Good point.  All 3 games I was fouling less than their typical opponent.  The third one was the closes (22 to 23.2)

For the several years I've been playing this game, I haven't seen any evidence that the 3-2 zone stops high percentage 3 pt shooting.

Look at my Redlands team.    We played Occidental (SIM) twice recently.  

When we ran a 2-3 they shot 26 3FGA and hit 27%
When we ran a 3-2 they shot 13 3FGA and hit 16%.

Posted by thewizard17 on 2/15/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):
For the several years I've been playing this game, I haven't seen any evidence that the 3-2 zone stops high percentage 3 pt shooting.

It won't minus having the defensive qualities you need to stop it anyway. But presuming you have those qualities, yes, it does help.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 2/15/2014 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Look at my Redlands team.    We played Occidental (SIM) twice recently.  

When we ran a 2-3 they shot 26 3FGA and hit 27%
When we ran a 3-2 they shot 13 3FGA and hit 16%.

I think part of it is because your team is more defensive minded. With my team, we have several options on offense to go to, not to mention we run the flex, where the positions are interchangeable. There could be several factors that come into play, but as a team we've always burned the teams that have gone 3-2 zone from the perimeter. Also, don't forget, even with a 3-2, the corners are wide open, where as if you go 2-3 the wings are open from the perimeter.

D2 leaders in Tark for 3-point percentage allowed are both running zone.

St. Thomas Aquinas (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12226) - 25.3%

USML (http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12162) - 27.4%

Posted by zbrent716 on 2/12/2014 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by arssanguinus on 2/12/2014 5:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 2/11/2014 7:53:00 PM (view original):

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).

A couple people have touched on this, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents (as someone who plays exclusively zone).

There are certainly some exceptions, but as a general rule I use positioning to counter where the shots come from (+/- for 2 point land vs 3 point land) and 3/2 vs 2/3 to counter who the scoring comes from (backcourt vs frontcourt), especially when I have a defensive stopper at the 3 (which is always my goal, like this guy).

So, in instances where someone is guard-heavy on the scoring, but from driving/non-3s, I'm quite likely to go 3/2 with a negative number (again, as a general rule - I start from that and then make adjustments as warranted by the opponent).

In other words, you are saying in your concept of the zone you use the three two vs the two three to decide whether the small forward is helping out against the guards or the post?

 

Generally, in my mind on double teams, if I want to be double teaming a post player in a zone I want to do it out of the two three and if I want to double a guard out of a zone I do it with a three two.  Of course, much depends in the zone on the quality of your players.  For example, if you have two really really solid or even excellent post defenders and somewhat weaker guards you might actually want to run a base three two - so that extra defender is there to help out your weaker guards more.  If your guards are exceptional defenders and your posts weak, you may want the opposite.
 

Essentially yes. Provided I have a very strong and versatile defender for the SF spot, I (generally) decide to use 3-2 if I am more concerned about scoring from opposing guards and 2-3 if I am more concerned about scoring from the PF/C.

It seems I have less faith than some of you in the complexity of the sim when it comes to double-teams (in a zone or otherwise, I suspect) and have great doubts about whether the engine actually identifies the player coming to double and adjusts effectiveness based on his skill set and the positioning of his teammates.

I've been running my zone the same way for years. If they score more in the paint, but score mostly with guards, I'll sag a 3-2.

Posted by thewizard17 on 2/15/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):
For the several years I've been playing this game, I haven't seen any evidence that the 3-2 zone stops high percentage 3 pt shooting.

Most seasons, my team is one of the best in the conference vs 3 pt %