BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > 2-3 vs 3-2

2-3 vs 3-2

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
178382.3 in reply to 178382.2
Date: 3/25/2011 8:29:46 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
Lol i know what it means. And what it is suppose to do. But i was looking at the help manual and it said something about the 3-2 actually being better then the 2-3 for inside game because it puts pressure on the guards. i was wondering if anyone had tested this

This Post:
11
178382.6 in reply to 178382.3
Date: 3/25/2011 11:50:18 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
33
I've been comparing both in recent games, and I find that the value of each defense depends a lot on your players to counter an inside game. I've personally come to believe that it's better to pressure the guards if your big men can't match up equally and you can get an advantage in the passing lanes by better guards and sf. Otherwise, the 2-3 zone works well if you can get a good matchup inside, or your guards can't help you.

This Post:
00
178382.8 in reply to 178382.6
Date: 3/26/2011 1:28:55 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
5050
Well, a couple seasons back, I employed two extremely dominating interior defenders with solid backups. This enabled me to play more of a 3-2 defense to put pressure on their perimeter players to make plays or work the ball inside where my strong defenders were at. My perimeter defense actually sucked in a 3-2 zone though and when matched up against my league's outside shooters, a rare breed of shooters, really {/sarcasm}, we were going to get torched anyways but their interior guys were scarier. I needed to leave my bigs inside so they could work their magic on the boards and give my team another possession in case the opposing shooter missed.

This Post:
00
178382.9 in reply to 178382.1
Date: 3/26/2011 5:12:37 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
295295
You'll also find yourself more often in foul trouble playing a 3-2 against an inside focused offense. Since you give up some rebounding too I think it's better to go with 2-3 or of course Man to Man.