BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

Somewhere in one of the posts or comments there was a formula that could roughly estimate the percentage of hitting a 3 pointer specifically, taking into account JS, JR, the opponent's OD and I think experience. I know when I fumbled around that a little it said that players with relatively low JS and JR should actually shoot better when the shot was contested by a 1 OD defender than if it was entirely uncontested. Anecdotally, I've noticed guys who can't shoot hitting threes over guys who can't defend as well, but never with a frequency that I'd consider significant for anything other than mentioning in a sentence starting with anecdotally. ;)

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

I'm pretty certain the 3-2 doesn't reduce rebounding though. And we do need to keep in mind that the reduced ID rating itself doesn't necessarily matter - team ID doesn't apply to contested shots, just the defender's ID (which is presumably less effective in the 3-2).

Both good clarifications.

There may have been a point where contested shots appeared to be better, but I think an 11/9 shooter was better uncontested than against even an 8 OD guy. If you are playing 5 or 6 OD defenders against that shooter it may not make a difference and you could see opposite results against a 1 OD player.

And on the 3-2: I was thinking of 1-3-1 with respect to the rebounding. Good catch. I used game ratings because I imagine they are set to mimmick the effects on individuals players based on tactics in the game even though pure reliance on game ratings is flawed. I think that was what you were saying as well.

about the 3-2 zone and the passing aspect, i totally agree. BM has closed its "league" sheet, but as i remember, my team had the less opp. assists and opp.3pt % in my div.V league (i play regularly with 3-2 zone since opponents offensive flow is rather low).
Still, opp. offensive rebounding is also rather low (i think i was #3 or #4), so rebounding is not that far affected.
(nota : PG/SG/SF/PF have the same OD level, SF/PF/C the same ID level).

IRL, i do remember all my coaches teaching us to defend 2-3 and 3-2 zone defending.
1st lesson : a zone is as strong as its weakest defender (the missmatch Wolph is talking about since the start of the topic).
2nd lesson : 2-3 is like boxing out all the time + contesting inside passes. It does prevent from driving the ball to the basket.
3-2 is like contesting all passing positions all the time. If a defender comes out late on his position, there is a mismatch leading to a driving inside play.

Getting back to BB (in lower divisions) i think that a balanced roster gives many possibilities to adapt the defense (and the offense) depending on opponents strenghts/weak points. Does it mean a M2M is better than a zone ? i would say it depends on the game you will be playing.
Zone defenses will (should) make the GE run on a global aspect of the team. M2M rather position by position calculations.

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).

So, why not maximizing the pressure with 1-3-1 zone?

id love to play scrimage with u while u defending my LI with 3-2 zone:D

In my opinions 3-2 is only good if oponent has like awfull or inept offensiver flow, as this happens on lower levels. if he has high driving and passing everywhere ur team just gets destroyed with like 75 percenty shooting for bigs and like 80 percent assited shots:D i have like 73 percent shooting for my bigs over this season with not so spectacular inside shots (look at the game ratings) only because i have 3 players with 15 passing on my starting lineup sometimes, mostly 2 cause of training:D

when playing against 2-3 zones, i actually fear them. looking diown and praying that guy playing 2-3 zone wont come to the final. cause my 75 p[ercent shooting becomes like 45 for bigs against 2-3 zones, and my guards forced to take mid range jumpers with like 6jr lol.....

Last edited by Gajus Julijus Cezaris at 2/23/2013 5:29:19 AM

As I have said before, its a situational tactic. Just like everything else in this game, it takes judgement to decide. You would not be one of the teams I would play this tactic against, because you have very high flow for your level of play. But if you can out-pressure your opponent's flow, 3-2 vs. LI can be effective. It doesnt have to necessarily be 3, or 4. Just low enough to where your OD has the advantage.

As far as the 2-3 zones, I wouldnt fear them as much as you do with your team. Your contested IS percentage may go down, but your JS% and 3pt% will go up dramatically, and you will pretty much have your way with moving the ball, resulting in uncontested IS. An uncontested shot is an uncontested shot, regardless of your opponent's ID, and to contest shots, you have to have OD.


Last edited by yeppers at 2/23/2013 7:17:03 AM