NBA teams DO play zone defense, some more than others. I saw zone defenses destroy Portland's offense several times this season. It is usually done as a last resort to stop penetration or dominant post play or as a part-time surprise tactic to throw offenses off by giving a different look. I've seen it where an offense doesn't recognize what to do against a zone defense until 10 seconds or less remain in the shot clock. One huge problem with zones in the NBA is getting killed on the offensive glass.
Zone is harder to execute well than most people think, especially against NBA level offensive talent. Actually, rotating help defense is a kind of semi-zone. It takes a lot of good read, communication, and concentration to play good team defense. Many people think only man defense is "real" defense, and they judge a player's defensive skills only on how well he plays man defense. That's missing a big part of playing defense. Every NBA team has at least 2 or 3 offensive players who cannot be defended one on one no matter who the defender is. To be a good defensive player, you have to understand how team defense works.
I think the longer three point line makes zones harder to implement in the NBA because each man has to cover more space, and when the zone collapses on the penetrating guard, the spot up shooter has more space to shoot. Defensive 3 seconds makes a huge impact; imagine if big guys like Yao, Howard, Shaq, etc. never had to leave the lane. Agreed on the rebounding weakness of the zone.
everybody wants to shoot threes. Nba has gotten real soft and only teams that make it are the ones that attack the basket
zone defense is good to hide weak defenders. In this series, nash and stoudemire both weak man to man defenders do not have to exert themselves on defense because of playing zone. while phoenix has gotten away with multiple 3-second violations, the lakers have gotten good shots against the zone. They just can't make them and also they double kobe and gasol when either of them have the ball. to be honest, I don't think lakers lost the game because of the zone. They gave up 18 offensive rbs and whenever that happens it means the other team just OUT TOUGHED you. Gasol and odom were just plain weak and soft and are going to have MAJOR problems against the celtics.
Whats worse is on the competition committee is colangelo from phoenix and he proposed it, i wonder why? In a league with limited shooters and bigger,longer players, a zone is legal. Thats the biggest joke I've ever seen. If they wanted better ball movement, they should've enforced illegal offense with the 4 guys standing at the 3pt line or dropping the time clock to 20 secs and the half court violation to 7 secs.
"The best zone is a good man..." More bad teams should do it, but the best teams will always be in man and use man principles...
Zone defense works so well for the suns is because they have the speed. They are the best fast-pace team.
It's really a last resort when playing D... although after a while it becomes vulnerable because you can pick out open spots in the zone and use them to score. Also, if you have a great outside shooting team (a la the Rockets or Suns) it doesn't work well because they'll just burn you from the 3pt line.
They wanted to open up the game, and they have, more shooters are in the league now than when it was proposed, and with the no touching on the perimeter rules, the game is much better. DD
The NBA is now a form of entertainment and business, with rule changes allowing it to be more enjoyable game for the "average" fan leading to greater revenue for the NBA. Therefore the zone defence has become non-existent however in my opinion is still a superb defence if excuted correctly. Playing a good zone defence is harder then playing man because the communication required in rotating to cover spots is more difficult along with finishing off the defensie possession with a rebound is also harder because it is harder to find your "man" to box out. Zone defence also forces the offensive team to work more cohesively to find a dominant advantage.
I can think of three reasons. NBA players are offensively too good for a zone much of the time. They can get good enough ball movement to where a defensive player is forced to leave his zone in order to help. It seems defensively, teams prefer to have a set rotation to cover players once man has broke down. It has to do with sticking in your area and more to do with what to do in certain situations. For example, in a zone, you'd never see Yao close out a 3 pointer shooter, but in the NBA, that happens sometimes. NBA players don't match up as well in a zone. Just looking at a 3-2 zone, you've gut your 1 and 2 up top, your 3 and 4 on the wings, and 5 in the middle? Do you really want your 4 covering Kobe when he's attacking on a wing? Do you want your 1 trying to stop Yao from shooting at the top of the key? Sure, there are other zones, but a good chance you're going to end up with a bad matchup. Third, few NBA players have a mid-range game. So you really you just need to guard the outside, then pack it in on the drive. There's less need for a zone, as long as players have help responsiblities when the offense drives to the basket. An aside, but ever notice how in HS ball, you never allow a player to beat you baseline. Your coach will always tell you to get a foot out of bounds to cut off the baseline complete. NBA is the opposite, let'em go and expect help from a big. Just another example of how the size and skill of players in the NBA means what works in HS or college won't work in the NBA.
