BuzzerBeater Forums

(32596022)

mine 2-3 worked as i expected. i don't believe it's not working, but i don't use it a lot although.

maybe help defense happens more, than you see on the viewer. also i think you can't leave your outside defense to be much lower than opponents outside shooting while they play LI or LP. there was some blocks too. btw i should say that my 3 players sf-c had worse GS than his c-pf. also he played a sf with only mediocre IS. maybe if his sf would be better inside player the result would be different, but all games i see that is claimed to be nonsense and not working 2-3 zone, can be explained. for example your match... well effort difrence first, and as i guess you didn't have tall players with jumpshot, which is important for LI.

Last edited by Rycka at 04/20/2011 10:48:46

(10472)

I can show more games like this.

Italia giving 33 assist, i can assure you that the SF-PF-C had good ID and despite the fact we had better offensive flow, we only assisted 11, while they did 33, just shows how weak 2-3 is.

PD: Ofc we had decent SB's

PD2: On that season we won them with m2m, but with 2-3 zone we weren't able to do it.

Really? While in general everyone will be able to find single-game examples to back up their own statements, and while I thus don't really like to comment on that kind of example I think this game is rather interesting.

Do you really think Italy's Look Inside has been effective? Do you think Spain had won the game playing a man defense?

The Inside men of Italy were defended very well. The matchup ratings show they should have been clearly -massively- dominating their direct opponents. Somehow, however, Spain managed to stay in the game. You managed to shut down the inside players, hence Italy's guards and SF took the far majority of the shots and thus worse looks. The inside men only managed to take less than 1/3rd of the shots, while they should have had many great looks. 33 assist is many, yes, but it's also an empty stat without the context. Were it assist to worse outside looks, or were it assist to good inside looks? Seeing the shot distribution, I would vote for the latter.

Most of Spain's players were clearly outperformed by their opponents, I think with any other tactic this game would have ended up in a total blowout, with Italy winning by 20+ points.

(Disclaimer: I know nothing about the code, nor do I posses disclosed information about the engine, this comment I made is purely from my own game experience).

Sure i failed in comenting 1 important thing;

(10472) the previous game i commented

(10771) Semifinals

Just look on their SG, there's a big difference between 2-3 and m2m, S. Quattrucci scoring 19 points as max scorer and in the SF S. Quattrucci 3-19...

The best way to win the LI teams is to allow the PF-C scoring you(with m2m), but defend the best as possible the PG-SG-SF position.

This kind of situations changes a lot when normally the LI team plays you 3-2 with a SF with high OD(most of the B3 teams) and then you can't do nothing to win.

In the game we played a 2-3, Fanesi&Turbatto did a 13-26 in shoot attempts, but their PG-SG-SF score a lot, since 2-3 weaks you a lot from outside and you can't stop their drivings also...



(32422582)

DP failing with 2-3 since the Hostivar SG made what he wanted with his defense


Last edited by Marot at 04/20/2011 11:25:53

DP has numerous examples in his schedule where he actually won the game due to playing a 2-3.

I think playing the 2-3 in this game actually made it an exciting close game, any other tactic he would have been dominated since Hostiva had a lot more quality.

In the other game against Italy Spain played a totally different lineup (4 out of 5 starters were different). There is no way to compare these two, although the MTM couldn't stop the inside men of Italy at all, they crushed the game.

You will have to have the players to play a tactic effectively. I'm not playing a Run n Gun with my inside focused team without range and without much jump shot. I'm not complaining that tactic is broken if I play it. I think some people just dont realize which skillsets are needed to effectively execute a 2-3 and then just decide to blame the tactic.

You will have to have the players to play a tactic effectively.

That's an excuse, in NT's you got the best players and 2-3 still doesn't work.

On the 2-3 game we played with a really good defensive SF, in the m2m game we just played a SG in the SF position.


As i said the only way to win this teams is to allow PF-C scores you, but defend good on the PG-SG-SF positionts in m2m.

And at the end the result is that it's better to defend m2m, but when the inside team sets a line up with serious OD and 3-2 it's really hard to score and win.


There's an imbalance between zones, ones work well others doesn't work.

Oh god, why are so many whiners in this game?