I'm not a basketball coach nor do I play one on TV. When I watch hoops, I focus on the ball. Occasionally on a cheerleader.

So for those that understand the Xs and Os of basketball, what do you do against the zone? And what lineup would work for us specifically? Go Bears!

Spacing, stretch the zone and hit the 3-ball...or run/pass through holes. Inside/out with a big man. Good ball movement.

An elite facilitator.

Bobodeluxe;842609375 said:

---

An elite facilitator.

---

We are missing a true PG.

Ball fakes against the zone are a must!

Bobodeluxe;842609375 said:

---

An elite facilitator.

---

Rabb could fill this role.

depends on the type of zone, because different zones have different gaps that you try to exploit...but for a 2-3 zone...

get the zone to move, and lose it's shape
several ways to do so, but the primary way is quick passes, and reverses...you're trying to get the zone to move the wrong direction
players should not hold the ball or passively dribble. this allows the zone to set
for example, pass left, pass left, pass left, pass right, fake pass right, but instead pass left
or the pg dribbles right, but then unexpectedly turns and passes to player behind him

you can also attack the zone by throwing over the top since the offensive player two passes away will be open...although this is easier said than done

another way to attack a 2-3 zone is to pass into the donut hole (middle high post), and facilitate from there
or drive into the donut hole and take a pull up jumper

or get the ball behind the zone (the slot) which is on either side of the basket, behind the backboard...you are not looking to score from there, but it's a great place to pass from

also, crash the boards when a shot goes up to try to score off of offensive rebounds. since defensive players aren't defending a specific man, it's harder for them to block out

or fast break and attack the zone before it's set

despite what some people think, you can drive on a zone (between the seams) but it's hard to do so if the zone is set, and it's hard to take it all the way to the basket since you need to drive between two guards with a big waiting. you can drive a take a floater or tear drop shot, but again taking it all the way to the hoop does not usually result in a positive play

a good offensive alignment to attack a 2-3 zone is a 1-3-1. This is because if the defensive set is an even front, you generally want your offensive set to be odd, so your offensive players are positioned at the seams

The back 1 often just stands in a corner ready to shoot, or runs the baseline back and forth, or sets up in the slot and becomes a passer

not a great idea to put a post on the low block....too heavily defended to get a pass there, and if you do get the ball there, it's easy for the defenders to double

Players want to continually go to the gaps in the zone to receive the pass. Probably the best way to get to the gaps unguarded (or with the defender out of position) is to use back and post screens. Ball screens are less effective against a zone defense. Players can also cut to get to a gap unguarded

there are lots of plays you can run against a 2-3 zone. it's nice to have two mobile bigs who can pass to run most of the plays to get easy shots. otherwise, your plays are pretty much to get an open 3, or a pull up 2 (from a gap)

sorry, kinda rambling and trying to keep it basic....difficult to describe basketball without drawing a diagram or showing it on a court

It depends on the type of zone and the players on each team- But at the core, solving each zone involves discovering and exploiting its weakness. That can include shooting over a zone if you have good shooters against a tight collapsing zone. However that is not what Cal has been facing - which has been extended matchup zones. I would try Rabb at the high post facilitating t a player working the baseline like Brown or Bird with another player screening inside the zone to create a pocket in the low post. Once collapsed, Id also have Wallace fill the gaps in the lane for options and rebounds.

From a pacing point, I feel it is crucial to quickly attack the zone and not let the defense dictate the pace. My personal preference was NOT to pass around the zone unless I had good shooters against a tight zone and better rebounders to clean up the mistakes.

https://www.breakthroughbasketball.com/offense/3-zone-strategies.html

bearister;842609571 said:

---

https://www.breakthroughbasketball.com/offense/3-zone-strategies.html

---

Strategy #1 - Put Your Best Ballhandler in the Middle - maybe. it's rare for the player in the high post to dribble once they receive the ball, although one of the options for them is to drive. mostly they are a passer, and a taller player can get the ball out easier if they get trapped. It's also easier to get the ball there if the player is taller

Strategy #2 - Attack from Behind the Zone - Behind the zone is what I was referring to as "In the slot"

Strategy #3 - Put Em Where They Ain't - I referred to this as "gaps"

I'm sure there are websites with good coaching info, although I like youtube videos. Some pretty good stuff and you can learn a lot

NYCGOBEARS;842609384 said:

---

We are missing a true PG.

---

Don't go to any Holiday Parties with Skip.

This is the least true against a zone imo. We need five guys moving the ball quickly, and not just around the perimeter.

NYCGOBEARS;842609384 said:

---

We are missing a true PG.

