How do people deal with positioning for both the 2-3 and 3-2 zones? I've been looking at it as if 3-2 was= to +2 man, and 2-3 was = to -2 but I'm starting to think that maybe that is wrong...?

2-3 is really 2-2-1(C). If your C is weak defensively, you're probably better off running a 3-2.

I run my 3-2 based on how the other team plays. If they're strong inside, I may go -5. If they're firing up threes like a stoner firing up doobies at a Great Dead concert, I'll go +3. I've never gone +4 or +5. I don't run a 2-3 because my C isn't strong enough defensively.

Yeah Mike, I am going to be honest here and say that I wasn't asking for your assistance here.

I default to -2 on 3-2, and 0 to +1 on 2-3, depending both on how good my guards are, and how good my rebounding is. With slow guards, I lean toward plus positioning; weak rebounding forwards, I lean to 0. If both are true, I'm rebuilding, and I probably don't care.

On the center, it's a very important position to understand if you're playing 2-3. It's not like the center is in a one-on-one matchup. In a 2-3, the center's job is to obstruct shots, and rebound. To that end, his defense attribute rating isn't as important as his shot blocking and rebounding. I actually don't mind if my center's defense rating is a little lower than where I want my guard and forward averages to sit in a 2-3. Obviously, the higher the better, like anything. But a 65/95/55/95 guy (ATH, REB, DEF, BLK) is pretty well suited for 2-3, and will likely be able to hold his own defensively at the D1 level.

Posted by MonsterTurtl on 2/13/2017 10:14:00 AM (view original):
Yeah Mike, I am going to be honest here and say that I wasn't asking for your assistance here.

Public forum so who cares what you want?

And, BTW, was that necessary? Seems like an ******* move to even comment. This is me giving you the finger.

What the hell is up turtle's ***? You gave an on topic answer to his question.

Well, he asked a stupid question so I assumed he knew less than me. Maybe he doesn't like that.

2-3 is really 2-2-1(C). If your C is weak defensively, you're probably better off running a 3-2.

A 2-3 zone is a 2-3 zone. Only thing that is comparable is a 2-1-2

Actually that would make the issue worse. If your center is already weak defensively, that's only giving him potentially one good defensive post player down low. You can still play a 2-3, just move the weak defensive center to the 4.

Posted by thewizard17 on 2/13/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
2-3 is really 2-2-1(C). If your C is weak defensively, you're probably better off running a 3-2.

A 2-3 zone is a 2-3 zone. Only thing that is comparable is a 2-1-2

Actually that would make the issue worse. If your center is already weak defensively, that's only giving him potentially one good defensive post player down low. You can still play a 2-3, just move the weak defensive center to the 4.

Pretty sure you're wrong. Or the dozen or so people who told me it's a 2-2-1 and suggested I go 3-2 because my C was 30ish D are wrong.

I'll go with the majority.

Bumped a thread for you.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/13/2017 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 2/13/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
2-3 is really 2-2-1(C). If your C is weak defensively, you're probably better off running a 3-2.

A 2-3 zone is a 2-3 zone. Only thing that is comparable is a 2-1-2

Actually that would make the issue worse. If your center is already weak defensively, that's only giving him potentially one good defensive post player down low. You can still play a 2-3, just move the weak defensive center to the 4.

Pretty sure you're wrong. Or the dozen or so people who told me it's a 2-2-1 and suggested I go 3-2 because my C was 30ish D are wrong.

I'll go with the majority.

34 posts in the past 24 hours? Keep trolling little man......BA HA HA HA.

Is that your best response for being wrong? BAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!

Not spiking the football but, if I was n00b and saw me/wizard arguing HD, I'd believe wiz.

5/2/2014 1:39 PM	Customer Support
The main differences between a 2-3 and 3-2 in the engine are the way that players are evaluated for defensive ability and the impact on perimeter vs. paint. In a 2-3, positions are lumped as PG/SG, SF/PF, and C by itself. In a 3-2, PG/SG/SF are lumped together, and PF/C are together. Each group of positions is evaluated based on different rating weights.

Posted by thewizard17 on 2/13/2017 11:18:00 AM (view original):
2-3 is really 2-2-1(C). If your C is weak defensively, you're probably better off running a 3-2.

A 2-3 zone is a 2-3 zone. Only thing that is comparable is a 2-1-2

Actually that would make the issue worse. If your center is already weak defensively, that's only giving him potentially one good defensive post player down low. You can still play a 2-3, just move the weak defensive center to the 4.

When it comes to a low-def C playing the 4 in a 2-3 or in a 3-2, I really don't like either option. If my 30 def C (assuming we're talking D3 here, 30 is too low for D2 and unthinkable for D1 starters) is an excellent rebounder and shot blocker, the best place for him is C in a 2-3. Keep your low block zone defender's averages high, it matters more there than it does for the C in a 2-3. You can pair him with an excellent defender if you're in a pinch, but that's not maximizing either player's value, IMO.

Now do you see why I didn't want Mike in this thread clogging everything up? He is not a successful coach so I am not going to listen to him, his response brought the thread to a topic that I wasn't asking about (the whole 2-3=2-2-1 nonsense), and his answer was in my opinion not helpful even if I was going to listen to him, because it just says if they shoot threes go +3 (insert weird metaphor here) if they don't go -5 (insert weird metaphor here). He has now inserted insults, weird comments, and off topic posts into the thread, which is what I did not want to happen. Not trying to be a dick but even after I have blocked him I see that little banner about 20 times in every thread i look in, and I am sure they are all non-helpful, nonsense answers, that drag the thread away from what it was actually meant to be.