Autopsy of the HC 1-3-1

We 1 3 1 because we are not quick enough to m2m.

Opponents in the PL are shooting 34.0% 3PT against our defense, which ranks fifth in the conference. This is not an issue.

The two biggest issues with our defense -- by far -- is rebounding and defending at the rim. We pull down the fewest percentage of defensive rebounds in the PL, and opponents shoot 57.1% 2PT. Carm probably thinks there's a give-and-take with the 1-3-1 in that we will force a number of turnovers and force opponents to shoot from the perimeter, but when they get the ball inside we are screwed.

1-last night by far the greater problem was our inept offense: the foul trouble, the bad decisions, the poor passing, etc.
2-i agree with SOV that the 1-3-1 is a trade off. Last night I believe that it was played more than the matchup since the 1-3-1 causes more turnovers and our poor offense needed more possessions. I believe that most of Kostecka's 3s were from the weak side wing. I remember only one from the corner. (I did miss the start). When the cross court skip pass is thrown from one wing to the other, it is very difficult for our weak side wing to get to the 3 point shooter in time to challenge the shot. Ideally that strong side wing should be pressured so that he can not easily make that pass.

as for the title of the thread, I do not believe that the 1-3-1 is going anywhere soon.

Yeah, I think this is key. In fact, between last year and this year, we've really only seen the 1-3-1 effective when EG was involved.

I think the 1-3-1 is really hard with the size we have. It's almost a non-starter whenever AT and PB are on the floor together. As others have said, the small/quick lineup can force turnovers at a good rate, but is also exploitable inside.

I think that's pretty much the case with any defensive alignment of our best five players.

Not what I said, so please don't mince my words. Our ability to force turnovers at such an incredibly high rate actually makes our defense above average (if one is to go by Pomeroy). We are incredibly exposed when opponents are able to have their big man catch the ball cleanly in the post. 

The 1-3-1 is built with an inherent weakness to the corner outside shot against a team that moves the ball quickly. It's sort of like saying, how do you address the size/power disadvantage that a lightweight boxer has against a heavyweight boxer... different classes with different characteristics. The best way to eliminate that weakness is to play another type of defense.

The 1-3-1 defense is used to create turnovers. We saw a ton the other night against American, but the true intention is not to just intercept crappy passes (although we would gladly take them and did). Most of the turnovers are created from pressure in the four trap areas. Think of the of the 1-3-1 as a cross drawn on a square of paper. Point guard is at the top of the cross, "bottom defender" at the bottom of the cross, and then the 2, 4, and 3 playing left to right. Each of the quadrants is where the trap happens. At the top left and right corners, the point guard defender traps with the wing defender on that side. At the bottom left and right corners, the "bottom" defender in the 1-3-1 traps with the wing defender on that side.

In essentially every version of the 1-3-1 I have ever seen, the 4 or the power forward, plays the free throw line position (middle of the cross on that square of paper). They are a long player, so they can disrupt skip passes, and prevent easy lobs over the top of the traps to the paint or post... but have more speed than the 5 or center to play athletically away from the hoop.

I wrote about this on the old board when Coach Willard played Torey Thomas at the bottom of the 1-3-1. Clearly, running sideline to sideline like a madman was something Torey could do with ease, and his speed could cover some of the weaknesses in the zone. Despite his aggression and strength, he would be at a natural disadvantage in the post.

The problem is always what player to put at the "bottom" spot, and then by default, where does the 5 play. It's a zone that needs speed or athleticism to work well, and the 5 normally has the least of those natural characteristics.

The other problem is that the 1-3-1 always will steer an offense into one of the trapping zones. An offense dribbling down into the half court is naturally funneled left or right from the point, as the 1 on defense is by himself up top in the middle of the floor. The hope is that the offense will pass into one of the top two quadrants where the wing will slow him, and the point will come over to trap. It's not a defense that can sag and react afterwards or it can get picked apart with passing (really, like with any zone)... it has to be active and take some chances. It can result in some of the guys running around like wild to contest shots...

Quite honestly, I would throw out the 1-3-1 after I run the full court press. When the other team calls a timeout, I back off into the 1-3-1, and then save the press for later   Other than that, too many weaknesses, and a risk/reward type of defense I find inferior to a 2-3 trap, box and one, or straight up M2M.  I don't like putting a guard at the bottom of the 1-3-1, but the 5 is too slow to run sideline to sideline.  I can't put a 5 on a wing because he is normally too slow to trap, or the offense will only attack one side... and I'll be undersized under the basket.  Scrap this D.

The biggest fallacy that has been perpetuated on this board.

Man-to-man defense can be played with any level of D1 athleticism if it is (a) coached properly and (b) the team has scouted and prepared for the opponent's tendencies.

Wchc
In 50 years of coaching I have rarely seen anyone but the 5 man play the middle of the three across
most coaches play the point guard, as TT did, at the bottom. True he is hurt when the ball enters the high post with no pressure, but the D wants the ball to go to the corner where the point can get to quickly..
the bigger guard or sometimes a forward usually plays on top and his size should deter the ball from being reversed quickly, which gets the open corner shot..

Neither did I. I agree with his post. Mine goes a little farther and the defense stats prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We can't defend well. We are too slow to defend m2m and to a lesser extent the 1 3 1. We are screwed on defense.

Agree to disagree.

Ok, the Eric Greene type of player solves some of the issues of the 1-3-1. But we don't have him this year. Given that, how do you prevent the uncontested corner 3?
I enjoyed the discussion about the 5 in the middle due to slowness afoot but I wonder who, in out 7 man rotation would be the best at playing the back end 1?

I won't question your expertise.  I didn't play big-time basketball, but I've done some youth league coaching, played on a few AAU teams... and the 4 played the foul line each time.  The 4 versus the 5 in that spot is not my biggest issue as they are somewhat-similar in skills and size.  The 1 at the bottom is the real kicker.  Whether they are at the top or the bottom, the principles and requirements are the same... I just hate giving up that size away from the hoop.  Like I said, I've seen it plenty of times before, and even with HC under Willard, but losing on defensive boards or getting picked apart with a low block entry pass from the wing gives the offense so much space to operate and gives up the size advantage.