In Defense of Zones

Why do coaches dislike zone defenses?

The Miami Heat played a zone defense in Game 2 of their playoff series against the Celtics, leading TNT’s Kenny Smith to say: “Miami doesn’t play lazy defense like these other teams.” Later he said, “You play zone because you can’t guard anyone.” The Heat — the NBA team most known for employing zone defenses — finished fifth in defensive rating during the 2023-24 NBA regular season. They do not choose to play zone defense because they cannot stop their opponents.

This popular perception persists, though, as many throughout basketball abhor zone defenses. A youth coach recently commented, “Playing a two-three zone defense in AAU should be a technical foul”. Why revile zone defense when arguably the NBA’s best coach embraces zones? Why are people so against zone defenses, especially in AAU?

First, as I have written repeatedly, young children who are unable to exploit zones (and presses) because of strength and skill deficits should play three-vs-three, play on a lower basket, play with a smaller ball, and/or play with a shorter three-point line (that’s why we created Playmakers League). Any player old or skilled enough for big boy basketball, dare I say real basketball, is old and skilled enough to play against a zone defense, as zone defense is within the rules of basketball. The goal is to modify the game to make it more age-appropriate for young children, not to protect or hide unskilled teenagers.

Second, as Smith suggested initially, zone defense and lazy or bad defense are not synonymous. The Heat are notoriously not lazy. Coaches believe zones epitomize laziness. They imagine other coaches stationing five players in the three-second area to force jump shots and protect the basket. Of course, this happens. Some teams play two-three zones and instruct the three bottom defenders to stand on the block, in the middle of the three-second area, and on the block, and not to move. Coaches vilify all zones because of this.

Of course, some player-to-player coaches instruct one or two players not to worry about their players (the weaker players) and concentrate solely on the ball-handler. I watched NCAA Division 1 teams completely ignore offensive players all season. Nobody suggests outlawing player-to-player defense because of this.

The Heat defend. Zone or player-to-player, Miami features players who defend, play hard, and play together. They are active and disruptive. They sprint, they are physical, and they are difficult to play against. These things do not change regardless of the specific tactics or strategy in a game. Zones are not lazy or bad defense; some teams that play zone are lazy or bad at defense.

Coaches see bad defense while a team employs a zone defense, and they criticize the zone, not the players or coaches. The bad defense is due to the zone. Nobody, however, sees a team play bad or lazy defense in player-to-player defense and blames the player-to-player defense; instead, they blame the players or the coaches for effort, tactics, matchups, communication, and more. Poor player-to-player defenses are due to some part of the defense; bad zone defenses simply demonstrate that all zones are bad.

Zones are not automatically bad, as evidenced by the Heat. Lazy or poorly-taught zones are bad, just as lazy or poorly-taught player-to-player defense is bad. The criticism should shift from the strategy to the manner in which the team plays.

Why do coaches start with this negative frame of reference?

Coaches crave control. People want to see cause and effect. Player-to-player defense affords greater control. A coach can determine matchups, at least initially. Coaches know their players’ matchups, and they can identify mistakes more easily. They know who to blame or for whom to substitute when the team concedes an easy basket, wide-open shot, or an offensive rebound.

Offensively, coaches have less control of who shoots or how a play finishes against a zone. Coaches want their best players to shoot and handle the ball the most and player-to-player defense makes this easier. Many youth and high-school teams set high on-ball screens and allow their best players to drive to the basket all game. The coach appears smart. Against a zone, when two players meet the best player at the top of the key and force a pass, and the team is unable to move the post out of the middle of the three-second area for an open driving lane, the coach does not appear as smart; the opposing coach appears smart for disallowing the constant dribble penetration to the basket.

Player-to-player defense assists with playstation coaching (h/t Innovate FC). Coaches attempt to control their players with their pregame planning and in-game commands. They run set after set, and coaches expect their players to follow the directions and the plan.

Zones force more ambiguity and give players greater responsibility. Players must use and manipulate space as opposed to screening bodies. Teams generally need to pass more, creating more opportunities for mistakes, especially by players who rarely touch the ball against player-to-player defenses.

Coaches argue zones will inhibit skill development. Of course, many also argue AAU is for exposure, not winning or development anyway. Why can’t a coach develop skills alongside a zone defense or when playing against zones?

People think of skill development as purely individual ball skills, primarily dribbling and shooting, and their opposites on defense, namely defending the ball. They ignore other skills. Of course, zones should not affect shooting development, as outside shooting tends to be the dominant attack against zones. Really, zones impact individual isolation play on offense and defense, but good player-to-player offenses do not rely on individual isolations either.

Zones force players to attack space, which ultimately is the goal in player-to-player offenses as well. The available space differs, but off-ball behaviors are similar. Players need to cut, find gaps, attack space, create passing lanes, maintain spacing, and more. Players have the same pass-shot-drive decision on the catch. The effect on offensive skill development should be minimal.

