BuzzerBeater Forums

We are not asking any imbalance that then makes the outside teams soo powerfull with that zone, we are just asking balance in the game.

-I would fix 2-3, specially from the lose of the OD. It's a huge lose, the 3-2 doesn't lose much ID, but when you play a 2-3 you lose soo much OD. The PG-SG are suposed to help in the inside defense, but they have to care from the outside shots.

They are leaving much spaces(out of the zone) for the opponents players even if your PG-SG have great OD, there's nothing you can do to stop open shots.

And this is creating an imbalance because you make 'harder' to score from the inside so most of the times this ends with the oppoent PG-SG trying lot of shot attempts with nice % and wining the matchs(this is the tipical situation of a match report, when a team uses the 2-3)

You try to defend hard from the inside with the 2-3, but then you see how you can't make nothing to stop open shots.

- Also It's not reasonable that if you are playing a 2-3(with high ID's) the opponent PG-SG-SF(but most of the times the SF it's not a 100% SF) start driving under the basket with a lot of succeed. And this outside players most of the times doesn't have a high driving or an IS between 1-7.

If you play a 2-3 it's because you want that your SF-PF-C make really hard to penetrate near the basket, but in this game when you play a 2-3 it seems your SF-PF-C are sleeping.




Anyway, maybe we have different cultures of basketball, in Europe we care a lot from defenses and when a team is playing 2-3 it can be a good solution to stop the other team in the inside, 'but the 2-3 of this game must be based in NBA tactics or so, because the 2-3 we play in Europe are done to defend and not to let the other team score you so easy.

On a serious 2-3 you defend hard in the inside(leaving the PF-C with low %), you control the rebound and there are helps on the open shots.

On this game we are tired to see that when you put a 2-3 the other PF-C make REALLY HIGH %;

15/20
16/21
22/28

etc.


Last edited by Marot at 4/21/2011 7:47:14 PM

This may be true, but it does not prove your point.

if you watch the german first league, there was much more outside orientated teams ;) But we haven't 19 teams in it.

he doesnt need to prove his point , the game does it well enough for him every single game day.

before 3 or maybe 4 seasons everyone said that look inside is useless and that outside teams are dominating.
(125704.1)
now when they finally figured out how to play look inside, 2-3 zone becomes useless. maybe there's really nothing wrong with tactics, we just do not train players we need.

Brilliantly detailed and researched. Good work! +1

We are not asking 'make 2-3 zone stronger'.

We just ask/suggest for an inside zone to defend in the inside as good as 3-2 is for inside teams.

Last edited by Marot at 4/22/2011 10:17:21 AM

I don't have much experience with shot blocking but i see you strongly defending it in a few threads for a while, If it does not need changing like you say, then i think we could change the commentary in the game and the Box score to show more of the affect of shot blocking. I know you already added some, but if people are still complaining i think you could add more to show more of a affect of shot blocking.

I think the point is that 2-3 zone can be as good as 3-2 is. I may be wrong, but this is what I get from a lot of Charles posts.

BB won't have a zone to satisfy the structure of every team. You have to build teams to fit the defense, instead of asking for a defense to fit your team.