I have been playing zone in DII and DIII. When I switch to 2-3, It is my understanding that the center stands alone and count by himself. Do we know for sure it works like this? I have had trouble with my 2-3 zone this year because I lost my SB : 93 and did not replace that player carefully. I think it has an impact but I don't have that many games to prove it since it's only a season.

Anyone knows for sure 2-3 is really a 2-2-1(C, with emphasis on SB)?

The emphasis on SB seems reasonable and likely, but I am not aware of anything firmly establishing that SB is more highly valued in zone than in other D.

This post in the thread on zone gave the answer on averaging of player ratings that, in a 2-3, the guards are averaged, the forwards are averaged, but the C is not.  However, in a 3-2, the guards and SF are averaged together and the PF & C are averaged.

[Edit: even the word "averaged" is unclear.  The big question is how does the engine determine the location of a shot to decide against which "defender" that shot is made.  Certainly, the game would decide, for instance, that a foul is committed by the "guards" in a 3-2, then select which "guard" actually gets assigned the foul.  The worst defender among the 3 would be assigned a higher likelihood than the other 3 of being charged with the foul.  However, between the "forwards" in a 2-3 and the C, I have no clue how the game decides which "defender" is playing the shot.  

Somewhere else, it is clarified that this same "averaging" or "lumping" is handled separately for rebounding: see this thread.  One of seble's updates added an individual matchup component to rebounding...no idea.  It may be that the engine just averages down the team defensive rebounding when a zone defense is played.   It may be no more than operating at 85% of what the same players would do if playing man, for instance.]

The only thing I have to say about that second link is that I was told there would be no math.

I read the whole thing, Rogelio. From what Seble said, there is still something missing and maybe you have the information. I will make a guess, but not sure it's right. Let say you play 3-2. The core stats would be :

PG ATH, SPD, DEF
SG ATH, SPD, DEF
SF ATH, SPD, DEF
I am pretty sure it's these stats.

PF ATH, DEF, SB?
C ATH, DEF, SB?
Not sure about the SB. Is it rebounding?

Now, at 2-3, it's another story.

PG ATH, SPD, DEF
SG ATH, SPD, DEF

SF ATH, DEF, ???
PF ATH, DEF, ???

C ATH, SB, DEF...

I think, not sure, that the C most important stat is SB.... But what are you shooting for at the SF/PF. This is why I think not all lineups can switch from 3-2 to 2-3. I play zone at Findlay. Last year, I switched from 3-2 to 2-3 rather easily, and it changed the outcome of the game. This year, it's really hard for me to go 2-3 since my SB is too low. And, if I play a man to man team, and I want my top scorer to play PF... and that PF happens to be my best SB, I am taking a hit if I am going 2-3 and I don't have my top SB at the C spot.

I'd really like to get these informations right so I get better at zone.

Posted by zorzii on 5/14/2015 7:30:00 AM (view original):
I read the whole thing, Rogelio. From what Seble said, there is still something missing and maybe you have the information. I will make a guess, but not sure it's right. Let say you play 3-2. The core stats would be :

PG ATH, SPD, DEF
SG ATH, SPD, DEF
SF ATH, SPD, DEF
I am pretty sure it's these stats.

PF ATH, DEF, SB?
C ATH, DEF, SB?
Not sure about the SB. Is it rebounding?

Now, at 2-3, it's another story.

PG ATH, SPD, DEF
SG ATH, SPD, DEF

SF ATH, DEF, ???
PF ATH, DEF, ???

C ATH, SB, DEF...

I think, not sure, that the C most important stat is SB.... But what are you shooting for at the SF/PF. This is why I think not all lineups can switch from 3-2 to 2-3. I play zone at Findlay. Last year, I switched from 3-2 to 2-3 rather easily, and it changed the outcome of the game. This year, it's really hard for me to go 2-3 since my SB is too low. And, if I play a man to man team, and I want my top scorer to play PF... and that PF happens to be my best SB, I am taking a hit if I am going 2-3 and I don't have my top SB at the C spot.

I'd really like to get these informations right so I get better at zone.

My understanding is that REB has nothing to do with opponent's FG% from the floor.  So...in that sense, REB is not part of the equation for team defense.  

I recall some thread that discussed the computation for whether a shot is blocked is a separate calculation from the rest of the defense.   I might be generating a forum-fact as I type...I'm not willing to go back and look it up at this point.   If true, both boards & blocks are independent of other defensive calculations.  None of which means that those aren't the most important ratings for a C in a 2-3 zone.

