BuzzerBeater Forums

Manon beat me to it.
I apologize my explanations while I am at work are short and to the point and not detailed out.
Hopefully though you are now able to see a situation where that could be a better option offensively for you. My last game in particular my C was defending PF because my playoff opponents best offensive player plays pf but my pf really functions better at pf than c I feel but defensively wasn't the best option.

The defensive switches option down there, personally I feel they are more geared for strategy and winning, than for out of position training.

Last edited by LBJisaCancer at 2/21/2013 8:14:37 AM

Wouldn't a 3-2 zone be better (if you have the right players) to defend against Patient, especially if the opponent uses the strategy of playing a 3pt shooter at C? That way you're sure you're best outside defenders actually defend the outside, instead of having your C defend the perimeter.

Wouldn't a 3-2 zone be better (if you have the right players) to defend against Patient, especially if the opponent uses the strategy of playing a 3pt shooter at C? That way you're sure you're best outside defenders actually defend the outside, instead of having your C defend the perimeter.

Patient offense is used to exploit the best mismatch you have vs the other team, period.

When one plays a zone, the player on offense shoots (usually) against the weakest defender in the zone. So in a 3-2 the inside guy with lower ID gets shot on more, the Outside guy with lower OD gets shot on more. As a result, if they are out of their league, they tend to foul more, and foul out quicker, thus putting in your bench players, whom are even worse defensively.

By playing man to man, not only do you know whom is guarding whom and who will shoot etc. but there are no surprises on who the opposition has that will be shooting/attempting to score on you. Doing it in this such manner, makes it predictable, and easier to counter.

Also, just because my PG is playing C and shooting 3s... doesn't mean my PG isn't playing PG...

Personally I think Patient offense is a choice you make when you are tanking, or trying to win an mvp award.

Wouldn't a 3-2 zone be better (if you have the right players) to defend against Patient, especially if the opponent uses the strategy of playing a 3pt shooter at C? That way you're sure you're best outside defenders actually defend the outside, instead of having your C defend the perimeter.

Patient offense is used to exploit the best mismatch you have vs the other team, period.

When one plays a zone, the player on offense shoots (usually) against the weakest defender in the zone. So in a 3-2 the inside guy with lower ID gets shot on more, the Outside guy with lower OD gets shot on more. As a result, if they are out of their league, they tend to foul more, and foul out quicker, thus putting in your bench players, whom are even worse defensively.

By playing man to man, not only do you know whom is guarding whom and who will shoot etc. but there are no surprises on who the opposition has that will be shooting/attempting to score on you. Doing it in this such manner, makes it predictable, and easier to counter.

Also, just because my PG is playing C and shooting 3s... doesn't mean my PG isn't playing PG...

Personally I think Patient offense is a choice you make when you are tanking, or trying to win an mvp award.

And if you're going against someone with a shooting guard at C, would you rather have the weakest of your PG - SG - SF guarding him or your C? Obviously if the opponent exclusively plays it with the player at a specific position, matching up man to man and having the right person guard him is quite possible. But if there's any doubt at all what position he'd put the guy in, the odds are much better going with the 3-2 and not allowing him to have an easy shot over the wrong defender every game. The typical caveats about a 3-2 being a bad decision if you can only field two guys with good OD and all that still apply.

A 3-2 zone with two good OD players and a PF/C at SF may still be better then a m2m offense where your C got a guard he's trying to defend as chances that he may be defended by one of the two guards with OD is higher then in m2m.

True - and especially if the SG is the only good shooter on the patient team. I would be worried if they had decent shooting guards as well as one of them may end up taking the shot over the PF@SF instead, but it's still somewhat better than having a traditional donkey at C guarding the best player.

I agree with Manon - if you have a good perimeter defense, 3-2 zone is actually better than M2M. It's one of the few cases that zone defenses actually work better than m2m :)

Patient is an interesting offense. I have used it with some success, however not on b3 level and especially not on pair-to-pair matches. I wonder what happens if you have a very high player in JS, JR, DR and IS, would that make Patient work better than any offense?

The answer is no. Simply because Patient is easily stopped by high OD.