BuzzerBeater Forums

hahaha, I play what I want ;)

Has it occurred to you that maybe using a 2-3 zone isn't so much about your players, but your opponents?

Which means what? Can you explain it further your idea?

My theory is the following: The 2-3 zone only works against a certain type for opponents. It has pros and cons.

pros:
- improved rebounding
- improved inside defense

cons:
- more space for outside shooters and drivers
- open passing lanes

When the opponent has guards who are good shooters (JS+JR) and/or drivers (DV+IS) the 2-3 zone helps them (especially without weakside shotblocking). High playmaking ability (PA+HN) is enhanced with a 2-3 zone and leads to great passes from the guards to the inside players i.e. higher percentage shots for the big men. The second part is the biggest issue why 2-3 zones often seem to "fail" IMO. Just look at the assist-to-turnover ratios of your opponents against 2-3 zones.

Often the cons outweigh the pros. The current set of players in BB makes the 2-3 zone ineffective against most good teams. This is especially true in high end competitions like the B3.

I actually think the same (with different skillsets of course) holds for the 3-2 zone, it's just very few players teams (if any) have the personnel to "beat" a 3-2 zone.

In general, my belief is that well balanced players "kill" zones.

P.S. For more details read my post a dozen posts earlier.

Last edited by Xsago at 9/26/2012 2:28:22 AM

You only confirmed what I said before. 2-3 doesn't work on B3 level.

what's your point?

lol ?

(52064904)

what's the point? or are you trying to prove that 2:3 don't work properly?

600 k team vs 1040k team + hca. 2-3 zone doesn't make miracles. You might use 2-3 zone if you have great outside defence and lack of defence inside. It seems Supersonical has more power inside than outside. This game can't be an argument in 2-3 zone debate.