10/27/2013 11:35 PM
Posted by abitaamber on 10/27/2013 10:47:00 PM (view original):
It was specifically stated by seble in chat a while back  that 2-3 +1 is a 3-2.  It is possible that he could have been wrong, or misunderstood the question, but that's what he said.
Could that not mean that giving a plus one to a 2-3 has the same effect on threes in relationship to a baseline 2-3 as a plus zero has on a baseline three two? In other words, it only applies to its effect on threes in relation to the baseline?
10/28/2013 12:19 AM
i run a zone defense at Bowling Green in Naismith...and im starting to put together a decent program, but i have a ways to go. having said that, i can tell you that i consider a 2-3 +2 approximately equal to a 3-2 at 0. i often play a 3-2 defense against teams that chuck it up from the arc regularly. but that also leads to even more offensive rebounds...which by far is the most frustrating aspect of playing zone. i am definitely learning that you need some beasts on the boards if you want to run zone...because those games that you give up 15+ offensive rebounds are frustrating! however if you position your zone defense properly, you can really force low fg%. and the longer playing time for players and less fouls also is a big plus
10/28/2013 2:47 PM
I've run zone with a few teams and I think by far the best benefit is that you don't have to have a deep team.  You can play 9 - 10 deep no problem.  I've even run 8 man teams with very little fatigue issues.  What that means is that if you're recruiting with 5 open spots, you really need to only fill 2-3 of them, going for quality over quantity. Also, players with low stamina overlooked by press or man teams, are in your wheelhouse.  Given the same player with the same stamina, and same fatigue level setting, the zone player will get about 10 minutes more than the press player and 5 minutes more than the man to man player.  
10/28/2013 8:43 PM
I run a 3-2 on my Redlands team. I always play three guards so I pretty much stay in the 3-2. I will go -5 without fear against teams that shoot less than 20% of their shots behind the arc. When I switch to a 2-3 I never do as well.

I don't emphasize block as much as others ( we average around 55 for my 4 post players), but my defense and athleticism is pretty high.

I also rebound pretty well. My posts are good but not Dom I Nant d3 rebounders ( 65/72 ath/reb).

I think zone is the least understood defense.
10/29/2013 12:09 PM
Posted by ryandaniel on 10/27/2013 11:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by abitaamber on 10/27/2013 10:47:00 PM (view original):
It was specifically stated by seble in chat a while back  that 2-3 +1 is a 3-2.  It is possible that he could have been wrong, or misunderstood the question, but that's what he said.
Could that not mean that giving a plus one to a 2-3 has the same effect on threes in relationship to a baseline 2-3 as a plus zero has on a baseline three two? In other words, it only applies to its effect on threes in relation to the baseline?
Was told by great coaches that a 2-3 is like a m2m -2 and a 3-2 is like a m2m +2.  If worth anything
10/29/2013 1:11 PM
I just read through a bunch of the developer chats and couldn't quite find that quote.

I did find:

Zone will give up more offensive rebounds than m2m.
If you have a bad defender is easier to "hide" him in the 3 part than the 2 part.
Zone and "always double" is supposed to me like the old Temple Matchup Zone.
It is easier to shoot (it didn't say make, it said shoot) threes against a zone than m2m.

And for what it's worth, I use the logic of a m2m (-1)= 2-3 (0) and m2m (+1)= 3-2 (0).
10/29/2013 5:08 PM
Posted by tarvolon on 10/27/2013 10:54:00 PM (view original):
If that's the way it's programmed, the zone just doesn't make sense. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not the way it's programmed. Just that it wouldn't make sense. 
I Couldn't agree more if that is the case, gonna try to dig up that developer chat.
10/29/2013 5:41 PM
If I had the time, I'd search for it.  Also, @Trentonjoe...I agree with that logic per m2m comparison.
3/22/2014 7:45 PM
I've tended to run the zone w/ the triangle offense. Here are a few things that I've done that worked in D1 to get in the NT most seasons when I was at Illinois and Minnesota.

- usually ran 2-3 +2 with 1-2 top perimeter threats set to DT if leading scorer or always. rarely DT'ed a LP player. 
- since I ran triangle, I tended to recruit faster players
- usually had good/great shot blockers that could rebound well, allowing me to have a noticeable reb/game edge even with the +2. 
- if I had to pick def or ath for a G, would normally choose def if all else was equal (and because of triangle, ath wasn't stressed as much)
- if I did have a bad def G, in the 2-3, I'd usually have him come off the bench otherwise it was a recipe for disaster against good 3pt teams
- by taking away the inside because of good PF/C def/shot blocking and taking away the perimeter, was able to sustain a good FG% advantage, and since we fouled less in a zone, usually won the FTA battle regardless of if I had a 3p or LP-heavy team on offense.
- playing against a zone, i've always found 3pt shooting harder vs. 3-2 than 2-3, regardless of +/- setting.  
- when I took over those programs (both were rebuilds) I'd skimp on def rating if it meant I could get speed/ath for any position, good reb (their possession ends when you get the ball!) and definitely shot blocking for a 4/5. I'd rather have a 70+/30+ Ath/Spd with sub-50 Def and 70+ block than 70+ def and sub-50 block on those rebuilding teams from them. 
- if a team barely shoots 3s (like under 15% of their shots), a 2-3 at -5 has overcome some big talent discrepancies, especially at d2 and d3. 
3/22/2014 11:38 PM
Posted by abitaamber on 10/27/2013 10:47:00 PM (view original):
It was specifically stated by seble in chat a while back  that 2-3 +1 is a 3-2.  It is possible that he could have been wrong, or misunderstood the question, but that's what he said.
I don't think you're correct that he said that (he may have said something kinda sorta similar that you're co-opting), and I disagree that it works like that.

Bottom line for the OP: If you're playing a team that shoots a good amount of 3ps, I'd play a 3-2. If they drive a lot and/or pound with big men, I'd go with a 2-3. Perhaps a slight oversimplification, but not by much.
3/22/2014 11:40 PM
Posted by terps21234 on 10/29/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ryandaniel on 10/27/2013 11:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by abitaamber on 10/27/2013 10:47:00 PM (view original):
It was specifically stated by seble in chat a while back  that 2-3 +1 is a 3-2.  It is possible that he could have been wrong, or misunderstood the question, but that's what he said.
Could that not mean that giving a plus one to a 2-3 has the same effect on threes in relationship to a baseline 2-3 as a plus zero has on a baseline three two? In other words, it only applies to its effect on threes in relation to the baseline?
Was told by great coaches that a 2-3 is like a m2m -2 and a 3-2 is like a m2m +2.  If worth anything
You're missing some pretty key stuff there.

It matters a lot what +/- you're playing. A 2-3,-2 is not at all like a m2m -2. A 2-3, +2 might be. Ditto on the 3-2. You can't just make a blanket statement about each defense that does not account for +/- positioning.

3/24/2014 1:33 PM
I think he's trying to say a 2-3 0 is like a m2m -2 and a 3-2 0 is like a m2m +2. I pretty much play exclusively zone and I'm still not sure what the more accurate +/- is. I've heard as high as +3 and as low as +1 for 3-2 m2m equivalents and vice versa for 2-3. I do agree with an earlier statement though that regardless of what 2-3 + setting you run it's just easier for opponents to hit 3's.
of 2

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.