents. If the league did nothing, the ISOs would be going on today as usual.

P.S. Even though the entrance of the International player might have helped ease the "lack of shooting and passing."

Jeff

11-11-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by DavidS
So, new player coming in will need to know how to score AND pass! At least the ones that want to make the most of their talent. Because it will be a necessity.

So the zone forces a player to pass because the players coming in didn't know how, and weren't expected to change their ways anytime soon. So, we have the zone. You WILL PASS!

There is absolutely no tangible evidence that this will work against the best athletes in the world. Zone defense does encourage ball movement and good shooting, but no one had guys like McGrady in mind when they thought about the zone.

Part of what made guys like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson great (and no one complained about THEIR passing skills) was the fact that they were able to break down defenders and force over-committment by opposing defenses. Because they had such incredible court vision, they killed those defenders by finding the open man.

The zone would have actually prevented many of those amazing defenses. No way Jordan does that famous switching hands drive down the lane in a zone. Magic isn't going to be hitting cutters back door against a 2-3.

The problem is that the zone gives a clear advantage to great athletes on defense. Because of their length and quickness, defenses can extend and contract quickly. With a lack of shooters on the perimeter or even just a dominant low post game, it is nearly impossible to create an offensive scheme that can take advantage of a zone defense.

No matter how skilled your passers are, they are still subject to the basic laws of the zone and they are still only as good as the shooters who get the pass.

IMO, the thing that sets basketball apart from other sports is the sheer athletic ability of the players. It is the one major organized professional sport that requires supreme athletic skill at nearly every spot on the floor. Hoops began to interest a wide audience when it began to exploit those athletic abilities and let them loose. The more they try to reign them in, the more boring the game becomes and the less interested the public will be.

Arguably, the best era for pro basketball was also the best era for the rise of the athlete in pro ball - from 1983 - 1993. Dr. J, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Thomas and on down the line. No one argues that those weren't really the golden years for the NBA in terms of its rise in popularity.

Zone defense was suggested back in the early 80's and EVERYONE rejected the idea saying it would be bad for the game. Today is no different.

SamFisher

11-11-2003, 04:50 PM

Why is McGrady being talked about as somebody who is limited by the zone? :confused:

Didn't he lead the league in scoring or come in 2nd last year with a career high 31 or 32 or something ridiculous like that?

DavidS

11-11-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Rocket River
PAY THE PLAYERS!
lose NO PASS NO PLAY
Lose a bunch of those rules about how much time a player and
coach can have.
Lose all that academic crap

Screw all that . . . just make better players!!!!! :mad: :rolleyes:

My point is. . . SSSOOOO MANY of us want to handcuff our players
on one hand . .then wanna praise players that don't have the restraints

I think we need to look at the fact that the NBA is a legit job tract
and perhaps we should treat it like a craft etc. . .. and have
people are tracted that way

If you want EURO type players. .. you need to get EURO type rules too. . . . ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT?

Rocket River

RR, I agree. Calm down...

The fact of the matter is that US basketball has to fix the problem or else the international player will get more and more jobs. Save a few that squeak by like LeBron and Mello. By the way, even though James is a H.S. player, he's still a student of the game. The whole game. So, it's not just all about the system. By the way, on your last sentence. About, "If you want EURO type players. .. you need to get EURO type rules too. . . . ARE YOU WILLING TO DO THAT?" Well, the league is willing to go get these EURO players. If the US players are not up to par. If we do nothing, change will still occur. There will just be more International players filling our rosters.

No matter what happens, the legue will improve. Even if the NCAA and NBA doesn't get it crap together. You can already see it.

By the way, I love what you said about bball player being a "craft." True.

DavidS

11-11-2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Jeff
There is absolutely no tangible evidence that this will work against the best athletes in the world. Zone defense does encourage ball movement and good shooting, but no one had guys like McGrady in mind when they thought about the zone.

Arguably, the best era for pro basketball was also the best era for the rise of the athlete in pro ball - from 1983 - 1993. Dr. J, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Thomas and on down the line. No one argues that those weren't really the golden years for the NBA in terms of its rise in popularity.

Zone defense was suggested back in the early 80's and EVERYONE rejected the idea saying it would be bad for the game. Today is no different.