The greater argument is defensive skill development, as high-school coaches who value player-to-player defense suggest they must spend many hours developing player-to-player team concepts to players who think it is “alien voodoo” due to their zones in AAU, and “God forbid these concepts are repped during the six months of AAU.” Of course, these concepts taught during the high-school season are largely traditional help defense concepts, which are very zone-like, at least on the weak-side. Help the helper is basically a zone slide, the wing defender dropping in to protect the basket when the middle moves toward the ball. Zone defenders constantly close out to players catching around the three-point line, and closeouts are arguably the most important defensive skill in the modern game. Zones rely heavily on communication between players, which is one of the biggest weaknesses of most teams, whether playing zone or not. The differences are not so substantial as to warrant such an antagonistic response from coaches.

Can one teach good defensive fundamentals with zone? First, one must define good defensive fundamentals? My fundamentals likely differ from many coaches, which is the reason for NADA: The Antifragile Defense, as well as several defensive-themed chapters in Fake Fundamentals on fundamentals such as closeouts, zigzags, shell drill, looking at the midsection, boxouts, and more. However, teams cannot play good player-to-player team defense without understanding zone principles, nor good zone defense without understanding player-to-player principles. The following are some general defensive basics:

Guard a yard. Defenders must be able to move laterally in both directions and keep a ball-handler in front of them for two steps in each direction.

Positioning. Defenders must know how they want to defend a player. What area do they want to defend? Where is the help defense? Do you send to the sideline-baseline or to the middle?

Closeout. Defenders must cover as much distance as quickly as possible while remaining on balance and able to change directions.

Defending the post. Defenders must move their feet to stay in position and defend a pass from different angles.

Defending cutters. Defenders must deny cutters while maintaining the balance to change directions.

Boxing out. Defenders close to the basket must box out to create more space to rebound missed shots.

Matching up in transition. Players must retreat quickly, protect the basket, and find their defensive shape, whether their zones or their shell positioning in player-to-player defense.

Help and recover. Help defenders must slow ball-handlers to allow on-ball defenders to recover, then close out when passes are made in their direction.

These are eight basic defensive skills; others could list 20 more, but which cannot be taught through zone defense? The specifics change between player-to-player and zone, but basic fundamentals do not change drastically. Either way, the on-ball defender’s goal is not to give up penetration. Closeouts attempt to prevent open shots. Defenses are designed to influence offense into certain areas, although the specifics likely differ based on the type of zone or player-to-player. Defenders prevent passes into the low post, whether fronting or three-quarter fronting, unless the defender has a large size advantage and plays behind. Defending cutters is a big difference, as zone defenders pass on cutters to another defender, whereas player-to-player defenders generally stick with cutters, although advanced defensive schemes such as a triple switch are similar to zones. Defenders near the basket find opponents to box out, match up in transition, and help on dribble penetration. Defense is defense; specifics change, but my specifics in player-to-player likely differ from many other coaches. Zones and player-to-player are not as fundamentally opposite as some suggest.

Ultimately, defensive success has little to do with the particular strategy (man or zone), especially at the youth level. The success starts with players playing hard. Hustle and effort make up for a lot of mistakes defensively, similar to Smith’s comments about the Heat. Next, defense requires some basketball smarts. Players who know the general plan (no layups, no free throws; force two-point jump shots) can make educated decisions quickly and other players can adapt. Finally, defensive success requires toughness, mental and physical. Players must sprint and be willing to use their bodies to box out, chuck cutters, and take charges, but they also must let it go when they do everything right and the offense still scores. The basics do not vary much.

Many complain about zones in AAU because of scouting and exposure. I suppose the basic concern is the athletic transition specialist or the all-dribble, no-shoot, poor decision-making point guards will struggle when forced to play a more half-court game. However, as I have argued for years, a player is not über-talented if he or she excels only in transition or space. The best players thrive in half-court and full-court. Elite players make second and third reads against set defenses. If it takes zone defense to force these extended possessions in tighter spaces with more contested drives and passes, then I want to see more zone defenses when I evaluate players.

Personally, I do not play a lot of zone, as I do not think I teach zone defenses as well as many other coaches. I have no problem playing against zone defenses, as attacks fit with the SABA philosophy and rely on a few simple ideas, which is how I teach basic offense. Good players with a solid system should thrive in player-to-player and zone defenses and should be able to play against both. Seeing players struggle is not always a negative, as growth comes through struggle, and coaches want to see how players handle setbacks.

Zones are not my favorite defense; I play NADA! I just do not understand the consternation and constant complaints. Generally, we confuse bad defense with zone defense, but any type of defense can be bad defense. Zones should not be used extensively with young players who cannot shoot three-pointers consistently or throw skip passes, but these players likely would benefit more from three-vs-three and other equipment modifications as opposed to simply prohibiting zone defense. Real basketball includes zone defense.