Experts on the zone

The trend towards using the zone defense in professional defense seems inescapable. The NBA announced that it would implement the zone starting with the 2001-2002 season, which opens in November, ostensibly to increase scoring. Apparently, leagues all over the globe are suffering from some sort of power shortage, since they seem to be heading inexorably in the same direction.

The PBA seems to be following the trend, albeit not in as encompassing a fashion as the industry’s global leader. Explanations on the past week’s telecasts of the PBA Commissioner’s Cup have helped enlighten the public on the allowed use of any defense on the strong side. This certainly looks like a step towards some sort of zone defense.

But what do the coaches and players think about it? In an informal poll of PBA and MBA personalities, it appears that most professional basketball practitioners do not approve of the use of the zone defense. On the contrary, in their opinion, its enforcement will cause scoring to go down even further.

Tanduay head coach Derick Pumaren, who has coached amateur ball and the national team, says that it would actually make it more difficult to generate offense.

"If you think that’s the solution to increasing scoring, I don’t think the zone is the answer," he concludes.

"It would diminish my game," says Chris Clay, the dramatic dunker known as "Texas Thunder" throughout the MBA. "It would force me to practice my outside shooting, which I don’t want to do," he adds with a smile.

"On the positive side, it would make it a more defensive game, but I don’t see how it would increase scoring."

"In the professional game, you showcase the skill of the players," explains point guard Dindo Pumaren. "With the zone defense, you won’t be able to do that. It will be hard for us to do isolation because the defense will be set up already."

Some coaches believe employing the zone will actually speed up the game since the offensive team will want to beat the defense back before it can set up. Others think it will force teams to shoot better from the outside, which will eventually open up the inside. Alaska’s Tim Cone, for one, sees an advantage in being able to set up shooters more if a zone were in effect. There would be more opportunities to create scoring situation for shooters, and teams will have to be more creative.

But coaches like the Cebuana Lhuillier Gems’ Tonichi Yturri don’t see the value of the zone.

"Scoring would definitely go down," the former national player stresses. "You might have games ending with teams scoring fifty points a game or less. It will be very rare that teams will be able to score a hundred points a game."

For the most part, coaches who have been through the amateur mill don’t object as emphatically as coaches who have been working predominantly in the pros. Although all the players we talked to disagree with the zone, they’ve seen it before, and they don’t want their right to show off taken away from them now that they’re playing for pay.

The common objections to the zone are that it curtails one-on-one play, slows the game down and reduces scoring to jump shooting opportunities. The common sentiments in favor are: it may actually speed up the game, improve defense and rebounding.

The debate will continue, and at the end of the day, what the players and coaches really want is to have their input considered for whatever major decisions regarding rule changes in their respective leagues are used next season.

What do you think?

You can catch the full responses of the basketball personalities mentioned and other champion coaches and players on The Basketball Show at 10:30 p.m. over RPN 9, with a replay on Saturday at 6 p.m.