BuzzerBeater Forums

You aren't a dick saying that you have actually hit the nail on the head. You can use a 2/3 zone if the opponents big men are dominant and the guards are pathetic. I have done it against the Smeltztroopers and won. But if you try it against a team with decent guards then they will kill you. You don't even get a great boost on your ID rating unless you have a SF with great ID. You do get a boost on your rebounds which can help. However you give up a TON of easy outside shots even with great defenders (my guards typically have around wondrous OD and still get owned). If it is against a strictly one dimensional team or one with big men who will be unstopable otherwise you can risk it. But even in inside offences often half the shots are taken outside and lowering their inside % from 80% to 70% isn't worth raising their outside % from 30% to 60%.

I know a player who recently bought a "great PG" in his opinion who could pass and defend but who had awful JS and JR. Against him a 2-3 would be ideal, but you aren't going to find a lot of opponents like that. Once again just using my team (mid range division II) as an example my guards tend to have around tremendous JS and the worst on my team is my young trainee who has proficient but who has many seasons to improve. Even he can torch a 2/3 zone.

Yoda, you just saved me a few minutes of typing, those are my thoughts (and some experimenting) exactly. In ABBL I would probably never play 2-3 just because the teams have at least one good small who could get 40 if you play a 2-3 .... not worth the gamble in my opinion.

What constitutes a decent enough guard then? Are we talking someone with jump shot, or passing, or both?

So essentially, don't use 2-3 unless the opponent's guards are total scrubs?

@ everyone: does anyone have experience with inside box-and-one? Does this work at all, or is it safer just to stick with man-to-man?

I disagree that you need good passing to hurt a 2-3 - because if your guards have poor passing, they can't get the ball inside. And then they shoot from outside. Where there are no defenders... :/

So it actually makes it worse?

I can see what you are getting at, although in reality poor passing should mean more turnovers, not less passes. :/

Yep, pretty much. And I agree, that's what it should mean, but it doesn't.

[link=http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/36367412/boxscore.aspx This game inside box and one was used against me

I'm probably going to be the only person from higher leagues saying this, but I think 2-3 can be used effectively. In the right circumstances.

Note that in saying this, I haven't used 2-3 zone for a very long time, and probably wont for a while yet. I see it as a last resort tactic.

I actually think the main benefit with 2-3 zone is the rebounding boost. Despite it being a defensive tactic, I find one gets a large amount of offensive rebounding from it. If you have a high IS rating, you can get a lot of easy putbacks from it.

That said, you can get torched from the outside from it. One has to be confident that the team you are playing will play inside, and that your PG and SG have enough defense to be able to cover the opposition guard comfortably.

Its very much a desperation tactic though. LI and and an outside offense is just silly, but it can be effective occasionally with an inside offense.

For an example where 2-3 worked well, this game is a good example. http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/13043/boxscore.aspx

We were comfortably outclassed against China in this game, but the 2-3 zone rebounding advantage almost got us over the line.

I completely agree with you.

Never use 2-3 against DFBS, I heard it doesn't work on him.

mllama I think you are more or less agreeing with what I said. It isn't a normal tactic but against very special teams (Smeltztroopers) it can be your best shot. I also said that the rebounding boost is nice, but I wish it didn't criple you so badly in your outside defence for so little gain on the inside defence.