I need help with zone.  I played an 0-5 team with 9 freshman and they destroyed me from 2 pt range 15-25.   I played 3-2 (-2). Should I have played a 2-3. Don't know what to do when a team's guards don't shoot 3's well and drive for 2 pt. I don't have a true SF.  Any help would be appreciated. http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=10378578
My team: http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7555

Thanks,

Ken

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).

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).

Personally, I think the the BLK score of the SF is very important in determining to go 2-3 or 3-2.


If you have a SF who is really a third guard and has a 1 in BLK , it's probably a bad idea  to go 2-3 even a against a team that doesn't shoot 3's.

For example:   a team with a two post players that are 60-60-60 in ATH/DEF/BLK and a SF with 70/70/10 makes the interior DEFENSIVE averages lower.   I would run a 3-2 in this situation and if the team doesn't shoot 3's play a - number.   I frequently play a 3-2 (-5).

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).

I agree with most of this, but my problem with running uptempo my team is young and no good def. with backups, so running uptempo will hurt me too.  I could of run normal maybe.  My starters are my best and I should of clobbered him my 5 vs his 5.

I've been experimenting with zone for a while and I've received a bunch of mixed advice that I've implemented with mixed results.  I think rednu is right about switching from 2-3 to 3-2 being an advantage, but I would disagree with his +/- comments.  There are several coaches that like playing 3-2 as much as -5.  I actually think your choice of defense was perfectly acceptable for that opponent.  On the other hand, I think rednu was absolutely spot on with his comments after "ETA".  

That game called for you to go uptempo and jack up treys.  You knew your opponent would play 2-3 at 0.  So your 3 point shooters will be able to get open.  In fact, your team shot significantly better on 3pt shots than 2pt shots (45.5% to 41.9%)!  You've only got 1 post threat and nobody can pass well enough to get him the ball in the proper post-position.  So, I would tell you that your best entry pass would have been off the back iron.

That brings up the biggest issue on your team: no point guard.  I have one D3 zone team and it dawned on me at the beginning of the season that my guards all had blue or black passing ratings, but none had good initial ratings.  That team suffered for it (I'm still praying they develop a little more to save the season).  There are a bunch of threads running right now (most notably by the prolix gillespie) that discuss the effect of poor passing on team FG%.

Back to 3-2, I saw a short interview with Coach Knight that discussed the weakness of the 3-2 and the 1-3-1.  The gist was that a team playing the 3-2 is going have to choose whether to leave open the top of the key or the straightaway 3.  So, the 1-3-1 derives from deciding to switch from defending strong & weak post to defending high & low.  Too bad this game doesn't have that 1-3-1 trap defense as a defense played for teams with good press & zone IQs, but I digress.  In reality then, the weaknesses of the 3-2 in this sim are the weaknesses of a 1-2-2 zone.  Still though, we understand that the defensive abilities of the players are averaged across the 3 guards and across the 2 post defenders.  Vice versa with a 2-3.  

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.

That loss was a bit fugly. Im not a big fan of triangle with zone. I like SF at the 3 spot someone who can block some shots, rebound a bit also who's pretty athletic and quick.

I love triangle/zone. I've won two D2 titles with those sets and i think it's the perfect combination of sets if you like zone defense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running a 3-2 negative or a 2-3 +. In fact you absolutely should do this depending on your opponent. I run a lot of 3-2 (-2) as I feel it provides a great balance against the 3pt shot and inside scoring. You have to have the right guys though. I don't like 2-3 as much because the engine will let terrible 3pt shooters destroy you more often than not even when you go + in many cases. But I will use 2-3 if I'm facing a team that absolutely has no 3pt threats. I really hate going 3-2 + as you're already at a RB disadvantage and it's a perimeter D to begin with so I've come to notice 3-2 (0) is pretty effecient at stopping some of the best 3pt teams out there. (Hogstench is really good with zone and gave me great pointers) Really glad to see more zone guys out there. Keep at it and you'll find out what works best for you.

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.

The 3-2 is (or at least I think it is) inherently better than the 2-3 at defending the perimeter.   I am almost sure I read that in a developer chat but it could just be forum fact.

The 3-2 is basically a man +1 (or maybe +2, people say different things).  The difference between 3-2 or 2-3 is probably calculated the same way as the +/- settings.

If you have a defensive team and everyones DEF and ATH are 60.  The PF and C have a 60 block and the PG/SG/SF  have a 1 block.  Let's also say the bigs have a 1 speed and the perimeter players have a 60.

If you play a 3-2  your defense will be something like :

Wings 60/60/60/1 +1
Post 60/1/60/60 -1


If you play a 2-3 your defense would be something like

Wings 60/60/60/1 -1
Post 60/20/60/40 +1

If you're playing a team with two good inside post weapons it probably is beneficial to to go 3-2 -4 or something which gives you a +3 or something on the inside without reducing the block value.

Does that make sense?  

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!

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?

I don't have a good SF type guy (good Reb, Blk, ).  So with that being said, Should I stick with 3-2?  Or would playing a 2-3 hurt my inside Reb and Blk?  PG (61 def), SG (49 def.). PF (61 def) & C (49).  My SF is a 48 def., 2 Reb, and 1 Blk.  He won't hurt me def., but where should I play him 2-3 or 3-2?

Bragg, Romano seeing most of the shots is pretty good both players pretty solid. Hylton should see some more touches.

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?

That's an excellent question. If the guard is using lp to score, I would use the combo that gives you the best ath rating.