BuzzerBeater Forums

I've been dreaming with 2-1-2 Zone since Season 3.
Let's Guards defend outside and Bigs Inside. The SF do the most helps in defense.
2-1-2 it's better than m2m Rebounding but with good ofensive flow you can easely find open shots.
Basicaly you trade ball presure for better rebounds.

+1 to the 2-1-2 Zone

A 2-1-2 half court trap or just a simple 2-1-2? A 2-1-2 from my basketball experience it just like a 2-3 besides the center is moved up a couple steps. It has the same soft spots except its tougher to get the ball in the middle. When we play 2-1-2 we just call it an extended 2-3 zone.

I would like BB to add a matchup 2-3 kinda like Syracuse, more presses like 1-2-2, 2-2-1, 1-2-1-1, 1-3-1, etc and maybe add some half court traps so you can try to create chaos while being able to get back into a zone or man after they break it. I think its time for BB to implement more tactics so we could shy away from LI.

A 3-2 zone is a very effective zone because it's only true weak spot is the corner and middle. I ran it last year and wasn't a believer at all at first. I was thinking a 3-2 zone can't work, a 2-3 would be way better. Boy did the coach prove me wrong. We ran it very effectively. Every time the ball got inside every one would collapse preventing an inside shot. It was tough for teams throw the ball inside and score since we have 2 to 3 guys on them the second the ball was caught inside. If there was 2 post players the wing defender had the corner. If there was 1 post player the bottom guys had the corner and wing would drop. We would play matchup and creat chaos, we trap out of it, a 3-2 gives you multiple options.

So can the Game engine do a Syracuse 2-3 matchup zone? It eliminated all my traps and presses. So what exactly is the FCP? It seems to create turnovers it just gives up easy inside baskets. So your saying the GE will never be able to add fast break elements or traps?

Its 100% halfcourt. No fastbreaks, no backcourt steals, traps etc.

I remember being involved with a discussion about this a few seasons ago.

Can't find the thread, but i did get shot down pretty quick with regards to evidence of fast breaks.

Here is another thread that gives an example of fast breaks - (233039.3)

I also had a look at a quick game report spreadsheet which had 10 shot attempts under 5 seconds (on shot clock) (from my team).... - take away the attempted buzzerbeaters and put backs, there was only 3 shots that would be classified as 'fast breaks' (ie: Shots with shot clock at 19 or higher).

i played Princeton that game, so its a slow offense - checked another Princeton game, and there was only 2 this time.

I dont have any saved game analyzers from other games though, so other offenses may produce different results. IMO statistically, the number of fast breaks is low, however they do definitely exist in the game engine.

With regards to backcourt steals - I played a FCP game a while ago where my team got 29 steals in the game. There were 4 steals inside 5 seconds in the first quarter alone. (49563617) (this game also had numerous inside of 5 second shot attempts by the opposition whom LOST THE GAME BY THE WAY SID - sorry inside joke there.

However yes there are no 8 second back-court violations, and no 5 second (5 second i thought it was?) - on inbound passes. So yes these elements are definitely not in the game engine.

But yes, the game engine is simply maths - traps or double teaming or more complex elements are probably going to be impossible.
I do believe that there is a 'back-court' calculation made for the first 5 seconds of the offense, which attempts to simulate steals/turnovers that occur during the offense bringing the ball up the court. This also performs a calc for the offense to perform a fast break. I dont ahve any substantial proof that these calcs are made PRIOR to normal half court offense calculations or that they are made as part of the entire offense game engine calc as a whole.

but if i think about it logically from the way I would build it, I would have two calculations, bringing the ball up calc (which would be pretty simple) and then the half court offense calc.

Anyway, IMO, this GE was designed with absolutely no consideration for basketball played on a full court. The 'fast break' plays and broken last minute plays (I think they fixed it) where dudes made impossible ball advancements and shots the last seconds of a game...is evidence...

Nope, nearly impossible ball advancements are still in the game. I watched the end of a friend's last game and, with 1 second left on the clock, the ball was thrown full court to the baseline where the defender, guarding closely, defended the shot well enough to force the miss. Then the game ended. So, those last second ball advancements are still there.

I saw Matt Barnes do that in a Clippers game but the pass hit rookie Jared Cunningham at the three point line and he fired off a three with a defender closing out on him and it went in. That was the game where Blake Griffin hit the amazing last second three against Phoenix. It is possible for a full court pass to result in a shot, but some of the places the game decides the shot is taken from are very difficult places to pass the ball to when there is a defender guarding the man closely.

Orlando v Wizards last night. (tonight depending on ur timezone)

In bounds pass to alley-oop
Clock doesn't start until the ball touches the hands of a player or the floor (or the backboard/rim obviously).
So technically a full court lob, with 1 second left, even though it takes 2-3 seconds to get there, doesn't wind the clock down.
still not a real life scenario - usually teams call a time out such that the pass is not a full court pass. Ironically, the game engine doesn't call lots of time outs in the last 30 seconds of a game in order to simulate this.
So its kinda like two wrongs sorta make a right.