The high-hedge defense

[Excalibur]

We didn’t high hedge there.

sure did, Adama got beat to the rim at least 2 or 3 times right in the first 5 min

Then you don’t know what a high hedge is. We got beat in drop coverage because the ball handler wasn’t disrupted enough and had an open view to lob it to the screener crashing to the rim.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Then you don’t know what a high hedge is. We got beat in drop coverage because the ball handler wasn’t disrupted enough and had an open view to lob it to the screener crashing to the rim.

This is why I don't like the high hedge. Why are we using the center to defend a guard 25 feet from the basket? Why hedge at all? Just drop down, let the defensive guard go underneath the screen and bump the roller? If the ball-handler, who is moving east west in that situation, wants to pivot 90 degrees and launch a 25 foot pull up with his own screener right in his face, he can have the shot.

I used to be a big man-to-man defense proponent, but I have become more of a fan of zones in my middle age. Where a matchup zone ends, and a man-to-man with lots of switches begins, is a pretty gray area anyway. I saw a girls AAU team a few years ago that was playing "man" defense, but it looked a lot like a 4-1 matchup zone. The center would switch off if her player popped out to screen so she was always close to the rim. The guards could switch on every screen on the perimeter. The defenders were in the gaps up top, so the other team couldn't drive and kick out, and a pick and roll would result in a pass into traffic right at the defensive center. The only weakness was it was susceptible to a high/low attack on the center, but no one does that anymore.

Rather than figure out which 1990's defense works best against a modern, analytics offense, I would propose a modern, analytics defense.