And this one is more recent: http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/0404/1167571.html Looks like that offensive rebounding/goaltending thing got scrapped real quick. [This message has been edited by Nolen (edited April 08, 2001).]
A few thoughts : 1) Attendance and Ratings are down because of Isolation plays, because Isolation plays result in decreased scoring. Wrong. a) Attendance and ratings are down because of a combination of the retirement of Jordan, the Lock-out and increased ticket prices. b) The decrease in scoring is much more feasibly placed on an increased emphasis on defense in the last decade or so, and the increased use of quasi-zones in league play. It seems to me the ISO is being unfairly blamed for these "problems" with basketball. Scoring is down what, 4-5 pts a game combined in the last 5 or 6 years? Is there anything inherently more exciting in a 97-94 game than a 94-91 one? Last nights Sonics game was exciting to me, yet only one team broached 90. When did the NBA let Chicken Little run the show? And one last thought, which came first Zones or ISOs? Did zones come along to defend isolation plays, or did isolation plays come along to expose quasi-zones? ------------------ Founder and President of the Houston Homers Club(HHC) - Are you a homer? Join now! The Rockets will be NBA champions. Believe.
Wouldn't a defensive three second violation just eliminate zone anyway? ------------------ Arkansas' Biggest Rocket Fan!
no it doesn't because obviously you can be in the paint. The rule is you must be an arms length away. also, it is designed to stop 2-1-2 and 1-3-1, the ones that really camp out under the basket. But it does not provide much impedence to the athletic zones revolutionized by Dr Ramsey and John Chaney. Those are the 1-2-2 and match-up zones, respectively. They don't have a center camping out in the lane anyhow. They are designed to create a triangle between the ball handler and the basket.
Bingo! Exactly! The game is fine. The younger generation is taking over- just take a look at the top ten scoring list. Let the new stars emerge; things will be fine. [This message has been edited by Nolen (edited April 08, 2001).]
I think it's really a mistery how this 3 second defensive rule is really going to work out. I mean, an arm's length? Man, is that arbitrary or what? Like HP said earlier, some of these guys have 8 foot wingspans. It's really up to the refs, and they don't enforce it any more than the 3 second offensive rule, I don't see it doing much. However, I can really see sweet shooting big men take a big jump in value. The only real number one way to pull the opposing big man out is if your guy has range and is a true threat. We've already had this plan a couple of years ago; that's why we play Bull at the 4; that's why we drafted Collier and Langhi and hopefully (please god please) we'll get LaFrentz. I think that's the only sure fire way to take care of it, and hey, that's been our future game plan all along.
Here's another article, by Aldridge. It's actually not too bad. http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/aldridge/1168450.html Sunday, April 8, 2001 Rules changes will put more guys in a zone ---------------------------------------------------------------- By David Aldridge Special to ESPN.com I'm an NBA head coach in the year 2001. Rick Fox isn't a bad offensive player, but wouldn't you rather see Kobe? I have the Lakers coming to town next week. That means Shaq and Kobe. And that means, now, that I'm playing zone. Box and one, to be specific. That means you, the paying customer, will shell out good money to see Robert Horry and Rick Fox shoot jumpers. The question is, is that necessarily a bad thing? The answer may have a profound impact on the future of the NBA. If, as most everyone assumes, the league's Board of Governors passes the Colangelo Committee's proposed rules changes next week, zone defenses will become completely legal beginning next season. They are already quasi-legal. Pat Riley's Lakers used "man defense with zone principles" 15 years ago; now, under this proposed change, anything would go. After a week of talking with coaches and basketball people, I remain skeptical. The other three proposed changes are fine with me. Eight seconds to get the ball past midcourt instead of 10 is OK. The five-second rule limit on holding the ball in the frontcourt without passing or dribbling should have been in years ago. And I agree that easing up on the handcheck rules should get some flow back in the game. But the zone rule? I'm skeptical. The Colangelo Committee's notion is that by allowing all zones, you'll no longer see that horrifying two-man set on the strong side of a halfcourt offense, with three guys on the weak side, not at all involved in the offense, trying to draw their men away from the action. Because defenses could now send their players anywhere they want, those three offensive players would have to take