Hi,

I've been working on rebuilding the Rhode Island program in Knight, and I decided to try running zone since it doesn't require as much depth. Any decision to prefer 2-3 or 3-2 in any given game is going to depend on your opponent, but it is also going to depend on your own players and their abilities.

What personnel do you want at each position for running 3-2, and what personnel for running 2-3?

For anyone who has time to enlighten me, thanks!

There’s so much to this but I’ll start with one bit of advice. If you are going to run 2-3, your center stands alone. So a high ATH, REB, DEF, BLK player is crucial. All 4 of those ratings are crucial, you can’t really sacrifice any one. Fortunately there are plenty of these players to go around and if you disregard LP, you can get one for cheap that will likely stay all four years.

So if you're already committed to a zone/triangle setup, you might try to get your post offense from the 4 spot and emphasize defense and rebounding at the 5? That's helpful.

What kind of a SF do you need for each? Right now I'm primarily using a SG at the SF spot because I lack talent. With the understanding that it isn't optimal, is that more feasible with a 3-2? Is it ever plausible to play a PF at SF in either zone setup?

the SF skills is the key thing that shifts in the team composition from the 2-3 to the 3-2, although i do agree the 2nd biggest thing is the center.

all 5 players in zone contribute to the defense of every shot. the contribution of each player depends on really 2 factors, one being their position (in the 2-3 or 3-2), and two being the distance from the basket, of the shot.

in a 2-3, the 3 is being calculated on a SF/PF formula that basically favors forwards, so ath over speed, with significant but not huge value on blocking. a true SG playing the 3 is basically going to contribute poorly in that scenario. under a 3-2, the 3 is being calculated on a PG/SG/SF formula that favors speed over blocking and with a bit less emphasis on ath (ath is important to defense in all circumstances in all systems). a SG is going to do well defensively in the 3-2.

on the C front, in the 2-3, there's a PG-SG formula, a SF-PF formula, and a C formula. so while the C doesn't stand alone persay, its fine to think that way, and the C does get his defensive contributions calculated uniquely. that calculation turns heavily on block, more so than for any other situation in HD. because the block matters more, and because ath, def, reb are all very valuable, it is relatively normal to take your LP scoring at the 4. however, its also normal especially in d1 to just have a superior big, and to play him at the 5 and to get your scoring from there. either way is 100% fine.

anyway, all that said, i REALLY like to recruit good SFs in zone. i think there's substantial value being able to switch from the 3-2 to the 2-3. you always *can*, if its REALLY called for. i would run a 2-3 against a 0% 3pt team no matter my SF, most likely. but i really like to have the flexibility where i have a SF who is one of my better, more versatile players, particularly on defense. most of the time, if your SF has nice ath and speed, hes going to be strong all around, but not always. so i guess i'll say, a versatile defender at the 3 is the goal, but its just sort of natural that if you prioritize ath/spd both at the 3 and prioritize recruiting resources towards getting a strong 2-3 and 3-2 sf... that he'll end up being a strong scorer and stuff, too. i love those guys and the flexibility they bring! ath is much more important than speed for such players, not sure your division but a 95 ath/def 65 speed SF can be legend in high d1, while the reverse (65 ath, 95 speed, 95 defense), definitely is not.

SF is the position that changes the most from the 32 to the 23. The tweener forward is a great choice at SF when running the 23. For a rebuilding D1 team that probably looks something like ATH:80, SPD:50, REB:65, BLK: 60, BH/P:45. These type of players aren't super useful in many other sets so generally can be gotten for cheap in recruiting.

The 32 SF should be more guard-like. Generally thats speed of at least 60-65 at the expense of some REB/BLK. Rebounds are at a premium in the zone, so try to make sure that even in 32 both wing spots have some rebounding. As prestige increases, Its easier to find a SF that can be effective in both sets, but early on, its likely two different players.

BLK (and to a slightly lessor extent rebounding) are alot more important in zone than in other sets so put an emphasis on that for your posts and your 23 SF. Again, BLK isnt something that is hugely valuable to other defenses so sometimes its a cheaper recruiting cost. I can accept slightly lower DEF for a high BLK for a zone team so consider that a potential trade off when evaluating recruits.

Some people tend to highlight that players abilities are "averaged" so they try to get 1 really high DEF player to average with a lower DEF player. IMO this isnt a great strategy because it tends to leave you with two below average defenders. Also because the players that gets "averaged" switching between 32 and 23 its hard to always have the proper pair. In general, I think its better to not rely on the "average" and instead just try to trout out well rounded players (even if that means guys with fewer super skills).

i agree on the averaging. the supposed benefit of being able to 'hide' a bad defender, i don't look at as a benefit at all. its true that the other team can't target the bad defender, but he's contributing to every shot, always dragging down the average. in man its a double edged sword, but as the guy setting the defensive line, i feel like i often have the upper hand there, in trying to line up my bad defender against weaker scorers instead of having him staring into the lead scorers. it definitely hurts worse if that does happen, if my weak D guy ends up against their highest volume scorers, than zone would. but its *way* better than zone, if i can line my weaker D guy up against some non scorers. that to me is where you really have a shot at 'hiding' the bad defender.

my view of zone is that it uses the least depth, and therefore requires the most talented, most robust team among the top players. you have to have strong d, strong scoring, strong reb, strong guard bh/pass, to keep up with strong press and man teams. i feel like i can tolerate a weak defender less in zone than any scheme. not necessarily true in low to mid d1 but in high d1, absolutely true.

That really answers my questions! Thanks a lot!!