BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > 2-3 zone

2-3 zone

Set priority
Show messages by
From: Koperboy

This Post:
11
206656.14 in reply to 206656.4
Date: 1/23/2012 2:16:30 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
I actually would like to see examples where 2-3 accomplishes what M2M couldn't. Until there are games which are won by 2-3, but could be won with M2M also, this doesn't prove anything.

This Post:
00
206656.15 in reply to 206656.14
Date: 1/23/2012 5:07:33 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
20382038
u can check all my games that season to see that the biggest advantage using a 23 zone is the absolut number of shots taken by the center..thats a huge advantage ( in my eyes ) for all outside teams that crying about Look Inside for decades ;-)

This Post:
00
206656.16 in reply to 206656.15
Date: 1/23/2012 6:47:23 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
I'm not sure what you mean: that you minimize shots, taken by their C?

In this season I found two of your games where you played 2-3 and are "good enough" to mention:

(39508252)

Here you could even play TIE because his team is so imbalanced: powerful inside players and poor outside players. If you played against a more balanced team, you'd probably lose. You also won because his best inside player fouled out after only 27 fouls, so it wasn't really 2-3 zone; your offense was too goid for his defense. I think you could won this game also with M2M.

(39508220)

This match is as close as possible to say "2-3 zone isn't useless". However, again I think you won because of your better offense (5-11 for 3 with Look inside is possible only against 2-3 zone) and not because of your 2-3. Actually your 4th quarter 35-11 rally was possible only because of his 2-3 zone, so this is actually a negative campaign for 2-3.

I also noticed you played a lot of 3-2 zone against opposing LI, normally against teams with weaker offensive flow. So what does this tell us?

Last edited by Koperboy at 1/23/2012 6:48:43 AM

This Post:
00
206656.17 in reply to 206656.16
Date: 1/23/2012 6:57:14 AM
Matrix Mighty Dunkers
II.4
Overall Posts Rated:
10021002
this tell us that 2-3 zone is good for weak teams

This Post:
00
206656.18 in reply to 206656.16
Date: 1/23/2012 7:05:27 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
20382038
hehe..i didnt mean my team playin the zone..but checkin my games playin against a 23 u will see that my ex center and 300k monster fanesi didnt get that much the ball as he would get it against a man man..but like i said, its only my view..i like the 23 zone..for me that zone has as much advantages like disadvantages like every other zone that BB offers us :-)

This Post:
11
206656.19 in reply to 206656.17
Date: 1/23/2012 7:05:27 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
952952
this tell us that 2-3 zone is good for weak teams


Which you can win also with M2M since they are weak, so...

This Post:
00
206656.20 in reply to 206656.19
Date: 1/23/2012 7:26:45 AM
Matrix Mighty Dunkers
II.4
Overall Posts Rated:
10021002
exactly...

From: Tucis

This Post:
11
206656.22 in reply to 206656.21
Date: 1/23/2012 4:24:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
308308
well, has anyone of you thought how that zone works in real life?

if bb developers have wanted to create close simulation to that how zone works ir real life, both, SF and PF should have decent OD skill, because they have to guard players very close to 3pt line if the ball goes to their side of the court... as well as ID, when opponet comes closer to the basket... I somehow doubt most of us have such options... :/

well if I wanted to create maneger game, I would think about how the analogical thing in real life works...

This Post:
22
206656.23 in reply to 206656.22
Date: 1/23/2012 4:47:17 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
13691369
Good point. Let´s take a real life approach:

Well, the point in real life is, that a well played 2-3 also more or less stops driving to the basket. Actually the 2-3 is REALLY meant for stopping penetration to the basket, isn´t it?

So ...

A realistic 2-3 setup requires:

- PF and SF having high OD
- C with high / solid SB
- Guards with high OD (but low ID)

And it should lead to ...

- opponent guards hitting a lower percentage of their midrange shots
- opponent Bigs getting less touches
- opponent offensive rebounding alot less effective, because your guys are always between their guys and the rim

and also

- opponent getting a bunch of open 3´s

Which of those points are achieved? Think again whether 2-3 works the way it "should", and if you use the players meant for 2-3.

On a side note:

If you think that through, the "best" way against a 3-2 would be guards cutting to the basket and with enough passing to find their fellow guard for the open three, as 3-2 should be quite vulnerable to cuts and quick drop outs after the defense is starting to move and switch.


Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 1/23/2012 4:50:17 PM

Zwei Dinge sind unendlich, die Dummheit und das All...
This Post:
22
206656.24 in reply to 206656.23
Date: 1/23/2012 5:51:55 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
308308
Good point. Let´s take a real life approach:

Well, the point in real life is, that a well played 2-3 also more or less stops driving to the basket. Actually the 2-3 is REALLY meant for stopping penetration to the basket, isn´t it?

So ...

A realistic 2-3 setup requires:

- PF and SF having high OD
- C with high / solid SB
- Guards with high OD (but low ID)

And it should lead to ...

- opponent guards hitting a lower percentage of their midrange shots
- opponent Bigs getting less touches
- opponent offensive rebounding alot less effective, because your guys are always between their guys and the rim

and also

- opponent getting a bunch of open 3´s

Which of those points are achieved? Think again whether 2-3 works the way it "should", and if you use the players meant for 2-3.

On a side note:

If you think that through, the "best" way against a 3-2 would be guards cutting to the basket and with enough passing to find their fellow guard for the open three, as 3-2 should be quite vulnerable to cuts and quick drop outs after the defense is starting to move and switch.



well that's is my point. if this would be true, then most of us simply don't have the right players to play zone and it means, that the problem isn't in game engine but in us and the way we want that zone to work...



Last edited by Tucis at 1/23/2012 5:54:30 PM

Advertisement