BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Canada > Inside Defense

Inside Defense

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
141381.2 in reply to 141381.1
Date: 4/20/2010 1:58:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Man to man can still be tough... If your SF cannot defend inside and you play man you are leaving a gaping hole. That's when a 3-2 becomes an acceptable defense against an inside attack.

The only positive to the 2-3 zone in my mind is the extra rebounding. I guess you could also hide a poor outside defending SF, but if you need to run a 2-3 zone to do that, I think you have issues.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
141381.3 in reply to 141381.1
Date: 4/20/2010 8:31:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2020
i thought the 2-3 zone was made specifically to discourage inside shots and encourage perimeter shots?
im still trying to figure out how the stats and tactics work in relation to each other in this game, but i use 2-3 zone against strong IS (both rating and tactic) opponents

This Post:
00
141381.4 in reply to 141381.3
Date: 4/20/2010 10:42:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
8989
i thought the 2-3 zone was made specifically to discourage inside shots and encourage perimeter shots?
im still trying to figure out how the stats and tactics work in relation to each other in this game, but i use 2-3 zone against strong IS (both rating and tactic) opponents

In theory, yes. But I am asking about how people have experienced it in the actual game.
My theory/experience is that 2-3 does a good job of defending shots in the post, but man to man and even 3-2 do a better job of preventing those shots from happening or forcing the opponent to take bad shots inside. I gather that a lot of the better Canadian managers operate on a similar assumption.

This Post:
00
141381.5 in reply to 141381.4
Date: 4/21/2010 8:05:24 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1919
just take a look at the last naismith final (20361775). sadeh scored tons of points despite being an average shooter and going against an all-world defender because of the 2-3 zone. it will shutdown inside shots, but leave everything else vulnerable. the choice of man or 3-2 depends on the offensive rhythm of the other team as well as the matchups down low. can't really be said that one or the other is better, depends on the specifics of both teams.

This Post:
00
141381.6 in reply to 141381.3
Date: 4/21/2010 8:08:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
i thought the 2-3 zone was made specifically to discourage inside shots and encourage perimeter shots?


As Chris said, the problem is that you reduce your perimeter d too much with a 2-3 zone. This allows for better passing lanes, which allows your opponent to move the ball around at will and find their best match-up faster.

I will go even further on the issue... You will notice if you watch a look inside/low post game that their are a fair number of short jump shots (maybe even close to 50% on some occasions). I gather that the decreased outside d in a 2-3 zone also makes it difficult to defend these types of shots.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager