BuzzerBeater Forums

Well I'm sure there have been enough attempts to stop Look Inside using different defensive strategies provided at the moment. But with the current defense, apparently there is no "absolute" tactic (whether there is an absolute tactic is another question) to defend Look Inside well.
In any defense (and offense for that matter), something has got to give out, and it's a matter of minimizing whatever that has to be given out. And apparently Look Inside is one of the more effective tactics that allows maximum damage to the opponent's defense (in another words, opponent has a hard time trying to minimize the thing that has to be given out from their defense).

I suppose the problem lies in the question of this thread itself...

A well played 2-3 zone can stop a LI.

The thing is there are not many teams who can play en effective 2-3 but there are many who can run an effective inside offense.

I would change some words;

The thing is there are not many teams who can play an effective 2-3, but there are many who can run a 3-2 with so great performance and without the need to have special players.

Yes, and that's not because 3-2 has something special or it is very easy to play. That's is because the players needed to use it effectively are on the market. Sadly, those same players happen to be suboptimal to use an outside offense. So you have this scenerio where most guards on market can easily defend with 3-2 but cannot make a nice outside attack, then m2m can deal with most outside attacks when 3-2 it's just devastating against them.

Training patters are the key to understand current situation and very likely, the solution to it.

If you call that "strategy"...

Well I did have my reasons. Game 1 was at my home where I went LI/M2M and won.

Game 2 was away and I was always going to TIE but rather than just 100% concede it I continued the mind games I was trying to play (look at my two private league games I could have won but lost by playing funny games in the last two weeks) and went for a 3-2 zone.

Then back in game 3 back at my arena is was LI/M2M as usual.

I do call this strategy.

I am the first to admit that I needed a lot of luck to win this series but one of my keys was experimentation and misdirection.

Motion win against LI in a decisive final match (39325931).

I have a feeling you won only because his first C played only 29 minutes due to fouling out...but if he fouled out because you played Motion, then kudos to you

(39346658)
Motion win against LI Away:)
30 Rebounds less:)

Wow. Good one. Your opponent built a very imbalanced team - strong inside players and weak outside players who can't even pass the ball, so they shoot and drive all they long and miss a ton. But even then, beating with such huge rebounding disadvantage is still great.

The reason for this is so simple.

The reason LI is the most prolific is not because it is "broken" or unstoppable. In fact, most teams with very high IS don't even score that many points. It's just efficient.

Because of the ability of the mono-skilled monsters to be win close 89-81 games is predicated solely on the overwhelming strength of Outside defense in BB.

People dedicate everything to OD...it's the most powerful skill in the game and absolutely dominates everything in terms of importance. So what happens? Outside tactics are nullified by the OD whoring nature of every competitive team that plays. No use in building a Motion and Run and Gun team only for your opponent to play 3-2 zone and manage prominent(high) on OD and hold you to 70 points.

Balance offense simply lacks the firepower needed to compete with OD as well.

So naturally the only option is to overwhelm your opponent with IS spread across the three positions and most importantly at that pivotal SF spot, considering most SFs in BB are trained like either SGs with IS or PFs with OD. Either way it's very uncommon for ID to surpass 11 while OD is usually never lower than 15.

Seems he lost this in a foolish attempt at playing a PG at the SF spot.

Missed very valuable IS as well as rebounding. Only pitiful rebounding and 9 IS. Can't see what he was thinking there.

In fact.

10 of his 16 shots were Inside shots...including 2 tip ins(1 foul, 1 miss)

He made only 3 of the 10 shots.

Definitely not what LI is all about.

Maybe de 2-3 tactic should have a little change in order to act more closely as it should be.
This is what would be right, not the removal of the look inside.

This.

2-3 stops nothing. Nothing stops LI. Make the 2-3 stop LI and problem solved.

hey guys im new here and i read some of the comments on this, and i dont know if it was mentioned or not. but i think by simply adding somthing that should have been in place all along and i wouldnt think would be to hard to do is to make the players hight a factor. this thread is all about LI being such a great tactic could be more regulated by making a players hight an advantage or disadvantage. im sorry but a 6 foot center isnt gonna play aswell against a 7 foot center. and the advantage ofcourse would be the taller guy in some aspects... and the speed and agility facter could be wraped up with that.. a 7 foot 6 monster isnt gonna be as quik as a 6 foot 11 player. if they simply input a system for players hight i think would make it a lil more realistic aswel. seriously iv already seen a 6 1 center and a 7 1 point guard. in real life u wouldnt see that hardly ever. just a thought. do u guys think this could help the look inside. plus help the game?