So, forward defensive ratings in a 2-3: The perverse thing is that ATH, SPD, DEF, DEF IQ & fatigue (not stamina...directly) are what matter for defense at every position.   I believe that the impact of SPD at the 5 may be extremely limited.  It is likely scaled down in importance from positions 1-5.  My best guess is that the likelihood of being awarded a board or block is also calculated dependent upon position played.    So, that means that you are correct.  You need to play your best REB & SB rated player at C in a 2-3 or you are not maximizing your team's opportunity to get defensive rebounds or block shots.   However, SB & REB are also very important in your Forwards (not as much as C, but still important). 

The key thing that I think about zone in this game is this: those ratings are averaged (somehow).  So, you should be thinking of your 2-3 defense as your Guards, Forwards & Center.  It is not the case that you can "hide" a bad defender in a zone, but you are just trying to maximize the "averaged" rating for each position.  So, IMO, I hate playing a 3-2 when I don't have 2 good post players (essentially a twin-towers setup).   On the other hand, if you only have 1 good C, then you need to play 2-3.

My perception is that the BLK attribute is most effectively used by a C in the 2-3. That is not the same thing as saying it's the most important attribute for a C in the 2-3. I still think Ath-Def is the core defensive combo that matters most. And that rebounding and offensive considerations are still more important in my list of priorities than having an elite BLK at the 5.

I generally try to configure my zone teams to have the flexibility to play 2-3 or 3-2, based on how I feel my opponent will try to score points. By far, my biggest consideration is getting the averages in the right places - getting the pairs together to maximize DEF effectiveness while still allowing me to attack in the appropriate positions offensively. What that means in real terms, is that I generally don't think about BLK too much; when I've decided to play 2-3, I'll probably consider BLK more than normal for who goes at the 5. But that's only when the higher priorities (defensive averages, rebounding matchups, offensive attack) are neutral.

I feel like there should be a bias to the top statistical blockers being C's in a zone then, but just looking at D1 top 10 in Phelan (since we just finished regular season play) only 3 of the top 10 played zone, the other 7 were all man to man.  Granted, the actual rating applies as well, and there are Big6 guys with 97 and 98 and 99 SB ratings, but shouldn't there be some adjustment up for zone centers if it's really so important in the zone?

Granted in D2 3 of the top 5 blockers are playing zone, and their ratings are 80's, not 97, 98, so maybe it's just a bias in D1 that the stud Big6 guys will lead in lots of things.

To be the difference between 1.0 blocks a game and 2.1 blocks a game isn't that much.  Obviously an end of game block to keep the lead and win is big, but blocks seem such a small part of the overall game.  Give me 2 guards with high speed and defense and I'll take their steals any day.

Fwiw....
This guy played C last year. http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerHistory/Ratings.aspx?tid=13127&pid=2945440

And this guy played PF. http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2945439

This may go against the general thinking because the defense on my center isn't very good but overall it worked better for the team.

Huh, and the PF had way more blocks.  You played 2-3 or 3-2 primarily?

Quote post by milwood on 5/14/2015 3:18:00 PM:
A few whopping big caveats about these two:  (A) Dillard's Stamina was almost 30 points higher than Long's, (B) Dillard's DEF was 27 points higher than Long's, (C) Dillard's ATH was 15 points higher than Long's, while the SB was only 1 point lower, (D) Dillard played 28 MPG to Long's 22 MPG, & (E) like guyo pointed out, you may have played 3-2 a good bit of the time.  The question isn't why did Dillard outperform Long on the defensive end and in total blocks, the question is why isn't he starting this season? 

I played exclusively 2-3 in the post season. I had a guard that was a phenomenal defender which allowed me to do so even against teams with very good perimeter scoring.

He isn't starting this year because Fagan and Ray both have great potential and if a few guys develop very well this year then this team can be super great for two straight seasons. He might start against NCCU, though

Your right about the attributes and the mpg, but that's my point. On that team it made more sense to have the better, more athletic guy at PF. i could be completely wrong about this, and I probably am, but I look at the zone by the three zones - 2 guards, 2 forwards, and a center. This game does not seem to allow for down low scoring as much as it maybe should. For that reason I generally like to have the stronger all around defense in the 2 forwards area. Could be wrong though

I will send a ticket so I can understand for sure how is the C treated in 2-3 zone. I have a hunch SB is way more important that we give it credit for. But maybe I am wrong. I think in 3-2, it's added between the two forwards.