part in the game again. The CC believes that zone defenses won't become a staple of NBA play because, a) there isn't enough time in an NBA schedule to practice and perfect zones; b) zones leave defenses vulnerable to giving up offensive rebounds; c) zones eventually give up open shots. Coaches I talked to agree. "You're going to give up an open shot for sure," says former Pacers assistant Rick Carlisle. "That corner three is too easy. Teams would make it just enough to get you out of" a zone. The CC also believes that allowing teams to set up in zones would encourage teams to push the ball up the court -- and keep the opposition from setting up the zone. That would have the added benefit of getting the ball in the hands of the Allen Iversons and Vince Carters of the world out in the open, enabling them to display their skills on the break instead of on clear outs in a halfcourt offense. "Rather than those guys isolate and go one-on-one, they'll have to give the ball to somebody else," a committee member said. "And if the coach doesn't push skill development in the other players, they deserve to get beat. The way you're taught to beat up a zone is to beat the ball down the court. And that's where I think the athleticism of guys like Carter and Iverson (and Francis and Mobes and Moochie and Aderson )can excel." But let's get back to the original question. Is it bad for this league if Rick Fox and Robert Horry shoot jumpers? Think about it before you answer. Everyone agrees that the NBA is suffering from a decided lack of flow. Not enough moving and cutting; not enough midrange jump shooting; not enough pick and screen setting. In short, not enough team play, too much individualism. All right. Fine. But individuality has been the operating principle of this league -- and, more importantly, its marketing division -- since the NBA's inception. This league has always been about Capital Letters. Wilt and Russell. Oscar and Kareem. Clyde and the Pearl. Magic and Bird and MJ and on and on and on. We love our superstars in pro basketball. We identify with the best of the best. Can we identify with Shaq if he is triple-teamed in the post? Isn't that why he left LSU? The CC argues that because defensive players will have the same three-second limit on them in the paint as the offensive players have, you won't be able to collapse on Shaq. And even if he is doubled in the low post, the selfless thing for him to do, the Team Thing, would be what he is already doing -- hit a cutting teammate for a layin, or the aforementioned Fox and Horry for those aforementioned jumpers. And there's nothing that says the Big Fella can't get his butt up and down the floor for some cheap baskets, either. I remain skeptical, however. And the main reason I'm skeptical is because the CC is trusting the very people that have helped get us in this mess in the first place. Not players, though they're responsible for a lot of things. Coaches. Coaches who leap off the bench from the opening tip, and who don't sit down until the final buzzer. Coaches who call every play of every game, from fist up to two down, who insist on micromanaging the life out of their players, who use timeouts like toothpicks. It amazes me every time a team goes on a 6-0 run and someone on TV is screaming, 'they've gotta get a timeout!' Why do they gotta? This is what I like about Phil Jackson, and Dean Smith, and coaches of their ilk. They know that sometimes, you have to let the players figure it out for themselves. That falling down by 12 points in the second quarter isn't a catastrophe. That vainly sticking your coaching nose into every set takes the improvisation out of your players, makes them look at the bench every time they make a mistake. Unfortunately, we've got a lot of coaches in the league now who insist on imparting their wisdom -- and altering the game. These guys are gonna sit back, relax, and let their guys run up and down the floor, making up their own minds about where to pass the ball? These guys aren't going to "manage" the game through their own brilliance, calling every cockamamie junk defense imaginable to try and steal a game against a more talented opponent? Do we need even more excuses for these guys, who can shake their heads after games and moan, sotto voce, "well, we called a triangle and two, but Bob was playing box and one"? We've had five, six years of well-meaning, smart committees tinkering here and there. More flagrant fouls. Less handchecking. Eliminating the rough stuff on cutters going through the lanes. Enforcing the palming rules. Allowing strong-side zone defenses. Calling more offensive fouls on bad screens. All implemented in the last decade, with the intention of raising scores and tempos, and none have done the job. Now comes the CC, with men much smarter than I,(Yeah, no kidding- but where did this sudden humility come from?) with its modest proposal. We've tried everything else, I guess. But call me skeptical.
