When playing a 3/2 zone, are the 3 outside defenders primarily defending the perimeter, or are they supposed to be useful at defending slasher guards as well?  In particular, I am trying to figure out whether 2/3 or 3/2 makes more sense against a team that gets its scoring from slasher guards.  I know what real basketball logic would suggest, but I'm wondering what you all think about this in HD.  

I've never really run zone, but I hate seeing questions go unanswered.  I *think* 2/3 would be better for stopping up the lane against slashers.  If you played a 3/2, my guess is they'd get more open layups and you might even foul more.  Might be different if you have especially good speed.  Maybe a zone player will chime in and correct or confirm.

Yes, the 3 are primarily defending the perimeter in a 3-2.  Based upon your settings as well as your 1-3 Ath/Spd/Def ... you can either eat up a slasher, or be eaten by a slasher.  You can easily defend against a slasher as well as defend the perimeter with the right personnel.

Posted by hogstench on 8/14/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Yes, the 3 are primarily defending the perimeter in a 3-2.  Based upon your settings as well as your 1-3 Ath/Spd/Def ... you can either eat up a slasher, or be eaten by a slasher.  You can easily defend against a slasher as well as defend the perimeter with the right personnel.

+1

So if you have high ATH, SPD, DEF guards you will defend the perimeter well.  Better than the same combo in M2M?  I guess my question is if you need guards with those stats in order to be a very good defense against the perimeter then you are really no different than M2M.  Except in the 3-2 you give up lots of off RB where as M2M you aren't quite as vulnerable.  So what is the advantage of zone over M2M?  Especially if all requirements are basically equal with your guards.  Just trying to learn how the zone can be highly effective and aventagous compared to M2M?    Thanks for the help!

zone allows you to hide your weaker defender, a player that could be easily exploited in the m2m

I dont have much experience with M2M, but I've noticed my opponents shooting % is usually lower than my conference counterparts who primarily run man and press.

As far as how to handle slasher guards, its still like the other defenses where your personnel will determine a lot, but you could always run a 3-2 and sag it in. It's hard to compare results because there are not many people who run zone and run it successfully, but theoretically if you sag it, I assume if they are slashing, your bigs will pick them up inside, and your guards will cover mid range shots better, but your defense against the 3 will be less effective than a 3-2 at 0 or -1. This is HD though, so theoretically might not work here.

An advantage playing zone instead of man is the zone is less tiring. Less tiring means more minutes played. If your starters are waaayy better than your bench then zone is a good thing despite the rebounding disadvantage.

And that's a good observation that the skills to play defense are the same for zone and man. While zone can keep the other coach from abusing your weakest defender it's MUCH better to not have a bad defender at all. Oh, and all else being equal (IQ + skills), the zone defender will commit fewer fouls than when playing man defense. So...

Some zone advantages in no particular order:
A) Player tires more slowly.
B) Your weakest defender will not be abused as much.
C) Your team commits fewer fouls.
D) I'm lazy and find it's quicker to game plan just by choosing 3-2 or 2-3. 

Good thoughts.  Thanks jennings.  Now for the disadvantages of playing zone?  (Obviously the opposite of what you said as an advantage.... but what else?) Again, I ask these questions to learn about zone.  I am trying to decide wether I keep the team I have inherited at zone or transition it to M2M.  Just not sure which is best for a DI team that is rebuilding.  Thanks

Let's suppose I am playing solid defenders at every position in the Zone. My opponent gets the lion's share of his scoring from slasher guards. Both my opponent and myself are roughly equivalent at rebounding.

It sounds like the consensus is that 2-3 at 0 would be superior to 3-2 at 0 in this situation. But what about a 3-2 at -5 versus a 2-3 at 0? Which of those two would you play to shut down the slasher guards? 

I've been running zone for awhile and just have never had consistent enough results to give you a definitive answer kyle. I've tried both and preferrably do not like to run my 3-2 at -5. It just never seems to work for me. 2-3 at 0 can work sometimes, but it leads you in an odd position if its a balanced team that also has 3 shooters unless you have solid defenders on the perimeter.
 
My general rule is if guards are 2 of the top 3 scorers, I'll usually go 3-2 and adjust my sag depending on their 3 point shooting. Somtimes I'll throw in a double team on one if say one shoots 3's and the other does not while adjusting my overall defense to account for what the rest of the team does.

if bigs are the primary, I'll go 2-3. The zone can be a very difficult defense to master imo and I'm obviously not a master at it, but it creates a lot of options for you defensively.  Sadly, I don't know too many there who do have it mastered and feel like there should be or could be some adjustments to make it a more desireable defense as it should be better than a full game FCP.

I'm with poncho on this. I tend to go 3-2 when the other team gets the bulk of it's scoring from guards. No matter if it's jump shots or drives. I may sag a bit if they shoot few 3's. If the opposing guard drives a lot they will still cause fouls and get to the free throw line, just not quite as much vs. a zone. But really, who knows?