The Fratello-Riedel 1-3-1 Zone
When coaching youth basketball, my coaching staff and I determined that defense was the key to victory. However our roster didn't dictate the makings of a great defense. All of our Height was in our two guards, who we determined had to be the ball stoppers, we had one kid with good blocking skills, but height was an issue. Naturally we turned to a 2-3 zone because the weakness of the zone would be diminished by good defensive guards who could deny the free throw line and keep their point guard off of the 3 point line.
Unfortunately, the 2-3 has more than one weakness and teams soon exploited it by using the corners to open the middle of the court. Obviously the defense wasn't working and switching to Man to man wasn't a viable option because the interior and perimeter defenders were poor. (The two guards are the exclusion, 6/8 players on the roster had no defensive skill)
So what did we turn too? We turned to the 1-3-1 zone, but our own version. Before I go into what makes the FR 1-3-1 different from any other zone defense, you should have a basic knowledge of the basic basketball zone defense concepts. Additionally, utilizing this particular defense takes many hours of practice with INTELLIGENT players, they don't have to be prime athletes, but they need to understand their role and why they are important on each play. Giving someone a sense of importance is key to motivation and getting good effort every play.
The three ways of exploiting the traditional 1-3-1 is by either quickly dumping into the post, shifting it by passing into the corner, or by pushing hard in transition. This zone solves the problem of the corners and the quick post ups. Schemes aren't going to stop teams from fast breaks, but up tempo offenses can be tamed.
The set up is the same pattern of one player at the basket, one on the free throw line, two on the wings, and one at the top. In the FR 1-3-1 the best shot blocker should be at the free throw line, the best ball stopper should be at the top, and one of the speedier players at the basket.
It may seem odd to have the best shot blocker away from the basket, and the speedier players at the basket, but I will explain. When teams pass to the corner it is the Job of the Power forward to go out to the perimeter, so speed is needed to get there before three point shots can be launched. Additionally, the wing defender should come in for the double. (on the other walls the PG and wings should double) The rotations are as follows.
PF and Wing Def 1 are doubling the corner. The Ball stopper rotates over to that side to cover a pass back out to the point guard, the Shot blocker goes under the basket to prevent anything in the paint, the other wing defender has to position himself at around the free throw line.
How about the quick post up? It seems like this could be something offenses could exploit because you do not have the best player in the paint. Well Double down with the big, have the wing and the ball stopper stop that side, ultimately a cross court pass from a big man out of a double is not a good possession.
So what is the weakness? The weakness is a pick and roll on the ball stopper. Ultimately, if the other team's point guard is a decent finisher he should carve up the defense. This can only be remedied by the skill of your ball stopper. If he can stay tight and keep him away from the the point line as is his job then its not a big deal. Most teams are not going to try to use a pick and roll against a zone defense, so the chances of seeing it are not likely.
Is this zone invincible? No, but if everyone understands their rotations and doubles down every time they are supposed to it is difficult to stop. The reliance on a great ball stopper can be an issue for some teams as individual defense is somewhat of a lost in art in the era of three point dominance.
So what about transition? Before I dive into it, I'm going to preface by saying there is a different between a fast break and an up tempo offense. This is about countering up tempo offenses.
To play an up-tempo offense the five players on the court need to be quick, naturally this leads too lineups that only have 1 big man. If teams are playing up tempo, then slow it down on offense and take advantage of their size. The paint is your friend on both sides of the ball. It's going to be hard for them to score coming off an in bounds as opposed to being able to advance the ball off a rebound. As simple as it sounds, it is basic basketball theory. It is BETTER to play a slow efficient offense, then a fast inefficient one. Being encouraged to take more shots in the paint should help offensive efficiency as well as slow down their offense.
Naturally, you are going to miss some shots. In that case it is just to hustle back, scheme will never be a bigger factor then effort in any sport.
Have a nice day.
Unfortunately, the 2-3 has more than one weakness and teams soon exploited it by using the corners to open the middle of the court. Obviously the defense wasn't working and switching to Man to man wasn't a viable option because the interior and perimeter defenders were poor. (The two guards are the exclusion, 6/8 players on the roster had no defensive skill)
So what did we turn too? We turned to the 1-3-1 zone, but our own version. Before I go into what makes the FR 1-3-1 different from any other zone defense, you should have a basic knowledge of the basic basketball zone defense concepts. Additionally, utilizing this particular defense takes many hours of practice with INTELLIGENT players, they don't have to be prime athletes, but they need to understand their role and why they are important on each play. Giving someone a sense of importance is key to motivation and getting good effort every play.
