Right-Brain Thinking Against Zones

February 8th, 2010

This article originally appeared in Hard2Guard Player Development Newsletter 4.5.

Zones stymie many teams and players. Generally, teams and players who attack man2man defenses stand around and play passively against zone defenses. There is no real reason to explain the passivity. Zones require a different strategy than man2man, but good defenses combine man-defense and zone defense on each possession.

I thrived against zones because I was a good shooter. However, more than spot-up shooting ability, I found holes in the zone. I visualized the open space or how I could create open space for myself or a teammate. Now, when I play pick-up games, I am frustrated that players rarely see the game or the developing play as I do.

My team struggles with zones because we do not visualize how a cut, pass or pass fake will move the defense. Playing against a zone requires some basic tactical skill and understanding. We use three general skills: dribble and replace; flare screen and skip pass; and a long diagonal cut followed by a short cut into the space. More importantly, I focus on understanding the defense  to create a 2v1 somewhere on the court.

As a player, if I know the defenders’ zones, and I can move one away from his area, I know that there is an open area if a teammate fills that space. When all five offensive players have the same understanding, zones are easier to play against.

If we have the ball in the corner with a player in the short corner, the ball handler dribbles toward the wing. Usually, the defender stays with the ball, meaning the baseline defender in the 2-3 zone is now on the wing. The girl in the short corner fills the corner. On the pass back to the corner, we have an open shot or an open lane – we forced the baseline defender to defend two players in one zone.

If the player penetrates baseline, the middle player in the zone has to rotate to stop the ball. We flash a cutter from the high post on a dive to the rim. Again, we have forced one defender to defend two people. If he stops the ball, a short pass to the cutter should result in a lay-up. If he does not stop the ball, the ball handler has a shot.

The key is understanding the spatial relationships. I have a very analytical team – nearly every player excels in mathematics. We are very left-brained. Consequently, we struggle to visualize space. We lack a creative element. The least mathematically inclined – the two players who lean most heavily toward kinesthetic learners – see space and attack the gaps better than the others.

My players crave more structure, as they are used to plays that occur in a specific sequential order: Pass A leads to Cut B which leads to Pass C which leads to Shot D.

I want them to see space and attack gaps. My approach costs us in some games, but junior varsity is a developmental level and I want them to learn to adapt to different situations. I want them to see the openings in the zone without having to run a play for them to see the openings.

I see the openings and gaps from the sideline; however, rather than design play after play to exploit these gaps, my goal is to get these left-brain thinkers to move beyond their comfort zones and use their creativity and some right-brain thinking to visualize the play developing.

Our biggest problem, ironically, is a poor understanding of angles and relationships between teammates and defenders. For instance, we run an on-ball screen against the zone; our primary purpose is to create a 2v1 in the high post or on one side. However, often the screener is open rolling to the basket if we pass before she reaches the middle defender. Tonight, rather than rolling across the front of the defender, we rolled down the lane-line, which allowed the middle defender to steal a pass. We do not understand the angle that we need as a passer and a cutter. We see open space, but we do not account for the defenders. If there is a line between the two nearest defenders, the pass receiver needs to get to the ball side of the line; by rolling down the lane-line, our player moved behind this line, and the middle defender had a better angle to the pass than our player. If she rolled across the face of the defender, it would be like playing against a man defense when the defense switches.

A similar mistake is in the corner. On a quick reversal, we caught the baseline defender running at the wing with a player in the corner. If the wing drew the defender and passed to the corner, the corner player would have an open lane to the basket. Instead, our player in the corner would take off on backdoor cuts, moving behind the defender closing out to the wing and eliminating any passing angle.

These mistakes are a combination of problems. First, we need more confidence with the ball, especially under pressure. We work on no-dribble passing drills every day to work on pivoting and passing to moving targets while under pressure. Second, we need a greater tactical understanding of where the open spot is and how to get the ball to that player. We need to understand how to exploit open space.

This is a challenge because we are unaccustomed to this process. Against man defense, we excel – we know exactly where to go and how to react. Zone defenses provide more grey areas. At this level, the ball handler generally has an A or B decision against man: (A) use the screen and go to the basket or (B) if they switch, pass to the roller. Zones complicate decision-making. Coaches cannot teach in absolutes, which is why many struggle to coach against zone defenses. Players have to be able to think and find space.

