BuzzerBeater Forums

well first off 2-1-2 works well against both inside and outside and you don't lose as much on the rebounding as you do with 3-2. With 3-2 you have one layer far from the basket as in 2-1-2 you have one player in the middle of the lane. It is the first defense any zone team learns and is used in all leagues except for the NBA.

Also will make teams that are not good sooting teams to take 3's instead of mid range shots. I would have used it a few times instead of 3-2 and my team rebounding would have been better which gives me a better chance at winning.

mhh i would say kingsize are right with the strength and weakens/strenghts of the 2-1-2 Zone ;)

3 pt shoots are are bit easier then against a Man to man defence, mid range Shot where defended pretty strong and to come under the basket you use often similiar plays like you use against a 2-3(which are a bit easier because the zone don't fall down so good when the ball is inside).

If you try to play an zone which prevent a good 3 pt shooting team you would take the 3-2 zone.

I some times want to play 2-1-2 and give more 3's and less mid range and guard my painter area better with not losing on rebounds. That is twhat a 2-1-2- is for

You do realize that's exactly what I said don't you?

2-1-2 might help take away some mid range, but is terrible against the 3-point shot.

I don't know what you are talking about though when you say you don't lose anything on rebounding. There is not a team on the planet that will rebound as well in a 2-1-2 as they will in a man defense.

I also don't know what you are talkng about when you say that it is the first zone defense everyone learns. I have played organized ball since I was 5, and not a single coach I have ever had wanted anything to do with a 2-1-2.

3-2
2-3
3-1-1
1-3-1
modified versions of many of them

but the specific 2-1-2 configuration does very little for you unless you use it as a modified 2-3, but then why not just use a 2-3.

i also have played ball since i ws 5 and until i colleg ball all coaches use a 2-1-2 defense/ a 2- 3 is the same with the middle man taking a step up. So i have a hard time a 10 years old they did not teach you it. Secondly i never compared zone defense to man. If you have a good defensive coach and game plan you never llose that much in reality. But the game is not set up that way so i was comparing the 2-1-2 to the 3-2 which is huge in rebounding difference in this game.

And a 2-3 is easir to stop low post play as it is genrally set up to doublt the block. 2-1-2 does not double as fast and keep the mid range jumper off balance and not the 3 point shooter as much.

Plus when did you ever see a team play motion againat a zone D teams have their man to man playbook and their zone plays. and what is a 3-1-1 i have heard af a 1-2-1-1 other words called a diamond but never a 3-1-1 is that fullcour or half court is it a trap

Plus when did you ever see a team play motion againat a zone D teams have their man to man playbook and their zone plays. and what is a 3-1-1 i have heard af a 1-2-1-1 other words called a diamond but never a 3-1-1 is that fullcour or half court is it a trap

i think you mean the 1-3-1 on -> http://www.guidetocoachingbasketball.com/1-3-1znprssr.htm

you find an explanation.

And i don't see that too, but this is defense would make more differences to the others defense and so i find it an good extra. The 2-1-2 is to similiar like the man-toman defence, if we reduces it on game princips of Buzzerbeater(in rl you play differents play against those defense).

Thats why an box and one make more sense for the game, maybe an fast zone like the Amoeba could be a new posiibility. Where both strategys ain't play that often.

You have to compare it to a man defense because we are discussing how the game engine would interpret things.


If you noticed I already mentioned its similarity to a 2-3 when I said to use it as a modified 2-3. That was one of my points, why add it to to the game engine if you want it to be like a 2-3?

The only possible use for it would be to take away the mid-range game, but it would be at the expense of both rebounding and 3-point shooting. It does not matter how well a teamis coached, no team will ever reboud as well out of a 2-1-2 zone than they will out of a man, and that is the point of reference for the game engine.

You also mistake the double teaming differerence - in a 2-3 the inside man is help-side and can double if necessary, often from the baseline. In a 2-1-2 the middle is expected to double from the high side more often than not unless the high post is a threat. More often than not the only reason to shift from 2-3 to 2-1-2in real life, is if you are getting killed in the high post, but there is really little difference, and certainly not enough to put into the game engine.

I am also a fan of a 1-2-2 defense, but you can only run it with the right personnel, and would be useless for any sort game engine interpretation.