Is there a certain statistic you guys look for when making the determination between 2-3 and 3-2? For instance, you would use a 2-3 unless a team takes X% of their shots for 3, and then you always use 3-2?

If they're getting 20% of their points from three, I'd switch from a 2-3 +2 to a 3-2 -2.

I actually do it by my personel.  I prefer a 2-3 with an athletic SF playing down in the zone.  But if I had a really fast SF who wasn't the strongest rebounder, I'd probably go 3-2.

corn I don't think I understand your post. Is a 3-2 at -2 better at stopping the three than a 2-3 at +2?

The team I am playing against scores nearly 40% of their points from 3 according to the quick math I did.

^tkimble, my starting SF is athletic but not especially fast, and not a great rebounder. what would you say in that case?

2-3 for sure.  He doesn't have the speed to play out on the perimeter in a 3-2.

so maybe something like a 2-3 at +2 since they score such a large percentage of shots from 3?

I use 33% of shots from 3-point range as a rough guideline, then factor in a few other things before I make a decision (distro, RB, FG3% vs FG).

For a team that scores 40% of its points from 3, I'd almost certainly go 3-2.

Posted by pjbrankin on 8/5/2010 10:29:00 PM (view original):
corn I don't think I understand your post. Is a 3-2 at -2 better at stopping the three than a 2-3 at +2?

The team I am playing against scores nearly 40% of their points from 3 according to the quick math I did.

I think 3-2 at -2 is slightly more perimeter-focused than the 2-3 +2.  So I go (2-3) -2, (2-3) -1, (2-3) 0, (2-3) +1, (2-3) +2, (3-2) -2, (2-3) -1, (2-3) 0, (2-3) +1...

I would very rarely play a 2-3 at more than a +2 or +3 or a 3-2 at more than a -2 or a -3.  But that's just me - I've only had one season with the zone, though I did do well.

St. Scholastica scores 39.0% of their points from beyond the arc - I wouldn't be afraid to play a 3-2 +1.  That is, assuming that teamarete doesn't use the forums.  If he does, I'd be afraid to play anything.

Posted by tkimble on 8/5/2010 10:19:00 PM (view original):
I actually do it by my personel.  I prefer a 2-3 with an athletic SF playing down in the zone.  But if I had a really fast SF who wasn't the strongest rebounder, I'd probably go 3-2.

Let me get this straight - if you have a guard at SF (and are therefore weak in REB) you play a 3-2, which hurts your rebounding?  There's playing to your strengths, and then there's that - I feel like you should only be giving up on the REB battle entirely when you're a heavy underdog.

Posted by tkimble on 8/5/2010 10:40:00 PM (view original):
2-3 for sure.  He doesn't have the speed to play out on the perimeter in a 3-2.

I assume we're talking about Larry Knight here.  

I totally disagree tkimble, he is plenty fast enough for D3.

I just looked at your matchup.  I would absolutely play 3-2 for that matchup.  Every factor I look at says 3-2.

^thanks guys. and yes, let's hope teamarete doesn't use the forums ha

Posted by cornfused on 8/5/2010 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 8/5/2010 10:19:00 PM (view original):
I actually do it by my personel.  I prefer a 2-3 with an athletic SF playing down in the zone.  But if I had a really fast SF who wasn't the strongest rebounder, I'd probably go 3-2.

Let me get this straight - if you have a guard at SF (and are therefore weak in REB) you play a 3-2, which hurts your rebounding?  There's playing to your strengths, and then there's that - I feel like you should only be giving up on the REB battle entirely when you're a heavy underdog.