---

Its kind of funny how the zone is so effective..I mean..against the zone you usually get tons of great looks at shots. If you make them..great..the other team has a problem. If you miss..the other team stays in it because you can't make them pay for playing that crappy defense lol. Often times teams end up forcing bad shots because they're trying to crack the zone the whole time instead of shooting the open shot that they can't make lol.

If the zone is extended to challenge outside shots you need to beat it from mid-range and inside, but generally by getting the ball quickly to the weak side or holes in the zone. If it's not extended and you're not hitting open shots, it's tougher. Cal missed a lot of wide open shots against Seattle, but didn't get so many when Richmond zoned. Players have to execute to make it work, and also need to make the other team pay by getting offensive rebounds. We haven't done a great job there either.

MinotStateBeav;842609783 said:

---

Its kind of funny how the zone is so effective..I mean..against the zone you usually get tons of great looks at shots. If you make them..great..the other team has a problem. If you miss..the other team stays in it because you can't make them pay for playing that crappy defense lol. Often times teams end up forcing bad shots because they're trying to crack the zone the whole time instead of shooting the open shot that they can't make lol.

---

Crash the boards on offense. This is the best way for a team with our skill set to score points

You are making the point of needing a true PG. True PGs move the ball quickly, make better entry passes, dribble the ball less looking for their own shot, identify holes in the zone and facilitate, etc. Lesser PGs just cycle the ball with few intentions of using passing to bust the zone. That's what we have on the floor for the 28 minutes Sam Singer is not on the floor.

HoopDreams;842609538 said:

---

depends on the type of zone, because different zones have different gaps that you try to exploit...but for a 2-3 zone...

get the zone to move, and lose it's shape
several ways to do so, but the primary way is quick passes, and reverses...you're trying to get the zone to move the wrong direction
players should not hold the ball or passively dribble. this allows the zone to set
for example, pass left, pass left, pass left, pass right, fake pass right, but instead pass left
or the pg dribbles right, but then unexpectedly turns and passes to player behind him

you can also attack the zone by throwing over the top since the offensive player two passes away will be open...although this is easier said than done

another way to attack a 2-3 zone is to pass into the donut hole (middle high post), and facilitate from there
or drive into the donut hole and take a pull up jumper

or get the ball behind the zone (the slot) which is on either side of the basket, behind the backboard...you are not looking to score from there, but it's a great place to pass from

also, crash the boards when a shot goes up to try to score off of offensive rebounds. since defensive players aren't defending a specific man, it's harder for them to block out

or fast break and attack the zone before it's set

despite what some people think, you can drive on a zone (between the seams) but it's hard to do so if the zone is set, and it's hard to take it all the way to the basket since you need to drive between two guards with a big waiting. you can drive a take a floater or tear drop shot, but again taking it all the way to the hoop does not usually result in a positive play

a good offensive alignment to attack a 2-3 zone is a 1-3-1. This is because if the defensive set is an even front, you generally want your offensive set to be odd, so your offensive players are positioned at the seams

The back 1 often just stands in a corner ready to shoot, or runs the baseline back and forth, or sets up in the slot and becomes a passer

not a great idea to put a post on the low block....too heavily defended to get a pass there, and if you do get the ball there, it's easy for the defenders to double

Players want to continually go to the gaps in the zone to receive the pass. Probably the best way to get to the gaps unguarded (or with the defender out of position) is to use back and post screens. Ball screens are less effective against a zone defense. Players can also cut to get to a gap unguarded

there are lots of plays you can run against a 2-3 zone. it's nice to have two mobile bigs who can pass to run most of the plays to get easy shots. otherwise, your plays are pretty much to get an open 3, or a pull up 2 (from a gap)

sorry, kinda rambling and trying to keep it basic....difficult to describe basketball without drawing a diagram or showing it on a court

---

+++++++ All very good.

bluesaxe;842609775 said:

---

This is the least true against a zone imo. We need five guys moving the ball quickly, and not just around the perimeter.

---

This is very true, IMO as well. The point guard's effectiveness is greatly reduced by using a zone. If the guy is an elite facilitator, that is one reason an opponent will use a zone, to keep such a good point guard out of the paint. Another reason is to defend outstanding one-on-one players more effectively. Against a zone, some or all of the point guard's teammates have to look to facilitate. They all have to become passers and hopefully, facilitators. Not just be able to throw an accurate pass, but to make fakes before passing if needed, not dribble much, if at all, and make the decision to pass very quickly. One object is to get the defense to move, and then quickly pass to a player in the area where the defense has moved away from. One major skill of a good point guard is superior dribbling, but a zone renders that skill much less effective and much less needed.

