BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > 2-3 zone

2-3 zone

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
235487.11 in reply to 235487.10
Date: 2/4/2013 9:34:29 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
408408
There are managers who believe 3-2 works pretty well against LI.
They say that in this defence,stops the guards passing to the big guys inside .
I must say that Iam not sure about that ,I never tried that against LI,it seems to me not that great cause you will be out rebound in 3-2, I prefer M2M.

Last edited by primoss at 2/4/2013 9:35:33 AM

This Post:
00
235487.12 in reply to 235487.11
Date: 2/4/2013 10:14:02 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
5959
Yes I have heard that as well, but I was wondering what the actual effects are. Personal experiences, numbers or facts that point it out or specific games that show something like the huge amount of fouls a 2-3 zone causes.

This Post:
11
235487.14 in reply to 235487.10
Date: 2/4/2013 12:47:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
That's a valid point, though I think that goes for any defensive tactic other than M2M. I was wondering what the benefit was of 2-3, or specifically what it is NOT, since most people say it's not helpful. However if you want to weight the risks and rewards you need to know what both are. The risks area clear but I was wondering if the people that say 2-3 zone is bad have any numbers or facts to back up that statement.


The one benefit the 2-3 does have that is actually worthwhile is the increase to rebounding. It's very situational whether that increase in rebounding and the inside defense is worth the penalty to OD, which is severe not only against jump shots but at preventing passes down low, but there are situations where it can be a sensible decision.

This Post:
00
235487.16 in reply to 235487.11
Date: 2/6/2013 5:00:44 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
1414
I approve this message

From: yeppers

This Post:
00
235487.17 in reply to 235487.16
Date: 2/6/2013 11:05:19 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
367367
I am a fan of the 3-2 against LI, because really the best way to defend IS is to not allow it. The difference in % between contested vs. uncontested IS is generally not that large. If you allow the ball inside, your opponent is going to make shots sooner or later. This is where the big gap between 3-2 vs outside offenses and 2-3 vs LI comes in.

With a 3-2, giving up some ID to contest a JS or 3 pt FG cuases him to shoot maybe 20-30% worse than he would have had they been open. Where as the reward for giving up OD in favor of contesting an IS is much smaller.

This Post:
00
235487.19 in reply to 235487.17
Date: 2/7/2013 5:18:51 AM
Spartan 300
II.2
Overall Posts Rated:
52555255
Second Team:
Spartan Kids
I am a fan of the 3-2 against LI, because really the best way to defend IS is to not allow it.

Are you serious mate or is it just a joke?

This is where we hold them!
This Post:
11
235487.21 in reply to 235487.20
Date: 2/7/2013 11:51:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
367367
Its a very situational tactic, but one that I think can be effective. Silverbacks in the NBBA has used this line of thinking for quite a while, at a very high level. I dont think he plays 3-2 often, but he does maximize OD to stop the ball from getting inside, rather than matching up with opponent's bigs.

Advertisement