UAB’s trapping defense haunted Wichita State basketball in home loss
In the film sessions leading up to Thursday’s game, Wichita State men’s basketball coach Paul Mills knew his team would need a solution to Andy Kennedy’s patented 1-3-1 zone trap.
But that strategy never materialized on the court in an 80-72 loss to UAB at Koch Arena, as Kennedy’s “13” defense haunted the Shockers.
Not counting the final two minutes when UAB’s lead had grown to double-digits, WSU could only muster nine points and turned the ball over seven times in 20 possessions when the Blazers began in their 1-3-1 look.
“We went over it quite a bit,” Mills said of the trap. “We just were unable to execute.”
After studying film of past success against UAB’s zone, The Eagle tried to pinpoint where WSU went wrong and what it could have done better in Thursday’s game.
How does UAB’s zone work and why is it so effective?
The goal for UAB’s 1-3-1 extended zone is to trap ball handlers near the sidelines, where the Blazers can use the half-court line and out of bounds as extra defenders and force opponents to complete difficult passes over the top of lengthy athletes.
What stands out about this particular iteration is the length and level of athletes at the top of the zone. Kennedy usually entrusts Christian Coleman, a 6-foot-8 mobile big man, to spearhead the top of the zone with 6-foot-9 center Yaxel Lendeborg, another good athlete, right behind him.
Coleman likes to shade the ball handler a certain direction, forcing them to dribble straight toward Lendeborg and a charging third defender.
“It’s just their length and versatility up top,” WSU junior Corey Washington said. “You’ve got 6-8 and 6-9 on the ball with three people guarding against one. Once you pick the ball up, it’s hard to pass out of.”
An important rule for the opposition to remember for UAB’s frenetic defense is that once the ball travels below the free throw line, usually with a pass to the corner, it triggers the Blazers to switch mid-possession from a zone to man defense.
Rather than rely on the zone trap as the team’s primary defense, Kennedy prefers to sprinkle it in throughout the game to keep the opposition guessing. While it has forced its fair share of turnovers, the 1-3-1 zone has also been toppled by American Athletic Conference foes this season.
What did Wichita State want to do against the UAB zone?
When UAB first switched to the 1-3-1 trap following the first media timeout of the game, WSU started out in a 2-1-2 formation with two ball handlers near the half-court line, Quincy Ballard in the middle and two forwards stationed in the corners.
The plan for WSU was to funnel the ball to the corner, then look to score or hit Ballard on a dive to the rim. It’s a strategy that has been effective at times against UAB’s zone, but making the pass to the corner over the length on the ball is easier said than done.
In fact, the corner has seemed to be the key in defeating the trap. Opponents have found great success when the player in the corner is an offensive weapon, either capable of knocking down a 3-pointer or cutting to the basket and finishing at the rim.
The UAB trap depends on opponents being unable to process the read (and make the pass) to capitalize on the momentary 3-on-2 advantage when the ball goes to the corner. There’s a split second when the right pass would unlock an easy bucket, but it was the kind of play WSU failed to make on Thursday.
What went wrong for the Shockers
After UAB unveiled the 1-3-1 trap following the first media timeout of the game, WSU’s first three possessions against the zone were telling.
The ball never once found the corner, as the Shockers settled for back-and-forth passing over the top of the zone before settling for a pair of missed 3-pointers sandwich between a turnover trying to fit the ball into the middle of the zone.
“With their length, you have to pass fake,” WSU guard Xavier Bell said. “They put three on the ball in that trap, so it’s hard to pass out of it, but we needed to figure it out.”
Another issue that plagued WSU more than others this season was simply making the initial pass once crossing half court.
WSU ball handlers had the bad habit of picking up their dribble near the sideline and half-court line. That made for more difficult passing angles and led to four turnovers at the top of the trap.
“Too many times you end up with a sixth defender in the half-court line and a seventh defender over there with the sideline,” Mills said. “We were crossing and then picking it up. We tried there some in the first half to bring Quincy up, so we could get the ball to the corner and get him on the dive, but that didn’t materialize. So we had (Ballard) flatten out, but that didn’t materialize. So we tried to put Corey and Harlond (Beverly) in the middle, but we just couldn’t get any friction.”
WSU excelled at in-game problem-solving during its winning streak, but the same level of processing wasn’t there on Thursday.
A big scoring game for Ballard was there for the taking, but the Shockers couldn’t make the split-second reads required to capitalize on the advantages the big man held at the bottom of the zone.
There was only one instance in the entire game when WSU passed to the corner against the trap, then dumped it down to Ballard along the baseline. It ended in two free throws for Ballard.
That look was available multiple times throughout the game, but it was one WSU never fully explored.
“It was really effective for us,” Kennedy said on his post-game radio interview. “(Coleman) has some great length at the top and we were aggressive out of our wings. We’re going to mix and match and we’re going to change our looks, but tonight ‘13’ was effective.”
Where WSU found success against the trap
What made WSU’s game-long struggle against the trap so befuddling was that the team seemed to unlock the key to beating it fairly early in the first half.
On its fourth try against the trap, WSU finally managed to pass the ball to the corner and triggered UAB’s switch back to man. Back in its normal offense, WSU ran a pick-and-roll with Bijan Cortes and Ballard, which ended in two free throws for Ballard.
Not long after, WSU again connected on the pass to the corner and reset UAB’s defense. Up against man again, Cortes attacked in space and scored a layup.
In a later possession in the first half against the trap, WSU funneled the ball to the corner and then whipped it around the perimeter to catch UAB’s defense out of position to set up a Washington take to the rim.
That seemed to be WSU’s best bet: Pass the ball to the corner, force UAB out of its trap, then attack the Blazers with man-to-man offense. But it didn’t happen nearly enough, as the Shockers struggled with turnovers at the top of the trap.
“Some of it was mental,” Mills said. “We can walk them through that from a film side with the things that they need to do in order to not put themselves (in trouble). We haven’t seen much 1-3-1 before, so it will be good to go through that and remind them of the things that need to occur.
“I’m disappointed in how we played, but we’ll go back and figure this out and hopefully we’ll get another chance to see (UAB) again.”
In talking to the local media afterward, Bell and Washington both expressed their confidence that the Shockers will continue to move forward despite their winning streak snapped.
“It comes from each other,” Bell said. “We just have to come in every single day, go through the tough film sessions, go through the hard practices and just try to keep finding solutions.”
“I know the guys in that locker room and I know the coaching staff and we’re not just going to go back to (losing),” Washington added. “We refuse to do that.”
This story was originally published February 28, 2025 at 7:07 AM.
.jpg)