Another problem for Cal is not having many catch-and-shoot jump shooters, essential for beating a zone from the perimeter. The catch-and-shoot is needed because you don't have much time to get the shot off, before the zone closes out on you. Mathews is our only skilled catch-and-shoot jump shooter, IMO. Wallace, Singer, Brown and to a lesser extent Bird, all seem to need to take some dribbles before shooting a jumper. Rabb and maybe Domingo might be good at catch-and shoot, but I haven't seen enough of them to say that.

RichmondBear;842609893 said:

---

Crash the boards on offense. This is the best way for a team with our skill set to score points

---

This is very difficult to do against a zone, IMO. First of all, it is difficult to rebound offensively when the other team is playing zone, because once the shot goes up in the air, you need to look for a man to block off the boards, and you don't always find one or get position on him in time to have an edge for the rebound. In man defense, the guy guarding you is the one you will try and block out, and he is right in front of you, so you don't have to go look for him like in a zone.

Secondly, if you are playing against a zone, your team will usually be trying to beat the zone with long perimeter shots. Perimeter shots usually result in long rebounds, and it is not effective to "crash the boards", if most of the rebounds are going to be long ones.

Thirdly, crashing the offensive boards does not make for good transition defense, and with the long rebounds, the opponent can grab one and be off to the races, with not enough defenders getting back to stop him. Tyrone Wallace makes a living by getting long rebounds and taking off up the floor on a fast break.

Actually, SFCity, I think it's the opposite. Conventional wisdom (and statistics) show that's it's easier to get offensive rebounds against a zone because the defenders aren't in a position to box out. Your first paragraph seems to forget that it's the DEFENSIVE player who is trying to box out and he's in front of the offensive player. Against a zone, there are lanes the board crasher can run through w/out someone in front of him. As for "long rebounds," these favor the offense somewhat more than defense because they may go all the way out to the perimeter offensive players. Your post is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that rebounding against a zone is harder than against man.

+1

Spot on

UrsaMajor;842610033 said:

---

Actually, SFCity, I think it's the opposite. Conventional wisdom (and statistics) show that's it's easier to get offensive rebounds against a zone because the defenders aren't in a position to box out. Your first paragraph seems to forget that it's the DEFENSIVE player who is trying to box out and he's in front of the offensive player. Against a zone, there are lanes the board crasher can run through w/out someone in front of him. As for "long rebounds," these favor the offense somewhat more than defense because they may go all the way out to the perimeter offensive players. Your post is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that rebounding against a zone is harder than against man.

---

+++ You are correct....the problem with crashing the O board is defending against the fast break if you don't get the rebound....but it is common knowledge that a zone is easier to rebound against....

UrsaMajor;842610033 said:

---

Actually, SFCity, I think it's the opposite. Conventional wisdom (and statistics) show that's it's easier to get offensive rebounds against a zone because the defenders aren't in a position to box out. Your first paragraph seems to forget that it's the DEFENSIVE player who is trying to box out and he's in front of the offensive player. Against a zone, there are lanes the board crasher can run through w/out someone in front of him. As for "long rebounds," these favor the offense somewhat more than defense because they may go all the way out to the perimeter offensive players. Your post is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that rebounding against a zone is harder than against man.

---

I didn't say it is harder to get offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds when one team is playing a zone. I said it is difficult to get offensive rebounds, and I was not thinking in general. I was thinking of our personnel and their skill sets as RichmondBear was referring to. We are not a good defensive team, and not good in transition defense yet.

I agree with you that conventional wisdom is that it is easier to get offensive rebounds against a zone, because the defenders are at a disadvantage, having to quickly switch from being responsible for an area to being responsible for a man. The typical zone defender will be looking to find a man and box him out, OR he will try and go to a spot where he thinks the rebound will be and establish position there. At least that is usually what coaches tell their defenders to do.

The offensive player attempting to rebound in a zone is usually taught to find a lane to the spot where he thinks the rebound will be, or if he is already boxed out by a defender, he will fight him for position or use a move to get around him or slip in front of the defender and box him off the boards. To say the defensive players are the only ones who are trying to box out, is not always true, I believe. Both offensive and defensive players will try to box out, if that is what the situation seems to demand. Here is an article on the 2-3 zone, which some fans want us to employ:

[URL="http://www.basketballforcoaches.com/2-3-zone-defense/"]http://www.basketballforcoaches.com/2-3-zone-defense/[/URL]

According to an analysis on NBA shots from long range, they produce long rebounds but hardly any of these rebounds reach the NCAA three point arc. A long rebound might reach the foul line, for example, but unless the shooter is running to follow his shot to the basket, the defender has the advantage in getting that rebound. I think on most teams, when a shot is released, the offensive guards are usually hustling back on defense to prevent a fast break. Here are some charts on where the rebounds are likely to be depending on the location of the shot attempt:

[URL="http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/"]http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/[/URL]

As to crashing the boards, if a small team plays zone defense, they will often be told to crash the boards themselves, to make up for the lack of height. If a bigger team plays zone, they don't need to crash and can let a guard or two slip up the court to run a fast break. Since an offensive team already has a rebounding advantage against a zone, why would they crash? I think it just leaves them vulnerable to easy fast break buckets if they don't get back on defense. Maybe as an occasional tactic, but not a strategy.

