BuzzerBeater Forums

I need help

2-3 Zone, Inside Box and One if he's got a dominant big guy.

ok, thanks

Normally 2-3 zone is said to be the best. But some managers say that 3-2 zone is more effective, as it'll stop the guards from passing balls to the big-men, and also stop them from driving. There is also an arguement that using 2-3 zone will leave too many opportunities for the guards to take 3 pointers, whereas 3-2 zone won't create as many chance for 3-pointers.
But generally, if your defense is much superior to your opponent, man to man is probably the best. If I were to choose between 2-3 zone and 3-2 zone without considering the defense ability of my players, I'd probably choose 2-3 zone.

try to scout the opponent, who is the number 1 inside offense player...then try to match him with your best inside player......

Normally 2-3 zone is said to be the best. But some managers say that 3-2 zone is more effective, as it'll stop the guards from passing balls to the big-men, and also stop them from driving.

i like to say these to my opponents :)

At least my games against 3-2 was all be good, with 3-2 it isn't that ugly when you aren't right in your assumption about your opposing offense but if you don't trust 2-3, man to man is still be better then 3-2.

Does Inside Box and One actually work?

Yes it does. It creates a beautiful box for your opponents who now know exactly where to stand. It means one offensive player in each offence will have a really tough time making a shot, but all the others will have an easy one. You have pitiful defence against the outside shots the entire match and also against half the inside shots. So does it work? If you want to lose, it is brilliant!

jajajaja.
That should mean that if the other team has a really really good scorer you'll defende him very well, but that could be conterproductive, because it will leave all the other players on court with more space to score.
In same cases works, but not very often.-

I have literally never seen a circumstance where 3-2 is better than M2M against LI.

http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/35974595/boxscore.aspx

Here's an example of me playing 3-2. Now you can see where some believe it is effective, my SG's PP100 were bad and he shot 18 shots...so it did it's job in that regard. It even held me to a mere 39 percent shooting. The problem? 21 offensive rebounds compared to 6 the other way.

The guards did a good job at stopping the ball at going inside but 3 things happened

1: The SF received the ball in good positions and was able to score inside effectively at nearly 50 percent. This SF was actually a PF with good jump shooting ability and obviously very good IS. He not only was able to get inside but he got to the line 5 times. This is definitely an instance where the opposing team could've used some ID there rather than the OD.

2: The SF playing PF could shoot from the outside, so even if he didn't receive the ball in a good spot, he was able to shoot against the zone.

3: The C had 10 offensive rebounds, and even though he didn't get a lot of shots he was able to get a ton of putbacks and it hurt the team just as much. He also was able to pass through the zone and became the main facilitator(nearly all of his highest assist games were against zones.)


Now the shooting percentage is actually...even skewed for multiple reasons.

1: The SF that went 9-20 was coming off of injury, he was only in respectable game shape. Had he been on proficient form his ability obviously would've been much greater.

2: The starting SF playing PF who shot 50 percent went out with fouls, and was replaced with a traditional big who couldn't shoot at all, he went 1-8.

3: His big men blocked 11 shots, nearly all of them layups and dunks, something the 3-2 zone is known to give up. His big man in particular that blocked 7 shots has an inordinately high shot blocking stat....higher than most train it to.


Long story short. Don't play 3-2 zone against LI.