BuzzerBeater Forums

Hard to make a concrete judgment one way or another without knowing the skills of his teammates.

I'm not trying to paraphrase Charles, and some of this is devil's advocate-esque in nature - the point being that alternate explanations may exist, beyond "2-3 is broken."

But it's my understanding that 2-3, 3-2, and 1-3-1 have inside/outside emphases, so if you build a team that can play those, isn't that preferable to going M2M? (Depending on your matchup of course.)

Last edited by RiseandFire at 4/25/2011 7:57:25 PM

True. I wish I had the means to test it to the point where sample size is a non-issue. I'm training players who will theoretically be good in 2-3, but I still don't have the means.

I do assume that Charles, who does have the means, is onto something when he alludes to 2-3 working, however.

+1

Awesome post ¡

Pat Pat.

The exact problem of the 2/3 zone is we don't want a zone that we have to build a team around. The points of the zones is to use them in specific situations.

I play man to man most of the time as I should.

If I play a team with weak big men and strong guards that tend to run motion or run and gun offences I play a 3-2 zone. I don't need any special players and it works.

If I play a very unbalanced team with pathetic big men and sensational guards who always play motion or run and gun I play a 1-3-1 zone. I don't need any special players to do this and it gives a fantastic perimeter defence.

If I play a very unbalanced team with a $300,000 center and no-one else worth more than $30,000 who always play look inside or low post, which I have done, I want a zone that will at least give me a chance to slow them down.

I don't want to have to sell my entire team and find PFs with 14 OD and 14 SB if they even exist just so I can play a 2/3 zone. Does the 2/3 zone even do it's job? Ok their $10,000 guards have a field day, I can understand that, but when their big men also seem to score at will and all I get is a higher rebound % of the few shots they actually miss, I feel sad. Don't you?

The game should punish obviously unbalanced teams by providing a tactic that neutralises their strengths if they are so predictable. It does for outside attacks but doesn't for inside, this is a problem.