Posted by terps21234 on 2/11/2014 2:22:00 PM (view original):
This is starting to make sense now, but my REAL question is in my game he had his guards take a lot of 2pt shots.  If I play 3-2 like I did than they drove on me and hit over 50% of his 2's. Should of I played a 2-3 against a team with NOT good PF & C where simmy guards took more 2pt than 3pt?  Which zone Def is better against guards who shoot 2pt?

Your opponent was a Sim, so all "his" settings were default. The Sim is simply basing its shot selections off the defense you chose. You were in a 3-2, so it reacted by taking more inside shots (although, to be honest, I don't know how many "more" the Sim actually took...for his PG, SG and SF's, there were 15 "inside" shots and 17 3-point shots taken). Had you played a 2-3, chances are there would have been more outside shots attempted (and hit at a slightly better percentage). If you felt the opponent was unable to beat you with PF and C, then I would say you were right to play the 3-2. Where you got unlucky was that your opponent had a hot shooting night (I would say that 60 percent from 2-point land is unusual, especially by that Wooster team, if we were to sim the game multiple times at those same settings.

I noticed your bench went 0-4. It's hard to win with your bench not scoring anything. Even against a SIM. You should adjust your setting and get the bench more involved.

My bench per guys are set to drain threes. I have Willis and berry set at 5 distro and 0 and +1.

Posted by rednu on 2/11/2014 10:55:00 AM (view original):
This might just be me, but one of the advantages that I saw in running a zone defense was the ability to morph from the 2-3 into the 3-2 and back based on the perceived threat from my opponent each night. I don't see why a person would ever run a 3-2 at a negative positioning or a 2-3 at a positive positioning when there's a tool better suited for stopping the inside or outside threat by simply changing from one configuration to another.

In this specific game, I think you were clearly the victim of a bad RNG night, but the 3-2 is also vulnerable to giving up a high percentage of "inside' shots (and by inside here I mean 2-pt, not necessarily just a PF or C, although if either of those is a standout player, they can dine on a 3-2 all night long).. If you feel the need to sag inside, I would recommend flipping into the 2-3.

ETA: It doesn't apply to the original question, but just my two cents -- in similar situations in the futue, I'd give serious thought to running something other than a slowdown tempo. You want to get as many possessions as possible against his freshmen. The youth of the team is only as big an issue as you make it. Push the pace and get those 3 seniors off the floor (you know the Sim is running normal tempo).

A couple people have touched on this, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents (as someone who plays exclusively zone).

There are certainly some exceptions, but as a general rule I use positioning to counter where the shots come from (+/- for 2 point land vs 3 point land) and 3/2 vs 2/3 to counter who the scoring comes from (backcourt vs frontcourt), especially when I have a defensive stopper at the 3 (which is always my goal, like this guy).

So, in instances where someone is guard-heavy on the scoring, but from driving/non-3s, I'm quite likely to go 3/2 with a negative number (again, as a general rule - I start from that and then make adjustments as warranted by the opponent).

Posted by rogelio on 2/11/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 2/11/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of hijacking (or at least slightly sidetracking) someone else's thread, a question I must ask given the discussion -- am I mistaken that there is something inherent to the 2-3 vs the 3-2 when it comes to defending inside vs outside? That is, a 2-3 with a 60/60/60 ath def blk will naturally defend inside better than a 3-2 with that same set of values along the back, and vice versa if the subject is the perimeter.

Maybe I am reading too much into what you wrote Trenton (and Rogelio), but I get the impression you are saying the average values are all that matter in the decision. If that is the case then I have held a false premise for some time. I have always thought there was some inherent coding that made he 3-2 better vs the perimeter and the 2-3 stronger vs the inside.

I think that we're all agreed that there is.  Just talking about the sim, I would rank the perimeter defenses from best to worst as m2m, 3-2, press, & 2-3.  

I'm sure TJ can speak for himself, but I interpret his point to be that you want to choose whether to average your SF into your forwards or your guards depending on his REB & BLK ratings.  If you are playing a guard at SF (low ratings in both), then it makes more sense to play a 3-2 with a negative positioning, than to average those bad ratings into the Forwards line.  [DISCLAIMER: I admitted earlier that my results getting things to work as I expected in the zone have been mixed, but this analysis makes sense based on the things that have been said about how the sim works.]

IMO, if you can have a SF that you are willing to play either way (open to question whether those exist below D1), then the real choices are when to mix in a doubleteam within a 3-2 or 2-3.  In a 2-3, I have difficulty seeing the benefit to doubleteam a C, but not so in a 3-2!

Not saying I disagree with you on the double team matter but do you think it could be more beneficial to double a center in the 2-3 (assuming that it would probably be the power forward coming over) because you have that extra defender inside for help defense? Maybe the engine isn't taking this into account but I would assume when doubling a C another defender would slide to the now open PF taking away that pass (once again I assume the PF).

