BuzzerBeater Forums

(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

Here is a 2-3 that worked.

He had a 320k C that was worth more then my whole team.

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/32306346/boxscore.aspx