The three ways of exploiting the traditional 1-3-1 is by either quickly dumping into the post, shifting it by passing into the corner, or by pushing hard in transition. This zone solves the problem of the corners and the quick post ups. Schemes aren't going to stop teams from fast breaks, but up tempo offenses can be tamed.
The set up is the same pattern of one player at the basket, one on the free throw line, two on the wings, and one at the top. In the FR 1-3-1 the best shot blocker should be at the free throw line, the best ball stopper should be at the top, and one of the speedier players at the basket.
It may seem odd to have the best shot blocker away from the basket, and the speedier players at the basket, but I will explain. When teams pass to the corner it is the Job of the Power forward to go out to the perimeter, so speed is needed to get there before three point shots can be launched. Additionally, the wing defender should come in for the double. (on the other walls the PG and wings should double) The rotations are as follows.
PF and Wing Def 1 are doubling the corner. The Ball stopper rotates over to that side to cover a pass back out to the point guard, the Shot blocker goes under the basket to prevent anything in the paint, the other wing defender has to position himself at around the free throw line.
How about the quick post up? It seems like this could be something offenses could exploit because you do not have the best player in the paint. Well Double down with the big, have the wing and the ball stopper stop that side, ultimately a cross court pass from a big man out of a double is not a good possession.
So what is the weakness? The weakness is a pick and roll on the ball stopper. Ultimately, if the other team's point guard is a decent finisher he should carve up the defense. This can only be remedied by the skill of your ball stopper. If he can stay tight and keep him away from the the point line as is his job then its not a big deal. Most teams are not going to try to use a pick and roll against a zone defense, so the chances of seeing it are not likely.
Is this zone invincible? No, but if everyone understands their rotations and doubles down every time they are supposed to it is difficult to stop. The reliance on a great ball stopper can be an issue for some teams as individual defense is somewhat of a lost in art in the era of three point dominance.
So what about transition? Before I dive into it, I'm going to preface by saying there is a different between a fast break and an up tempo offense. This is about countering up tempo offenses.
To play an up-tempo offense the five players on the court need to be quick, naturally this leads too lineups that only have 1 big man. If teams are playing up tempo, then slow it down on offense and take advantage of their size. The paint is your friend on both sides of the ball. It's going to be hard for them to score coming off an in bounds as opposed to being able to advance the ball off a rebound. As simple as it sounds, it is basic basketball theory. It is BETTER to play a slow efficient offense, then a fast inefficient one. Being encouraged to take more shots in the paint should help offensive efficiency as well as slow down their offense.
Naturally, you are going to miss some shots. In that case it is just to hustle back, scheme will never be a bigger factor then effort in any sport.
Have a nice day.
Revisiting SOS theory now that the season is over.
Ed Reed and the Ravens won the Superbowl earlier this month, taking home the Lombardi trophy as well taking over this page's banner. Well earned, birds.
Before the Ravens spectacular Superbowl run I posted an editorial about the importance of regular season strength of schedule in determining who would be most likely to win playoff games all the way through the tournament. As a quick refresher, under SOS theory the team with a top two SOS in their conference will win their respective conference, and then win the Superbowl if their SOS is higher than the other conference's.
As we noted earlier, this was a bizarre year in tracking SOS because the AFC had three teams tied for first. The NFC's number one, the Vikings lost their starting quarterback right before their playoff game and the San Francisco Forty Niners were .004 below the second place team, the Green Bay Packers.
With all of this in mind, the theory held mostly true in terms of picking the conference's winner. But was wrong in picking the Superbowl winner. Obviously this theory is not perfect, but it is normally correct in picking NFL playoff games. Let's see how it does next year when the six teams in each conference have unique SOS percentages..
Before the Ravens spectacular Superbowl run I posted an editorial about the importance of regular season strength of schedule in determining who would be most likely to win playoff games all the way through the tournament. As a quick refresher, under SOS theory the team with a top two SOS in their conference will win their respective conference, and then win the Superbowl if their SOS is higher than the other conference's.
