I see people mention here a lot about the 2-3 zone is a 2-2-1 zone and the center is independent

So in a 3-2 zone, is it similar, to where it's a 1-2-2 zone and the PG is independently rated? So say your PG has a Def of 2 while your SG and SF have defense of 90 each. Are the 3 accumulated together? Or no?

If this has been discussed before, or if it's just a ridiculous question, hey..... I've never ran zone before, and i am giving it a shot for the first time. I need as much info as possible!
1/5/2018 8:53 AM
No. 3-2 is grouped PG/SG/SF and PF/C.
1/5/2018 9:08 AM
I'm not an expert but I like the 3-2 because I feel I can put a pure scorer at 1 of the 3. Ideally, he can play D but, if not, I can pair him with 2 solid defenders.
1/5/2018 9:09 AM
Ok thanks. Is this for sure? I'm sure you understand what I'm comparing. 2-3 really being 2-2-1. But flip flopping to 3-2 is not the same?

I'm not questioning it again. It's just interesting to me that they've made it clear that the C stands alone in the 2-3. And not the other way around as well.

It obviously makes more sense logically in the 2-3 format to do that. To me it's just odd that it's not that way for the 3-2 also. I don't think it should be, necessarily. If anything i don't think the C should stand alone if i had to pick one way or another, to make both sets run equally. The fact that they're run different seems strange to me
1/5/2018 10:14 AM
Well, you are questioning it again. That's the actual meaning of "Is this for sure?" But, yes, for sure from Dev Chat. And many experienced users.
1/5/2018 10:27 AM
Page three of the forums has a thread titled "how much of a disadvantage is zone defense." Check it out-lots of great info in there.
1/5/2018 10:35 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/5/2018 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Well, you are questioning it again. That's the actual meaning of "Is this for sure?" But, yes, for sure from Dev Chat. And many experienced users.
Haha. Couple things here. One, i was just asking for a second coach to agree with you. On the "is this for sure?" part.

I meant i wasn't questioning the part where i wrote "but flip flopping to 3-2 is not the same?"

It was just a statement really that had a question mark on there. But overall, thank you for your input
1/5/2018 10:44 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/5/2018 9:08:00 AM (view original):
No. 3-2 is grouped PG/SG/SF and PF/C.
this is for sure.
1/5/2018 11:14 AM
5/2/2014 1:09 PM gillispie1
Seble,
There have been a lot of questions about the mechanical differences of a 3-2 and 2-3 zone, particularly in the last couple months. Is there any information you can share to enlighten the community? For starters, a lot of people characterize the 3-2 and 2-3 as "averaging in the sf", on equal footing with the others, from a defensive standpoint. Is this really what happens? If so, is the SF averaged in with special SF ratings, or is he just looked at like a big or guard? If they are special SF ratings, are they the same in the 3-2 and 2-3?

Also, we all presume if you play a 3-2 with 3 equally good defenders, its going to give better per defense than a 2-3 (and this very much appears true). However, many worry that including a slightly worse defender, thus bringing down the average, could actually hamper perimeter defense. In reality, that extra 3rd man helps unless hes substantially worse than the defenders he is supporting, but nobody has any idea if thats how it works in HD. Any comments on how this works? We aren't looking for quantifications of the effects that would give away some engine secrets, but some qualifications of how the fundamental mechanics work, between a 2-3 and a 3-2, would be great. I think this would be a benefit to the community as zone is easily the least well understood of all defenses, and also, many people think it is not competitive at the high level. I think understanding how the fundamental mechanic works would open the door for coaches to try zone out, and to try to study it, try to make it work. It really seems getting people to try something fresh and new increases their happiness and longevity with the game!

