Perhaps bonus is a poor choice of words. I suppose my riddle is ulimately this:

Say You are running a 2-3, with 60's across the board in all relevant ratings and abilities...

what impact would a 3rd player (with the same 60 in core defensive abilities) have on perimeter defense? The average remains unaffected, but there is theoretically more "help".

Decreases shots

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/16/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 5/16/2014 10:40:00 AM (view original):
I don't see it as a bonus, I see it as upping the average. 

I don't know that spacing or defenders in the area are taken into account in the engine.  Well, too an extent that's +/-, but in theory a man playing + and a 3-2 playing + or 0 is the bonus.  That brings up the debate of is a 3-2 really man +2 or whatever.  

I think I just talked on both sides lol.

(I just realized I quoted the wrong post, this is more in response to beefburglars)

This is what I think.   I don't know if this is general consensus but some off it probably is:

1. A 3-2 limits 3FGA.  It also decrease the rate they go in.
2. The 2-3 increases 3FGA.   It also increases their success rate.
3. The 3-2 has a positive defensive effect against guards who score.
4. The 2-3 has a negative defensive effect  for guard scoring.
5.  Number 1 may just be an example of #3.
6. A 3-2 (0) and a 2-3 (+2) are about the same.   I think there will be less 3FGA's in the 3-2 but the success rate will probably be lower in the 2-3.
7. IIn a nut shell,  I think just having the extra defender  prevents shots.   His defensive metrics influence if the shot goes in.

Thanks Joe. Yeah my thoughts definitely leaned in a lot of those directions.

3 & 7 are definitely the heart of what I was trying to dig at - The concept of a "positive defensive effect against guards who score". Poking around to see how people interpret the weight of the "effect"

The part in 7 about "the extra defender  prevents shots". This is probaby part of the answer i was searching for. Somehow I had never really noticed. Makes a lot of sense. And seems to be very true.

"6. ...I think there will be less 3FGA's in the 3-2 but the success rate will probably be lower in the 2-3."

Have you noticed a lower 3pt shot success rate vs. a 2-3 zone? Am I reading that wrong?

Posted by beefburglar on 5/16/2014 11:42:00 AM (view original):

"6. ...I think there will be less 3FGA's in the 3-2 but the success rate will probably be lower in the 2-3."

Have you noticed a lower 3pt shot success rate vs. a 2-3 zone? Am I reading that wrong?

i think you are reading it right, but i disagree. i have just barely started to scratch the surface on zone, but when i looked at our 3-2 vs 2-3 setup in some detail, the 2pt% advantage of the 2-3, and the 3pt% advantage of the 3-2, were substantial. 3-2 didn't limit 3s as much though.

in general, many coaches have made comments like "a 2-3 +2 is a 3-2 -1", but i don't think it works like that at all. it might roughly even out in some places, and its not a bad thing to use to approximate the effectiveness of 3 point defense, but i definitely wouldn't equate the two.

seble didn't comment, but i think it is clear that even a less than average defender at the 3 (compared to the guys at the 1 and 2) increases 3 point defense when playing a 3-2. 

Posted by beefburglar on 5/16/2014 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/16/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by guyo26 on 5/16/2014 10:40:00 AM (view original):
I don't see it as a bonus, I see it as upping the average. 

I don't know that spacing or defenders in the area are taken into account in the engine.  Well, too an extent that's +/-, but in theory a man playing + and a 3-2 playing + or 0 is the bonus.  That brings up the debate of is a 3-2 really man +2 or whatever.  

I think I just talked on both sides lol.

(I just realized I quoted the wrong post, this is more in response to beefburglars)

This is what I think.   I don't know if this is general consensus but some off it probably is:

1. A 3-2 limits 3FGA.  It also decrease the rate they go in.
2. The 2-3 increases 3FGA.   It also increases their success rate.
3. The 3-2 has a positive defensive effect against guards who score.
4. The 2-3 has a negative defensive effect  for guard scoring.
5.  Number 1 may just be an example of #3.
6. A 3-2 (0) and a 2-3 (+2) are about the same.   I think there will be less 3FGA's in the 3-2 but the success rate will probably be lower in the 2-3.
7. IIn a nut shell,  I think just having the extra defender  prevents shots.   His defensive metrics influence if the shot goes in.

Thanks Joe. Yeah my thoughts definitely leaned in a lot of those directions.

