Without allowing zone, defensive strategies are very limited. Pistons and Knicks were just being physical. It works in any kind of defensive set. Supersonics defense were illegal zones. Any team with an unstoppable 1-on-1 player could use ISO to neutralize any help defense. rockbox: It is true that no good defensive team use the zone regularly. That just means that the zone has its limitations to stop some offensive sets. That doesn't mean we should not ALLOW zone. Those of us who advocate allowing are not saying that zone defense is good or bad. We are saying it should be allowed to prevent teams from playing less than 5 on 5 basketball.
If you didn't get a guy like Hakeem or Yao, instead, you most hated opponent beat you with one every year, would you still vote against zone? Zones might stifle superstar talent. But it doesn't stifle team offense. If your star is being triple team by three goons, then it's up to you to get good shooters to make them pay. Do you watch basketball or do you watch basketball stars? Actually, the opposite is true. Without illegal defese, the game is more of a strategic chess match. Offense has to adjust to defense, and defense has to adjust to offense all the time. With man-only rule, offense always dictated strategies. Now both sides have a say to how the game is played.
Yup. Zones became legal in the last days Hakeem and at a time When Shaq rose to be the dominant center in the NBA... and I still was against zones. Both. I don't like to watch players of lesser talent succeed, while players of betetr talent fail, all because of the way the rules are set up. No... When offensive plays break down and the offense must resort to a sloppy free-for-all, that's not a more strategic game.
Ever hear of the Jordan Rules? They actually encompassed more than "Rule 1: Be Physical, Rule 2: Be Physical, Rule 3: Be MORE Physical", etc. Without zones, teams actually do have to make strategy decisions like whether or not to double-team, when to double, who to leave open, etc. Teams have to decide who to guard certain guys with, when to substitute defense for offense and vice versa, whether or not to apply full court pressure. Should they play behind the post man, should they front, should they half-front. There's just all kinds of things to think about. The zone actually takes away some of those strategies, rather than adding to them.
Excellent post! I fondly remember the days when players would sit down/come off the bench and one would think about how the player will defend, who he can or can't cover by himself, etc. And, honestly, even when we'd lose, it was a better feeling to lose to a team when it was clear that their offensive and defensive strategies were better than ours.
Not to derail the thread, but I recently found out that double teams of any kind weren't even legal until late in Kareem Abdul Jabbar's career (which is mid-80's or so). I find that pretty amazing. That means that Wilt went his whole career without facing double teams? Can you imagine if it was illegal to double team Yao at all times? And they didn't have the mugging that goes on in the paint these days either. If Yao never had to deal with double teams he would be every bit as great as the all-time greats from the 60's and 70's. In fact in terms of quickness, agility, size and skills Yao is nearly a mirror image of Kareem, only Yao is 4-5 inches taller and has a bigger base.
Yea but that goes for everyone in the NBA today. These days borderline stars would be superstars back in the 60s and 70s. The NBA today is filled with amazing athletes.
My point is more about the lack of double teams than anything else. Much of the difference in athleticism can be attributed to training. They didn't do advanced year-round gym work in those day. If Wilt had the training and they didn't make rules changes to prevent him from dunking then he could have been just as explosive as Shaq or Amare. Amazing athletes or not, there's not THAT many guys in the league right now that are completely automatic if you guard them one on one. If the NBA outlawed double teams tomorrow, I have no doubt in my mind that Yao would be top 3 in scoring, and quite possibly lead the league.
That's quite a claim. I'll agree Yao would basically be unstoppable offensively like Shaq. The only way you can stop Yao would be to foul him. Too bad Yao will never be so lucky... However, even now Yao is basically unstoppable when he gets the ball close to the basket. Yao definitely has the passing skills to pass out of the double team. Right now, I'd say 50% of the problem is the rules and 50% is his teammates not knocking down the open shots when Yao passes out.
This is from Charley Rosen's article about the greatest centers of all time. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3754212
Basketball is about Atheleticism and Skill When it becomes 90% Skill and 10% atheleticism I'm outtie play chess, pool or golf or something I am tired of the OVER COACHING that goes on today anyway Zones are just part of it Rocket River
I don't see how zone makes offense become sloppy free-for-all. There are ways to beat the zone, and sloppy free-for-all certain isn't one of them.
You mean with zone, teams DON'T have to make decisions like whether or not to double-team etc.? Again, no teams use the zone all the time. Whatever you say about man-defense are happening under the current rule. The rule just gives teams MORE defensive options to prevent opponent from hiding their offensive liabilities. How does that "take away" strategies?
Look, I've played a ton of man-to-man (it goes without saying). I've also played a lot of zone. From the hundreds of hours that I've played both, zones are far, far more complicated and harder to get right. I sentiment I agree with 100%, as I've said from the beginning. If you have good athletes who can stay with a man, man-to-man will work better every time, IMO. And at least a small part of that is because there's less ambiguity on coverages in a man-to-man. That's not the point, though. The point is to allow or not allow teams to do whatever they feel like doing defensively. I say let them do what they want. If zones or so inferior, why not allow them?
This is precisely the kind of view that makes the game less enjoyable to me. The attitude that it's all about athleticism and skill - completely reducing the presence of strategy. Strategy is what makes good games great. Without it, the game is just more dumb... more like the WWF. It's like playing pool. I'm not the kind of person who just wants to knock the pretty colored balls around the table. And I'm not just going to try think about sinking one ball. I'm going to try to build a strategy to get as many balls sunk as I can, and leave my opponent a bad shot if I fail. Strategy. Wihtout it, you're just hitting the pretty colored balls around the table, and the sentiment applies in the NBA.
no .. . . I said SKILL and ATHLETICISM and some strategy thrown int Like I said .. . if u want 100% Skill and Strategy . . .then POOL IS FOR YOU no athleticism needed It is like mixing a drink. . .too much of any one things makes it suck I think the NBA is OVER STRATEGIUZED NOW It is getting to the point that they need to Stop after everyplay like Football I'm tired of the players CONSTANTLY looking to the coach to call a play Let the PLAYERS PLAY!! Rocket River
Well, I'll agree with you on this. I guess I like my mixed drink with a lot more strategy than you do. That's just crazy talk! The NBA is much less strategic than it used to be. And players have always looked to the coach for the plays - that's why we have a coach, and that's why a championship quality coach is mandatory if a teams wants to win a championship. If you just want to let the players play with no strategy, you should watch the And-1 tour or the Harlem Globetrotters.
Majic, Bird, Isiah, etc they weren't posted up at half court 50% of the game looking at the Coach for which play to run Rocket River and before you say . . THEY LEGENDs . . I'll say that these guys are not even given the opportunity for the record. . AND1 sucks *ss
