BuzzerBeater Forums

(36092998)

3-2 working better than 2-3. Also nice job on the rebound, even if Biznietos played at home lol ¡

For the sake of it and a lot of nerd's passion for the game.

Please notice the consideration I have for you to inflict me the pain of putting up those numbers of a game I care as much as my 57th scrimmage :)

Now listen, let's look beyond the ratings !

Atlético used a pair of seemingly solid and experienced 100k Cs as PF/C.
Here are the chaps : (5197170) and (818124).
When one of them needed to catch his breath, he was subbed for a decent and experienced 50k C, 31 : (2643334).
All the 3 of them rotated at the PF/C positions.
It's a straight approach and you can't dispute there is coherence in Atlético's selection.

Los Biz obviously played using 'Let coach decide'.
No less than 6 players were used as PF ! 4 different ones in QT1 already, all 6 of them during QT4.
Here is a breakdown by time played as PF :
19:55 : (6762746), Segala, 40k PF, used a lot during the game but mostly as SF.
13:47 : (9722013), Riveiro, 50k C, starting C, switched to PF for long periods.
7:57 : (9210260), Flowers, 18k SF, dubbed Air Jordan, implying he might not be a first choice as an inside player ?
3:07 : (11570031), 30k PG, 5'9" (inside skills training ?)...
1:51 : (14786110), 8k SF, dubbed Chris Mullin
1:23 : (2587501), 35k SG, dubbed Larry Bird

Riveiro was the starting C, when he switched to PF or was benched, this player, a 14k PF, was used as C : (8978773). He played 21 minutes as C.
The SF position was filled mostly by Segala and Flowers.
Riveiro and Segala, partnered as PF/C for less than 20 minutes. The other players used are substandard compared to Atlético's bigs.

Is it really inconceivable that Los Biz's 2-3 couldn't stop Atlético's inside offense ?

What's odd with the rebounds is that from the 50 shots + maybe FTs missed by Atlético only 33 were collected as rebounds. It might explain partially the discrepancy between the ratings and the stats.

Post games you think show the 2-3 is broken, it may lead to interesting discussions but please put some effort in it, don't look only superficially at the ratings and post random irrelevant games. It's disappointing from you, you know better than that.
We have just made a case against the coach AI instead of 2-3 with this game, join our cause and drop this one ! :)

I am not filthy, I have a very personal strategy regarding my microbial environment ;p

I am not advocating anything, I mostly stay away from 2-3 and use it very sparsely. I think there is a precise set of circumstances when to use it like FCP and 1-3-1. It's true it's hard to set up an efficient 2-3. In any case, I don't want to have to resort to an extreme defense, that would mean I am desperate and seriously overpowered. It should only become an option on very special cases.
What is certainly a wrong move is to pick 2-3 simply because the opponent attacks inside.

Besides I care A LOT about Clusis manager ;p

1-3-1 zone against purely outside teams.
2-3 against purely inside teams

3-2 zone against balanced outside teams
2-1-2 against balanced inside teams

AND FINALLY BALANCE REACHED!

In order 2-1-2 to work

1 and 2 man

If you have two tenacious defensive guards, this might be the defense for you. Working together, these two players are responsible for protecting the perimeter from long distance shots. If they are caught out too far without help from the 5 man, they can make the defense vulnerable to the center lane pass.

These basketball players need to be quick in order to cover the large area around half of the perimeter. They also need to be able to make the burst long distance for the fast break.

In current BB this defense should work because many guys have great OD guards!

And in this defence the 2-1-2 the 1 guy should stop the driving because he's already near the rim.

for 2-3 zone you don't need that extra ordinary OD guards, in my team it running quite well maybe because my sf and PF have OD and ID but my guards aren't that great outside defenders.

But for 2-1-2 in reality you need... Im just suggesting a new defensive zone.. that could stop inside defenses while having great OD players..

oh sorry i though i am used for 2-1-2 as a collective term for the 3-2 and 2-3 zone and though you meant 2-3 because you mentioned 3-2 before.

Edit: just googled it, must tactic page say that the same then the 2-3, but it isn't used so far for 3-2 which could be named 1-2-2.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/21/2011 10:03:57 AM

Yes and basic differences between 2-3 and 2-1-2 would be:

2-3:
C: is near the basket
Boost in rebounding
C doesnt draw that many charges and SB is working against driving more than ID
C is mostly responsible for rebounding
PG SG doesnt need high OD since PF and SF are helping them more than in 2-1-2



2-1-2:
C is farther away
Not so big boost in rebounding
C draws charges and ID is working against driving because hes being near driver for a while
PF and SF are more responsible for rebounding than usually
PG and SG needs high OD since SF and PF are more responsible for defending bigs and rebounding than in 2-3

Last edited by Phantum at 7/21/2011 11:28:45 AM

A 2-1-2 would make sense... if the court was 20 feet wide.

If you're using 2-3 without good OD at SF and PF, you're doing it wrong.

Last edited by RiseandFire at 7/22/2011 4:12:43 PM