Quite a while ago one of the greats of the game shared with  me a tip that 3-2 should be played minus  normally. (-2) referred to as the base set and the 2-3 should be +, (  +2 ) base set. I'm not sure in my mind I have ever really understood why. I think of 3-2 as being effective against the 3 so my thinking would be +...what are other thoughts. I guess it could have to do with the reb weakness in a zone and a teams inability to get back. Just wondering...

I have always shot well on the perimeter against the 3-2 zone, however maybe the type of offense may have something to do with it.

The basic idea is that the +2 2-3 will have the same basic balance of effectiveness as a man or press played at 0 (ie inside vs outside D) while a -2 3-2 will have that same balance.

I always thought that a 2/3 was kind of like -1, and a 3/2 was kind of like +1 if you were playing man. But that was just my thought. Do most coaches think it is +2 or -2. I often play a 3/2 zone at Emory and go -1 or -2, especially if the opponent has a guy or two that is strong inside. I want to make sure they can't just ram the ball inside at will, but the 3/2 still helps cover the perimeter. This especially works if my guards and SF are fast.  If the opponent only has one really good perimeter shooter, I would probably go 2/3 and 0, and then double team the good perimeter shooter.

I view it is +1 and -1, chapelhillne, but that's just a gut feeling. I have no data to back it up. However, when I do play the 3-2 zone, I tend to go +1 or +2 to defend the 3 ball. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/11/2011 9:44:00 PM (view original):
I view it is +1 and -1, chapelhillne, but that's just a gut feeling. I have no data to back it up. However, when I do play the 3-2 zone, I tend to go +1 or +2 to defend the 3 ball. 

when I do play the 3-2 zone, I tend to go +1 or +2 to defend the 3 ball.


That would be my thinking as well so I have always struggled the reasoning behind the greats advice of minus for 3-2 and plus for 2-3. I can see cases where the 2-3 + would be fine, but 3-2 with a minus seems odd to me.

Posted by graham1 on 10/11/2011 10:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tianyi7886 on 10/11/2011 9:44:00 PM (view original):
I view it is +1 and -1, chapelhillne, but that's just a gut feeling. I have no data to back it up. However, when I do play the 3-2 zone, I tend to go +1 or +2 to defend the 3 ball. 

when I do play the 3-2 zone, I tend to go +1 or +2 to defend the 3 ball.


That would be my thinking as well so I have always struggled the reasoning behind the greats advice of minus for 3-2 and plus for 2-3. I can see cases where the 2-3 + would be fine, but 3-2 with a minus seems odd to me.

I don't really know why you would go 3-2 -2 either, because that means your guards are sagging back and allowing alot of 3s. I run the 3-2 against teams with a guard heavy offense, taking alot of 3s. Putting up a -2 is a little counter intuitive for me. Perhaps the 3-2 -2 works against a guard heavy offense in which the guards don't shoot 3s?

I run 3-2 -3 or so against guard heavy offenses that don't shoot many 3s.

Posted by tkimble on 10/11/2011 11:41:00 PM (view original):
I run 3-2 -3 or so against guard heavy offenses that don't shoot many 3s.

This works very well.  And a - 3-2 helps negate the rebounding issues the 3-2 inherently creates.

Why not just run a 2-3 then?

I might be off base here, but I view the zone slightly different than others. Consider who their top scorers are. If their top scorers are guards, then you would play the 3-2 to focus your attack on perimeter players regardless if they shoot 3s. If their guards are the top scorers, but they don't shoot a lot of 3s, then they are mid range shooters or slashers and you might go 3-2 (-2). If they score in the paint a lot, then they are slashers and you might go to a 3-2 (-3 or -4). 

Vice versa for big men with the 2-3. Of course this is a sim, so that logic might not apply, but it's just a thought. 

Yeah, that's more real life logic, not so much in this sim.

I've played a lot of zone, and I imagine that the idea is that the 3-2 at a -2 balances out the largest disadvantage of that zone type, i.e. having only two rebounders near the basket.  I think people overthink the -2 thing a bit, particularly if your guards and SF are faster than the opposition.  There is no reason they can't close out to shooters.  Speed is underrated in the zone defense I think.

The 2-3 zone has natural "holes" on the perimeter, so unless you extend the zone, it is just more difficult to defend the 3.  I've always found extending the 2-3 zone to some +X works well, provided I have some good defenders at SF, PF, and especially C if the zone gets penetrated.

Thus, I think the reason you might have heard that the 3-2 (-2) and 2-3 (+2) zones are conventional wisdom is that those are natural attempts to mitigate the large disadvantage of each zone type.  For the 3-2, it is rebounding, so sag.  For the 2-3, it is perimeter shooting, so extend.  All of this is subject to change, of course, depending on your team and your opponent.  I would say they are not bad starting points.