BuzzerBeater Forums

Im just saying, I agree with the other person here, don't think 3-2 is too strong, its was just well designed, u can play with this zone in many scenerios, like you should be able to, it has its strength and its weaknesses compare to M2M.

100% agreeing with this. Building your team around 3-2 zone is pretty much the only other option for traditional LI and M2M teams that the current tactics allow you to do. It gives at least a little bit of variation what you can do. Otherwise every top team would be more or less very similarly built.

Then again you let them score 17 more points than in the other match. Of course homecourt and attitude affects but still a big difference from the match with M2M defense. And they still made 80 points with basically 3 offensive players which comes back to my previous point that teams built around 3-2 really struggle with. 3 offensive players is a big hinderance.

@augus

Sir do you understand what I am claiming? 3-2 zone doesn't necessarily need SB to be useful. That's my point.

Yeah, to make it useful, OD is enough.

@Alonso

I also agree with that 3-2 zone doesn't require SB, but i do think that with SB, its a superior defense compare to 3-2 without SB.

That's the point. I agree absolutely with you. Without SB you get more up on your OD, but the lack of ID is a problem. With SB you can run a better 3-2.

Im just saying, I agree with the other person here, don't think 3-2 is too strong, its was just well designed, u can play with this zone in many scenerios, like you should be able to, it has its strength and its weaknesses compare to M2M.

On this I agree too. I don't know the engine code, but I had some mail exchange with Marin (back in season 20 or 25...) and read the old posts from Charles. The idea was always that Standard Offense and m2m are the "best" choices/solutions. They have no real downside. If you choose another offense or defense, you gain on one side, but you lose on the other side. Same goes for the 3-2 zone. You gain OD but you lose ID and this you can only compensate via SB.
When GDP was introduced it shifted the downside a little bit away. You can disable the loss in ID if you guess "inside + fast/slow" right. With this the 3-2 has almost (according to my calculations) no reduction. But if you are wrong, you lose your bonus on OD and the 3-2 zone is a failure.
So 3-2 zone is, in my opinion, one of the best designed defenses in BB. m2m und FCP are the other two.

The 2-3 zones and the two boxes are another issue. My data for the two boxes helped me to understand how they work and after that I didn't play them anymore. To get these two to function properly.... puuuhhhh. I think only some NTs can do this and even here I am not sure.

From my personal standpoint there are two solutions. Try to fix the defenses or implement a better defense scheme were you have more options on "who defends who".

Edit: I forgot the 1-3-1. I think it also works well. It is somewhere between FCP and 3-2 and more fragile than these two tactics. But in some games it is a very good choice.

Last edited by Nachtmahr at 12/30/2021 12:25:45 PM