Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim is a smart man, and his big brain is always focused on ways to win. So he plays percentages, studies every last detail and doesn't waste time with conventional coaching wisdom. Some by-products of his brain are subtle, like his eschewing morning shootarounds because, frankly, he finds them useless. But others are as synonymous with his program as Otto the Orange, notably his commitment to a 2-3 matchup zone.
Boeheim's strategy shouldn't seem revolutionary, but these days it is. Few top teams deviate from strict man-to-man, let alone utilize a zone as their primary defense. No coach at a big-time program relies on zone as heavily as Boeheim, and only Louisville's Rick Pitino (a Boeheim disciple) and Arizona State's Herb Sendek come close to using a 2-3 as often.
So why don't more coaches follow a strategy that has helped Boeheim win 800-plus games and a national title? It mostly comes down to myths and machismo. For instance, a common perception is that a 2-3 yields open three-pointers, and yet somehow Syracuse has held opponents to 30.6 percent shooting from deep this season, 36th in the nation. "When teams hit a few threes on Bob Knight's man-to-man, nobody told him to get out of his defense," Boeheim says. "They just needed to play it better. And if a team is beating our zone, we need to play it better." Coaches also cite the fact that it's tougher to rebound out of a zone than with man, but that's a minor trade-off, especially since those offensive boards tend to be long ones that don't lead to easy putbacks.
And the machismo? Many coaches believe that if they're not running man-to-man they're not coaching at all. They also worry about the blame game. Says UConn associate head coach George Blaney: "Jim Calhoun believes in man-to-man. The reasons are position, strength and that he can hold our defenders accountable." But Boeheim understands his zone so well that he knows exactly who's accountable, even if it's hard for outsiders to see.
Either way, the shunning of zone represents a caveman mentality in a sport where Darwin generally carries the day. It's time for change, folks, and here are four main reasons:
1. Zone D is a big preparation advantage. Most college teams run upwards of 50 different plays against man, meaning a great amount of film study and practice is devoted to what the other team wants to do. But a zone flips the script, shifting the prep work onto opposing shoulders. Because defenders guard an area instead of a man, offenses can utilize only about two or three different wrinkles against a 2-3. And, Pitino says, "in all my years, I haven't seen one zone offense that's as good as a man offense." So while an opposing coach scrambles both to prepare his man-to-man D for multiple offensive sets and get his offense ready for an unfamiliar defensive look, a zone coach can turn his attention inward toward execution and player development.
Nowhere is that advantage more critical than in postseason play, with short turnaround time between games. Syracuse's six-overtime win against UConn in last year's Big East tourney was unforgettable. But do you recall that the next day the Orange knocked off West Virginia in OT, too? You'd think that after playing into the wee hours of the morning, the Orange would have been toast, from a preparation perspective. Thanks to their zone, that wasn't an issue.
2. Zone dictates opponents' shots. Against man, you can run plays to alter the position of the defense. A zone changes the equation by shading the defense toward certain areas of the court and forcing an offense to react to what you're giving them, which is often a low-percentage shot.
"I haven't seen one zone offense that's as good as a man offense," Pitino says.
All defenses have holes, but Boeheim structures his zone so that the opening is at the foul line, where college bigs struggle to make a play. "Good teams would giggle if they saw a zone 25 years ago," Blaney says. "But passing isn't as good as it used to be, and midrange play has all but disappeared." Similarly, the 2-3 gives up corner threes more often than other shots, but that's another calculated risk. Boeheim believes they are low-percentage shots that don't allow for optimal offensive rebounding.
And not all zones operate the same way. Boeheim adjusts his emphasis and alignment based on personnel. Louisville is more active in trapping and harassing ballhandlers. Neither D remotely resembles the passive, force-the-deep-shot stuff that passes for zone at the local rec center.
Zones also force system-based offenses to radically change what they do best. Georgetown runs a Princeton style based on constant movement, backdoor cuts and dribble handoffs -- all negated by a 2-3 zone. The Hoyas put up just 56 points in a 17-point loss at Syracuse in January. In their next game, against Duke's man D, the Hoyas scored 89 in a 12-point win. A week later, they lit up Villanova for 103 in another win.
Simply put, against man-to-man, the offense dictates where the ball will go; against zone, the offense is forced to react. That's a huge defensive benefit in late-game scenarios, making it easier to take away a team's first option. Want proof? Watch the end of the 2003 national championship game. Syracuse's zone prevented Kansas from running, say, a pick-and-roll with star Kirk Hinrich. Instead, the Jayhawks swung the ball to Michael Lee in the corner, a lesser option. He was momentarily open until Hakim Warrick, a rangy defender whom Boeheim had inserted precisely to challenge a corner three-pointer, flew at him and deflected his shot into the crowd.
3. Zone carves a clear path to a fast break. One of the least recognized benefits of a 2-3 is the way it positions players to turn defense into offense. Because the big men are closer to the basket, they're in prime position to rebound. And the guards are stationed perfectly to receive a quick outlet pass. This simplifies things for teams that run a numbered break, in which each player is assigned a specific lane. Against man-to-man, by contrast, a point guard can get caught under the basket, a center might contest a long jumper, or a player assigned to fill the left lane might be guarding someone on the right, throwing off the break and turning a potential layup into a possession grinding against the shot clock.
4. Zone keeps your guys on the court. Syracuse generally commits fewer fouls than its opponents, because many teams don't aggressively attack the zone, passing the ball around the perimeter instead of penetrating or cutting. Also, big men are less likely to pick up cheap fouls away from the basket, which tends to happen when they're forced to switch onto guards in man schemes. And if a player has four fouls, it's easier to protect him in a zone.
None of this means zone is a cure-all, and naysayers will note that Boeheim has won only one title, that Temple never made the Final Four with John Chaney's matchup zone and that Pitino's increased use of a 2-3 since his Kentucky days hasn't netted him a title at Louisville. The flaw in that logic? The sample size is too small. If few teams play zone, few zone teams will hoist the trophy.
In the meantime, Boeheim and his big brain will keep doing things his way. And there are more than 800 reasons to believe his approach is right.
