All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > How much of a disadvantage is zone defense?
5/3/2014 1:29 PM
Posted by hughesjr on 5/3/2014 11:08:00 AM (view original):
If we can get him to answer specifics, I wonder if they actually use the average .. OR .. randomly pick one of the players based on location (ie, either SF or PF for wing shots, random pick of PG, SG, SF for perimeter shots. (that is for a 3-2 .. the first example would be for the 2-3).

Or do they really just use an average.

The reason I bring it up is because, in reality the closest player to the ball at the time of the shot actually really defends the shot.  So I would think that picking one player to match up makes the most sense.  It would also LOOK like an average as one time, it would be PG, the next it might be SG, against the same shooter, etc.  So if a random number of shots were picked from a specific position, sometimes the PG and sometimes the SG would do the defense .. so the results would be an average.

Or they could just do a numerical average every time and the results would likely be similar.

i think the ticket responses indicate they actually use the average. i agree with what you are saying happens in reality, and that it would likely be similar, but i am pretty sure in HD, its averaged. is there an angle of averaging im missing? i was trying to clarify that kind of stuff in the ticket and thought his answer was straight forward enough, including the "yes" at the end, but im also not sure im not missing an angle on that.
5/3/2014 1:32 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/3/2014 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Yeah but what is the center averaged against? The other center? Driving guards?
i think its much more about the type of shot, than who is shooting it. i have no idea what the answer is, was discussing this last night with the guy i coach that zone team with...
5/3/2014 1:33 PM
This is huge info. Thank you to all involved. Sounds like you must have a great center for zone D to work properly. Recruiting wise, you need to get 2 solid players, starter and backup who can reb, blk, and D it up. Your next priority needs to be the same for SF. You need a guard type who can rebound it seems to minimize your inefficiency if you need to go 3-2, but not lose anything rebound wise either. Not easy by any stretch, but knowing this is good for self evaluation.
5/3/2014 1:43 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/3/2014 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Yeah but what is the center averaged against? The other center? Driving guards?
i think its much more about the type of shot, than who is shooting it. i have no idea what the answer is, was discussing this last night with the guy i coach that zone team with...
In theory, the post players relying on LP/ATH would get a heavy factor of the centers defensive metric.

I wonder if the SPD/BH or LP/ATH guards have to roll against the Centers scores?

5/3/2014 1:59 PM
I don't use zone, but this thread is one of the most interesting I've seen yet in the boards.
5/3/2014 2:15 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/3/2014 1:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hughesjr on 5/3/2014 11:08:00 AM (view original):
If we can get him to answer specifics, I wonder if they actually use the average .. OR .. randomly pick one of the players based on location (ie, either SF or PF for wing shots, random pick of PG, SG, SF for perimeter shots. (that is for a 3-2 .. the first example would be for the 2-3).

Or do they really just use an average.

The reason I bring it up is because, in reality the closest player to the ball at the time of the shot actually really defends the shot.  So I would think that picking one player to match up makes the most sense.  It would also LOOK like an average as one time, it would be PG, the next it might be SG, against the same shooter, etc.  So if a random number of shots were picked from a specific position, sometimes the PG and sometimes the SG would do the defense .. so the results would be an average.

Or they could just do a numerical average every time and the results would likely be similar.

i think the ticket responses indicate they actually use the average. i agree with what you are saying happens in reality, and that it would likely be similar, but i am pretty sure in HD, its averaged. is there an angle of averaging im missing? i was trying to clarify that kind of stuff in the ticket and thought his answer was straight forward enough, including the "yes" at the end, but im also not sure im not missing an angle on that.
No, you are right. That is exactly what he said.. Averaging.

I just want to make sure he means numerical averaging and not grouping with random selection. Because one can do different things to maximize each scenario.
5/3/2014 2:25 PM
Posted by gillispie1 on 5/2/2014 8:59:00 PM (view original):
really seble's reply in the middle is what is really valuable. i just left in the rest for context, or to possibly clarify any questions. so what im hearing is, in 3-2, the sf is calculated by a "guard like" set of ratings, which means sfs with guard quality defense skills should definitely go further than sfs with big type skills. also, interesting that when playing the 3-2, the sf, pg, and sg are all equally valuable. i kind of assumed the last part, and had heard old old comments from old admin about the averaging - but i never heard a confirmation that a specific formula is used that is the same for all the players on the perimeter. this is true for the 2-3, too.