Or are you thinking that the fact that there are so many defenders inside will just create issues as is for him getting uncontested shots?

Posted by zbrent716 on 2/11/2014 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 2/11/2014 10:55:00 AM (view original):
This might just be me, but one of the advantages that I saw in running a zone defense was the ability to morph from the 2-3 into the 3-2 and back based on the perceived threat from my opponent each night. I don't see why a person would ever run a 3-2 at a negative positioning or a 2-3 at a positive positioning when there's a tool better suited for stopping the inside or outside threat by simply changing from one configuration to another.

In this specific game, I think you were clearly the victim of a bad RNG night, but the 3-2 is also vulnerable to giving up a high percentage of "inside' shots (and by inside here I mean 2-pt, not necessarily just a PF or C, although if either of those is a standout player, they can dine on a 3-2 all night long).. If you feel the need to sag inside, I would recommend flipping into the 2-3.

ETA: It doesn't apply to the original question, but just my two cents -- in similar situations in the futue, I'd give serious thought to running something other than a slowdown tempo. You want to get as many possessions as possible against his freshmen. The youth of the team is only as big an issue as you make it. Push the pace and get those 3 seniors off the floor (you know the Sim is running normal tempo).

A couple people have touched on this, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents (as someone who plays exclusively zone).

There are certainly some exceptions, but as a general rule I use positioning to counter where the shots come from (+/- for 2 point land vs 3 point land) and 3/2 vs 2/3 to counter who the scoring comes from (backcourt vs frontcourt), especially when I have a defensive stopper at the 3 (which is always my goal, like this guy).

So, in instances where someone is guard-heavy on the scoring, but from driving/non-3s, I'm quite likely to go 3/2 with a negative number (again, as a general rule - I start from that and then make adjustments as warranted by the opponent).

In other words, you are saying in your concept of the zone you use the three two vs the two three to decide whether the small forward is helping out against the guards or the post?

 

Generally, in my mind on double teams, if I want to be double teaming a post player in a zone I want to do it out of the two three and if I want to double a guard out of a zone I do it with a three two.  Of course, much depends in the zone on the quality of your players.  For example, if you have two really really solid or even excellent post defenders and somewhat weaker guards you might actually want to run a base three two - so that extra defender is there to help out your weaker guards more.  If your guards are exceptional defenders and your posts weak, you may want the opposite.
 

You guys make me want to try that damn zone again!! Lol

Posted by mikvitu on 2/12/2014 12:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 2/11/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 2/11/2014 1:09:00 PM (view original):
At the risk of hijacking (or at least slightly sidetracking) someone else's thread, a question I must ask given the discussion -- am I mistaken that there is something inherent to the 2-3 vs the 3-2 when it comes to defending inside vs outside? That is, a 2-3 with a 60/60/60 ath def blk will naturally defend inside better than a 3-2 with that same set of values along the back, and vice versa if the subject is the perimeter.

Maybe I am reading too much into what you wrote Trenton (and Rogelio), but I get the impression you are saying the average values are all that matter in the decision. If that is the case then I have held a false premise for some time. I have always thought there was some inherent coding that made he 3-2 better vs the perimeter and the 2-3 stronger vs the inside.

I think that we're all agreed that there is.  Just talking about the sim, I would rank the perimeter defenses from best to worst as m2m, 3-2, press, & 2-3.  

I'm sure TJ can speak for himself, but I interpret his point to be that you want to choose whether to average your SF into your forwards or your guards depending on his REB & BLK ratings.  If you are playing a guard at SF (low ratings in both), then it makes more sense to play a 3-2 with a negative positioning, than to average those bad ratings into the Forwards line.  [DISCLAIMER: I admitted earlier that my results getting things to work as I expected in the zone have been mixed, but this analysis makes sense based on the things that have been said about how the sim works.]

IMO, if you can have a SF that you are willing to play either way (open to question whether those exist below D1), then the real choices are when to mix in a doubleteam within a 3-2 or 2-3.  In a 2-3, I have difficulty seeing the benefit to doubleteam a C, but not so in a 3-2!

Not saying I disagree with you on the double team matter but do you think it could be more beneficial to double a center in the 2-3 (assuming that it would probably be the power forward coming over) because you have that extra defender inside for help defense? Maybe the engine isn't taking this into account but I would assume when doubling a C another defender would slide to the now open PF taking away that pass (once again I assume the PF).

Or are you thinking that the fact that there are so many defenders inside will just create issues as is for him getting uncontested shots?

My thought was the opposite. 2-3's strength is post defense. If there's only one perimeter threat, then why not double team him to get the ball out if his hands and force the team into the strength of the D. I do hesitate too double guards that have high BH & P. If I don't like the idea of doubling out side, then as 3-2 and double the post makes sense.

If the SIM were perfect then the Defense rating and defensive IQ of that player sliding to the PF would be s huge factor in whether the double team works.