In my experience (talking D-III here), he's correct though, as crazy as it sounds -- if the player's weak at rebounding, its better to play him on the perimeter as part of the 3-2 and take the defensive bump vs. the 3, especially if the player is also capable of picking up some steals. If you have two solid rebounders at the PF and C slots, you don't necessarily need the third rebounder IMO as long as you're not at a HUGE disadvantage in the category. If you have high Ath and Spd ratings, you can get away with the 3-2 a bit more as your '3' will run down balls and rebound that way. It's been my primary defense for going on 5 seasons now (with a halfcourt press) and I've outrebounded my opponents in 3 of the last 4 seasons...admittedly, I'll drop to a 2-3 if I'm at a significant disadvantage or if my opponent plays a second C in the PF position (or, now under the new engine, if the PF ratings look like that of a C...), but the 3-2 is my base unless something demands I adapt.

I've probably had less than a dozen total games where I got lit up on the boards (out-rebounded by 10+) and in at least two of those, I still won because my opponent had a hideous FG percentage.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive...I was told part of the reason is because the program looks at the "average" value in a zone defense, so pulling the weak rebounder up to the 3 actually increases the avg. reb. value for the remaining '2' down low, where the bulk of your rebounds will fall. Maybe I was fed a load of BS...I just know its worked well for me.

Posted by rednu on 8/6/2010 12:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cornfused on 8/5/2010 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tkimble on 8/5/2010 10:19:00 PM (view original):
I actually do it by my personel.  I prefer a 2-3 with an athletic SF playing down in the zone.  But if I had a really fast SF who wasn't the strongest rebounder, I'd probably go 3-2.

Let me get this straight - if you have a guard at SF (and are therefore weak in REB) you play a 3-2, which hurts your rebounding?  There's playing to your strengths, and then there's that - I feel like you should only be giving up on the REB battle entirely when you're a heavy underdog.

In my experience (talking D-III here), he's correct though, as crazy as it sounds -- if the player's weak at rebounding, its better to play him on the perimeter as part of the 3-2 and take the defensive bump vs. the 3, especially if the player is also capable of picking up some steals. If you have two solid rebounders at the PF and C slots, you don't necessarily need the third rebounder IMO as long as you're not at a HUGE disadvantage in the category. If you have high Ath and Spd ratings, you can get away with the 3-2 a bit more as your '3' will run down balls and rebound that way. It's been my primary defense for going on 5 seasons now (with a halfcourt press) and I've outrebounded my opponents in 3 of the last 4 seasons...admittedly, I'll drop to a 2-3 if I'm at a significant disadvantage or if my opponent plays a second C in the PF position (or, now under the new engine, if the PF ratings look like that of a C...), but the 3-2 is my base unless something demands I adapt.

I've probably had less than a dozen total games where I got lit up on the boards (out-rebounded by 10+) and in at least two of those, I still won because my opponent had a hideous FG percentage.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive...I was told part of the reason is because the program looks at the "average" value in a zone defense, so pulling the weak rebounder up to the 3 actually increases the avg. reb. value for the remaining '2' down low, where the bulk of your rebounds will fall. Maybe I was fed a load of BS...I just know its worked well for me.

I understood the "average" value in a zone theory to apply to defense, not to rebounding.

If, in fact, you are correct and it applies to rebounding as well, there would almost never seem to be a time to play a 2-3 if you have a true small forward or a PF playing SF who wasn't dominant on the glass.

If you have a weak rebounding SF, as you discussed above, it makes sense to play the 3-2.

If you have a relatively strong rebounding SF (like my SF Ryan Tooley) it still makes more sense (for rebounding) to play the 3-2. Though Tooley is a good rebounder, the 3 guys who log the most minutes at the 4/5 for me are better, so having Tooley play SF in a 2-3 would decrease the "average" value (if it really worked that way). At the same time, Tooley being a plus rebounder would significantly raise the rebounding "average" of the 3 perimeter players in a 3-2.

So, again, if it really relies on the "average" for rebounding as well, you'd end up with a better rebounding team when you played a 3-2 rather than a 2-3, whether you had a relatively strong or a relatively wesk rebounding SF.

Somehow that just doesn't make sense to me, so I suspect (and hope) that it doesn't work that way.