Jeff, I agree. The zone is more of an experiment out of necessity. Like RR said, it's has to come from the early stages of a players development, into college and on to the NBA. It has to be a cultural change (as well as technical) in how the game is learned. The emergence of Rucker Park play has influenced the young kids what it means to play the complete game. That too does have an effect.

True, the zone may not get it's total effect intended. But it does improve the way player approach the game.

That's why I said that the zone affects team passing rather than player passing *skill*. Bird was just gifted. He developed that skill very young. Maybe he just had natural court vision that far exceeded other players. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about our top core elite players that seem to be lacking the most fundamental level of passing and team oriented ball.

This is not to say that they can't go ISO and show their stuff. That's still a God given talent. It's just that the other stuff has to be developed/learned too! Don't you think that this has an effect on how the player react to other players coming in the league. Young H.S. players ask McGrady and others about the NBA. I've heard it before from "Skip to my Lu." He's trying to get into the players heads, "Don't come to the NBA trying all that flashy stuff. It wont work! It will get you benched!"

DavidS

11-11-2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by DavidS
The emergence of Rucker Park play has influenced the young kids what it means to play the complete game. That too does have an effect.

Just to clariy, "The emergence of Rucker Park play" has given the wrong impression to young player of what it means to be a basketball player in the NBA.

Example. Dr. J and Isiah could play at Rucker and put on a SHOW!!! :D But they could also play the NBA and play the team game. They could do both types of play.

Not just one.

egn

11-11-2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by forenzi
I saw on espn how Mcgrady was complaining about the zone defense he said something along the line that the zone defense was put on to make games faster and higher scoring but its not. He said he was paid to entertain but the zone slows him down.
I wonder how Yao would do without the zone ?

Does anyone really give a damn about what McGrady has to say??? When he was crying about this, I think he was like 3rd in scoring with something like 25ppg. Third in the league in scoring at 25 per is not bad by any stretch of the imagination. Especially when Rashard Lewis was leading this category with an average of 37 ppg through two games. That won't hold up. He needs to stop whining. My point is that he is still in the top 2 or 3 in points per. Who cares??? If he thinks it affects his game, he needs to go talk to Yao or Shaq.

DavidS

11-11-2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by SamFisher
Why is McGrady being talked about as somebody who is limited by the zone? :confused:

Didn't he lead the league in scoring or come in 2nd last year with a career high 31 or 32 or something ridiculous like that?

McGrady himself has said this and commentators and game experts have chimed in on this topic. Some agree, some don't.

Maybe he's just speaking up now because he's finding this particular season to be a struggle. Or because he has less talent on his team and MORE teams are using the ZONE.

Dallas was a fan of it last year. Maybe more are today....? Not sure.

But he's frustrated. You can see it in his stats and his game. He's only at 21pp at 35% shooting. Scoring 21ppg is not easy task, but he's doing it while taking a lot of shots. Oh, and his team is losing! :(

rvpals

11-11-2003, 07:04 PM

I don't think it matter much unless your team only have 1 guy that's going to do most of the offense. Like Magic.

Zone or no zone, Rox are tough to beat with several guys that are capable of busting the zone by some hot outside shooting

tannersearle78

11-11-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by rvpals
I don't think it matter much unless your team only have 1 guy that's going to do most of the offense. Like Magic.

Zone or no zone, Rox are tough to beat with several guys that are capable of busting the zone by some hot outside shooting

i agree

DrNuegebauer

11-11-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by rvpals

Zone or no zone, Rox are tough to beat with several guys that are capable of busting the zone by some hot outside shooting

Which is exactly the ADVANTAGE of the zone! It means that the team with the better players wins basketball games - you can't get torched by one guy while 4 helpless teamates look on - instead you can make that guy pass the ball. If he's a good passer, then he'll find the open man, if they're a good player they'll hit their shot/ make the next pass.

Athletic players will still make exciting plays in a zone, and dribblers will still be able to break down the man who is guarding them. The NBA will certainly have its big stars, and the more shooters in the league, the more room will open up for people (like McGrady/ Francis et al) to drive the lane and flush it on the big guy!

sweetie

11-11-2003, 08:04 PM

freaking hilarious.

The same people who complained about iso ball or "dribblemania" as we call it,are now actually FOR man to man D so guards can go iso more and make scores go up.

