The difference between 50 and 80 speed for a sf is significant, but more so on offense than in a zone defense which (IMO) de-emphasizes speed a little everywhere. The difference between 80 and 100 at both ath and def is much more significant, I think. The first guy is absolutely an elite player defensively (even more so if he has 50+ rebounding). The second guy is useful, and flexible (and usually cheaper to acquire which isn't insignificant), but not an elite D1 defender.

If the discussion was expanded to include offensive considerations, it gets a lot more interesting.

I think the defense rating is added in zone so it's ath+spd+def, with def, ath, spd being in order of importance ... For 3-2. The only thing 80 will maybe do more is get steals, not even sure. And we are not checking scoring stats but SF seems to be a position where speed is less important when it comes to scoring.

A 3-2 setup is asking the SF to guard the perimeter with the guards. A 2-3 is asking the SF to guard the low block. Speed matters a bit more on the perimeter. So for a SF playing in a 3-2, speed matters a little more than it does for a SF playing in a 2-3. Still less than it matters for man or press. And ath and def matter more.

But it's added... So yeah, sf in 2-3 will change spd for blk but it is still averaged per defender, with def having more value, then ath, then spd (blk), then avg in the 3 or in the 2-3 (2-2-1)

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/3/2017 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Good then you know how it works. The first thing is deciding if your C can stand alone. Then you have to decide if you're better off in 3-2 or 2-3. So you know the ratings of the guards/PF should matter when deciding 2-3/3-2. If you're going 2-3 and the PF is OK athletically, slower than a rock but a 100 defender, do you not think a faster SF would be a better match?

That may be one way to figure out zone defense but it isn't the only and I don't think it's the best.

For this particular thread, if you're not trying to figure out your best defensive grouping, I'm not sure what you're asking.

Are you simply asking "Who's the better defender in zone?" Because, if that's the question, I'm not sure why you're playing zone. IMO, zone is a "group" defense. And, if you accept that premise, the other defenders matter when figuring out "who's best".

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/3/2017 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Good then you know how it works. The first thing is deciding if your C can stand alone. Then you have to decide if you're better off in 3-2 or 2-3. So you know the ratings of the guards/PF should matter when deciding 2-3/3-2. If you're going 2-3 and the PF is OK athletically, slower than a rock but a 100 defender, do you not think a faster SF would be a better match?

That may be one way to figure out zone defense but it isn't the only and I don't think it's the best.

For this particular thread, if you're not trying to figure out your best defensive grouping, I'm not sure what you're asking.

Are you simply asking "Who's the better defender in zone?" Because, if that's the question, I'm not sure why you're playing zone. IMO, zone is a "group" defense. And, if you accept that premise, the other defenders matter when figuring out "who's best".

Not really since 100-50-100 has 10 more points and the 100*2 which an intangible. Plus, def, ath more important than spd, another intangible.

If you want to go 2-3, you need to get rid of spd and change it to blk, which is not in Trenton question.

I don't think it's as simple as adding three numbers together. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it. I just don't think so since zone D works in groupings not individuals.

There are lots of ways to think about team construction and gameplanning with zone. That's it's primary beauty, IMO. There is no set "right way". If I think a team is going to try and mostly score down low, I can load up the low block in a 2-3 with 2 athletic defending forwards, and a center who can rebound, disrupt, and block shots. I don't *need* to worry about averaging anything out. Likewise, if I think a team is going to try to go bombs away, I can play 3-2 while still maintaining a slight negative or 0 setting, putting my best perimeter defenders on the court, with two athletic defenders/rebounders down low. Again, I'm not necessarily thinking about averaging at all, even though I know there is some averaging in how the pbp will work out, how shots are taken and made, fouls drawn, etc. But if I want to think about "hiding" a weak defender who has some other skill I want to employ - like a distributor in a 3-2, or a weak D Center in a 2-3 - I can do that, too. And then I am probably thinking about averages.

I go back and forth on 2-3 v 3-2 with these guys - esp the SF (sorry, I cant get headings to lineup, but you know them)


A SPD REB DE BK LP PE BH P WE

Fr.	C	65	21	93	62	83	82	19	3	26	52
Sr/5	SF	95	55	80	99	61	83	39	82	70	67
Fr.	C	71	33	74	72	74	62	17	21	42	73
Sr.	C	65	20	74	81	69	39	36	21	46	75
Jr.	PF	100	33	73	100	72	56	44	57	12	80
Fr.	C	63	11	70	54	64	64	4	10	15	59
Fr.	PF	63	42	59	68	36	67	42	54	40	52
So.	SF	69	52	53	75	38	75	57	29	50	69
So.	SG	96	79	37	89	26	73	72	85	69	56
So.	PG	95	81	33	87	20	1	65	90	72	82
Jr.	PG	50	89	11	57	12	1	82	88	58	51
Jr.	PG	82	91	1	81	2	15	89	88	78	47
-	-	76	51	55	77	46	52	47	52	48	64

the SF has great REB - which leads me to think 2-3, especially since my bigs are not great REB

BUT, the SF also has great DEF which helps bring up the DEF of our guards in a 3-2....

I dont know...

Interested in opinions

I don't think your C are 2-3 C in D1. Using my D2 team, I'd lower my 3pt shooting, jack up the dist with my 2 C and go at that 65/20 ATH/SPD guy. I think he's in foul trouble immediately.

I agree - our bigs have a major problem. when I play a 2-3, I put the PF with 100 ATH and 100 DEF at the 5 spot. Wish he had better REB and BK, but he's our best.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):
I don't think it's as simple as adding three numbers together. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it. I just don't think so since zone D works in groupings not individuals.

I agree. Zone D is based upon your averages of the 5 players on the floor. If I am wrong about this, I am open to being corrected.

If I run a 3-2 zone with the following players on the floor
PG: 50 ATH, 88 SPD, 53 DEF, B+ IQ
SG: 67 ATH, 73 SPD, 79 DEF, B- IQ
SF: 88 ATH, 54 SPD, 91 DEF, B IQ
My perimeter defense is 68 ATH, 71 SPD, 74 DEF, B IQ (average of all 3 guys).

This is why you can *potentially* hide an awful defender in zone, if the other players are amazing defenders. If I run a 3-2 with a PG and SG who have a 100 DEF rating, my SF can have a DEF rating of 40 and all three of them will play as if they have a DEF rating of 80 ((100+100+40)/3).

That's how I understand is well. Ideally, you're not hiding guys but, in your example, I might be willing to run that because my SF is 85/85 PER/LP and he's my scorer.

There's really no wrong answer here. Without knowing the attributes of the PG, SG, PF and C, a case could be made for anything. It's an interesting discussion but there was too little information given at the outset.

I took exception to the "That's all the info I need" response.