BuzzerBeater Forums

You had 26 fouls which let them go to the line 36 times

The fouls are a product of the tactic. Most of the fouls was against opposing SG/PG as they drove in and called against my guards

Your starting PG fouled out.

So that means by outside scoring would have been even higher if he didn't foul out.

You also got outrebounded by 15

And yet I had more shot attempts than he did

I don't think playing M2M would have helped since you would have had even worse ID and RB against their inside attack.

Incorrect. Playing a M2M would mean I get smacked a bit on the ID front but as seen by the team ratings my outside scoring would have made up for any loss in ID as his OD got torched

personally i don't see the this examples as arguments against 2-3, if you don't say that 2-3 zone should leads to automatic wins.

Both games was away, betwen teams of roughly the same strength. Both team was very close, while the 2-3 miss the hca. And depending on the matchup rating, i would say at least game one was would be a win in the majority of cases for the 2-3.

here some examples of mine:
(182276.35)

Btw: OD wasn't high at my big playing 2-3, Radeke has a 1 and Alabora a 4 - only Dachsbau could defend outside. The blocking skills from Radkeke i don't know, but Ferda have 11(and he blocks enough to pay the extra price) and Dachs have an 8.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 4/27/2011 1:56:25 AM

Both games was away

The first game was played at a neutral venue as it was a PL game. Also, the team ratings would have already taken into account HCA and enthusiasm.

Both team was very close,

The teams were not close at all as demonstrated by team ratings. My ID matched/better than opponent's IS (strong medium ID vs strong low IS). My OS on the otherhand beat their OD by at least 2 whole levels (strong low OS vs average low OD)


I'm just providing further game evidence that 2-3 zone doesn't work as it should.

The first game was played at a neutral venue as it was a PL game. Also, the team ratings would have already taken into account HCA and enthusiasm.

hca is bigger then the reflect in the rating, there i am pretty sure.

The teams were not close at all as demonstrated by team ratings. My ID matched/better than opponent's IS (strong medium ID vs strong low IS). My OS on the otherhand beat their OD by at least 2 whole levels (strong low OS vs average low OD)


I'm just providing further game evidence that 2-3 zone doesn't work as it should.

i would rather say, that team ratings aren't always that clear as a evidence you showed.

personally i don't see the this examples as arguments against 2-3, if you don't say that 2-3 zone should leads to automatic wins.

Both games was away, betwen teams of roughly the same strength. Both team was very close, while the 2-3 miss the hca. And depending on the matchup rating, i would say at least game one was would be a win in the majority of cases for the 2-3.

here some examples of mine:
(182276.35)

Btw: OD wasn't high at my big playing 2-3, Radeke has a 1 and Alabora a 4 - only Dachsbau could defend outside. The blocking skills from Radkeke i don't know, but Ferda have 11(and he blocks enough to pay the extra price) and Dachs have an 8.

1- Game you win against 2-3

2- Brezel plays with 3-2 so it's not a good example

3- Maybe it could be an example, but your center won the game scoring 4-4 in 3PT, you won this game because you did a good attack more than a good defense.

4- Last example shows that 2-3 just is weak even playing you with 3-2 you scored like the hell against his 2-3. This example shows how bad is to defense with 2-3.

Last edited by Marot at 4/27/2011 7:19:51 AM

1. i win it close against a mionor opponent who played away and lost two key players in that game ;)

2. this would be an argument when i won this game, with two good offensiv performances - but brezel scored 64 points which would bring him into trouble nearly independent of his defence.

3. with your number two argument that becomes a bit weird, or not? Also 83 points is less then average, and scoring 95 himself isn't a weird offensiv night too.

4. maybe you are valid here, but the game was much closer then expected before, and i think with a bench he would have beat me.

(182276.35)

1- Minor opponent? His outside team is much stronger than your OD, he did quite good on attack but on defense...

2- What you want to compare here?¡

You are playing LI/2-3

He is playing 3-2/LI

Its not a good example

3- As i said maybe this could be an example, but the key of that game is that Wombats outside scoring is not really good and he couldn't benefit from the lose that you have when you play 2-3.
If he had stronger outside scoring i'm sure that would be a different game.

His PG had 10 in JS and 4 in JR, ofc he is not going to score agaisnt a 2-3, that player ''sux'' on outside skills.

4- The difference between game 3 and 4 is that your PG made 14-18, 1-1 3PT, 2-2 FT & 31 points.

Not to tell what the SF did.

Seriously on game 4 is showing the weakness of this zone.


EDIT: Ofc game 2&4 are the same, 1 team fails with the 3-2, but if you compare the game 3 and 4 you will see what a good outside player can do against a 2-3.

Last edited by Marot at 4/27/2011 7:52:46 AM

1. with minor i mean i had the better guards and big men(even when it is closer at the guards), he played away and against relegation and made it in the championship final. Normally i am the clear favourite.

2. So you say my defence doesn't work, because he set up his defence wrong which confused his players so much that he can hit a basket? Right? So your next suggestion is, to forbid the 3-2 zone, because you cann't attack inside anymore when you play it?

3. his sg is more a shooter, but yes he is inside orientated that why i also palyed the 2-3.

4. but only had the fourth bet chanches in my team to convert those shots, and take the third most shots. So he definately wasn't my best option in the offense, even when he had a good day. And wow the SF is an argument he is an weaker shooter, then the one in game three you mentioned, and he is an C you could also guess it.

some of CrazyEye's examples have this property but please see the common thing; 2-3 Zone becomes successful when the opponent's SF is a weak player or a Center/Power Forward..
we already know that three big men tactic is not working in this engine so why bother using 2-3 Zone against that..?

when i trained inside, one of my c palys often SF - i wouldn't say that Ferda was ineffective in offense(mostly around his normal average). Normally i had an SF, on PF which i rotate outside for defence, which is the normal weak link of the 3 big strategy in my eyes.

hehe..u guys really cant sleep without that isnt it..i have some for u ( GM Crazys examples are BS cause his team his too weak :-))
my team has no, and than i say noo i mean really baaaaaaaad, good center and dudes with Inside De..so the BB 23 zone is a opportunity for me to win games against teams with much stronger Bigs and teams with too weak shooting skills..why?..cause 23 push my rebound and Inside De and , and thats the most important thing, they doesnt shoot as much as they would thrown than i would play man to man or a other kind of zone!!
so 23 is for teams like mine a good way to higher my chances for a win against strong Look Inside teams

examples please

(32835447) ---> check the salary of his center at 4 and 5 --> thats my team salary

(32907277) ---> last night,played with a SG at 4 --> win against motion cause opponents shooting skills are too weak --> 23 helps my rebound and my Inside De

(29598126) ---> 23 doesnt working against a team with really good shooting guards

(29598070) ---> but it works soo pretty well against teams with a Monster at 4 or 5

hoe u can find sleep now

:-)))

Last edited by WillFreeman at 4/27/2011 10:17:38 AM