BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > PF and shots

PF and shots

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
142475.16 in reply to 142475.15
Date: 5/7/2010 9:36:35 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


If you have good outside defenders and average inside defenders then I would suggest playing 2-3 zone unless you are sure your opponent is going to play an outside offence and has a weak inside attack.


While I do not 100% agree with everything that ned said, I still have to completely disagree with the proponents of a 2-3 zone. You really cannot afford to sacrifice outside d in this game anymore. Just look at the Heathens B3 run this season, he is showing that really high outside d combined with above average ratings everywhere else can really be a lethal combination.

So, when would I play a 2-3 zone? Maybe if I needed to play a guy at SF who was a poor outside defender. Maybe if I really needed to kill the rebounding battle. But it would certainly not be to sacrifice outside d for inside d.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
142475.17 in reply to 142475.16
Date: 5/7/2010 9:58:28 AM
ESV Laim
IV.1
Overall Posts Rated:
175175
2-3 isn't useless.

Look at my rematch against Tukums (22419894) today. I finally needed the OT to win although I didn't play LI or LP.

From: ned

This Post:
00
142475.18 in reply to 142475.17
Date: 5/7/2010 11:03:25 AM
Freccia Azzurra
IV.18
Overall Posts Rated:
823823
Second Team:
Slaytanic
Labude I'm sorry but you tried to suicide yourself, you could easily won with other tactics, you've arrived at the OT because you played with, probably, the worst attack tactic available and I don't see any correlation between "2-3 isn't useless" and your today match...

1990-2022 Stalinorgel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV-Xppl6h8Et
This Post:
00
142475.19 in reply to 142475.17
Date: 5/7/2010 11:21:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
2-3 isn't useless.


I did not say it was useless. I said that in the majority of situations, a man or 3-2 zone will do better. I then went on to outline some possible (rare) situations when a 2-3 might be useful.

It seems to me that in this game if Tukums plays a man that he beats you. You both made poor tactical decisions. But I guess that's why you play PL games, to try weird things?

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
142475.20 in reply to 142475.19
Date: 5/7/2010 11:33:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2121
The top teams in the world have fantastic Outside Offence because of One on One training.

Outside Defence is much slower so generally the level is pretty low, so teams are weaker defending outside which is exactly why in the early seasons when some of us were deciding on what to train we thought Outside offence was the way to go.
Now it is the opposite and in a few seasons the situation might be reversed.


However this is concentrating a lot on Outside play, when in fact their are teams that completely rely on big men to get their points. If you are like me and have powerhouses for guards then when you face a team with huge Cs and PFs then you need the boost on Inside Def. that you get with 2-3

Creator of (http://www.buzzerbeaterstats.com) and (http://www.buzzerbeaternews.com/) -- Ex GM of Australia -- Division 1 winner of Italy Season 1 then moved team to Australia after the country was created by the BBs. Australian team manager for 2 seasons. Won various tournaments and division 1 titles in the following seasons.
This Post:
00
142475.21 in reply to 142475.20
Date: 5/7/2010 11:40:46 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
The top teams in the world have fantastic Outside Offence because of One on One training.


I seriously doubt that.

Anyhow, had to dig deep to find a game where you played 2-3 zone. You definitely could have done better with man. Sure your inside d was great, but Inept outside d? I'm sure your opponent was drooling all over the place: (20587390) (notice the match-up ratings for his team - almost 100+ across the board).

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 5/7/2010 11:44:41 AM

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
142475.22 in reply to 142475.21
Date: 5/7/2010 11:53:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
Check out my cup game against SJOD for a game that I believe I would have lost if I didn't play a 2-3 zone.

This Post:
00
142475.23 in reply to 142475.21
Date: 5/7/2010 12:03:42 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2121
Well I know I have "Jump Shot: legendary" on a couple of my players because of One on One

Like I said you can't just pull out any game to prove a point.
That game I didn't even play my good guards, I probably was too concerned with the B3 game

Creator of (http://www.buzzerbeaterstats.com) and (http://www.buzzerbeaternews.com/) -- Ex GM of Australia -- Division 1 winner of Italy Season 1 then moved team to Australia after the country was created by the BBs. Australian team manager for 2 seasons. Won various tournaments and division 1 titles in the following seasons.
This Post:
00
142475.24 in reply to 142475.22
Date: 5/7/2010 12:12:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
I assume you are talking about this game: (22456384). Personally I do not think the 2-3 zone won that game for you, it had more to do with this: Viral Infections looked like the only team trying out there.

Now, I can't completely disagree that the 2-3 zone was a bad choice, though. You started a SF with inept outside d. I certainly would not go 3-2 with that kind of player and would be extremely hesitant to play him in a man d, too.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
142475.25 in reply to 142475.23
Date: 5/7/2010 12:17:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
Well I know I have "Jump Shot: legendary" on a couple of my players because of One on One


That's all well and good but you could have gotten there faster training jump shot. And unless you only play an inside offense, you need some range for a good outside shooter, too.

I see how one on one can be a useful training regiment for a two position trainer. However, it alone does not make for a fantastic offensive player.


Like I said you can't just pull out any game to prove a point.


Sure, random things can happen in any game. On the other hand, match-up ratings do not lie.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
142475.26 in reply to 142475.24
Date: 5/7/2010 12:21:41 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
Yes that is the game I meant. I realise that me playing CT vs him playing TIE was a big part of why I won, all I am saying is that I think that if I didn't play a 2-3 zone I would have lost. My reason for this is because I had scouted my opponent and realised he was going to probably play Push the Ball, and with Push the Ball he had good inside offence and not very good outside offence. So I played a 2-3 zone which boosted my inside defence which gave it a rating higher than his inside offence, and although this meant I sacrificed some outside defence, his outside offence was only inept (high) so it didn't really hurt me considering my outside defence was inept (medium).

On the contrary, had I played man to man, I would have had better outside defence, which would have destroyed his outside attack, however my inside defence would have been severely lacking and he would have destroyed me on the inside.

Advertisement