I'm actually exiting about the new zone rules, because I think it will be the only thing that could stop a Lakers dynasty. Without the rules changes, what chance would anyone have against the Lakers, anyway? Now, a team with dead-eye shooters would have a chance against the Lakers, because they could double team Shaq every time down the floor, whether on the weakside or strong. The center on the zone would have to stay out of the paint due to the 3-second rule, but so would Shaq. The center could follow Shaq wherever he went, strong side or weak. The forward playing on the outside would help on a double team. ------------------
Quick related question: We have all been saying "tall shooters", why do tall shooters perform better against zones than "average height shooters"? In general, the best pure shooters are 6'5" or shorter. ------------------ Gotta love the Rocket Guy
I'm close to understanding your point. Except no one would double Shaq on the weakside. If he is not one pass away, there is no need to double. And if you understand that, then you understand that all you gain against Shaq is an easier means to deny him the ball on the strong-side. When he is weakside, he actually makes the Lakers' strong side offense better than your strong side offense, because he draws so much attention away from the ball...(ie, the shooter), and let's not forget offensive rebounding, which these "zone makes shooters better" arguments so conveniently ignore. You indeed say that he actually would draw a double team away from the stongside. Ooooohhh, now who else in this world could achieve that. So, that isn't an offensive luxury to have a center draw a double when standing on the weakside (rhetorical question). Further, your logic does not examine the other side of the court as much as you are examining how to deal with Shaq. You understand that Shaq becomes a bigger defensive force than the offense you take away from the Lakers. You still better shoot lights out....actually, you assume that you are going to shoot lights out. I just don't get this. "We can now stop Shaq!" arguments while Phil Jackson is laughing at your ability to get a strong side play off when you can't move Shaq away from the middle on defense. So, what would you choose: An offense with a center who can draw a double team when he is standing on the weakside, or an offense that has to swing the ball around to the weakside to get a shot off? [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
Shandon,Cat & Wink will just simply explode on the court with new rules.That's my analysis with the way the ball move around the floor they will just simply attack the rim. ------------------ Rudy T. will find and fulfill Rockets destiny.
This reminds me of how I can beat my cousin in basketball. He is quicker and a much better shooter than I am. I am a little bit stronger though. So, while he is way outside, I give up the jumper to prevent the drive, and if he is hot, I wioll lose. He is not going to be hot more than half of the time though, probably significantly less. I on the other hand work inside of 10 feet from the basket with both a face up and back to the basket game. I do not need any good streaks, because all of my shots are relatively easy,I am only needing to beathis post defense. Sometimes I will make the shot, sometimes it is blocked/changed. This is only exagerrated when we bring in more players and they try the always double the big man defense. I just dump it off to the weakside cutter for the layup. Basically, I will take my chances with you missing outside jumpers while my game is residing in and around the paint. That is why zone will not help teams with soft interior defense like the Rockets. Please God let Kelvin Cato get some heart and desire next year. ------------------ What's a Nubian?
Wondering to see people's thoughts now. T-Wolves have benefited. LAL seem to be unaffected. Spurs towers do well. The Rocket's weak interior defense is changing. Still weak man to man, but they are changing/blocking more shots due to KT's increased verticle and Griffin.
I guess JoeJoe reopened this debate and just like then and now its the same. Good ball players can adjust to the game and so can coaches. Our team thinks if we just load one side and dribble the hell out of the ball that the d will open up. I said back then that our team would suffer because of the new rules, but posters on this board were raving about how Glen Rice and Walt Williams would kill the zone. The zone that the nba teams use are different than the one that are used by most college teams. If a team in the nba could play 2-3 , this would be the lowest scoring season ever. The defensive 3 sec is fine except that its called as often as the offensive 3 sec. If they really wanted to open up the game, they could have pushed the 3pt line back to 25ft or eliminated it all together, knok the shot clock down 4 secs then you wouldn't see coaches calling every play off the bench or players camped out at the 3 pt arc so often. Coaches ,Riley and Rudy T, being as good of coaches they are should have adjusted quick instead of trying to pound their points into the ground. Zone favor movement ,ball and players as well as penetrators. A zone do not favor pick and rolls and constant dribble kick outs. The purpose of the zone is to make the ball go outside which instead of inside. Most hybrid zones can be nullified by getting the ball in the middle and swinging it or moves/cuts. Looking at the other teams play the same game even with different rules just makes you wonder.
the spurs are NOT benefitting from the new rules at all. what they have benefitting from is a very, very weak opening schedule, playing good teams without their star players (vince carter, allen iverson, ray allen, glen robinson, shaq this w/e). they have consistently shown the inability to beat the upper echelon teams. as a matter of fact, they are not even in the upper echelon of teams. place them behind the lakers, kings, mavericks, t-wolves (at least) in the west. in the east, they are no better than the nets, magic or wizards. they are SEVERELY overrated. the zone, IMO, has hurt them insofar that teams are able to zone up that strong side (tim) and still be able to get out to the shooters. those shooters started off the season hot, but are now tailing off considerably. teams are figuring out that steve smith is the ONLY pure shooter they have. teams are figuring out that Jesus Parker cannot shoot or play defense. teams are figuring out that Bruce Bwen not only cannot shoot, but is SEVERELY overrated on defense as well. when was the last time a championship team had 2 backcourt players that absolutely could not shoot??? try never. also concering the spurs is david robinson and his RIDICULOUS play as of late. an injured hand may be affecting his shooting, granted, but 5 points and 3 boards??? 0 blocks??? this in 24 minutes??? he has consistently been outhustled and outrebounded by his man this year and it has become a major concern in san antonio. san antonio does not really implement a zone of there own. they run it very rarely. for the most part, it has been man-2-man defense this season for the spurs. so, if anything, the zone has NOT benefitted the spurs at all.
Over the last hand-full of games, I think we are starting to see how the Rockets should react to the zone. Unfortunately, the key is Kelvin Cato. With an active and interested Cato, all the Rockets need to do is spread the offense, have any of our guards break down their defender, drive to the basket (which results in Cato's defender falling off of him), dish to Cato for a dunk. Granted, Cato's defenders have not been the best in the league, but, by using the above formula, it appears that the Rockets might have found a way to benefit offensively from the zone and keep Kelvin interested in the game. Defensively, the zone seems to have hurt the Rockets, although their team defense is getting better...and I think this can be attributed to (eeeekkkk!!!) an active Kelvin Cato and the emergence of Eddie Griffin.
