In Defense of the Defense

Here's the argument: "Player X is going to just bomb threes over Syracuse because they play that weak zone."

Please, be my guest.

Last I checked, Jim Boeheim was in the Hall of Fame.  Last I checked, he's won over 850 games, holds the record for most 20+ win seasons, been to three Final Fours and has a National Championship.  So, chances are he knows what he's doing.  Boeheim's reliance on his patented 2-3 zone has kept him on the job for over 35 years and is a large part of the reason he's considered one of the greatest college coaches of all time.

Do they really think that Jim Boeheim doesn't know about Player X?

Of course, there's always the passionate defense of your team, the "well, they win a lot of games, so it must be working" approach.  That tack, though, does nothing to refute the fact that Syracuse does sometimes fall victim to Player X feeling it on that particular night.  Then, all the "told you so"-ers have their point and laugh at Syracuse's stupid zone.  Statistically, though, Jim Boeheim's personal spin on the basic 2-3 makes it just as formidable as any press, trap or man-to-man and it does so while conserving both energy and fouls.

A good defensive scheme is designed to do three things: challenge shots, get rebounds and create turnovers. While, of course, there are innumerable philosophies on how to do this, the Syracuse zone does it with remarkable efficiency. 

In the 2010-2011 season, Syracuse led the Big East in blocked shots with 225 total blocks, good for 6.82 a game.  Of course, it helps when the leading shot blocker in the conference wears orange, but Rick Jackson only averaged .1 BPG more than second place (2.6 BPG to Brandon Flowers' 2.5).  Shot blocking by Syracuse was by comittee, owning to the fact that the 2-3 allows weak side help to rotate more quickly.  What's more, Syracuse had the second fewest fouls in the Big East, resulting in a league leading .44 blocks per foul.  This stat is even more impressive when the fact that the BPF staticticis calculated based on all fouls, both shooting and non-shooting. Of the five teams with the fewest fouls in the Big East last season, only UConn was also in the top 5 in blocks.  In fact, only UConn and Syracuse were above .26 BPF in the conference, with Syracuse ahead by a wide margin (.44 to .35).

Creating turnovers without fouling was also a strong suit of the Orange.  Syracuse was second to Louisville for 2010-2011 in total steals (289 to 313) and steals per game (8.76 to 9.21).  The Cardinals, though, play an agressive pressing style of defense, where the Orange zone is relatively more engergy efficient.  Not only that, but Syracuse once again led in the per foul statistics. Louisville led the conference in player fouls with 652, almost 150 more total fouls than Syracuse.  As a result, Syacuse was able to come away with .57 steals per foul to Louisville's .48 SPF.  And, of course, these steal stats don't account for any other opponents' turnovers. For the most part, blocks and steals are both essentially turnovers, creating extra possesions for Syracuse and most often leading to transition opportunities, where the Orange excel. The ability to create these opportunities efficiently, without fouling, makes the Syracuse 2-3 a formidable defense, even with its shortcomings.

Now, about those shortcomings.  The knock on zone defenses as a whole is that it's harder to rebound out of.  Tell that to Rick Jackson, who not only led the league in rebounding, but did so by over two RPG (10.6 to Alex Oriakhi's 8.5).  And Syracuse was fourth in the Big East in total rebounding as a team, with 37.8, two RPG behind the leader.  It's hard to argue that a different defensive scheme would have made up for that margin.  What's more, Syracuse was second in the conference in defensive rebounds.  So, the difference in RPG is largely due to a lack of offensive rebounding, not any shortcoming in the zone defense.

Finally, Player X and his three-point shooting.  Anyone who's ever played basketball beyond biddy league knows that a zone is designed to limit penetration at the expense of giving up more outside shots.  The logic is simple.  Shots in the lane are easier than ones from the perimeter, so give up the harder shot.  But in today's age of three point specialists and 7' small forwards, does this logic still hold true?

Syracuse was tied with Louisville for second in the Big East in overall field goal percentage defense at .394.  The leader was UConn at .393, so they were essentially equal.  Syracuse was fourth in 3-pt field goal percentage defense at .315.  Seton Hall was third at .314, so again, essentially equal.  Syracuse's opponent's, though, attempted 775 3-pt shots.  Among the top 5 in 3-pt field goal percentage defense, only Villanova (ranked 5th) was within 125 opponent's attempts (Villanova defended 656 attempts). Only UConn defended more 3-pt attempts than Syracuse and were ranked 9th in the Big East at .327.  So, not only did Syracuse force opponents into 3-pt attempts, they defended those attempts extremely well. When considered in combination with how well Syracuse rebounded the ball on the defensive end, a missed three pointer is essentially a turnover and, again, often a transition chance for the Orange.

I'm not a stat geek.  I too want to throw my remote through the television when Player X hits a wide-open 3 or when Gary McGhee and his Predator dred locks get a key offensive rebound.  In the heat of the moment, defensive efficiency, rebounding rates and FG% defense mean nothing to me.  But for anyone out there (Orange fans included) screaming about Boeheim's zone after a loss, or even a close win, try to keep this in mind.  Jim B knows about Player X.  He knows what Player X is capable of.  But he also knows that teams will score baskets, and get offensive rebound and that his Orange aren't going to win them all.  Jim B cares about winning them when they really count, and he's been able to do that more often than not.

References:

ESPN.com- 2010-11 Big East Men's Basketball Statistics

BigEast.org- Big East Conference Basketball Statistics