BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

You can't really compare it like that because you played 2 different opponents of different strengths in the 2 games.

The idea behind each tactic is that each has its advantages and disadvantages for certain situations. If a team is outside orientated, a 3-2 zone is the right way to go to shut down the outside offense.

If a team is inside orientated, 2-3 zone is the right way to go to shut down the inside offense. Yes you leave the perimeter a bit more open but the mentality of the opponent is to go inside first and only if they can't find a shot then they take one from outside which is usually a bad shot.

woohoo :P Someone supporting a 2-3 zone :P I felt a little outnumbered lol.

2-3 Zone is being a bit underrated. If the opposing team has poor shooting guards, it's your best bet. I've seen LI teams that have guards that shoot under 30%. 2-3 is good in that situation and is best when you can stop them from getting Offensive Rebounds.

Yeah but you didn't mention that he didn't play 3 of his usual starters, played a bunch of players worse than your starters, and you CT'd him when he played TIE.

There are always various factors involved in games other than tactics.

My team on paper looks strong inside because of my heavy big man presence, but my shooters are equally adept. Playing 2-3 against me when I play PTB would be suicide.

If I want to shut down a big man or shooter, I play M2M and play my best defender on him, that way I'm guaranteed to have him man marked at all times by that player. A zone shifts too much and I may find my weakest player in that zone marking him.

There's nothing wrong with 2-3 if a team has horrible guards, but if they're competent they can really rip you a new one, because instead of looking inside they'll start creating their own looks.

I wasn't saying that I beat him because I was the better team or because I played a 2-3 zone. He is clearly the much better team, seeing as he plays a division above and is ranked 41 in the country.

My point was that with the team he played, and the team I played, and already taking in to account the fact that I played CT and he played TIE, what I'm saying is that had I played Man to Man instead of a 2-3 zone, I would have lost.