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...