BuzzerBeater Forums

Hi folks,

I am keeping a record of my defensive sats. So far, after seven league games, I have conceeded 587 points which means on average I conceed 83.8 points per game.

I am hoping that the more experienced among you might be able to tell me if that is a god,bad or indifferent defensive average. Please bear in mind that this is my first season and that I am training Cs and PFs so there youth might count against me defensively. My basketball philosophy has always been defence first so I am training my rookies in defence.

Anyway I would be interested in your opinions.

By the way I had been using 2-3 defence but for the ast game I switched to man to man and conceedd my biggest amount of points,104, do you think that 2-3 is the best and that I should stick with that?

I am of the opinion that 2-3 is the worst defense in the came. It's only real advantage is a boost to rebounding. I just think it gives up too much perimeter defense and allows the other team to produce quality shots with a higher flow which means the other team still gets quality inside looks in addition to easy scoring on the outside.

My experience is that team defense in BB starts with perimeter defense and you should guy guards (and a SF) with that in mind.

Beyond that, there isn't much I, or anyone else, can say without see your team.

I disagree with your notion that 2-3 is the worst defence in the game. I think it is a great defence, but in particular situations. For example if the opposing team is going to play a Look Inside or Low Post, then a 2-3 zone can be great. Also, if they are playing Base offence or Push the Ball, and if their inside scoring is much higher than their outside scoring then it can be very handy to play a 2-3 zone to lower their inside scoring percentage, and it also gives you a handy increase in rebounding.

If you defend man to man it's better because the other team has way more problems creating inside shots..

Not if the other team is better. For example if the other team has 2 good big men, which are far better than yours, and they play look inside, and you play man to man, chances are you are going to get crushed. Playing a 2-3 zone here would increase your chances dramatically.

Yeah i don't like 2-3 zone either. Switching between man to man and 3-2 depending on the opponent is better in my opinion.

Why don't you like 2-3? I played SJOD in my cup game last week, and I think if I played man to man instead of a 2-3 zone I would've lost without a doubt.

I disagree. I managed to promote to D2 two seasons ago by winning a finals series against a look inside team with a 60K centre and a 15k PF and my four rotation big men combined for around $20k in salary (keep in mind that this was pre-salary change). I ran man to man each time and won in two games. The loss of outside defense will just kill you, if you're out matched you're better off trying to stop the ball from getting into the post than you are trying to defend once the ball gets there. In addition, you're absolutely screwed if the other team switches it up and goes Run and Gun (whereas you can still pull out a win with a 3-2 against an inside team due to the ability to slow down the opposing team's flow).

The only time I would use 2-3 is if I am going to get blown out by an inside team and I want to slow down the damage on the offensive boards and/or I want to add some misdirection for future opponents.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but at the very, very least I would argue that 2-3 should never be a team's default defense. If you believe it's useful then I find it hard to believe you think it's useful in every situation.

If you have great outside defence and lousy inside defence and rebounding you would use 2-3 as commonly as most people use 3-2 at the moment. There are still some teams that will make you pull out that 2-3 defence if you want to win.

I definitely don't think a 2-3 zone should be used as the default defence. And I definitely don't think it is useful in all circumstances, all I'm saying is there are times when a 2-3 zone can and should be used effectively.

For example in my latest cup match, I played Run and Gun in my 2 league matches prior to the cup game to make my opponent play 3-2 zone, and in the cup game I switched to look inside. I also played a 2-3 zone in the cup game because I had a look at my opponent and knew that when he plays push the ball, his inside scoring is much higher than his outside scoring. So I played a 2-3 zone. He had an 80k center, which is more than my entire teams salary put together. If I played man to man then my defence wouldn't have been high enough to stop his inside scoring (he is ranked 200 more than me so he obviously has a much better team). However because I played a 2-3 zone, I managed to defend his strong inside scoring, and hence he would miss more from inside scoring, and because I was playing a 2-3 zone I also got more rebounds from these misses. This, in combination with the fact that he played a 3-2 zone against my Look Inside, means that I had the tactical advantage.

I think the case above is one where playing man to man would've lost me the game as his center would have completely smashed my center.

It's very interesting discussion because in my last two matches I was playing against LI. In cup match I set up 2-3 zone and my opponent made over 60% of points from outside and when I played my league game I set up man-to-man against LI and what happened - the team made about 80% from inside. It seems that if you play 2-3 zone the opposite team changes tactics during the game and tries more to play outside and if you play man-to-man without sufficient ID they don't change tactics and keeps playing LI especially if they have a good PG.