As coaches, we need to prepare players to play against zones. I start with transition, as any transition situation uses the same principles as a zone, offensively and defensively. In 3v2 and 4v3 situations, it is easier to see the openings, the space and the angles. Now as the season nears a conclusion, I want the players to see and feel the space and angles in 5v5 play just as they do in a 3v2 break. However, this takes patience and practice to develop.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: , ,
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »

Attacking Zones through Small Combinations

January 7th, 2010

In Coach, edited by Andrew Blauner, John McPhee’s chapter “VBK” centers on Butch van Breda Kolff and his relationship with Bill Bradley at Princeton.

Van Breda Kolff simply tells his boys to spread out and keep the ball moving. “Just go fast, stay out of one another’s way, pass, move, come off guys, look for one-on-ones, two-on-ones, two-on-twos, three-on-threes. That’s about the extent,” he says. That is, in fact, about the substance of basketball, which is almost never played as a five-man game anymore, but is, rather, a constant search, conducted semi-independently by five players, for smaller combinations that will produce a score.

Van Breda Kolff’s philosophy is perfect, especially at the developmental level. The coach gives the players some ideas to use to create these smaller combinations, and then the players use the spacing to create a shot. Too many teams and players are hamstrung trying to run a play or set up a play rather than understanding or learning to understand how to play basketball.

Here is an example of a Princeton University women’s basketball set used to find smaller combinations and create a shot through some basic tactical skills (I saw this in November, so it may not be exactly what Princeton runs, but my version based on my recollection of a frequent set of theirs).

The concepts are simple. First, get the ball to the corner and force the baseline defender to defend the ball in the corner (any zone defense becomes a 2-3 when the ball goes to the corner). Second, dribble out of the corner and fill behind the ball. If the baseline defender (O3) does not stay with the ball, she drives to the basket or shoots the open shot; a defender cannot leave the ball. If O1 leaves the high post area too quickly to push O3 off the ball, the offensive player in the high post is open for a shot or drive.

When X3 passes to X4 in the corner, O5 has to move to the ball or give up the open three-pointer. As she closes out, nobody is there to defend X5 cutting to the basket.

If O4 or O2 commit to X5, X2 or X1 is wide open for a three-pointer because the defense would be committing four players to three offensive players on the strong side.

This is simply a matter of using one basic tactical skill (dribble and fill) to create an advantageous smaller combination to get the ball inside against a zone defense.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: ,
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »

Team Offense: A Philosophical Decision

January 5th, 2010

With my team at the developmental level, we run a very unstructured offense. We have a “play,” but it rarely looks as good as it does on paper. In games or practice scrimmages, players speed up, lack patience, or pivot too slowly, which prevents perfect execution.


Luckily, my goal is not to run the play. I imagine that we could spend time at every practice running through the play 5v0 until the players memorized exactly where to go and our timing would improve. When we entered into the high post, we would pivot quicker and see the open cutter for the lay-up, rather than passing too late or missing the cut altogether.

However, if we spent so much time memorizing the play, what would happen when the defense learned the play and adjusted? If we spend hours trying to eliminate thinking, how would we adjust?

Rather than practice precision timing, we spend most of our practice learning to adjust and adapt. We have our primary goals: shoot close to the basket or open three-pointers. We have our strategy to create these shots: disorganize the defense and force the defense to defend sideline to sideline. And, we have our primary tactical skills that we emphasize: give-and-go cuts, high on-ball screens and dribble-ats.

Therefore, when we run our initial action and someone forgets where to cut or the defense takes away the first option, we can adjust. The players can make the decision to make the best possible play. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. But, we’re never stuck. We may not always look pretty or precise, but we also do not waste time “setting up.”

At the developmental level, these are the two options: either spend a lot of time memorizing certain plays so that the team offense looks precise or teach players some simple tactical skills to use over and over until they manage to create a good shot. The first option typically leads to quicker results; however, these teams are easy to defend and players are not necessarily learning the skills employed in the offense. The second option takes more time and often looks ugly, but players learn more and as they improve, they become more difficult to guard because they can adjust to the defense.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags:
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »

Running Plays like the Indianapolis Colts

December 22nd, 2009

We played a game last weekend and our opponent spent more time setting up to run a set play than doing anything else. Players dribbled around, other players ran in circles and the coach grew increasingly frustrated. We managed to force a couple 30-second violations just by letting them try to run their own plays. We eventually won by 25 points running one “play.”

In his ESPN column, Gregg Easterbook tried to explain the difficulty of defending the Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning:

Manning is the sole NFL quarterback who calls his own plays…Many plays drawn up by Moore and Manning have multiple options — any one of several things can happen, depending on the defense. When Manning comes to the line, he chooses which variation to use. Most of the time, Manning simply calls whatever he wants to call. Often several of the receivers are running “sight adjustments.” They don’t have a specific pattern called at the line — rather, they run what seems likely to be open given the defensive set.

In a perfect world, our offense (and to a lesser extent our defense) would be the same. We start in a basic five-out set. However, the point guard has multiple options based on what she reads. In fact, at the developmental level without a Manning-like player, the numerous options probably hurts our efficiency.

Generally, the ball handler is looking to pass and basket cut for a give-and-go. She has three potential pass receivers. If none is wide open, she also has the option to dribble at one of the pass receivers. The pass receiver then reads the defense and receives a hand-off or cuts backdoor to the basket.

In this way, we can play an entire quarter and look like we have run multiple plays even though our entire offense is based on three things: dribble-ats, pick-and-rolls and give-and-gos. I never call anything. It is up to the ball handler and the pass receivers to read the defense. When we play well, it looks great, we create open shots and we look pretty good. When we do not play well, we can look pretty bad, fairly unorganized and like a team without a coach.

However, that is part of the lesson: learning to adapt to and read the defense to make good basketball plays. At the developmental level, the decision-making is far from perfect. The goal, however, is to develop players who will make the right decision when they reach the varsity. How will they ever learn this skill if they are not allowed to make mistakes or look bad occasionally?

Having Manning call his own plays is extremely effective. Obviously, many quarterbacks lack his level of ability. But TMQ thinks the real reason more NFL quarterbacks don’t call their own plays is coaching bureaucracy. The coaches want to be in control, and maintain their illusion of possessing super-ultra-secret insider knowledge. No mere player could call a down-and-out — only coaches have that kind of skill! By not letting quarterbacks call their own plays, NFL teams concede an advantage to the Colts.

Is the same true in basketball? Phil Jackson will never get his due as a coach because he appears to allow his players to do everything and rely solely on his best players. However, former players have told me that in their years in the NBA, nobody prepared a team for an opponent as well as Jackson and his staff.

We see a coach who allows his players to play in the Triangle, which requires them to read the defense and make plays, and we give credit to the players, which they deserve. However, these players would not be able to make these plays if Jackson coached in a different style, demanding that players run certain sets every time down the court. His players thrive because of the way that he coaches, just as Manning thrives because of the way his coaches have allowed him to perform.

Is this only possible with a Manning or Kobe Bryant? It certainly helps. However, how many quarterbacks look better in the 2:00 Drill than they do throughout the course of the game? Why is that? How many basketball teams play better when making a comeback than during the normal course of a game? Why?

To a certain degree, players stop worrying about being perfect and concentrate on making plays. Coaches stop dictating the play and have to trust the players. When players read the defense, make the correct decisions and execute, they are more difficult to stop than when they try to run a specific play and the defense can defend the play.

Unfortunately, oftentimes a coach’s best intentions backfire and the plays are not nearly as effective against another team’s defense, especially when the players lack the general playmaking ability to fall back upon. My goal with my team is to develop the general playmaking ability first and then the varsity coach can play a similar style or use more plays knowing that the players have the general skills to enhance the execution of the plays and to use if and when the plays do not work.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: , ,
Posted in Team Offenses | 2 Comments »

Learning the Triangle Offense

December 15th, 2009

Jonathan Abrams wrote a good article about Kurt Rambis instituting the Triangle Offense with the Minnesota Timberwolves. He writes:

The triangle, created by the post, wing and corner players, revolves around seven guiding principles: the ball handler reading the defense; correct decisions based on the defense; penetration through a pass into the post; separation of 15 to 20 feet for all the offensive players; movement through sharp cuts; interchangeability in positions; and balance for defensive transition.

These seven guiding principles may apply specifically to the Triangle, but they are good principles for any offense. Shouldn’t all offenses involve reading the defense and making correct decisions? Isn’t the goal to get penetration into the key, whether through a pass or dribble? Aren’t all offenses predicated on good spacing? Don’t the best offenses involve all players in all positions? Isn’t the first aspect of great defensive teams the court balance when a shot is attempted?

Abrams writes:

The triangle differs from more traditional N.B.A. offenses because it presents more options for the five players on the court. There are no set plays, just many possibilities.

Isn’t the ideal offense for developing players one that presents opportunities for all five players and creates an interchangeability among players? As Rambis says about the Triangle:

“It really teaches players how to play…It teaches players how to move without the basketball, how to read defenses, how to play together.”

Isn’t that the goal for youth basketball? As Los Angeles Lakers’ assistant coach Jim Cleamons says:

“The triangle is literally a junior high school offense, so if junior high players can run the triangle, then, certainly, young players of this caliber can run it. It’s a mind-set. You just have to be open, you have to be receptive and you have to be willing to realize that you can’t dominate the basketball. If you are good to the offense, the offense will be good to you.”

