Are the 1-2 in 2-3 and the 1-2-3 in 3-2 pretty similar?

Hoping trentonjoe answers. He seems to know a bit about zone...

;)

I think so. Here's what I think the difference is:

In the 2-3, I think the 1-2 only are used to only (or mostly) cover 3 point shots. This is why speedy guards in the 2-3 do a real good job stopping 3 points shots.

In the 3-2 the 1-2-3 cover 3 point shots and mid range jumpers. Speed is a little less important.

I used to think WHO took the shot was important but now I am not so sure.

At some point I want to take a look at my high ATH high LP guards and see how they do against zone defenses. I do now that my zone teams tend to do well against the 2 point shooting driving type guards but that might for other reasons (defensive setting, good defense, just high ath cores, low LP score on the offense).

I just sent a ticket in to see if seble will confirm if this is right.

Thanks

I could be wrong but my understanding of the zone is that with the 2-3 the PG and SG are averaged together and the SF and PF. The C by themselves in the middle. For 3-2 the pg is by themselves, the sg and sf are grouped together and so are the pf and c. I could be wrong, I have only been able to make it to the f4 with zone teams. No titles.

Posted by kayan121110 on 1/9/2018 11:48:00 AM (view original):
I could be wrong but my understanding of the zone is that with the 2-3 the PG and SG are averaged together and the SF and PF. The C by themselves in the middle. For 3-2 the pg is by themselves, the sg and sf are grouped together and so are the pf and c. I could be wrong, I have only been able to make it to the f4 with zone teams. No titles.

The 3-2 is definitely the average of the PG-SG-SF....it's been confirmed by admin a few times.

Everything else is right as I understand it.