BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > PF and shots

PF and shots

Set priority
Show messages by
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.

This Post:
00
142475.27 in reply to 142475.26
Date: 5/7/2010 12:30:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155


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.


I personally think the result is similar whether you play 2-3 or man. Disagree if you want... The only reason you might have an advantage in the 2-3 zone here is because of your extra rebounding and the fact that your SF was a crap perimeter defender.

What you are not understanding with the 2-3 zone is that you allow your opponent to move the ball around much easier. So not only do you give them easier perimeter shots but you also allow higher quality shots all over the court. They can find their best match-ups faster. They get off more quality passes which gives them better shots on the outside and the inside. And even against an inside offense, you leave your opponent open for short jump shots.

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager
This Post:
00
142475.28 in reply to 142475.27
Date: 5/7/2010 12:33:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
Fair enough :) I do prefer a 3-2 zone over a 2-3 zone, however, I think 2-3 zones are slightly underrated, as a strong rebounding advantage can make the difference, especially if your 2 guards have exceptional outside defence and so a third player isn't required.

This Post:
00
142475.29 in reply to 142475.28
Date: 5/7/2010 3:36:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
155155
I see what you are saying and it sort of goes to what I was saying about the "rare" situation where a 2-3 is a good option. However, with a quality SF who can defend outside, inside and rebound, a 2-3 zone is not necessary and not optimal.

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 5/7/2010 3:40:03 PM

Run of the Mill Canadian Manager