BuzzerBeater Forums

That's the problem with many teachers, not only in Buzzerbeater but in the real world too. They lack empathy and only teach thinking in their own mindset, instead of figuring out how their students think and help their thinking/solution process in their situation.

I think what everyone reading this thread needs to think about is this section that i'm bolding of your post.

I don't think there is a match, on a high level, that 2-3 zone works better than M2M against LI. That is quite clear from any B3 match in the last 5 seasons.

Unfortunately we are stuck in LI / M2M for seasons. The sad truth.

Very few are at that level in this game. And i actually think that even on a high level there are games when a 2-3 zone may work better then m2m. You'll need the right conditions for it though.

Just because something is the right / wrong tool for one person's job doesn't mean it's right or wrong for someone else. A restaurant owner can certainly justify purchasing high quality top of the line food preparation equipment, and while that may be the best thing for the job it doesn't mean I'm going to run out and buy that for my house. Competing in the B3 is that five star restaurant, where the margin for error is so thin and the expenses are so high that any deviations from the typical strategy are so risky that nobody will do them unless they're shown to be successful, which of course turns the chicken and egg question into an omelet.

The conditions for the 2-3 do exist, though - just that it's not for "shutting down" an inside offense so much as increasing the rebounding to prevent so many offensive boards.

Very good post . +1

It is entirely possible that at any level given most basic team builds that certain strategies are hands down better than others... It really depends on the GE design etc. etc.
We can not assume that the tactics are balanced. Too much has gone on to even suggest they are balanced. Can you get away with zones? YES!! Is there much evidence they actually work as well as MtM? No... I am somewhat of a believer that 2-3 can work against inside attacks. I find it hard to imagine situaitons though where it was better than MtM...

THe situations I think 2-3 might be better is if the opponent has poor flow and a no outside shooting to speak of. In this case you can force them into outside shots they will miss and control the glass. At higher levels teams tend to have a few shooters and/or really good flow, so the zones are much less successful.

In terms of pure defense, I'd agree that it would be rarely, if ever, better than or even not worse than M2M, certainly given the composition of most rosters right now (and I personally don't have experience with the high ID/OD/SB combo to objectively evaluate that). Just last week in a fed we had a discussion about one of our fed member's upcoming Cup games against a league rival and because of the very situation you describe (poor outside shooting, unimpressive flow) and because the opponent usually had a massive rebounding advantage, the fed member went with the 2-3 and pulled out the win. The opponent, incidentally, also ran a 2-3; which meant in a cup game in a big country featured two teams independently playing LI/2-3 against each other in a neutral site round, something which really surprises me.

Oh, before I forget, the thing about different tools for different jobs and all that isn't at all predicated on tactics being balanced. I do think that it is somewhat level dependent though - one of the main reasons why "outside offenses don't work" is that it's just financially crippling to try to build a team with enough offensive skills to shoot outside over top level teams' OD monsters, especially with the way that JR jacks up salaries when it gets pretty high. But for probably at least 35000 users, the levels of OD that they face in their league doesn't rise to the level where they're financially crippled. I do think it's a shame that the way the salary formula works and team composition at higher levels means that if you do end up competing at the top level, you're constrained into either doing the same thing as everyone else or being a guinea pig for an unproven strategy.

I wish the zones were not like offence, in that when you add one thing in one place you give up more in another. THe boost to rebounding and inside D of 2-3 is set so that you give up a lot of pressure. I think the give-take should be more balanced. This would make the defences more adaptive and force offences to be more creative/varied. Just more fun. If the 2-3 zones gave up only outside shots, but didn't reduce pressure on passes (for example) this would make it much more effective to stop LI, but it would still make the team vulnerably to Motions and R&G etc.

I'm not sure if you know the answer either, but I keep meaning to try to ask. We know that OD stops passing, but is there any sort of information on where, specifically? For example, the OD on your guard matching up on the guy making the pass almost certainly helps affect the possibility of the pass going through, but is there also a check on the receiver, where the big man's OD may be checked to see if he helps prevent a pass into the player he's marking? And then would that be based vs. his man's driving, for example, or the guard's passing, or the team's flow?

Anyway as a team the 2-3 lowers the overall pressure, making all passes higher quality. meaning more higher quality/open shots....everywhere. This I think is part of the flaw of why its so hard to get to work.
Conversely 3-2 ups pressure everywhere...making all the passing harder, more probablitly of TOs, looseball (chance to get steal) etc....and probably in the individual matchups there is a boost that ups how much steals they get too. Insult to injury that one single stat (OD, they should change it to PED stat for how awesome it is) ALSO helps you pressure the shot directly. So gives you a bunch of chances to force turnovers (get the ball) and stops outside shots too.....the RB boost of 2-3 zone only helps you keep the ball AFTER the opponent got an open shot. Not a good recipe.

On the USA-Offsite, which many here don't have access to, Wozzvt has done a tremendous amount of statistical analysis for shot distribution of offenses/defenses and game ratings as they correlate to in game results. I believe there was analysis to show that the game flow to opponent outside defense ratio can loosely predict the amount of assists. Uncontested/assisted shots are completed at a higher percentage than contested/unassisted shots from anywhere on the floor even if the player shooting has a sizeable advantage over the defender contesting the shot.

If facing an look inside attack, 3-2 would accomplish 2 major goals and have 2 minor flaws.
- (Goal) More pressure on ballhandlers creates fewer uncontested/assisted shots
- (Goal) Drives by guards would be contested by PF and C inside defense and shot blocking
- (Flaw) Lower inside defense for contested shots
- (Flaw) Less rebounding for missed shots

The lower inside defense would be offset by fewer uncontested shots. Again, I don't have much experience on higher levels, but this is how I understood previous analysis and discussions from higher level players (including Wolph).

Very few are at that level in this game. And i actually think that even on a high level there are games when a 2-3 zone may work better then m2m. You'll need the right conditions for it though.

And the cojones to actually do it.