I don’t know if the Triangle offense is the perfect offense or the best offense for youth teams. However, the principles and the basics that it emphasizes are those that every youth coach should emphasize. Developmental teams should find ways to get every player opportunities and to encourage every player, not just run sets to get the best player shots. If every player learns to read the defense, move without the ball, pass and take good shots, the coach has been successful, at least on the offensive side.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: ,
Posted in Team Offenses | 1 Comment »

Basketball & Improv

December 4th, 2009

In the December 2009 Los Angeles Magazine, Michael Mullen recounts his experiences learning improv comedy at the Upright Citizens Brigade in Hollywood in an article titled “Get Me Outta Here!”

During two passages, he captures the essence of great basketball as well:

Improv…is about scenes and what is known as The Game. There’s a paradox here. It is human nature to be competitive, to want to stand out and earn a pat on the back. If a scene works, however, it is because players have cooperated and found a game. The game requires an ensemble performance, so it works to your advantage if everyone succeeds.

While NBA basketball depends on star performances, and many high school and colleges win because they have one dominant player, the best teams typically have an ensemble. When everyone plays well, the team performs at its best, offensively and defensively. Even stars depend on teammates to pass the ball, set screens, rebound and defend. While everyone wants to be the star, too many wanna-be stars hunting bad shots or playing individually lead to poor performances.

A group game is infinitely harder than a two-person scene. It is akin to meeting seven friends at a shopping mall and trying to decide what to do. Everyone stands around for half an hour, then finally arrives at a compromise nobody likes. Group games depend on achieving a consciousness in which one loses awareness of self and becomes mindful of only the thoughts and movements of the assembly. It takes listening.

Motion offenses are similar. Bad motion offenses are like the seven friends at the mall. Great motion offenses succeed when teammates read each other and anticipate each other’s movements. This comes through experience playing with each other as well as knowledge of the best plays in certain situations.

If we run a high on-ball screen and the defense rotates to the screener rolling to the basket, the ball handler anticipates that another player fills the vacated area and another player anticipates the open area where the screen originated (top of the key). This is fairly basic basketball, but it spaces the floor and keeps the ball moving. Rather than the ball handler forcing the pass to the screener or pounding the ball, the ball handler reverse to the top for a high-low into the screener or to get a new action going to the weak side.

When the players anticipate the play in this manner, each player plays off each other and off the proper spacing to create open shots for the team. As the players play together more and more, the timing improves and players understand each other’s tendencies, strengths and weaknesses, and the offense flows with less thinking and more reacting to the situations, leading to quicker and more effective decision-making and more decisive plays.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »

Elite Soccer as a Means to Teach Offensive Basketball

November 27th, 2009

Many people overlook the similarities between invasion games like lacrosse, hockey, basketball and soccer. However, watch the series of passes and tactical skills which lead to Arsenal’s Sam Nasri’s goal against Manchester United (video has been floating around on twitter thanks to Clarence Gaines and Steve Nash, among others).

The series uses many of the same concepts that we try to teach on the hardwood:

  • The series starts with a corner kick (inbounds pass): Arsenal attacks the goal, but no shot develops, so theyretrieve the ball and set up to maintain possession.
  • After recovering possession, they use a quick give-and-go down the left side.
  • When nothing is open, they quickly reverse the ball from the left side to the right side to force Man. U to defend the entire width of the field.
  • Once the ball gets to the right sideline, they try another give-and-go, but the player is not open, so they touch the ball back to the right back filling behind the cut.
  • Eventually they move the ball with the dribble to the middle of the field and execute a dribble hand-off (to use basketball terms).
  • After the dribble hand-off, the player passes to Cesc Fabregas in a position not unlike the high post. He turns and faces the goal.
  • As he faces the goal, one player makes a diagonal run from the right side to the left side, which clears space for Sam Nasri’s cut toward goal (essentially a backdoor cut).
  • Fabregas leads Nasri perfectly into his shot.

This is not a play. This is the type of tactical understanding and game awareness that we should strive to teach on the court. If players understand the basic skills (give-and-gos, dribble hand-offs), they can combine these skills over and over to create an open shot.

The most important aspect, to me, was the cut from right to left that opened the space in the center for Nasri. Players – especially young players – need to understand that sometimes a great cut does not produce a shot for the cutter, but opens space for someone else. Also, the ball handler does not need to pass to the first cutter who is open, but needs to see the play developing and realize the second cutter is wide open in a more dangerous position. When you find a player who anticipates and finds the second cutter in a situation like this, you have an elite point guard, as few players at any level see the play develop in this manner.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Team Offenses | 1 Comment »

Offensive Basketball: Disorganizing the Defense

November 25th, 2009

Last winter, I published Developing Basketball Intelligence, which aims to teach players how to play the game, see the floor and make better decisions with the basketball. Last summer, I started the Playmakers Basketball Development League which features league-play based around these concepts and creates a learning environment for game play, not just a competitive outlet.