Posted by milwood on 5/14/2015 4:59:00 PM (view original):
I played exclusively 2-3 in the post season. I had a guard that was a phenomenal defender which allowed me to do so even against teams with very good perimeter scoring.

He isn't starting this year because Fagan and Ray both have great potential and if a few guys develop very well this year then this team can be super great for two straight seasons. He might start against NCCU, though

Your right about the attributes and the mpg, but that's my point. On that team it made more sense to have the better, more athletic guy at PF. i could be completely wrong about this, and I probably am, but I look at the zone by the three zones - 2 guards, 2 forwards, and a center. This game does not seem to allow for down low scoring as much as it maybe should. For that reason I generally like to have the stronger all around defense in the 2 forwards area. Could be wrong though

Right...wait...no...for clarification: "in the post season" admits that during the season the stats were compiled with a mix of the two defenses.   So, yeah, it's difficult to pull out anything to compare from those two, but I get it.  You won the NC without an outstanding defensive C in a 2-3, but I've seen your teams.  No one else goes in as heavily for defense when playing zone.   That's probably a good message for everyone about zone.

I think there are many that would agree that this game favors scoring from everywhere except in the post.  So, if you felt a good defensive guard allowed you to play a 2-3 without getting killed on the perimeter, then that's hard to argue.  

Posted by zorzii on 5/14/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
I will send a ticket so I can understand for sure how is the C treated in 2-3 zone. I have a hunch SB is way more important that we give it credit for. But maybe I am wrong. I think in 3-2, it's added between the two forwards.

I definitely agree that in a 3-2 the 2 post forward's defensive ratings are averaged.  I just understand that the blocked shot calculation is taken care of separately from the rest of the defensive calculation.   In reality, I have no idea whether SB is more important in a zone than in either other defense.   I do suspect that the odds of a blocked shot are impacted by SB, ATH, DEF & DEF IQ.  Maybe you'll get some clarification as to how this works.   Who knows?

Posted by rogelio on 5/14/2015 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 5/14/2015 4:59:00 PM (view original):
I played exclusively 2-3 in the post season. I had a guard that was a phenomenal defender which allowed me to do so even against teams with very good perimeter scoring.

He isn't starting this year because Fagan and Ray both have great potential and if a few guys develop very well this year then this team can be super great for two straight seasons. He might start against NCCU, though

Your right about the attributes and the mpg, but that's my point. On that team it made more sense to have the better, more athletic guy at PF. i could be completely wrong about this, and I probably am, but I look at the zone by the three zones - 2 guards, 2 forwards, and a center. This game does not seem to allow for down low scoring as much as it maybe should. For that reason I generally like to have the stronger all around defense in the 2 forwards area. Could be wrong though

Right...wait...no...for clarification: "in the post season" admits that during the season the stats were compiled with a mix of the two defenses.   So, yeah, it's difficult to pull out anything to compare from those two, but I get it.  You won the NC without an outstanding defensive C in a 2-3, but I've seen your teams.  No one else goes in as heavily for defense when playing zone.   That's probably a good message for everyone about zone.

I think there are many that would agree that this game favors scoring from everywhere except in the post.  So, if you felt a good defensive guard allowed you to play a 2-3 without getting killed on the perimeter, then that's hard to argue.  

Yeah, I hate the posts that say you can hide a bead defender in the zone.  I get the premise but why not just get another all around good player.  Same goes with shot blocking.   Why choose a shot blocker over a great defender or vice versa.  Find a guy that can do both!  

As for last season, I played 3-2 only 3 or 4 times.  I only played it against the superclass teams with 4 guys in the 90s perimeter.  It didnt work very well because I gave up too much on the boards and it didnt really slow down the 3-point attempts or the 3-pt fg% the way I would have hoped or liked.  I ended up playing one of those teams again in the CT and played a 2-3.  the results were much better.

I may be in the minority of the Zone coaches but I really prefer playing a 2-3.  And I almost exclusively recruit guards types for the SF.   playing a 3-2 seems to have such a disadvantage in rebounding.  I may try it in a couple of seasons, though.

Also, Dillard played pf mostly because of his passing, so yeah I get the emphasis on the defensive attributes but there is more to it than that.  A PF that can pass helps the offense imho anyway