BuzzerBeater Forums

if you are interested I can send bbmail with the skills...

but in my POV there is nothing supernatural with my players...

absolutely agree

this match is the best example for that we say

You want some more proof of 2/3 working as the snizzle? I have many more games to show, but these are the ones who are more memorable thus easier to find.

Me away,me less or almost the same salary, rebounding the key(29335147)

Neutral ground, against more salary, against outside offense, rebounding the key(32409819)

Even this game, wich i lost, was against a team with my 900K payroll against his 1,4m salary, withhim even better gameshapes and i almost won that game. Why, because of rebounding plain and simpe... (32422582) He was going to shoot anyhow well, because he had outside firepower and inside firepower. a 3-2 would not have worked, because of his good OF. M2M would have killed me, because he would be equal or better inside and outside plus the same amount or rebounds, 2-3 would give him more shot%, but way less possessions.

The why it worked:

- when your opponent has an advantage in offense, lets say he is gonna hit a 40% shot anyway, the best thing you could do is make it a 45/50% shot but (!) give him less shots!... 2-3 is going to do this. You give him better offense by degrading your OD, but you are gonna steal a lot or RB's= extra possesions..Many of you overlook this in this discussion.. The main reason i choose 2-3 when i need the extra possessions to stay at least close or win close. When you can defend your opponent with a M2M inside and outside, a M2M will be the best option..

You cant do it with any team. And you cant do it against any team. One example, it works very good against teams with a outside oriented SF with less rebounding compared to yours... This way your are exploiting his one of his 2 weaknesses bigtime..

You need specific players for it, but saying 2-3 is useless, is imo plain wrong..






Last edited by Maupster at 6/4/2011 5:34:02 PM

First 2 games are not good examples, or it's not the point of this thread, since they played you from the outside, not from the inside, unless you suggest that 2-3 is a good defense against outside tactics...

About the B3 game i said it before, but i think u lost just because the 2-3; (32422582)

He was going to shoot anyhow well, because he had outside firepower

That's not true, or at least it's not true for Lipa, the guy who scored more points on that game. On the previous game against KOI, Lipa did 1 - 8 FG 4 points, against Dragones 2 - 4 FG 5 points.

Lipa scored you 24 points since he had lot of freedom(thanks to 2-3) that's a huge difference.

(32409820)


Against you Hostivar did 36-78, 46% in FG.

Hostivar against KOI 40-84 just a 47% in FG.

Where is the effect of the 2-3?

Your PF&C had better inside defense than the PF&C of KOI, so if you had played m2m, your inside defense was going to be more or less the same, but your outside defense would have been much better.

The difference of points between your game and the game of KOI is that your inside attack is much better than his attack and also because the slow pace didn't work for KOI.


The 2-3 was a big sacrifice, picking more rebounds doesn't mean a lot, if not look at your scoring, you did a 34-90 in FG.

You defended worst his PG-SG-SF in compare to a m2m, in normal conditions you had more chances to win that game with a m2m than with a 2-3.
From the 83 points he scored you, 59 comes from the PG-SG-SF positions, when Hostivar played with 2 SF that were more a SG.



I'm sorry, but i don't buy ''your 2-3''. The best way to defend an inside attack is to defend the PG-SG-SF the best you can with a m2m if you manage to do this you will win more than lose.

(10472)
(10771)

Matchs from the same season(12).

And the funny thing is that in the 2-3 match we used better defenders than the game we played in m2m.


PS: In general 3-2 works much better than a m2m when you try to defend an outside attack, but against an inside attack m2m works better than a 2-3.

Last edited by Marot at 6/5/2011 2:11:41 PM

ok your main argument against 2-3 is that you score to easy against certain opposing defences (3-2), or to hard against (mtm).

So your super advategeous 3-2, have also disadvantages ;)

Sure, anything is perfect :P