BuzzerBeater Forums

if you play 2-3 the amount of assisted and not defended field goals will be higher and you have less occasions where you can challenge a shot.

isn't that going to be more a result of the offense that the opposition picks?

No. not on BB.. 2-3 is useless on BB for some teams. IN my opinion 2-3 takes luck tp use.. Its really a wrong scripted made defense. For starters if it was a zone then where are the steals? Its seem more like 2-3 man to man than 2-3 zone.

2-3 man to man you'll get eaten alive by pocket mid range shooters in the open ranges all night, on BB that is was happen.. IN 2-3 zone that does not happen , because the defense shifts cover all spots,HI Od is working so is the ID of the Bigs. On BB I have never seen mass steals in 2-3 zone, . The defense in 2-3zone on BB to me is slim to none or the players are making the best effort of their lives on the court not to play defense for some teams.. Maybe with Gdp it can work.


That just me, I cant speak for anyone else. That's for them to come out and say and show. I think is sure a lost defense to play.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 8/2/2014 10:36:21 PM

the GDP isnt going to change the fundamental of it.

BB have always come and said "2-3 zone works if your team has good shot blockers"

they even went out of their way to reduce the cost of shotblocking on salary.

Yet the majority of people don't have SB still.

So i think its a bit hard to say that 2-3 is lost, when people haven't implemented it correctly according to BB's.

Some months ago I wrote a post about the 2-3 zone, but Wolph had one of his explosions and I had no further interest in this discussion.
In my opinion, we, the managers are guilty that the 2-3 zone doesn't work. The 2-3 should stop inside tactics. So it was programmed to increase ID, RB and SB. The cost for this is a crippeld OD. But that's okay, because in a 2-3 you don't fear the passes to the inside. In a Inside offense you would play with two PGs. Both of them with high OD, HA and PA. They are only the supporting cast for your SF, PF and C. So these two guards don't have any JS or DR (because you don't want them to take shots which are for the other three). And here the 2-3 zone would work. But noone plays in BB with such guards. They have JS, high DR and some of them even double digit IS. All these factors overcharge the 2-3 zone. The decreased OD would be enough for JS 5 JR 5 guards, but it's useless against JS 15 JR 10 or even better ones.
In season 19 a german team was the runner up in BBB. I was his analyst. He played several KO games with a 2-3 zone and won them. Because he knew from my data that the opposing Guards had low JS and JR. Unfortunately his SB low so he had no real chance in the final.

To sum it up: SB to low, Guards overpowered with JS, DR and IS

Last edited by Nachtmahr at 8/3/2014 5:43:09 AM

but wouldn't the increased OD allow more passes? and because of this also more assisted FGs inside the paint? my understanding was, that assisted fieldgoals are often uncontested. this means that high SB wouldn't help preventing the FGA. maybe the increased ID and some OD could help...

i will have a look at this B3 team ..

but wouldn't the decreased OD allow more passes?

yes

and because of this also more assisted FGs inside the paint?

no. your ID and SB are stonger because of the zone. with higher ID you defend more shot attempts and with SB you stop most of them. you don't want to prevent the guards from passing inside the paint, you want to stop everything after this pass.

this means that high SB wouldn't help preventing the FGA

SB doesn't help to prevent the attempt, ID does it. SB is to alter/block the shot.

thank you. i agree that ID on inside players is important to prevent open shots. i am just raising the question if the boost on ID and SB is worth it.

so in a 2-3 ID should be equally as important as SB. and as i mentioned above also high OD on bigs could prevent passes inside the paint and is necessary to defend corner threes on SF and PF . so you would need bigs with some OD but very high ID and SB for a 2-3.

i guess you can choose if you want to prevent the pass and set pressure on the ballhandler (like manon and you are doing with your 3-2, high OD defense) or if you want to cover the man inside but allow the pass.

i don't think 2-3 is broken but like you said high OD seems to be the far more effective defensive strategie at the moment even to prevent uncontested insideshots.

SB doesn't help to prevent the attempt, ID does it. SB is to alter/block the shot.

thats what i meant. SB would not alter/block the shot, because the shot would not be contested.

Last edited by jonte at 8/3/2014 8:45:53 AM

Its deemed a waste of money to have guards with Sb, also very time wasting on the potential of them. I'm saying this in a way, like for example a pg/sg primaries and seconds have time limits to do. Sb would not get the proper attention within these time restraints none will do sb when they can get a better player overall, for the sake of just to play2-3 zone correctly . Maybe if you player, a sf with supreme guard skills. I don't see anyone ripping down their teams to do that either with the cost to do's of todays BB climate. I think if that is the case that BB want to say it works and is cheapest route to perform, Then teams will run LI/2-3 and who and what is going to stop it.

Like you said Gdp don't change the fundamental of it.

Last edited by Mr. Glass at 8/3/2014 4:09:47 PM

i agree
certainly in the scheme of things, to turn around train SB on your guards for - lets say best case scenario they both have respectable SB - train them for what, 8 weeks over the course of 2 seasons, just to get maybe 3 pops. such that they have Prominent SB - Is there a point to it?

The main question is, is there a measurable point to it.

The other unknown, is that maybe the secret to BB in general, not just 2-3 zone, is SB on guards. Maybe the impact of even moderate SB on guards is massive.

Pretty hard to measure. it also makes assumptions about how the game engine works. If a guard opposing a 3-point shot is still going to use SB to alter the shot after the opposition is going to take it, then logically, higher SB = reduction in opposition FG%.

but like i said, that starts to make assumptions about how the game engine works.

Why do people only focus on 1 aspect (a negative one yes) of a 2-3 zone? Yes there will be some more uncontested passes, but certainly not all of them. If you give up say 10 extra shots uncontested, but on the other end you're able to defend the other 40 shots 50% better, then overall you have a better defense. On top of that you get more rebounds too.

I'm just pulling numbers out of my sleeve and I know they're not accurate, but it's to give an example that you need to look at the total picture. There hasn't been much research to accurately tell if the 2-3 zone is indeed a good option in certain matches, but I wouldn't dismiss it solely because there's a downside to it. It could very well be that the benefits outweigh the extra uncontested FG's.