3 & 7 are definitely the heart of what I was trying to dig at - The concept of a "positive defensive effect against guards who score". Poking around to see how people interpret the weight of the "effect"

The part in 7 about "the extra defender  prevents shots". This is probaby part of the answer i was searching for. Somehow I had never really noticed. Makes a lot of sense. And seems to be very true.

i actually completely disagree with this mentality... that the extra defender prevents shots, but his defense metrics influence if the shot goes in. the latter part, yeah, i think that is going to be true regardless. but i don't think the extra defender is just preventing shots, neither from 2 or 3, as much as shifting the scale for fg%/3pt%. so like, for example, a defense value of 5 vs an offense value of 6 (in an incredibly simplistic view of the world - although the engine likely gets to that point eventually, itself), you might see a 2pt% of 53% if you play 3-2, and 47% in the 2-3. whatever the numbers are, i have no idea, but i think even with a worse defender being thrown into the 3 part, whichever it is, within reason, hes going to help defense, in terms of fg% or 3pt%. maybe a walkon would hurt, but even players of the wrong "type" (guard in 2-3 or big in 3-2) seem to help on the %.

i had theorized similarly, but it never seemed to work out like that for my teams. also, when i dug into the data deeply for our oh st team last season (i had a few drinks and wrote a program to facilitate pulling out certain data from games, i still copy paste parts in, its really an ugly hack, but it did let me look at statistics about the game that are not evident just from looking at the stat line - i wouldn't call it "advanced statistics", but still, stuff you can't readily see, to facilitate comparisons), it just didn't look that way. i plan to look at future seasons the same way, with different sets of players it might play out differently, but we had a good variety of 2/3 3/2 and guard/big playing that 3 spot, it was pretty interesting. also, the rebounding impact of the 3/2 vs 2/3 was not what i expected (i expected it to be substantial, it was not, but this is definitely looking at limited sample size, i didn't even put in all the crappy games vs sims, i looked at like maybe low 20s number of games, thats it)

Are you saying that the 3-2 doesn't limit 3 FGA  or that it not only limits 3FGA but also decreases 3FG%?

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2729620. Would this guy be better in 3-2 or 2-3 as a SF?

Posted by terps21234 on 6/20/2014 7:14:00 PM (view original):
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=2729620. Would this guy be better in 3-2 or 2-3 as a SF?

I would think that with his speed, he would be better in the 2-3, but he can likely play in both.  But, I am just experimenting with the zone right now too and only have really been paying attention to zone for 3 or 4 seasons.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/16/2014 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Are you saying that the 3-2 doesn't limit 3 FGA  or that it not only limits 3FGA but also decreases 3FG%?

i think its both. i also think some short term results had me not realizing how big the difference was on 3pta, the 3-2 and 2-3 are definitely very different in terms of 3pta, but 2pt% and 3pt% are also clearly affected as well. its pretty interesting... but so far my feeling is a 3-2 minus and 2-3 plus are not anywhere close to the same, as many have suggested - but not for the reason i thought, the type of SF seems to matter less than i thought, but it also might just be that a player with good ratings makes that the case (where a good guard still calculates well under the sf/pf ratings, and a good ath/def sf still calculates well under the guard def ratings). going to be another season or two before i feel i have a firm enough grip to give a clear opinion on the summary of how each defense affects the game.

Great read here, especially since I am turning to zone for my team.  The SF is going to be very tricky.  I am going to see if I can't put a formula together for the different spots of zone (in a 2-3; 1/2/3, 4/5 - in a 3/2 1/2, 3,4, 5).  From guys that have tried and started to figure out the zone, in a 2-3, does your 4 act more like a 3?  Or vice versa?

Also, correct me if I am wrong as I am putting this formula together.  The 1/2 in a 2-3 are essentially the same as the 1/2/3 in a 3-2, same as the 5 in a 2-3 is essentially the same as the 4/5 in a 3-2.  Is that correct?  Way off?  In my mind that seems right.  The 3/4 in a 2-3 is where I am having to burn some extra brain cells.

So under this set you would say that basically in a 2-3 the 3 and 4 play the part of the four and the five stands alone? Is that how i should be reading it? Hih is to say, if you are trying to hide a subpar defender in a 2-3, you do NOT want to try to hide him at center.

all 5 players are averaged together in defense of every shot. its just that the groups of players run off the same formula. so in the 2-3, the pg/sg have one formula, the sf/pf have another, and the c has a third. but then all 5 are averaged in to defend each shot. the formulas for each group change with the distance from the basket though so its not like a c's sb is super important in defending a 3, like it is defending a layup.

So I'm thinking for your sf/pf in a 2-3, it sounds like you want them more of a sf skill set who can rebound