<quote> Originally stated by Rick Carlisle: "You're going to give up an open shot for sure," says former Pacers assistant Rick Carlisle. "That corner three is too easy. Teams would make it just enough to get you out of" a zone.</quote> He knows what he is talking about. Move the ball and find the open man. No mo iso's ------------------ "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."- (Aldous Huxley)
Let me see this . . .3 second Rule I can hang in the lane if I'm with arms length of an opposing player? Does that mean we can double shaq ALL GAME? Rocket River ------------------
RR, Yes, you can camp out with Shaq...YES! Think about it....you cannot require a defender to step out of the paint just because of a 3 second rule. That would allow an offensive player to stand right at the edge of the paint and use that line to shield his defender. The moment the defender has to reestablish himself outside the paint, the offensive man spins into the paint and shields the defender so he cannot return to the paint, and the pass is there for an easy hook shot or slam. The defender always must be allowed to stand between his man and the basket or you really, really give an advantage to the offense like never before.
You think we'll see alot of: We'll FORCE the rest of the team to beat us just put 2 people on Iverson I think that will beat Philly 9 times out of 10 *grin* The Issue is this. Since people like shaq are ALWAYS within arms length of the lane. Weakside cheating will be INCREDIBLE I mean I would FRONT Shaq all day Forcing a Nigh Perfect LOB becuase my weakside defender will have SANDWICHED Shaq in [I wonder will they call that push in the back of the fronting defender? This will be great for Horry with Shaq fronting the Admiral.] HeyP Shouldn't PICKING disrupt the zone I look for more Offensive fouls on Picks more picks in general Rocket River ------------------
exactly, you would be able to front and back Shaq. Honestly though, I swear that was supposed to be allowed already. I mean, what does the "strong-side zone" rule mean anyhow? about picking... Picking against zones will bare no more fruit that picking against man on man. Actually, picking against man on man is supposed to be the one that bares more fruit. There is no offensive advantage to defenses choosing to run zone that I can think of at all. The talk of offensive changes is about FORCING the offense to do things that they don't feel has the greatest success right now. The talk of uptempo that Shandon mentions is about playing Kansas, Arkansas and UNLV ball, whereby your biggest objective is to score off of transition and secondary breaks before the zones can organize themselves. On every possession...run! The idea here is that all offenses will have more trouble against NBA zones than under status quo rules, so you better try your best to score before the zones get set...good luck!
HP, Picking against zones is highly under-rated, under-used and is extremely effective. Smeg ------------------ "Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night
smeggy, i never said picks were ineffective, just that zone has "help" built into it like David Robinson staying down low at Navy no matter what, where man on man requires teaching how to help and switch when someone loses Reggie Miller for instance. ...oh he wasn't my man!
whereas in a zone they go..... Reggie wasn't my area!!! ------------------ "Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night
smeggy, switches create mismatches. mismatches are easier to produce in man on man than zone. the fundamental idea of zone is to not let the offense tangle you up by running you into each other....to prevent mismatches. let's get back to your point...how is picking against zone fundamentally more effective that picking against man to man.
Zones can get easily muddled up especially if the offensive teams overloads a section of the floor, other methods include slipping the defender and generally trying to make one particular have to make a decsion on which of two players he has to guard. Another good method to think of when breaking down zones, is that you try make them guard you 1 on 1, which as a consequence the zone loses it's shape. I didn't say that screens were more effective against zones than man just that it can be equally effective and are highly under used. ------------------ "Repression never did me any harm (I finally ceased to include "stop masturbating" as one of my guilt ridden New Year's resolutions, but that's a different topic)." Achebe - programmer by day, Mrs Palmers Husband by night
You're right; you didn't say that. I thought you were implying it. Now imagine a combination of zone and man...the matchup zone! If you think screens are under-used against zone, one thing to consider is screens were illegal in the NCAA until 1971. So UCLA ball and the Triangle were invented without screens. Ball movoment offenses such as them, do not need as many screens as Motion. But motion...now that is fundamentally based on screens and player movement. And is used quite effectively against both Man and Zone. Still, in my heart of hearts, I love man on man, but what John Chaney does at Temple with that athletic match-up zone is a thing of beauty. I have to side with those who say great zone is better that great man. btw: what is the player overloading of zones you are talking about...sounds like soccer to me, or ultimate frisbee or football. describe that one more please. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited April 09, 2001).]