And our offensive rebounding is just fine right now, as far as I am concerned. I don't know where RichmondBear is coming from, when he says otherwise. Everything can be improved, of course, but right now, Cal is averaging 13 offensive rebounds per game, ranked 5th in the PAC12, and #81 in the NCAA, tied with Arizona, and most of the time we are going with our small lineup. Last season, Cal averaged 9 offensive rebounds, 12th place or dead last in the PAC12. In 2014, when we had good rebounders in Solomon, Kravish, and Wallace, Cal averaged 10 offensive rebounds per game, ranked 6th in the PAC12. If Cal continues to average 13 offensive rebounds, Cal would have been ranked 1st in the PAC12 and #20 in the NCAA last season.

SFCityBear;842610454 said:

---

I didn't say it is harder to get offensive rebounds than defensive rebounds when one team is playing a zone. I said it is difficult to get offensive rebounds, and I was not thinking in general. I was thinking of our personnel and their skill sets as RichmondBear was referring to. We are not a good defensive team, and not good in transition defense yet.

I agree with you that conventional wisdom is that it is easier to get offensive rebounds against a zone, because the defenders are at a disadvantage, having to quickly switch from being responsible for an area to being responsible for a man. The typical zone defender will be looking to find a man and box him out, OR he will try and go to a spot where he thinks the rebound will be and establish position there. At least that is usually what coaches tell their defenders to do.

The offensive player attempting to rebound in a zone is usually taught to find a lane to the spot where he thinks the rebound will be, or if he is already boxed out by a defender, he will fight him for position or use a move to get around him or slip in front of the defender and box him off the boards. To say the defensive players are the only ones who are trying to box out, is not always true, I believe. Both offensive and defensive players will try to box out, if that is what the situation seems to demand. Here is an article on the 2-3 zone, which some fans want us to employ:

[URL="http://www.basketballforcoaches.com/2-3-zone-defense/"]http://www.basketballforcoaches.com/2-3-zone-defense/[/URL]

According to an analysis on NBA shots from long range, they produce long rebounds but hardly any of these rebounds reach the NCAA three point arc. A long rebound might reach the foul line, for example, but unless the shooter is running to follow his shot to the basket, the defender has the advantage in getting that rebound. I think on most teams, when a shot is released, the offensive guards are usually hustling back on defense to prevent a fast break. Here are some charts on where the rebounds are likely to be depending on the location of the shot attempt:

[URL="http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/"]http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/[/URL]

As to crashing the boards, if a small team plays zone defense, they will often be told to crash the boards themselves, to make up for the lack of height. If a bigger team plays zone, they don't need to crash and can let a guard or two slip up the court to run a fast break. Since an offensive team already has a rebounding advantage against a zone, why would they crash? I think it just leaves them vulnerable to easy fast break buckets if they don't get back on defense. Maybe as an occasional tactic, but not a strategy.

And our offensive rebounding is just fine right now, as far as I am concerned. I don't know where RichmondBear is coming from, when he says otherwise. Everything can be improved, of course, but right now, Cal is averaging 13 offensive rebounds per game, ranked 5th in the PAC12, and #81 in the NCAA, tied with Arizona, and most of the time we are going with our small lineup. Last season, Cal averaged 9 offensive rebounds, 12th place or dead last in the PAC12. In 2014, when we had good rebounders in Solomon, Kravish, and Wallace, Cal averaged 10 offensive rebounds per game, ranked 6th in the PAC12. If Cal continues to average 13 offensive rebounds, Cal would have been ranked 1st in the PAC12 and #20 in the NCAA last season.

---

Where did I say we weren't getting offensive rebounds? By skill set I was saying that offensive rebounding was one of our strengths so we need to focus on it against zones.

The basic idea is to get a player and the ball to a part of the zone that isn't occupied with a defender. The primary way to do this is through more ball movement (unlike a man defense where you want more player movement). Dribble penetration is also effective. And the offense's alignment can innately help, for example a 1-3-1 offense against a 2-3 defense likely gives you a high post option that will be open.