Some people .

If man to man was the new rule,then teams like the 2000 rockets would have 1 great guard just go iso clear out ALL game long and dribble the hell out of the basketball. If you watch Jordan in 1993 finals,he would score 50 points,and everyone said how fun and entertaining it was. Problem was if your not a fan of the bulls then you HATED the nba for Jordan always iso'ing and then HATED shaq for always pummeling his man guarding him. Everyone outside of LA hates shaq for bullying his way over 1 guy. You need zones to make the game more balance.

Like when Hakeem would score 30 over and over,he was doing it against 1 guy. But thats why you cant compare Ming to Hakeem anymore because Ming is tripled teamed nearly every play and still gets 20. I think Hakeem would look WORSE than Ming right now in the new zones. But the fact is Id rather see more passing and fairer play and guys like Padgett and Pike and Jackson get their open shots instead of 1 guy going iso all game long trying to get 50 points like Francis used to do and Hakeem did in mid nighties.

And with that,this argument is now closed. I win.

DavidS

11-11-2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by sweetie
freaking hilarious.

The same people who complained about iso ball or "dribblemania" as we call it,are now actually FOR man to man D so guards can go iso more and make scores go up.

The same people who complained about iso ball or "dribblemania" as we call it,are now actually FOR man to man D so guards can go iso more and make scores go up.

What are you talking about? "Same people...." Who are these "people?"
Players or BBS posters?

There are BBS's posters that wanted iso's to go away, reglardss of what type of defense that was used. Bring in the zone if that's what it will take.

There are PLAYERS that are complaining that they can't go ISO because of the Zone and thus prefer man-to-man D because it helps their ISO game.

Now there maybe some posters that like hard nosed DEFENSE on man-to-man because, well, that's just plain good to have. Players that actually can play defense man-to-man. That's a learned skill. But that has nothing to do with "helping isos" or "not helping isos." That's just wanting an improved defense period!

Some feel that Zone is a method of "cheating" on defense without really playing hard defense. That's why Francis dislikes it. Average players can get an advantage.

But even he is learning how to get around it with the help of his team.

DavidS

11-11-2003, 08:18 PM

DavidS

11-11-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by sweetie

By the way, contrary to popular believe. Jordan did not go iso like some of the guards today have be doing. There's a difference between giving the ball to your star player and having him dribble the ball between his legs...then shooting up a forced shot.......versus giving the ball to your star player and having him run a perfect pick and roll for an open jump shot.

Jordan used his screens, pick and rolls perfectly. Jordan rarely used the between the legs dribble. He used the cross-over, but usually to set up a pick or screen and pass to the basket.

Jordan's isolations were quite different that todays (last years Rockets) isos.

SamFisher

11-11-2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by DavidS
By the way, contrary to popular believe. Jordan did not go iso like some of the guards today have be doing. There's a difference between giving the ball to your star player and having him dribble the ball between his legs...then shooting up a forced shot.......versus giving the ball to your star player and having him run a perfect pick and roll for an open jump shot.

Jordan used his screens, pick and rolls perfectly. Jordan rarely used the between the legs dribble. He used the cross-over, but usually to set up a pick or screen and pass to the basket.

Jordan's isolations were quite different that todays (last years Rockets) isos.

But who cares whether or not a guy dribbles it between his legs, isn't an Iso stilll an Iso? Jordan's defining moments in the finally generally consisted of Iso-drive and dish (paxson, kerr) or Iso pull up jumper.

I don't recall many pick and rolls at all being run for Jordan; his signature move during his second run was the fadeaway, it required him to back his man down and then shoot.

A pick and roll wouldn't have worked with that any more than it would work with a dream shake.

DavidS

11-11-2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by SamFisher
But who cares whether or not a guy dribbles it between his legs, isn't an Iso stilll an Iso? Jordan's defining moments in the finally generally consisted of Iso-drive and dish (paxson, kerr) or Iso pull up jumper.

I don't recall many pick and rolls at all being run for Jordan; his signature move during his second run was the fadeaway, it required him to back his man down and then shoot.

A pick and roll wouldn't have worked with that any more than it would work with a dream shake.

Yes you are right. But there are things that need to be pointed out...

