2-3 zone or 3-2 zone? Topic

jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
When playing against a team that runs motion and uses basically 2 players to score (both guards with good speed) what zone D should I use?  The 2 guards receive 80 to 90% of the team distribution and both shoot lots of 3's (60% or more of shots are 3's).  Would I be best to play a 3-2 zone to try to shut down the guards?  Or should I go 2-3 zone with like +3 to try to shut down the perimeter game?   The team is adequate at rebounding (at best) and does not have much LP.  I am very new at playing zone so am not sure what is best.  Thoughts?  
8/10/2012 8:56 AM
rednation58
Posts: 630 (0)
Hall of Famer
53
Rookie
Most of running 2-3 vs. 3-2 really depends on your team and what type of players you have in your lineup. If you have more speed at the 1-3 spots like an average of 60+ you would probably be better sticking to a 3-2. If you have a slower 3/SF say 50 or less you may want to stick with the 2-3 and go a bit more + if you believe your opponent is really going to shoot that many 3's. Looking at your team you may be able to get away with a 3-2 but that SG at the 3 is very slow with no RB. Your RB is great though so it really depends on what you think your opponent will do.
8/10/2012 9:08 AM
zags27
Posts: 462 (0)
Hall of Famer
146
Rookie
I have several teams that run zone.
For years the 2/3 was all that was played, but today, with the right players the 3/2 is very effective.
For several reasons, the 3/2 works much better today than in the past. Don't sell it too short.
If I had to play one or the other 100% of the time... I am positive I would play 3/2... at least until the game evolved again and it no longer worked.
8/10/2012 10:07 AM
jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
Why is speed of great importance in the 3-2 for the SF?  Probably sounds like a dumb question but I know little about the zone def.  Does the player need to have speed in order to adjust back and cover the penetration from a guard where as in the 2-3 he is already camping out near the basket?  

My team does not have good speed.  However I have great rebounding so.... tough one.   
8/10/2012 10:13 AM
jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
zags, in your opinion what is the biggest draw back's of playing the 3-2?  The positioning obviously helps to take away the 3 ball and your outside shooting.  Disadvantage?  Stopping the LP and rebounding?  When playing the 3-2 what do I need to account for or take into consideration?  Thanks for your thoughts.

8/10/2012 10:15 AM
zags27
Posts: 462 (0)
Hall of Famer
146
Rookie

I see guys all the time trying to put offense and defense in HD into real basketball terms.
I just don't think it works that way. HD is run by a computer.
I could write a BillyG length post... and try to explain how I see / feel the engine processes the info we give it, but alas, it would be a long rambling, boring post that wouldn't make any sense. So I'll leave the lengthy ones to the guys who can hold a thought longer than a minute and expound on it.
My over-simplified answer is....
#1. guards rule HD right now. Not bigs like in days gone by. (again, I have my personal opinions why, but).
#2. the 3/2 puts more defense in the area more teams are scoring from.

Years gone by... rebounding was king. Low post was the most common way to score. If you didn't play 2/3 you were at a huge disadvantage.
The game evolves...

again, I said it's a short, simple answer.

8/10/2012 10:43 AM
zags27
Posts: 462 (0)
Hall of Famer
146
Rookie
Also I see I didn't answer your first question. Drawbacks to 3/2... very few right now.
If the team you're playing has very little outside threat and a very good inside game... 2/3 obviously.
BUT, the current rage is absouletly no outside threat but still force the guards to score and shoot 1000 FT's a season.
I think the Zone is perfect for that. If it prevails as an offensive style, there will be a resurgance of the zone... IMHO
8/10/2012 10:50 AM
jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
Interesting thoughts.  Thanks zags.  I think it all makes sense rather you explain it in-depth or not.  Zone has always seemed a little mysterious to me.  I have always run the M2M and will probably convert to that after this year but just inherited this team with 4 solid seniors and will run what they know this season.  But who knows, with a little success maybe zone will become my preferred choice.  Thanks!
8/10/2012 11:55 AM
rednation58
Posts: 630 (0)
Hall of Famer
53
Rookie
Posted by jjwarden on 8/10/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Why is speed of great importance in the 3-2 for the SF?  Probably sounds like a dumb question but I know little about the zone def.  Does the player need to have speed in order to adjust back and cover the penetration from a guard where as in the 2-3 he is already camping out near the basket?  

