BuzzerBeater Forums

I agree with RiP/Sharman, and all that they believe that 2-3 zone is dead. I will take it 1 step feather. For about 2 seasons i was running inside tactics for about 90% of my games. What i saw is that the guards where taking almost the same amount of shots, and some times even more than my big men. Most teams also have SG like SF, so if you combine the shots that PG/SG/SF comes from outside, then its clear that they are is no use for 2-3.

Now playing 3-2 zone on inside tactics, yes you can get lots of stops, and in general you can make it much harder for your opponent to score, BUT you get very weak on rebounding, and more often than not, your big men will be on a foul troubles early.

Can a 1-3-1 zone be effective against inside tactics?

I consider 1-3-1 zone as a desperation move in general. You are giving up 2 many rebounds, ID.

http://bbtools.oeuftete.com/bbtools/prospectus - that'll give you this season, and you can easily change it to give you older seasons as long as they are in the same league.

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.

(22809663) - last season in the conference final i used it succesfull and i still thinking when you are right that your opponent plays inside it is the best strategy.(even when you could mention that the opponent plays a natural 2-3 Zone, but my SF isn't the ebst shooter as you could see)

Last edited by CrazyEye at 7/23/2010 4:55:29 AM

For me at least 3-2 is much more successful for me then 2-3, I won my championship last season using 3-2 against a team that was centralized on their Center and pounding it inside. However that was League V, so it is possible that the passing is just not high enough in that league to make a difference, plus my guards are mostly built for OD. But for right now in lower leagues i am of the opinion that 3-2 is much more effective against look inside or low post then 2-3 for the most part.

i don't think that the league make such a difference, because it is mostly about match up and probadly my players could pass the ball better but also the oppsoing team is defending the passing lanes stronger. personally i believe the 2-3 zone is still useful, but risky because if the opponent don't play an inside tactic your defence is very weak.

3-2 Zone actually is something like a man to man defence for me, it isn't the "strong" stopper against oputside attacks anymore but works well against nearly every offence.(but you could get better result with the right strategie, but thats my personal opion)

Ok thank you all guys, that helped.
After following all the discussion however, I still have a couple of question.

First: why is everybody mentioning 3-2 as an alternative to 2-3? I mean, why not man-to-man? Mod-CrazyEye gave a partial answer to that, but still, I believe that playing 3-2 versus look-inside or low-post you risk to allow a lot of offensive rebounds to your opponent.
Of course, it all depends on who you're playing against: maybe against a team with bad offensive flow and not so great rebounding it's more advisable to run a 3-2 zone, while as these skills get better man-to-man becomes a better option, what do you think?

Second: as far as I remember the latest GE update was early in previous season, so I'm wondering when exactly 3-2 started to be considered a bad option. I'm asking because last season I've played 2-3 several times with good results, and every time I've tricked my opponents into playing 3-2 versus my look inside offense (I like alternating the offensive tactic frequently in order to confuse the other teams) I've had very good scores. To me, the issues seem to have started with this season (or at least late in the previous one).

If I know a team is playing inside against me, i'll defend man to man unless his inside scoring is much better than my inside defence.