If you're trying to take away the perimeter, should you play a 2-3 or 3-2? It seems like it would be easier to take it away with a 3-2 cause more guys are on top but then you'd only have 2 guys inside leaving the inside more open. I'm guessing you would play the opposite if you're trying to take away the inside

Yep - That is the idea. If I am trying to be balanced, if I use the 2/3 I go +1 and if I use the 3/2 I go -1 on defense.

It's not as simple as that. You also need to consider who is playing at SF because of the way zone combines attributes.

if you want to win just run the 3-2

Interesting point gomiami - I never really thought of that. Can you explain that a bit more? Same thing for Mully - do you think the 3/2 is inherantly better than a 2/3? I am still trying to figure out how to win with the zone.

the 2-3 zone averages the defense of your PG-SG together, your SF-PF together, and C separate. basically the C is playing m2m against their C.

in the 3-2, the PG-SG-SF are averaged together, and the PF-C are together


https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=493086

there's no inherent advantage to doing one or the other (aside from maybe a horrible defender that you need to cover up by "grouping" him with someone). just need to game plan accordingly for what best fits the next opponent

Perimeter is more 3-2 but to be honest, this is not how I see it. I go with my SF... If he is a big, I go 2-3, and I put a solid SB at C. If he is a guard or a hybrid, I go 3-2, but I want both my forwards to be really strong at REB, SB and DEF. And at D3, I shoot for 60 minimum at ATH at 3-4-5.

Posted by zorzii on 6/25/2016 10:51:00 AM (view original):
Perimeter is more 3-2 but to be honest, this is not how I see it. I go with my SF... If he is a big, I go 2-3, and I put a solid SB at C. If he is a guard or a hybrid, I go 3-2, but I want both my forwards to be really strong at REB, SB and DEF. And at D3, I shoot for 60 minimum at ATH at 3-4-5.

In a 3-2 I pretty frequently ignore block and rebounding in my 3.

Regarding the original post, it's mostly true, and keep in mind that if you do intend to take away the 3 with a 3-2, you want your two inside guys to be very strong rebounders.

In an ideal world, I have a sf who can do both - athletic with good enough rebounding to play 2-3, fast enough to guard perimeter in 3-2. I typically default to 3-2 with a -2 setting; but 2-3 can be effective if your two guards are particularly good perimeter defenders, or if you're playing against a team that doesn't shoot 3s. The advantage to playing zone is that it gives you a lot of flexibility in both recruiting, and in day-to-day game planning. But it's not ideal for coaches who just want to set it and leave it.

Posted by chapelhillne on 6/25/2016 8:59:00 AM (view original):
Interesting point gomiami - I never really thought of that. Can you explain that a bit more? Same thing for Mully - do you think the 3/2 is inherantly better than a 2/3? I am still trying to figure out how to win with the zone.

I think 3-2 plays better than it should and 2-3 plays worse than it should.

Most of the vets figure this out and shift to 100% 3-2.

I have never run zone in over 100 seasons, and I am taking over a team with A and A+ Zone IQ across the board. What core do I want to be a strong D2 Zone team? What skill sets do I look for?

I don't think it's that different from man2man. You need good athleticism and speed above all. Good defense certainly helps, but is not the most important factor. Rebounding is probably more important in zone versus man. Stamina is not as important in the zone.

Case in point
https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=13315491

Posted by wvufan76 on 6/25/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):
I have never run zone in over 100 seasons, and I am taking over a team with A and A+ Zone IQ across the board. What core do I want to be a strong D2 Zone team? What skill sets do I look for?

My 2 cents. SP, Def, in a 3-2 with your 3 being a guard type. Big men Ath, Reb, SB. In a 2-3 PG/SG SP, Def. Your 3 more of a big man type REB, SB, DEF, ATH. C has to be a stud in REB, DEF, SB, and ATH.