what i thought was really new/interesting is in the 2-3, the sf and pf are calculated and averaged together - not the sf/pf/c! this means some set of skills is used in calculating the quality of the sf/pf team, probably something with more weight on speed than a center, and less weight on shot blocking. very interesting the center is alone, i assume that is probably then the one position where you really, really should care about shot blocking. i've noticed shot blocking was important in the zone in general, but it would be interesting to try to study if its mainly focused on the center, or if the sf/pf are pretty important as well.

this information definitely changes how i will approach my zone teams. i often would not pay much attention to pf/c, just putting whomever had more bh/pass at pf, or something else not that meaningful. now, i will definitely focus more on getting center skills for that center spot, for when i play 2-3. also, i tend to switch between the 2-3 and 3-2 often, and often wondered if it was worth changing my lineup to get a guardy sf in for the 3-2 and a forwardy sf in for the 2-3. it seems to me there is potentially a lot of value in that. also, with certain teams, switching between the 2-3 and 3-2 may not make any sense. if you have a true guard at the 3, it sounds like its going to be a lot worse to play 2-3 than i would have guessed, considering the formula to evaluate that sf is the same one used at pf. i had always assumed guys were averaged, but before they were averaged, every position was calculated with its own metrics. apparently, that is not the case.
With this info I would have started Hunt at the 4 and Ritter at the 5, and ran a 2-3 all season.  Not to say 29-2 is a bad year at all, but maybe that would have helped me a lot with my early NT exit. 
5/3/2014 3:10 PM
I am totally picking up a new team and playing around with the 2-3.

I plan on running 4 guards with one hi block, hi def center and playing a lot of + defense. I am going to 1/2 court press and shoot the **** out of the ball. In my head this is going to work!
5/3/2014 5:14 PM (edited)
so, im trying to boil down what everyone is talking about and wondering about into a couple simple questions. i know my original ticket was decently wordy, it was a bit much (evidenced by that one question not being answered), but i wasn't sure if seble would be willing to give out much, so i wanted to fish around a bit. i'd like to follow up with a couple very to-the-point questions. heres what im thinking so far - is there anything else that people are really wondering about that isn't like, specific numbers/equations, that we might try to get some info about?

1) are players averaged in the zone just for the purpose of defense, or also, for rebounding? on the defensive side, does the averaging together extend to IQ and fouling?

2) are there different kinds of two point shots? the questions has often been debated if all 2s are figured using the same equations, or if there are in the paint type 2 point shots, and mid range jumper type 2 point shots - or is it something else, like a smooth gradient across the gamut of 2 point shots?

3) based on this answer, how do the different groupings of players in the zone tie into defending particular kinds of shots? for example, we were all very surprised about the center being figured alone in the 2-3 (although we all agree its realistic and like the idea). is he merely calculated differently, and then averaged in with the sf/pf? or does the center soley defend in the paint type 2 pointers, while the sf/pf are responsible for jump shot type 2 pointers? or is it some combination, like the center might be half the weight for the paint type shots, and the sf/pf the other half? presumably the perimeter players don't just guard 3s, do they also have a role in defending 2s?
5/3/2014 3:35 PM
Actually, in the 2-3, I figured that it would be grouped PG/SG and SF/PF/C. I actually think that makes the most sense, given that the bottom 3 on a 2-3 zone work as such a unit in real life. Figuring the C alone doesn't seem to mesh well with how I've seen 2-3 zones work in the real world. Still, it's good info to have.
5/3/2014 5:08 PM (edited)
The Zone D is not that complicated when everything is boiled down.   Yes, you basically average or *Bungee"fy"* your Zone defense together in separate cells depending on your Zone setup (2-3 or a 3-2).  You're going to give up a lot of offensive rebounds mainly due to the fact that you're going to keep teams around 40% FG% (Unless you do a poor job at game-planning like I did in my recent exit in the NT in Allen) - Is it realistically possible to win a title in D2 with the zone?  Yes, duhhh ... Bbunch haha :P --- Rednation/Reddyred has 2 titles with the Zone in D2 - and I've been to 4 Title games in the last 15 seasons in Allen, which is a gauntlet of a D2 world with a base 3-2 defense, and picking up 2 titles with the zone (1 just last season :P).  At some point, I think you'll do it, you keep flirting with a Title anyhow in Allen with a Zone D ... keep at it, you'll do it, and it will be rewarding!

