BuzzerBeater Forums

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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