No, I am not. I am saying it's on everyone on the floor to do it, not one guy. Don't act like Sam Singer made everything better when he was in, he didn't.

Californication;842609918 said:

---

You are making the point of needing a true PG. True PGs move the ball quickly, make better entry passes, dribble the ball less looking for their own shot, identify holes in the zone and facilitate, etc. Lesser PGs just cycle the ball with few intentions of using passing to bust the zone. That's what we have on the floor for the 28 minutes Sam Singer is not on the floor.

---

Yeah, on the last point you would like to see shooters moving to an open spot to shoot and the pass arriving just as they are getting there so they have some rhythm without needing to dribble. We don't do that.

SFCityBear;842609985 said:

---

This is very true, IMO as well. The point guard's effectiveness is greatly reduced by using a zone. If the guy is an elite facilitator, that is one reason an opponent will use a zone, to keep such a good point guard out of the paint. Another reason is to defend outstanding one-on-one players more effectively. Against a zone, some or all of the point guard's teammates have to look to facilitate. They all have to become passers and hopefully, facilitators. Not just be able to throw an accurate pass, but to make fakes before passing if needed, not dribble much, if at all, and make the decision to pass very quickly. One object is to get the defense to move, and then quickly pass to a player in the area where the defense has moved away from. One major skill of a good point guard is superior dribbling, but a zone renders that skill much less effective and much less needed.

Another problem for Cal is not having many catch-and-shoot jump shooters, essential for beating a zone from the perimeter. The catch-and-shoot is needed because you don't have much time to get the shot off, before the zone closes out on you. Mathews is our only skilled catch-and-shoot jump shooter, IMO. Wallace, Singer, Brown and to a lesser extent Bird, all seem to need to take some dribbles before shooting a jumper. Rabb and maybe Domingo might be good at catch-and shoot, but I haven't seen enough of them to say that.

---

RichmondBear;842610513 said:

---

Where did I say we weren't getting offensive rebounds? By skill set I was saying that offensive rebounding was one of our strengths so we need to focus on it against zones.

---

When you said we should be "crashing the boards", I thought you meant we needed to get more offensive rebounds than we were getting. Sorry for misinterpreting what you wrote.

I still don't favor the concept of crashing the boards as a strategy for us, because our transition defense is already pretty weak, and I think our guards need to get back on defense quickly once a shot is taken, especially a long range one, except for requiring the shooter to follow his shot. Crashing the boards for us might be better as an occasional tactic rather than a strategy.

tequila4kapp;842610599 said:

---

The basic idea is to get a player and the ball to a part of the zone that isn't occupied with a defender. The primary way to do this is through more ball movement (unlike a man defense where you want more player movement). Dribble penetration is also effective. And the offense's alignment can innately help, for example a 1-3-1 offense against a 2-3 defense likely gives you a high post option that will be open.

---

Yes, that reminds me of a quote from Dr. Tom Davis that has always stuck with me:

"Attack man-to-man with movement of personnel. Attack the zone with movement of the basketball." (Of course, it has to more than simply passing around the perimeter, such as when our Braun-coached teams used to "run clock" for the first 15-20 seconds of most possessions.)

When I played, our basic offense against an even-man zone (2-1-2 or 2-3) was for the point guard to pass to wing, then go straight down the lane and around to the corner. The wing would then pass to the point in the corner, who would either take the corner shot, or, if challenged by the defender coming out from the lane, pass over him to a forward underneath for a turnaround jumper or drop step and lay-up. If the defensive center came over to cover our forward, we would then bring our center to the center of the lane for a quick pass and shot. If the weakside forward then came over to cover our center, the point guard would pass back to the wing, who would pass to the other wing, and the point guard would cross on the baseline to the opposite corner, again trying to set up the same set of options. The goal was to get either an uncontested jump shot from the corner or possibly the wing, or to get the ball inside with a quick pass.

The key point here is that to beat a zone, the ball has to move quickly, and the offensive players also have to move quickly. You're basically trying to move your offense from one side of the court to the other, as quickly as you can, in hopes of beating the defenders to spots where you can get up a good shot. You have to move the ball with passing. Dribblling is not quick enough.

Spacing is also important against a zone, and it has to match the defense. If the have two defenders out in front (2-1-2 or 2-3) the offense has to have three players outside (a point and two wings). If it's an odd-man zone (1-2-2, 3-2, 1-3-1), then you have two guards out in front, essentially stradding the top-most defender, a player at the high post, and two defenders down low. I always found odd-man zones harder to play against, because of the spacing. Fortunately, those zones tend to be harder to play, which is why you don't see them as often.