BuzzerBeater Forums

Think if you are back in high school playing basketball in PE and in a zone.

LOL I am in high school, and we don't play zone, only M2M. But yes, you do want all that. I forgot about SF.

Last edited by Big Dogs at 6/23/2012 8:02:11 PM

2-3 zone is not broken at all. The problem is that every team that runs it, doesn't have the appropriate personnel. Its ironic though that everyone thinks shot blocking is useless in the game as well, but in fact the two work together to provide a very effective 2-3 zone.

Guards-At the guard positions you are going to need a lot of OD. Reason being, they will be defending the majority of outside shots but not much inside. They will however guard some driving layups, not many, but some so you will want SB to disrupt the layups. The guards arent the problem on most teams since a lot of teams have good OD on their guards anyways.

Forwards- These may be the most crucial in having an effective 2-3. You will need not only good ID, but you will need good OD as well. Reason being they will be defending quite a few jumpshots themselves from the players who attack the 2-3 zone effectively. This is where many teams fail at because they have the good ID but fail to pair the OD with it. Usually SFs can get by on most teams, but many teams dont have that PF that can defend the outside like you will need in a 2-3. Also, you will need good SB on them as well. They will be defending quite a few driving layups themselves so SB will disrupt that and alter the layups leading to less conversion rate.

Center- This is where teams are just flat out unprepared. SB is useful for a reason and not many people believe that. The center position defends the majority of driving layups in the defense so you will need high ID and SB. Reason why many people believe 2-3 doesnt work is the lack of SB

I was trying to use 2-3 in an effective way in my last league game... but less than 4 mins in the guy I had at SF got injured.

I'm at D. V but the 2 guards had 8 OD 5 SB
the SF had 7OD 8ID 8 SB, the PF 7OD 7ID 8 SB, and the center (still trying to win games. my PL one would be switched with a diff guy with better D). Center is 1 OD 6 ID 6 SB

The first 4 minutes were VERY effective

yoda explanation is imho correct, if i read your post i couldn't play it.

Yes 15 SB would be good. The problem is that most teams don't have that. They have SB of like 8 or 9

8 or 9 is enough for lower divisions. Not sure if it can pass in USA III, but Malaysia II 9 is ok I guess.

8 or 9 is enough for BBB level, at least to improve your chanches against inside attacks.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 6/26/2012 12:23:56 PM

You mention SB a lot, but by far the best 2-3 zone team i've ever faced had really low shot blocking. Not saying that means anything necessarily... just throwing it out there. (and i notice a couple other said very high SB isn't necessary)

you're right that most people don't have the personnel... but it's strange that a defense requires a specific roster type. For example, does any team not have the personnel to run 3-2 zone???

ok, even *if* someone had the rare team to run 2-3 zone as effectively as man to man... what's the point? You just leave yourself open to get killed by any non-inside offense. Similar to playing 1-3-1 zone expecting motion, but getting look inside instead. (just talking in general -- before someone brings up specific examples).

Why 2-3 zone really sucks as run by every team i've played (but 1): it obviously gets destroyed by outside / neutral offenses. Yet is still the defense i'd most like to face when i use look inside!!! At least from my time in D5-D2. (Yes, even over FCP) Even vs. D1 $200-$300k players it's still failed miserably. Imagine if 1-3-1 zone was worse vs. outside offense than M2M is...

you're right that most people don't have the personnel... but it's strange that a defense requires a specific roster type. For example, does any team not have the personnel to run 3-2 zone???
[...]
Imagine if 1-3-1 zone was worse vs. outside offense than M2M is...

I wonder how it would change if there were two outside defense skills; one that was about turnovers (stolen passes and dribbles) and one that was about defending jump shots. If there was a case and then nobody trained the second one because it was too expensive or didn't do enough or whatever, would 3-2 be broken and would outside offenses be dramatically better?

Of course, I'm not sure that could work - as it is, there are six primary skills for guards and although some people don't like taking JR too high, pretty much all of them are useful and need to be trained. Adding a seventh would just make it that much longer to train a well-rounded guard, while big men continue to have the three skills that people train and one skill that everyone treats as the red-headed stepchild.