BuzzerBeater Forums

My problem with this zone, is that you can only play it against LI and you will probably need at least an inside GDP for it to kinda work

Exactly what I meant in the suggestions thread. For 40+ seasons it was the old "LI is much too strong and cheap, do something about it". Now, after the boost, 2-3 is decent enough to be used against LI/LP with some success and the narrative changes to "well yeah but it is toast against any other offense". And no, it isn't.

Besides what I meant and expressed clearly was "Do not overdo it in the future". Because people are still experimenting with the players they currently have and it kinda works, as you noted yourself. What I also said was that with the right players it might turn out to work more than well as it is right now. Even against outside tactics. We just need time to adjust.

I, for one, have a very good idea how I can actually make it work pretty well. This is a slow game however and time is needed to test changes/ideas.

LI domination is a completely different topic than 2-3 zone

I completely disagree.

we need to make 2-3 work even with regular players(same like 3-2 works) and in every league, like 3-2, and it has to work against any tactic, the same way 3-2 can work against any tactic.

I completely disagree.

I currently consider myself as one of the best 2-3 zone defence team in BB due to how my team is structured. Maybe we could take a look at my record for some perspective?

I have played 10 games with 2-3 zone this season, with 6 of them being competitive (non-friendly, non-PL) ones. Of these 6:

(118313812) lost against LI (opponent: #1 rank in CBSL)
(119352050) won against LP (opponent: playoff team in CBSL, met in early rounds of tournament)
(118313840) won against LP (opponent: mid level CBSL team)
(118313873) won against LI (opponent: division leader in CBSL)
(119388799) won against motion (opponent: BBM T1 playoffs)
(119399097) Lost against II (opponent: BBM T1 playoffs)

overall, I'm 1-1 against LI, 2-0 against LP, 1-0 against motion and 0-1 against II.
I consider my team inferior against the team in game #1, on par with teams in game #2,4,5,6 in which the game is likely a toss up if I tried other defenses, and game #3 would likely be won regardless of the defence I used

Generally speaking, I do feel 23 has been significantly improved, to the point of I'm no longer worried about outside shots, but it is definitely still weaker than 32, as I won't consider using 23 against neutral or outside teams (regardless of whether I can win them with a 23 zone or not, 32 is simply a safer choice for those)

Last edited by Bigeasy at 04/04/2022 14:36:23

I don't like that zone defenses are strong against inside/outside attacks because we already have predictions for that.

If you have a stronger team than your opponent because you have worked hard for that, your game shapes are better because you have taken care of the minutes and so on... you should win the match most of the times.

If a team is way inferior but he is lucky predicting that his opponet will play, for example, LP, and he predicts LP and he plays 2-3 and both things combined give him the advantage ... we are giving luck too much of a role in this game.

[match= 119388799] is one of those classical games where my opponent correctly anticipated a 2-3 zone/inside GDP from me and made a tactical gamble, but his alternative tactics were not strong enough to overcome the defense. - his BBM games from earlier rounds (119369952) suggest a reasonably strong inside team with a very strong rebounding edge that I was concerned about prior to the game.

so yes, given he used an alternative tactics, I would definitely won with a 3-2 zone - but from a team strength perspective, I would consider my 3-2 against his LI a close game where his offensive rebounds would be quite a concern.