BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > PF and shots

PF and shots

Set priority
Show messages by
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