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 ?
Since we don't use the zone much, it hurts us. The zone really affects dominant big men like Yao and Shaq the most because you can double before they have the ball. Sonics used a zone to beat the rockets in the Dream years. I hate the zone. It is ruining pro basketball.
The Zone defense is hurting Yao's game where he can be double team without having the ball. I remember back then, guys like Ewing, Hakeem, and David were abusing their man 1 on 1 in the paint and alot of times, illegal defense were called on the opponent. To beat the zone, you have to have good outside shooting. Nowadays, sharpshooting is a lost art and you see why so many Europeans players are coming to the NBA with so many fundamentals. They are not quick but they understand how to play the zone ( Europe league plays zone for many years), spread the floor, and shoot.
It hurts one on one play....and it might have prevented the Rockets from winning those 2 championships. The Zone is awful for the NBA, it let's marginal players have a role. The problem was the Iso offense...they should have made that illegal, and left it at man to man defense. DD
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.
The zone is great for teams with good shooters and poor defense like Dallas Mavs. One of the main reasons Mavs all of sudden have great regular season records after rule change.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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
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.
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.
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: 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: 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