Take care,
Jeff
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.
5/2/2014 2:59 PM gillispie1
That is extremely helpful! Thanks very much. Just to clarify - when you say, for example, in the 3-2, the PG/SG/SF are lumped together - does that mean their ratings are all considered by the same metrics, and each player is equally valuable in the 3-2, defensively? Meaning they are not only evaluated on equal ground, but weigh in equally in the contemplation of how good the perimeter defense it? As opposed to say, the pg/sg being worth 40% each and the sf, 20%?
Thanks again,
Jeff
5/2/2014 8:25 PM Customer Support
Yes, that's correct.
1/5/2018 11:18 AM
Posted by topdogggbm on 1/5/2018 10:14:00 AM (view original):
Ok thanks. Is this for sure? I'm sure you understand what I'm comparing. 2-3 really being 2-2-1. But flip flopping to 3-2 is not the same?

I'm not questioning it again. It's just interesting to me that they've made it clear that the C stands alone in the 2-3. And not the other way around as well.

It obviously makes more sense logically in the 2-3 format to do that. To me it's just odd that it's not that way for the 3-2 also. I don't think it should be, necessarily. If anything i don't think the C should stand alone if i had to pick one way or another, to make both sets run equally. The fact that they're run different seems strange to me
The C “standing alone” is still a point of interpretation. It doesn’t mean the C is playing man, or is guarding the opposing C. Seble’s clarification only means that the C in 2-3 is not paired or grouped the way the other positions are. Zone defense always means the defense plays as a unit, so to some extent, at least IMO, the C doesn’t truly “stand alone” the way I think some people understand the phrase. I said this in the other thread, to me the key question is whether the C is guarding his own zone alone, or if he’s essentially help for shots in the low block. I suspect it’s the latter based on my own unscientific observation, but I’m not positive.
1/5/2018 5:31 PM
I really feel like that's hair-splitting. I don't like long posts so I'll try to be brief.

Situation A) Guarding his own zone. Are we sure that's even possible in this game? Are there designated areas for PG/SG/SF or PF/C or PG/SG or SF/PF or C alone? That doesn't "feel" right because then zone is actually two different games. You have 2 zones in 3-2 and 3 zones in 2-3.

Situation B) Help for shots in the low block. That feels more logical. Guards in the perimeter, forwards in the paint, C assisting, as a modifier on paint plays. That would explain why most vets believe shot blocking is more important in zone.

Thoughts?
1/5/2018 6:05 PM
That is essentially my thought, which is why I suspect it’s B.

It may be hair splitting, I don’t think there’s a big functional difference. But I would be less likely to recruit and try to utilize those mediocre D 5s with elite SB and REB if I believed they were “on an island”, ie situation A.
1/5/2018 7:18 PM
Admin has always said there are three types of shots: 3 pointers, mid range jumpers and shots near the basket.

In a 2-3, I suspect the guards cover* the 3 pointers, the forwards cover* the mid range jumpers and the center covers the post shots.

I think that is why really fast guards in the 2-3 can be effective against 3 point shooting guards. I have had more success with 3 point shooting forwards against the 2-3 so there may be a "which position shoots" component in the equation.

A way to test this is to have some really fast, high perimeter guards set at -2 vs a 2-3 and see if they tear up the slow forwards. I will try to remember to test this vs St. Lawrence in Knight on 1/11.




*and by cover I mean their defensive value is weighed more
1/5/2018 10:11 PM (edited)
To the extent you can isolate a single attribute -

In a 2-3 is the #5 SB more effective?
In a 3-2: is SB "more muted" than in a 2-3?
1/6/2018 8:32 AM
Posted by jt2xTTU on 1/6/2018 8:32:00 AM (view original):
To the extent you can isolate a single attribute -

In a 2-3 is the #5 SB more effective?
In a 3-2: is SB "more muted" than in a 2-3?
My feeling is the place where high SB has the biggest impact is the 5 in a 2-3 zone. I think it’s probably a bigger part of the defensive effectiveness equation there than anywhere else. It matters a little more than in other sets for the forwards in a 2-3 and the bigs in a 3-2, but probably not as much as the C in a 2-3.

Now where it is relative to the defensive or ath/spd ratings in terms of relevance to the defensive effectiveness, not sure.
1/6/2018 9:57 AM
12 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.