For one, Jordan was just a FREAK OF NATURE. The guy could get 40 points on a "bad night." His offensive ability was just so out of this world he could get away with things that other can not.

Secondly, if you read or watch some of Jordan's teaching vids or manuals (same with Isiah's), he always stresses the fact about "wasted motion, using angles, and ball control." That's getting into technique. It wasn't just about "out quicking your opponent" it was about "using your speed to out DECEIVE your opponent." Always watch your opponents feet. Watch how they are positioned. Use their weight as a disadvantage to them in order to get them off balanced. Make them over commit. Make them back-off. Look for every conceivable weakness on "how" your opponent is playing you. No wasted motion.

So, just merely trying to out-quick (dribble between the legs) in an effort to "confuse" your opponent doesn't really work. If fact, in the past, I've seen Francis cross-over a defender (out of his shoes) only to cross-over right back into coverage (that's confusing ones-self! :D ). So, over-dribbing is wasted motion.

As far as Jordan's 2nd run. I don't remember much post play during his 4th and 5th rings, as I do on his 6th. And especially during his time with the Wizards. Yes, he just didn't have the legs anymore to drive past people. So he started using other methods. A "slow" small forward compared to the Jordan of old.

wizkid83

11-11-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by ragingFire

IMO, there are other things the league can do to improve the scoring.

a) Call more fouls on defense. In the 80s, you could not breath hard on the offensive player without being called for a foul. There was no way you can lean, push , grab the offensive players like you do today. We need to make whatever rule changes to get back to that.

I don't know, in I think the lack good of good big man has really pansied the game down in the last five years. I still remember a game between Knicks and Miami in the mid 90's, Ewing and Mourning was interlocked and yes practically wrestling, it was known that if you're big men, you'd must be able to take some punishment. I see way to many touch calls when players are fighting for position these days.

Also, while there are a lot fouls called in the 80's, I really don't seem to see a lot of flagrant fouls called. In the last few years, I saw a lot of good old fashion hard fouls become called flagrant. In the 80's, while there might be a couple of cheap fouls here and there, when you go up for a shot, and the defense fouls, they really foul you and forces you to miss the shot and earn your two. I think recently the NBA have fell in love with the "and 1" and letting to many 3 point plays happening by not allowing the players to fould hard.

rhadamanthus

11-11-2003, 11:18 PM

DavidS,

I am not exacly sure what you are trying to say in your last post--I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. The final point I made in my last point is that I think the reinstatement of the zone by the NBA has (maybe by accident) led to improved passing and/or team play. I don't know if it has truly led to less ISO ball with superstars, but I appreciate the side effect of forcing a more "team-oriented" playing style. I guess I'm nostalgic like that.

--rhad

rhadamanthus

11-11-2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by DavidS

rhadamanthus, don't you think that the offensive scoring EASE (improving the scoring aspect) on a team level is directly related to the "team play" concept?

Absolutely.

forenzi

11-12-2003, 11:04 AM

From the looks of this last game , the zone did not help Yao's numbers but it helped the Rockets win

RocketManJosh

11-12-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by lost_elephant
the zone encourages outside shooting to force it honor each player and not just double each and everytime down, problem is that there are a lack of good shooters in the league.

the zone encourages passing, problem is, in the league of 50 inch vert highschool kids, passing is not a practiced trait, nor is it appealing to alot of the players in today's nba.

however, if you have a great passing big man, that draws the double team, he can open up the floor for the other players. this is why the team MUST run through yao. he doesnt need to take 25 shots a game to be most effective. his ability to get others the ball in a position to score, despite the zone is uncompromising.

I like how you say that the team must run through Yao for the Rox to be effective against the zone when the whole reason they cannot get the ball into Yao is the zone that is allowing them to double him top and bottom.

Without the zone -> Yao gets ball whenever he wants it just like Dream did

With the zone -> Yao doubled and Steve and Cat must make it happen from the outside

Overall the zone is a bad rule for the Rockets, but as far as the NBA goes I personally think it is a decent rule just because I hated to see teams like Seattle play the "Zone" and never get called for Illegal-D. At least everyone can play it now

But bottom line is that the zone hurts Yao tremendously and is a big reason the ball cannot go through him first, as much as I wish it could.