This is just how I see it in a nutshell, on offense, you need Ball-Control and recruit for that and play with that strength with a Zone Defense, because you're not going to get the the TO's, so why give up TO's yourself?  Counter it with obtaining a Ball-Control offense and play to your given offensive IQ strengths ... Success with the zone comes in different forms, but I don't believe in Hybrids, just give me 3 straight up guards in the 1-3, and your 4-5 have to be genuine bigs, with your Center being your best Rebounder, basically your best Big Defensive Rebounding Stud inside.  If your SF (3) is strong spd/ath/def but not a good Rebounder, it is acceptable and you'll still have success with a 2-3.  Here's two games to compare, the first, I ran a 2-3 (-2) (I Prefer a +2 base in the 2-3) ... in no way shape or form should my SF be helpful in a 2-3, yet he is when I feel the need to run a 2-3 - and it worked as intended - the 2nd game against the same team, I didn't hit the save option to switch from a 3-2 to a 2-3 like I thought did on my phone, but apparently I did not, and it was just horrific reading the box score the next day and seeing I was playing a 3-2, realizing I had user error, like an idiot.  But it goes to show, with the zone, there is a fine line in game-planning and it is hit or miss with the Zone.  With your loss against Dan, the Zone did its part and worked as intended, the Zone D was not the culprit in this loss.  What's being overlooked is the offensive side of things ... poor rebounding = lack of offensive rebounds, you need those ... also, Ball-handling was sub-par against that matchup, look at his 1-3 in a FCP, Goodness gracious, they're ferocious!!  The amount of TO's isn't much of a surprise - all around, It was really a bad match-up for a 1 seed for the 2nd round, and the parity in Allen is just really good all around.  The zone wasn't the culprit in this - You gave up 14 offensive rebounds, while holding him to 38% shooting (14*2=28*.38= 10.64) - So, I'll assume you gave up an additional 11 points or there around from offensive rebounds without looking at the PbP, while you yourself scored around 8 points off of Offensive rebounds, 3 point difference off the boards, that's nothing drastic.   But, I still feel I have got to win more points in that area to negate the amount of offensive rebounds I give up.

Anyhow, here are the two box scores against Kyjack - 1st game is a 2-3 D, the 2nd, is a 3-2 D and it should have been a 2-3.

#1 http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=10574771

#2 http://whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=10640277



5/3/2014 4:49 PM
Huge info about the C standing alone.  I suppose I've been playing it well since I always recruit center specifically for the zone, but now I really want to focus on "types" of SF's to recruit.  Interesting, interesting.
5/3/2014 5:07 PM
Gillispie - Rebound. That's the next question in my mind and really a key. Are the 2-3 PF/SF averaged together for defensive rebounding purposes? And how does the "matchup" aspect of rebounding account for the zone?

If so, this is pretty huge, at least for the way I recruit SF. In the past, I've had no problem playing a High Ath/Def guy at SF even with low rebounding, thinking that his ~20 rebounding could be brought up reasonably by a 95+ C and 80+ PF (so the average is low, but maybe decent enough with very high Ath). If, instead, the SF/PF are averaged together independent of the C, now the average is down to ~50, at that seems too low to really work effectively. 

This is especially important if the relatively new "matchup" aspect of rebounding matches up the opposing PF against the average. In D2, that can often mean a 30+ advantage for the non-zone team on offensive rebounds.

5/3/2014 5:12 PM
Posted by zbrent716 on 5/3/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Gillispie - Rebound. That's the next question in my mind and really a key. Are the 2-3 PF/SF averaged together for defensive rebounding purposes? And how does the "matchup" aspect of rebounding account for the zone?

If so, this is pretty huge, at least for the way I recruit SF. In the past, I've had no problem playing a High Ath/Def guy at SF even with low rebounding, thinking that his ~20 rebounding could be brought up reasonably by a 95+ C and 80+ PF (so the average is low, but maybe decent enough with very high Ath). If, instead, the SF/PF are averaged together independent of the C, now the average is down to ~50, at that seems too low to really work effectively. 

This is especially important if the relatively new "matchup" aspect of rebounding matches up the opposing PF against the average. In D2, that can often mean a 30+ advantage for the non-zone team on offensive rebounds.

oh yes, perfect, thank you. we were talking about this last night but i totally forgot about it today... its not clear to me if players are averaged together for defense, or also, for rebounding. what about fouls? good question.
5/3/2014 5:32 PM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/3/2014 3:10:00 PM (view original):
I am totally picking up a new team and playing around with the 2-3.

I plan on running 4 guards with one hi block, hi def center and playing a lot of + defense. I am going to 1/2 court press and shoot the **** out of the ball. In my head this is going to work!
I like that.
of 12
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > How much of a disadvantage is zone defense?

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.