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/12/2014 5:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 2/11/2014 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 2/11/2014 10:55:00 AM (view original):
This might just be me, but one of the advantages that I saw in running a zone defense was the ability to morph from the 2-3 into the 3-2 and back based on the perceived threat from my opponent each night. I don't see why a person would ever run a 3-2 at a negative positioning or a 2-3 at a positive positioning when there's a tool better suited for stopping the inside or outside threat by simply changing from one configuration to another.

In this specific game, I think you were clearly the victim of a bad RNG night, but the 3-2 is also vulnerable to giving up a high percentage of "inside' shots (and by inside here I mean 2-pt, not necessarily just a PF or C, although if either of those is a standout player, they can dine on a 3-2 all night long).. If you feel the need to sag inside, I would recommend flipping into the 2-3.

ETA: It doesn't apply to the original question, but just my two cents -- in similar situations in the futue, I'd give serious thought to running something other than a slowdown tempo. You want to get as many possessions as possible against his freshmen. The youth of the team is only as big an issue as you make it. Push the pace and get those 3 seniors off the floor (you know the Sim is running normal tempo).

A couple people have touched on this, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents (as someone who plays exclusively zone).

There are certainly some exceptions, but as a general rule I use positioning to counter where the shots come from (+/- for 2 point land vs 3 point land) and 3/2 vs 2/3 to counter who the scoring comes from (backcourt vs frontcourt), especially when I have a defensive stopper at the 3 (which is always my goal, like this guy).

So, in instances where someone is guard-heavy on the scoring, but from driving/non-3s, I'm quite likely to go 3/2 with a negative number (again, as a general rule - I start from that and then make adjustments as warranted by the opponent).

In other words, you are saying in your concept of the zone you use the three two vs the two three to decide whether the small forward is helping out against the guards or the post?

 

Generally, in my mind on double teams, if I want to be double teaming a post player in a zone I want to do it out of the two three and if I want to double a guard out of a zone I do it with a three two.  Of course, much depends in the zone on the quality of your players.  For example, if you have two really really solid or even excellent post defenders and somewhat weaker guards you might actually want to run a base three two - so that extra defender is there to help out your weaker guards more.  If your guards are exceptional defenders and your posts weak, you may want the opposite.
 

Essentially yes. Provided I have a very strong and versatile defender for the SF spot, I (generally) decide to use 3-2 if I am more concerned about scoring from opposing guards and 2-3 if I am more concerned about scoring from the PF/C.

It seems I have less faith than some of you in the complexity of the sim when it comes to double-teams (in a zone or otherwise, I suspect) and have great doubts about whether the engine actually identifies the player coming to double and adjusts effectiveness based on his skill set and the positioning of his teammates.

Is the 3-2 more foul efficient than the 2-3 in a similar way that a + positioning is supposed to foul less than -?

Posted by mikvitu on 2/13/2014 6:31:00 PM (view original):
Is the 3-2 more foul efficient than the 2-3 in a similar way that a + positioning is supposed to foul less than -?

thats a great question  mik

im guessing .... in order of most foul prone to least

2-3minus,  3-2minus, 3-2plus,  2-3plus,  3-2zero,  2-3zero


but that is a complete guess so i dont really know why i am even posting it

Posted by oldave on 2/13/2014 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mikvitu on 2/13/2014 6:31:00 PM (view original):
Is the 3-2 more foul efficient than the 2-3 in a similar way that a + positioning is supposed to foul less than -?

thats a great question  mik

im guessing .... in order of most foul prone to least

2-3minus,  3-2minus, 3-2plus,  2-3plus,  3-2zero,  2-3zero


but that is a complete guess so i dont really know why i am even posting it

I was thinking close to the same thing with 0 just being kind of random in my mind, almost a whatever happens, happens sorta thing. 

im pretty sure zero2-3 is the least foul prone you can get... but maybe zero3-2 is similar.

for the plus defenses.... ive never used them enough to get a good feel.  obviously you would be hoping to limit perimeter shooting,  and i think it is effective at that,   of course,  it hurts rebounding and is vulnerable to interior scoring  (definitely LP... what about slashers and pull ups?  im guessing vulnerable to those too)    but not sure if it can lead to more steals (and fouls)  as i would think it would.

Hmmm, looking through my low D1 zone team, I see two wins that were 2-3 minus (first one started -2, then -4 at halftime, the second game was -5 throughout) and I had below my average for fouls.  14 in first game, 10 in second.

Minus defenses are supposed to be more foul prone, but Zone is also supposed to be less foul prone, so maybe it equals out?

ETA:  Hmmm, found a third that started as -3 and went to -5 and I had 22 fouls.  So probably a sample size thing.  All 3 were versus humans if it matters

Well, fouls also depend on the opposing teams propensities; how were your fouls committed compared to their normal opponent?