My team does not have good speed.  However I have great rebounding so.... tough one.   
What I have been told JJ from other coaches who run zone is speed is important in guarding the per. I believe the extra speed lowers 3pt FG%. That plus the def rating and you have a heck of a 3-2. I also agree with zags that 3-2 is the better of the 2 zone D's right now. I think the only draw back to the 3-2 zone is you may get killed on the offensive boards a bit more so than a 2-3. 
8/10/2012 12:07 PM
jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
With the way my team is designed I don't have a lot of options at SF for speed.  My starting SF ( I play him at either SF or SG depending on match-ups) is a 60 speed.  Outside of him I have little speed.  With that said would I really be hurting myself if I moved one of my PF's (100 RB) to the SF spot off the bench?  They don't have much speed but neither do the other options and I  would compensate for the lack of Off reb that I may be vulnerable too.  However, having a slow PF in the SF spot may make my 3-2 zone less effective?  True?   
8/10/2012 12:20 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
You should be shifting between 3-2 and 2-3 based on your opponent's offensive tendencies. If your opponent is guard heavy (which most teams are under this engine) you should be playing 3-2. 
8/10/2012 12:52 PM
tianyi7886
Posts: 4243 (0)
Hall of Famer
51 33 282 40
Prospect
Posted by zags27 on 8/10/2012 10:43:00 AM (view original):

I see guys all the time trying to put offense and defense in HD into real basketball terms.
I just don't think it works that way. HD is run by a computer.
I could write a BillyG length post... and try to explain how I see / feel the engine processes the info we give it, but alas, it would be a long rambling, boring post that wouldn't make any sense. So I'll leave the lengthy ones to the guys who can hold a thought longer than a minute and expound on it.
My over-simplified answer is....
#1. guards rule HD right now. Not bigs like in days gone by. (again, I have my personal opinions why, but).
#2. the 3/2 puts more defense in the area more teams are scoring from.

Years gone by... rebounding was king. Low post was the most common way to score. If you didn't play 2/3 you were at a huge disadvantage.
The game evolves...

again, I said it's a short, simple answer.

Or what zags posted earlier...

And just to add credence to zags post regarding guard play. I have something between 40-55 distro on my best bigman on several of my teams, and these guys only get 30-38% of the total offense. Meanwhile, the guards on these teams with 10-18 distro are getting 30%+ touches. 
8/10/2012 12:52 PM
kujayhawk
Posts: 396 (0)
Hall of Famer
203 89
Rookie
For what it's worth I've done well in this current engine playing with a 2-3 zone.  I have several consecutive seasons where I've never once switched to a 3-2 at any point of the season and just chose to tweak +/- settings.

I don't believe we know the answer to this but part of running a 2-3 or 3-2 would be influenced by how you think zone works.  There seem to be two dominant theories:

(a) Zone randomly chooses one of your two/three defenders to assign to a man.
(b) Zone averages the ratings of the two/three and then the assigning of a particular man is window dressing.

I believe that B was the popular belief for a long while but that most folks subscribe to A being what happens.

8/10/2012 1:49 PM
jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
Interestingly enough my starters actually have pretty good DEF ratings.  73, 76, 81, 82, 99.  With my big men having 95 and 96 in SB.  Along with each starter being at least mid 60's or better in athleticsm.  Probably not going to win a championship in DI with those ratings (mostly because of the lower ATH) but certainly servicable purely from a DEF perspective.    With that said, kujayhawk, I think I should be pretty solid defensively if either option is correct.  My biggest downside is definitetly speed.  

What is the highest you are willing to take the +/- ratings kujayhawk?  If you are playing a really heavy guard team (70% of the team distro or more) with tons of 3's (25 to 30 attempts or more a game) do you go as high as + 4?  


8/10/2012 2:38 PM
jjwarden
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
zags (and others who play mostly 3-2 zone) do you always play a balance +/- when in the 3-2 zone?  Or do you play more negative? Even positive at times?  
8/10/2012 2:53 PM
12 Next ▸
2-3 zone or 3-2 zone? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.