Been wondering about this all season, for the zone folks out there, who are you starting between these two options (thinking about 2-3 defense only):
Center 1: 42 ATH, 97 REB, 71 D, 90 BLK, 84 STA https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4808765
Center 2: 69 ATH, 71 REB, 69 D, 65 BLK, 79 STA https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=4888167

How does + 27 in Ath weigh against -26 in Reb and - 25 in Blk? Also, C #2's Ath still has potential, so if he's not already the starter, is there a point where Ath takes over? +35 say?

This doesn't exactly answer your question. But in your case, you don't have enough bigs really to play 2-3. So if you're playing 3-2, it doesn't matter which position you play them at. With the defensive metrics all being averaged, in 3-2 the "2" are basically the exact same position.

If you're playing 2-3 , THEN your question becomes what you're actually asking about. Because 2-3 is actually 2-2-1 with the C having stand alone values. While your SF/PF will be averaged together defensively. Having said that, REB/BLK is CRUCIAL in the Center position so I would have player 1 at C in that case. With it being D3, you can probably get away with the lower ATH in favor of that high REB that player 1 has in this case. But all this is only if you're playing 2-3

in 3-2 your bigs are bigs and are the same defensively no matter if you play them at PF or C

Posted by topdogggbm on 10/16/2021 1:01:00 PM (view original):
This doesn't exactly answer your question. But in your case, you don't have enough bigs really to play 2-3. So if you're playing 3-2, it doesn't matter which position you play them at. With the defensive metrics all being averaged, in 3-2 the "2" are basically the exact same position.

If you're playing 2-3 , THEN your question becomes what you're actually asking about. Because 2-3 is actually 2-2-1 with the C having stand alone values. While your SF/PF will be averaged together defensively. Having said that, REB/BLK is CRUCIAL in the Center position so I would have player 1 at C in that case. With it being D3, you can probably get away with the lower ATH in favor of that high REB that player 1 has in this case. But all this is only if you're playing 2-3

in 3-2 your bigs are bigs and are the same defensively no matter if you play them at PF or C

Right, I should have specified for the 2-3. Which is exclusively what I run. I am curious about that stand alone C role.

everything dogg said is completely accurate conclusions wise, as far as your questions go, but i do want to kinda clarify one item. in the zone all 5 defenders are averaged for every shot.

the difference is what formula those players' abilities are calculated with, on the defensive side of things. as he said, in a 2-3, there are 3 equations used, a pg-sg equation, a sf-pf equation, and a c equation. the C equation in the 2-3 relies heavily on block - so heavily that i question if it actually surpasses defense in importance? which would generally be an exception because there's virtually no scenario in HD where defense is not the #1 defensive attribute. i'm not saying blk for the 2-3 c is the most important - just that its close enough, that i question it.

in the 3-2 there's a pg-sg-sf equation which basically treats them all as guards, and a pf-c equation which is more big-like than the sf-pf equation in the 2-3, but i don't think it goes as far as the C equation in the 2-3, which feels sort of like a unique artifact to me.

but i also am not very good with zone... its the only set i don't have multiple titles with, and i don't have much intention of ever changing that. so i can't really give a nuanced view of things like i can with most other setups. still, to your question - your two listed guys in the 2-3 - i think its a no-brainer to go with the reb/blk guy. i hate playing that low of ath players in general, but rebounding is up there with ath on its own (ath > reb for scorers, for non-scorers, reb >= ath, generally speaking. not always). so with it being a 2-3 center i think its an easy choice.

i will say though - open yourself to the 3-2. the 2-3 tends to be better for not as good teams, but 3-2 becomes very competitive for the better teams. on my best zone teams i tend to run mostly 3-2. the reality of zone teams is a lot of times, the players dictate which you should play. its great when you have a sweet SF in zone and can freely switch, sweet well rounded SFs in zone can be huge. there is no better 3pt defense than the 3-2, and its really not close. the 2-3 is also the best 2pt defense. you give up rebounding and turnovers, which makes zone probably the hardest set to win championships with (piman has had some great zone teams, i would go find those and study them). you don't have to do this now, but if you really want to be a great zone coach, eventually you'll need to work the 3-2 into your arsenal - i think, anyway.

My weighted user role player ratings have player 1 at 68.7, player 2 at 64.1, so player 1 is better all around by my count. If you were playing something other than FB and 2-3 zone, I’d give 2 more credit.