BuzzerBeater Forums

well, the bad OD can be helped with good OD on your forwards which wouldnt show as much in the team ratings. That goes back to my original post saying OD+ID on the forwards is big. Which like I have said many times PFs on many teams dont have the appropriate OD.

I think SB is one of those things where you either believe in it or you dont, which everyone will have their opinions. But Wozzvt did research on the 2-3 and he found that SB at the C position makes a huge difference for the defense.

And the teams without high SB you were talking about probably had better OD play which made it harder for teams to get it inside, but once the team gets it inside the SB will help defend those layups.

oh &...

Also, you talk about a 1-3-1 being useless against a good LI attack, but once again it is because teams aren't built properly to run it. Everyone thinks so one dimensionally on here so no teams are built properly for these others defenses. If you were to take your time and build for something other than M2M or 3-2 you would fine that the other defenses are not "broke" and can be run just as effectively.

First off, I never said 1-3-1 or any other defenses were "broke". (Nor did I even use that word once). And 1-3-1 isn't supposed to that great vs. look inside. It's obviously meant to slow down outside offense. Which it does. At the expense of inside defense & rebounding. Were 1-3-1 super effective vs. look inside as well... well there would be no point using anything else, would there? (Also, 1-3-1 & every other defense works without needing to build a team around it, except 2-3 zone)

A 2-3 defense can be very effective in real life, just like it could be on here.

However the point is to stop a LI. And not only stop it, but shut it down.

how many NBA teams run mainly zone? They only use it as a change of pace or out of complete desperation for portions of a game. (any longer & the opposition *will* start to pick it apart). It's lower levels of basketball that run more zone as they're less talented & need to. But here, it seems it needs to be the opposite. It's like you need exceptional players to run zone effectively. And the players that need the 2-3 zone boost the most actually get worse with it.

anyway, i didn't mean to imply that i think SB is bad in general... just that it's not the main reason for 2-3 zone not working so often IMO.

a question though: when they created it... do you think 2-3 zone was *intended* to be worse vs. LI/LP for most teams?
it just seems crazy if that's the case. the game manual certainly doesn't give that impression.

it would only be logical that:
opponent plays outside offense --> play outside zone
opponent plays neutral (balanced opponent) --> play M2M
opponent plays inside offense --> play 2-3 zone

Let's not forget that at the end of the games the losing team starts jacking up 3s even if one plays LI, so the chances of a come back increase dramatically vs. 2-3 zone.

Rebounding strenghten the defence, and the opposing team don't attack more efficient and you can reach this with pretty average player. taking away second chanche points, is also part of avoiding buckets.

I think also the game from Spartan against Rabadense was intresting in that direction, even when he lost with the 2-3 Zone.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/27/2012 9:06:41 AM

the game engine has some flaws which prevents some tactics from working as intended..

i figured that was the case. so they really *didn't* intend it to be this difficult to use 2-3 zone...

Rebounding strenghten the defence

that's the only real positive. but gets far outweighed by everything else IMO.


Last edited by shikago at 6/28/2012 6:27:43 AM