BuzzerBeater Forums

Yes, it was just a matter of time when people start looking for weakness because 3-2 zone like now started from lower leagues so strongest clubs where not challenged with 3-2. But know seems it can cause havoc all around. But since you are playing 3-2 as well how can you certanly say that creating a mismatch on your low OD big is not working?

With the 3-2 you don't eliminate 3ptrs against bigs, you just minimize the amount. But there will still be some rotation and the bigs will find themselves at the perimeter. Same goes for guards you defend driving layups or dunks. It still happens, but not so often.

But since you are playing 3-2 as well how can you certanly say that creating a mismatch on your low OD big is not working

I have no clue because I have no low OD bigs. There was a time I played with a OD 18 player as PF/C. Currently my two bigs have OD 9 and OD 12. It happened a lot that I switched the defense inside the 3-2 zone. My SF defended the C spot, my C the PF and the PF moved to the SF. Or I let the C defend the PG and everyone moved one down. I'm a big fan of the defense ajustments and with strong defenders you can use all the nice tools at the same time.
But like I wrote some lines above: there is no 100% way to eliminate the 3ptrs against your big guys.

yes I suppose you're right, I have no true experience of this combination (patient vs 3-2) and I was missing the point you said: even if my center goes for a 3points shot he's going to be defended by one of the 3 guards... so no mismatch!

But, as you said, there is always some chance that the center himself defends the outside shot

more: when my guard playing as center (in patient) tries a lot of jump shots, I wonder if it is more likely that the center is the opposing defender, what do you think? maybe there is some example of such a game to analyze?

push the ball with high passing on every position sounds best to me

This topic is so much fun to read, too bad I can't participate.


There is no final truth, different teams are.. well different teams and there are infinite things to consider when picking your poison.

I believe 3-2 zone should be really effective if well prepared.

My question is: how much does it costs you? I mean, in a m2m defence ID in a guard or OD in a big man won't change their salaries in a consistent way, SB is useful but less fundamental. To play a 3-2 zone, your guards might be cheaper in terms of price, but your big men are required to have higher ID-RB-SB (at least RB-SB) pushing their salary to higher level compared to m2m.

If on the defensive side this is almost salary-related, talking about offence things are different. If OD in a big men has to be present, ID-SB-RB as high as possibile...to be effective on the offensive end you need to have really high IS (to attack inside), a certain level of passing regardless of the tactic, or at least good JS/JR if IS isn't that good. In other words, you need a top notch big men, very close to the ones of NTs with a very high salary and very high market value.

In lower levels it's easier, if you're not challenging top defences this problem is less consistent.

But the question remains: don't you think a 3-2 zone, very effective in D, might cost you on the offensive side, either as salary (and cost) of players or effectiveness/versatility of tactics?

All that said, I love winning games on the defensive end, I'm just doing some considerations

Last edited by GM-samusaran (ITA-Staff) at 2/14/2018 4:22:29 AM

Yea, so basically you are saying that Nachtmahr and Knätofs havent won anything. You must really know things really well. Credible source of opinions.

HAHA i just checked and they haven't actually won anything. My bad, you apparently did your research. But i intend to prove you wrong. 3-2 can win stuff.

And the reason why this topic is fun for me, is just seeing the thought process that people bring. And it probably helps understand the game a bit better.

Last edited by Inks at 2/14/2018 5:50:42 AM