Two three can be very strong. You just need elite defensive guards.

Terps, you do the math : Parks is 231, Warren is 191, Basel, 178, Vazzie, 198

I start Parks at PF spot in 3-2, Warren at C, and I platoon Vazzie, maybe give some minutes to Basel or Allen. Parks is a stud.

But Warren goes C with his 98 block. If you play 2-3, his blk is even more important I think.

I don't understand why coaches are stuck on either a 3-2 or 2-3. The best part of zone is the versatility. You can definitely recruit players that will work well in both sets. This regular season in knight I played 9 games in 3-2 and 17 in 2-3.

Make the switch when it makes sense to make the switch. If you didn't it would be like a guy running man with a lockdown defender who can play 1-3 but only plays the 2 despite the opposing teams best player plays at the 3. You're giving up your advantage

Posted by milwood on 2/23/2015 9:32:00 PM (view original):
Always value defense more. Block is a very nice bonus, but it doesn't compare to defense, IMHO.

But hey, why compromise just get a guy with both.

i have actually recently been questioning if blk is the most important defensive category for big men in the zone, its a lot more important than i had realized. one case makes me wonder if sb even trumps ath and reb for a 5 in a 2-3. as of now i've adjusted my view on ratings so that sb=def in importance, still beind ath/reb, but am trying to watch it closely here on out.

Posted by milwood on 2/24/2015 7:43:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand why coaches are stuck on either a 3-2 or 2-3. The best part of zone is the versatility. You can definitely recruit players that will work well in both sets. This regular season in knight I played 9 games in 3-2 and 17 in 2-3.

Make the switch when it makes sense to make the switch. If you didn't it would be like a guy running man with a lockdown defender who can play 1-3 but only plays the 2 despite the opposing teams best player plays at the 3. You're giving up your advantage

agreed

What factors do you guys look for when going back and forth?  I almost exclusively play the 3-2.

I generally look to see if:

the team shoots a lot of 3's
which position is the lead scorer


If less than 10% of the FGA are 3FGA, sometimes I switch to the 2-3.
If a team's leading scorer (by alot) is a post player, I'll sometimes switch but more often play a bigger - or double team.

a lot of it depends on my team composition, if i run with a big sf, i generally run a 2-3, and with a guard sf, generally run a 3-2. so the deviations from the base depends on the opponent and also how suitable i think each option is for my team. usually if i have a guard sf who is like 90 ath/def i figure he can't really hurt me in the 2-3 and if i have a pf type sf who is like 90 ath 60 spd 90 def, i figure he can't hurt me in the 3-2. so then ill really just change it up by opponent - but that isn't always the case so how easily i change to suit the opponent definitely depends. it doesnt just depend on the 3 either, if i have a lower sb pf, i am more likely to play 2-3 to get him averaged with the sf, not the c.

note that all 5 players defend every shot in the zone, so you can't just think of it as the guards defending guards and such, but it is important to get guys averaged in ways that are desirable.

to me the biggest thing is the impact on 2pt% and 3pt%. 2-3 is easily the best 2pt defense in the game while the 3-2 is easily the best 3pt defense in the game. i think the +/- nature of playing more negative with a 3-2 than a 2-3 sort of rounds out the rebounding so mostly im just deciding if i want the 2pt defense or 3pt defense. if that desire is more important than the fundamentals of my team with respect to the 2-3/3-2, then i make the switch. 3pta is probably the biggest driver. my understanding is the defensive equations for zone include all 5 players and depend on the distance from the basket, of the shot - but not the player who is taking the shot. for that reason, i dont care if its their 1&2 or 1&3 or 2&3 who make a lot of 3s, i just care they make a lot of 3s. 

what if you have a guard type SF playing 3-2, how big effect to move to 2-3 but said player has low rebounding? Low as in 40ish for guard, which is prob good but to move him down low how big a disadvantage is it?  

Posted by milwood on 2/24/2015 7:43:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand why coaches are stuck on either a 3-2 or 2-3. The best part of zone is the versatility. You can definitely recruit players that will work well in both sets. This regular season in knight I played 9 games in 3-2 and 17 in 2-3.

Make the switch when it makes sense to make the switch. If you didn't it would be like a guy running man with a lockdown defender who can play 1-3 but only plays the 2 despite the opposing teams best player plays at the 3. You're giving up your advantage

I'm not stuck on 2-3 or 3-2. I just don't have the guards to play 3-2, I always go back and forth. So I hope that statement wasn't directed at me.

Nah, terps. I'm not calling anyone out. Ya gotta play the guys on your roster sometimes a 2-3 is the right way to go

I don't go back and forth not because I would not like it, it's often because my team was built 3-2 or 2-3... I truly think the roster is not the same depending on whether you go 3-2 or 2-3. If I had the depth, I'd switch more. I tend to play more players for my zone to upgrade them more rapidly.

Posted by milwood on 2/24/2015 5:05:00 PM (view original):
Nah, terps. I'm not calling anyone out. Ya gotta play the guys on your roster sometimes a 2-3 is the right way to go

Thanks,. I agree with you 100% that's why I went with zone with this team. I just can't get that lineup where I can go both. Either to many guard types or to many big men. Would you ever put a big man type at the 3 and run 3-2?

Posted by terps21234 on 2/24/2015 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 2/24/2015 5:05:00 PM (view original):
Nah, terps. I'm not calling anyone out. Ya gotta play the guys on your roster sometimes a 2-3 is the right way to go

Thanks,. I agree with you 100% that's why I went with zone with this team. I just can't get that lineup where I can go both. Either to many guard types or to many big men. Would you ever put a big man type at the 3 and run 3-2?

Ive only ever used a big at the 3 once, even while running the 2-3, Gerard Mahoney, I'd include a link but its before ratings were saved.  He was around an 80/70/100 ath/reb/def with subpar bh and pa for what I would like at the 3, maybe 45/45 bh/pa.  His speed however was only mid 30s.  That team did not perform the way i had hoped.

I have no problem, however, playing a guard with 1 rebounding at the 3 in a 2-3. I want my three to be able to handle the ball and pass for when I play those dreaded fcp teams.  You just dont find too many of those guys at DII, which is where I have a team.  This is probably why it is easy for meto switch back and forth from a 2-3 to a 3-2

Posted by chicomn on 2/24/2015 12:41:00 PM (view original):
what if you have a guard type SF playing 3-2, how big effect to move to 2-3 but said player has low rebounding? Low as in 40ish for guard, which is prob good but to move him down low how big a disadvantage is it?  

the 2-3 3-2 using different equations is for defense only, not rebounding

Posted by terps21234 on 2/24/2015 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 2/24/2015 5:05:00 PM (view original):
Nah, terps. I'm not calling anyone out. Ya gotta play the guys on your roster sometimes a 2-3 is the right way to go

Thanks,. I agree with you 100% that's why I went with zone with this team. I just can't get that lineup where I can go both. Either to many guard types or to many big men. Would you ever put a big man type at the 3 and run 3-2?

i would if he had solid speed with great ath/def, or something along those lines. a 90 ath/def 60 spd big in d1 at sf, i don't view that as a per def liability in the slightest. even with a slower big, if the 3pta of the opponent were really high, i'd probably go 3-2. but maybe 2-3 +3 or something. still not that sure about all this zone stuff to be honest.