Example.

Center X and PF Y have exactly the same ratings.

What will cause Center X to pick up more fouls.

2-3 Zone?
3-2 Zone?
Both the same?

In a 2-3, the C acts alone against the opposing C. The PF works in tandem with the SF.

In a 3-2, the C and PF work together in a tandem.

So it probably depends on matchups.

To add on what tecwrg said.... it could be the SF if you're playing 2-3.

you said they have equal ratings. Say those ratings are 50 in everything. Well if you're playing a 2-3 and your SF is 80s in everything, that would help boost your SF/PF tandem basically. Creating a situation where it seems the C is "worse", and likely fouls more.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/19/2019 9:20:00 PM (view original):
In a 2-3, the C acts alone against the opposing C. The PF works in tandem with the SF.

In a 3-2, the C and PF work together in a tandem.

So it probably depends on matchups.

Not exactly. In 2-3, the C has his own formula determining his defensive effectiveness in the zone. The PF and SF have a shared formula, and the PG and SG have a shared formula. I don’t know if this is what you meant, but some folks get the idea that the C is basically playing man against the opposing C, and that isn’t the case; at least that’s not what has been disclosed to us.

My answer to the question is that I haven’t noticed a discernible difference in frontcourt fouling tendencies between 2-3 and 3-2. If you have a guy with low-ish defense and elite rebounding and shot blocking, the best place for that guy is a C in a 2-3. The shot blocking in that position seems to be best utilized there. But as to whether he’ll pick up more fouls, I don’t know. My impression is that zone reduces fouls overall, but sometimes you end up with strange distribution, almost as if a superior defender gets in trouble covering for a guy with lower IQ or less defensive ability. But that’s speculation.

I thought the C was down low in BOTH defenses. The only difference is the placement of the SF.

So my answer is the 3-2.
Since
1) the SF is support the guards in the 3-2 and hes supporting the post players in the 2-3
2) the 3-2 causes more shots to be taken down low which puts more pressure on the C/PF
3) the 3-2 is weaker on rebounding so more fouls taken as a result of offensive put backs.

You are also more likely to play a minus defense with a 3-2, which should lead to more fouls.

I don’t run the 2-3 much but I can tell you this about the 3-2; the post defender with the lower defensive metic picks up more fouls. In my experience it’s about 25-35% more.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/20/2019 3:55:00 PM (view original):
I don’t run the 2-3 much but I can tell you this about the 3-2; the post defender with the lower defensive metic picks up more fouls. In my experience it’s about 25-35% more.

If there’s a wide difference, this can be true, though not as pronounced as in man or press.

If it’s something less than a wide difference, this really doesn’t hold true from what I’ve seen. Foul distribution in zone over the long term is more even than I’d expect.

ETA - IQ seems to be a bigger difference maker in terms of fouls in zone.

Posted by shoe3 on 1/20/2019 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/20/2019 3:55:00 PM (view original):
I don’t run the 2-3 much but I can tell you this about the 3-2; the post defender with the lower defensive metic picks up more fouls. In my experience it’s about 25-35% more.

If there’s a wide difference, this can be true, though not as pronounced as in man or press.

If it’s something less than a wide difference, this really doesn’t hold true from what I’ve seen. Foul distribution in zone over the long term is more even than I’d expect.

ETA - IQ seems to be a bigger difference maker in terms of fouls in zone.

Shoe, ETA means estimated time of arrival, not PSA, public service announcement.

"Edited To Add" = ETA

Posted by shoe3 on 1/20/2019 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 1/20/2019 3:55:00 PM (view original):
I don’t run the 2-3 much but I can tell you this about the 3-2; the post defender with the lower defensive metic picks up more fouls. In my experience it’s about 25-35% more.

If there’s a wide difference, this can be true, though not as pronounced as in man or press.

If it’s something less than a wide difference, this really doesn’t hold true from what I’ve seen. Foul distribution in zone over the long term is more even than I’d expect.

ETA - IQ seems to be a bigger difference maker in terms of fouls in zone.

I don’t what the rate is for press or man but I stand by my numbers.

I could probably search for this somewhere, but I'll just ask here since it's somewhat relevant...

What attribute correlates most to foul percentage? I know that post defenders need ath/def and perimeter denfenders need spd/def, but iveI noticed that guards with low ath seem to foul more. This was also in a press defense so that might explain the need for athleticism. But in a zone, is it a combination of attributes, and if so, do some weigh more than others (ath/spd versus def)? Let's assume IQ is equal.

Press is definitely ath for guards, probably for posts as well.

For Zone, shoe thinks IQ is really important, and he may be right, but I have found it really is an amalgamation of the core skills (ATH/SPD/DEF for wings and ATH/DEF/BLK for posts) and IQ. In my observations, the player in the zone with the lower composite score is more likely to draw the foul.

The equations I use are:

Wings: DEF 40%, SPD 35% ATH 25%
Posts: DEF 40% ATH 30% BLK 30%
Center (in 2-3): ATH/DEF/BLK 33%

Thanks for the info trentonjoe.