On True Hoop, I saw a link to an article breaking down the Boston Celtics’ defense from their weekend game against the New York Knicks. Rather than focus on the Celtics’ defense, the same article and videos illustrate the ideas that I use offensively to replace the set play or continuity offense: disorganizing the defense through a tactical skill (pick-and-roll, dribble hand-off, etc).

I emphasize two tactical skills (basket cuts and pick-and-rolls). We use some off the ball screens and dribble hand-offs, but primarily we focus on the on-ball screen and basket cuts/give-and-goes.

Our goal is to disorganize the defense and then exploit the disorganized defense with ball movement. In this clip, the pick-and-roll leads to switch and a mismatch in the post with Ray Allen matched up against David Lee. Kendrick Perkins helps off Chris Duhon when Lee receives the ball. The other Celtics defenders rotate as now the three defenders must defend four perimeter threats. Lee skips the ball to Gallinari. KG rotates up to Gallinari who passes to Al Harrington for an open three-pointer before Rajon Rondo rotates to him.

This is hard for many young players (especially those used to set plays) to understand. The initial screen did not lead immediately to the basket, but it did disorganize the defense, and the ball movement from that point created the open shot.

When young players learn plays, they learn that Screen A leads to immediate shot B. When young players learn continuity offenses, they typically learn where the shot should be taken, but not necessarily when: for instance, in Flex, the shots are typically from the elbows or at the basket.

When focused on disorganizing the defense, the shot could be taken anywhere. The tactical skill is not used to get a specific shot, but to give the offense an advantage and unsettle the defense. Players first learn how to execute the skill (i.e. set the screen) and then learn to exploit the advantages to create good shots. In set plays and continuity, players typically learn to execute the skill, but they do not necessarily learn how to exploit the advantage or use the skill to create a good shot unless the immediate shot is wide open (first cutter off a screen).

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: , ,
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »

Steve Nash & the High On-Ball Screen

November 4th, 2009

If you run high on-ball screens as part of your offense (as I do), here is a video of Steve Nash (via True Hoop) destroying the L.A. Clippers by reading the defense and taking what the defense gives up. He does not over-penetrate and he does not force a shot. If he has an open jump shot, he takes it; if he draws a double-team, he swings the ball to the open man.

The high on-ball screen disorganizes the defense, and the Suns move the ball until they have a high percentage shot, never allowing the Clippers to re-set once they start to scramble.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »

Youth Basketball Offenses: Principles, not Plays

October 30th, 2009

Strength Coach Charles Staley’s newsletter refers to an article on Programming, which uses the example of different martial arts or fighting styles:

Most Japanese and Korean styles of martial arts utilize a “technique-based” approach to self-defense. In other words, if your opponent throws a punch to your face, you defend with “technique A.” If he throws a kick to your ribs, you respond with “technique B.” And if he tries to stab you with a knife, you counter with “technique C” and so forth. The problem with this type of approach is that you need as many counter-defenses are there are possible attacks, and that’s a lot of techniques to learn.

An alternative solution can be found in the Filipino martial arts, such as Kali and Escrima. In these fighting arts, all attacks (whether they be foot, hand, or weapon) are categorized into 12 different groups based on the angle of the incoming attack. For example, any straight thrust to your midsection is a “number 5.” Any sweeping attack from the side is a “number 4,” and so on. Using this system, the martial artist only needs 12 different defenses as opposed to the hundreds he’d need using another system.

His point is similar to one about teaching plays vs. principles. Some teams run plays for everything; they have a press break for a 2-2-1 press, 1-2-1-1 press, man press, half court trap, run and jump, etc. This methodology follows for all areas. This is like the Japanese or Korean style, where coaches must anticipate all the possible attacks and teach different defenses for each one. This is very time consuming and requires a great deal of memorization and game preparation.

Teaching principles is like the Filipino martial arts. Rather than teach a press break for every possible half court and full court press, I teach 2-3 simple skills which players use against any type of pressure defense. The basic skills and spacing are the same against any press: the foundation is the same – the specific depends on the defense. If players know the foundation and understand the proper spacing, they can adjust and adapt to different presses.

By Brian McCormick
Founder, 180 Shooter

Tags: ,
Posted in Team Offenses | No Comments »