BuzzerBeater Forums

I think I've read somewhere that, after the latest game engine updates, this defense has become highly ineffective, so much so that it's probably better to opt for 3-2 zone to put at least some pressure on the guards.

At first I didn't care much about this rumor, but now I've just realized that in this season I've lost all 3 games I've played with 2-3 zone. Additionally, in 2 of these 3 games I've run a Look Inside offense against teams playing 3-2 defense, and my team actually struggled finding the way to the basket.

Of course it might just be a random occurrence, but now I tend to believe there may be some truth in this rumor.

Can anyone give me any feedback on this? I don't know, maybe someone who dropped the 2-3 zone altogether and definitely found it more convenient to play Man to Man or 3-2 zone, or maybe someone who still plays 2-3 against inside focused offenses and still gets good results.

I think it depends on the team you are playing against. The reason that 2-3 isn't used by many managers is because while it increases inside defence, it leaves the opponent's guards open to shoot 3 pointers. However, I often like using a 2-3 zone if I am playing a team that is better than me because if you play man to man you are probably going to lose anyway. But if you play a 2-3 zone you can really shutdown their inside game, and they have to shoot a lot of 3 pointers. Now you can scout their games previously and find out what their 3 point shooting is like. If they get a lot of 3 pointers then you might be better of playing a 3-2 zone to stop the 3 pointers and the passing from the guards to the big men. But if they have a very low 3 point percentage then I think it can be a great idea to play a 2-3 zone and increase your inside defence and feel free to let them try and shoot 3 pointers because they aren't very good at it.

However, only use a 2-3 zone if you are 100% sure they will use look inside or low post. If you use a 2-3 zone and they go Run and Gun you are going to be in a lot of trouble.

The new theory is that playing 3-2 Zone makes it harder for the opponents guards to pass inside, so the inside players don't get off as many quality shots. This is why many people now think that 3-2 Zone is more effective than 2-3, even if the other team plays look inside (because no matter what offense they play, they will still shoot outside shots and 3-2 can defend against both by making it tough against the guards).

This is the theory I have read, but I'm not sure if it is correct. Since reading it, I have stayed away from 2-3.

That is the theory. But if I am playing a team that has a 60k center and a 60k power forward and guards and small forwards with high passing, then if I play a 3-2 zone my team will get destroyed as while I might stop some passes, the high passing will get around my defence and I will get slaughtered on the inside. Where as if I play a 2-3 zone then I can decrease the chance of them scoring even if they get the pass. I'm not saying you should do this, I'm just saying that I personally am not against a 2-3 zone in some cicumstances. However I do prefer a 3-2 zone in general.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind and test it out in scrimmages or something.

Lets see how many of the BB3 teams run a 2-3 defence (successfully) today - after all these guys must have some of the best SF's in the game.

Whether the concensus is right or wrong - it gathered speed and seems to have stuck.. there is one NBBA team that has in his signature Friends Do not Let Friends Play 2-3 Zone

It may work for some teams and in some circumstances but I'd like to see some examples from those saying 'use it' where they have done so in 50/50 match-ups or must win games.

Check this game out: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/22456384/boxscore.aspx

I was playing in the cup last season and drew a team in div 2 that was a far better team than I was. I went crunch time against his TIE which obviously helped me win. But I think that if I had played a 3-2 zone here I would have lost, and if he had played a 2-3 zone I would have lost.

Because I played a 2-3 zone his percentage was lowered significantly for 2 pointers. And I knew his team wasn't a good 3 point shooting team anyway, and he ended up scoring 4 out of 22 shots from the 3 point line. I think this was a perfect time to use a 2-3 zone.

Check this game out: http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/22456384/boxscore.aspx

I was playing in the cup last season and drew a team in div 2 that was a far better team than I was. I went crunch time against his TIE which obviously helped me win. But I think that if I had played a 3-2 zone here I would have lost, and if he had played a 2-3 zone I would have lost.

Because I played a 2-3 zone his percentage was lowered significantly for 2 pointers. And I knew his team wasn't a good 3 point shooting team anyway, and he ended up scoring 4 out of 22 shots from the 3 point line. I think this was a perfect time to use a 2-3 zone.

Well you can draw any conclusion when the efforts are completely at opposite spectrums. Any equal effort must win games?

I'll look for one. Is there any tool you know of where I can look at a team and see what tactics they have used in their past 50 games or something like that?