As we noted earlier, this was a bizarre year in tracking SOS because the AFC had three teams tied for first. The NFC's number one, the Vikings lost their starting quarterback right before their playoff game and the San Francisco Forty Niners were .004 below the second place team, the Green Bay Packers.
With all of this in mind, the theory held mostly true in terms of picking the conference's winner. But was wrong in picking the Superbowl winner. Obviously this theory is not perfect, but it is normally correct in picking NFL playoff games. Let's see how it does next year when the six teams in each conference have unique SOS percentages..
SOS, the most important playoff statistic?
Today the Baltimore Ravens played and then promptly upset the heavily favored Broncos. Some people will attribute this victory to the "On any given Sunday" theory, while others will point to player match ups. Since we cannot definitively assume any one of those theories, we are forced to instead look to the past for guidance. What we do know is that history suggests we could have easily predicted the result simply by looking at the teams' strength of schedule. The Ravens came into the playoffs with an SOS of .496, and the Broncos came in with an SOS of .457. In other words, Denver played a much easier schedule during the regular season. The differences in the numbers most likely reflects the differences in their respective divisions, but regardless Baltimore came into the playoffs better prepared.
This theory is not limited to this game, though. In fact, 4 of the last 5 Superbowl winners have had a top 2 SOS in their respective conference's pool of playoff teams.
In 2007, the New York Giants had the second highest SOS in the NFC with a .516 SOS. The defeated the undefeated New England Patriots who's SOS was .469.
In 2008, the Pittsburgh Steelers had the highest SOS in the AFC with a .525 SOS. They defeated the Arizona Cardinals who's SOS was .486.
2009 was the exception year, as the Saints had the lowest SOS of the NFC playoff teams. The Colts also had a noticeably low SOS this year.
In 2010, the Green-bay Packers had the highest SOS in the NFC with a .520 SOS. They defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers who's SOS was .500
In 2011, the New York Giants had the second highest SOS in the NFC with a .520 SOS. They defeated the New England Patriots who's SOS was .449
So then who were our four teams this year with high SOS?
In the NFC it was the Vikings and Packers. The Seahawks and Niners were tied for third at only .004 below Green-Bay
In the AFC it was the Texans, Patriots, and Ravens all tied at .496.
Obviously this year has more than four teams included as the AFC has 3, and the difference between the Packers, Niners, and Seahawks is an extremely small number.
Barring an uncharacteristic playoff run by Matt Ryan and the Falcons, this theory will hold true again. It appears likely this trend will continue to successfully predict for the fifth time in six years. While we don't know quite why exactly SOS is such a strong and consistent barometer for playoff success, we do know it works. Good luck to the Falcons, but the odds are certainly not in their favor.
This theory is not limited to this game, though. In fact, 4 of the last 5 Superbowl winners have had a top 2 SOS in their respective conference's pool of playoff teams.
In 2007, the New York Giants had the second highest SOS in the NFC with a .516 SOS. The defeated the undefeated New England Patriots who's SOS was .469.
In 2008, the Pittsburgh Steelers had the highest SOS in the AFC with a .525 SOS. They defeated the Arizona Cardinals who's SOS was .486.
2009 was the exception year, as the Saints had the lowest SOS of the NFC playoff teams. The Colts also had a noticeably low SOS this year.
In 2010, the Green-bay Packers had the highest SOS in the NFC with a .520 SOS. They defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers who's SOS was .500
In 2011, the New York Giants had the second highest SOS in the NFC with a .520 SOS. They defeated the New England Patriots who's SOS was .449
So then who were our four teams this year with high SOS?
In the NFC it was the Vikings and Packers. The Seahawks and Niners were tied for third at only .004 below Green-Bay
In the AFC it was the Texans, Patriots, and Ravens all tied at .496.
Obviously this year has more than four teams included as the AFC has 3, and the difference between the Packers, Niners, and Seahawks is an extremely small number.
Barring an uncharacteristic playoff run by Matt Ryan and the Falcons, this theory will hold true again. It appears likely this trend will continue to successfully predict for the fifth time in six years. While we don't know quite why exactly SOS is such a strong and consistent barometer for playoff success, we do know it works. Good luck to the Falcons, but the odds are certainly not in their favor.