BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > 2-3 Zone Dilemma

2-3 Zone Dilemma

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
300389.1
Date: 8/8/2019 1:06:24 AM
Raleigh Senators
IV.34
Overall Posts Rated:
88
I have a SC against a known "Look Inside" offense, so I'm casting a net to ask if anyone can share their experience with this 2-3 versus a 3-2 zone based on the new game engine. Read the dilemma details and let me know your thoughts...GO!

2-3 Zone Dilemma
Since the implementation of the new game engine a new school of thought that has arose is that the 2-3 zone is far less effective than it used to be in the old game engine. Advocates of this theory maintain that against an inside team it is now far more effective to use a 3-2 zone in order to prevent the opposing teams’ guards from getting the ball into their post players. The logic behind this is that with the new GE putting a stronger emphasis on passing it is much easier to stop the opposing team’s guards (which probably didn’t receive enough passing training under the old GE) from finding their big men in the post.

This Post:
22
300389.2 in reply to 300389.1
Date: 8/8/2019 10:30:28 AM
Vilkiukai
II.3
Overall Posts Rated:
429429
Second Team:
Vilkiukai II
It always used to be like this: the better the Outside defence, the lower quality shots opposing team takes, in every offense type. 3-2 zone in my opinion is better than 2-3 if you have higher than average SB big men, but still it might be alittle gamble. Usually it is better to just defend 1 on 1 and put your best Outside defender on their best passing guy, and play second power forward as SF, because most of the times SF's are the ones who either win on lose the LI games.

This Post:
00
300389.3 in reply to 300389.1
Date: 8/9/2019 6:20:08 AM
Monkeykid Maniacs
III.12
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
Running 3-2, my ID rating is usually only like 6 or 7... maybe 8 if I get really lucky. Running 2-3, my ID rating averages 9-10, topping at over 11. How that actually impacts my team's success in defending against LI offenses, I don't really know... but I haven't had good success running an outside defense against an inside offense. I usually have to match what they're bringing to have a chance.

I'm only at level III though, so the weaker all-around defense may be the reason for that. I assume at the top level, 3-2 might be better at stopping passes inside like people suggest?

This Post:
11
300389.4 in reply to 300389.3
Date: 8/15/2019 7:58:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Running 3-2, my ID rating is usually only like 6 or 7... maybe 8 if I get really lucky. Running 2-3, my ID rating averages 9-10, topping at over 11. How that actually impacts my team's success in defending against LI offenses, I don't really know... but I haven't had good success running an outside defense against an inside offense. I usually have to match what they're bringing to have a chance.

I'm only at level III though, so the weaker all-around defense may be the reason for that. I assume at the top level, 3-2 might be better at stopping passes inside like people suggest?


I can say that I just went through an entire NBBA season never giving up 100 points with a 3-2. I had a weird roster, though, but 3-2 with guys with shotblocking is nice. I did a 2-3 once, in a private league final a few years back, and gave up 113 on 50% shooting. Highly unrecommended.

This Post:
00
300389.5 in reply to 300389.1
Date: 8/16/2019 4:13:37 AM
O-Beshimi
III.4
Overall Posts Rated:
153153
I would use a 2-3 if there is a huge discrepancy in Talent (salary) of the opposing team's guards and SF. By using a 2-3 you can reasonably expect that his offensive flow should improve creating better shots at the perimeter (Midrange). A 3-2 should have the opposite effect creating less quality shots for a LI/LP team. However, by playing a 3-2 your inside defense will also be handicapped. M2M is still king of the defense imo. Of course every situation is unique, it really depends on how well you scout your opponent.

This Post:
00
300389.6 in reply to 300389.5
Date: 8/16/2019 2:18:22 PM
Raleigh Senators
IV.34
Overall Posts Rated:
88
Great analysis - I appreciate the thought you put into it and I agree M2M is usually the way to go unless you want to catch the opponent off guard just a little.

This Post:
00
300389.7 in reply to 300389.4
Date: 9/13/2019 10:28:33 AM
Monkeykid Maniacs
III.12
Overall Posts Rated:
3636
I've been able to hold LI teams to 70-80 points with 2-3. I personally never use 3-2 when they have no real outside game to speak of. If they're pure LI, I'll use 2-3. If they're pure outside, I'll use 3-2. If they're balanced, I use M2M. Simple as that.

This Post:
22
300389.8 in reply to 300389.7
Date: 9/13/2019 9:43:50 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
I've been able to hold LI teams to 70-80 points with 2-3. I personally never use 3-2 when they have no real outside game to speak of. If they're pure LI, I'll use 2-3. If they're pure outside, I'll use 3-2. If they're balanced, I use M2M. Simple as that.


It won't work in I or II. Some IIIs probably too. If you face a team that can't shoot jumpers, can't shoot threes and has awful flow but obnoxiously good rebounding there's a case for 2-3, but it doesn't edition against decent teams built well, and embarrases toy if you rub it against good teams built well.



From: khenry

This Post:
11
300389.9 in reply to 300389.7
Date: 9/17/2019 5:16:26 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
487487
I see one team last season that you held to 80 with 2-3 and a double GDP because he runs LI every game. No others that season and none this season against pure LI squads.

I once had a team with 1757 players and was $25,835,360 in debt. This is not that team. Join the Discord group open to anyone, but especially for USA managers to improve your club or get involved with the U21 and NT programs (https://discord.gg/cKpNkt2).
This Post:
11
300389.10 in reply to 300389.9
Date: 9/19/2019 4:12:17 AM
Tamarillo Wings
III.1
Overall Posts Rated:
708708
Second Team:
Slam Drunk Celtics
I do believe 2-3 zone is never worth the risk. The only clear advantage is in rebounding, where the boost could be a consistent factor in the game, also (without having any sense) on the offensive boards. But for all the other aspects I'm more than skeptical.

It could potentially be a solution against really poor teams, with several players without even a basic shooting or a flow ability...otherwise I don't see any possible advantage compared to a m2m. But even in those cases I'd never chose a 2-3.

3-2 zone is a different story, I like that zone a lot also against inside offenses but it won't be that effective if not properly built.

This Post:
00
300389.11 in reply to 300389.10
Date: 9/19/2019 5:47:43 PM
Raleigh Senators
IV.34
Overall Posts Rated:
88
I certainly agree, I’ve had better outcomes using the 3-2 for sure.
Thank you for your valued input - much appreciated.