D-3 team playing Zone +3 with guards having defense ratings of 77/A- and 66/B+ forwards 59/B- and 80/A- and a C at 90/A- with the lowest ATH being 56 commit 29 fouls and give up 39 FTs?

The whole point of playing a +3 zone is to avoid committing fouls. To let his dumbass offense which is PG (with a 1 LP) drive every single time into my 90 C. He should end up about 2-18 and out of the game with a concussion midway through the first half after his 10th shot bounces off his forehead.

Instead his PGs combined 1 and 15 LP ratings went 17-39 with 20 FTA and scored 48 pts.

Did I mention the starting PG he did this against with A-/77 defense who fouled in 19 min was a preseason All American???

“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns- the ones we don't know we don't know.” ~ Donald Rumsfeld
as a coach, i would blame the officiating..

IMHO, you destroy the strength of a zone by playing with such a radical +/- setting. Those +/- settings are, for the most part, for the other defensive sets. Zone has the natural ability to defend against the PER (3-2) or the inside (2-3.)

You would have been much better off playing a 3-2 (0 +/-) rather than the 2-3 (+3) if you wanted to guard outside.

Hoops Dynasty – College Basketball Sim Games - Game Boxscore - Guilford vs. Dickinson

Is this the box score? The PG on Dickinson has great Speed and BH which helps while having solid athleticism too.

You got mfnmyers’d. It happens to the best of us brother, keep your head up.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/19/2019 11:05:00 AM (view original):
IMHO, you destroy the strength of a zone by playing with such a radical +/- setting. Those +/- settings are, for the most part, for the other defensive sets. Zone has the natural ability to defend against the PER (3-2) or the inside (2-3.)

You would have been much better off playing a 3-2 (0 +/-) rather than the 2-3 (+3) if you wanted to guard outside.

Dickinson teams are solid and potent (even when young), but predictable. They’re generally going to do one thing, and he leaves it to you to decide how you want to stop it. I think the zone is actually well suited to more extreme settings, especially negative settings. I think the big problem here is that OP went the wrong way. Instead of 2-3 with a +3, I usually go 3-2 with a heavy negative against Dickinson. He’s not shooting 3s, there is no reason to focus your defense that far out. You aren’t going to force guards with low LP to drive to the basket. They’ll happily take wide open 12 footers instead, because you’re out there defending the perimeter. The athletic advantage they have means a lot more to fouls than your own defensive positioning.

Posted by Wales_ on 4/19/2019 11:32:00 AM (view original):
You got mfnmyers’d. It happens to the best of us brother, keep your head up.

AKA “MOTHERF***IN’ MYERS!!”

Posted by shoe3 on 4/19/2019 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/19/2019 11:05:00 AM (view original):
IMHO, you destroy the strength of a zone by playing with such a radical +/- setting. Those +/- settings are, for the most part, for the other defensive sets. Zone has the natural ability to defend against the PER (3-2) or the inside (2-3.)

You would have been much better off playing a 3-2 (0 +/-) rather than the 2-3 (+3) if you wanted to guard outside.

Dickinson teams are solid and potent (even when young), but predictable. They’re generally going to do one thing, and he leaves it to you to decide how you want to stop it. I think the zone is actually well suited to more extreme settings, especially negative settings. I think the big problem here is that OP went the wrong way. Instead of 2-3 with a +3, I usually go 3-2 with a heavy negative against Dickinson. He’s not shooting 3s, there is no reason to focus your defense that far out. You aren’t going to force guards with low LP to drive to the basket. They’ll happily take wide open 12 footers instead, because you’re out there defending the perimeter. The athletic advantage they have means a lot more to fouls than your own defensive positioning.

Hey shoe,

We'll just agree to disagree about zone settings. BTW, nice zone/press you are currently using.

The point of the +3 is to not commit fouls. I've played Dickinson enough to know what I'm looking at. He has a team full of high ATH DEF that rely on TOs and FTs.

My ATH and DEF is as good as his. Plus my guys can actually shoot. I didn't even complain about my 84 PER SG going 4-14 and my team as a whole shooting 26% against a -2 press. Or my PG, who is every bit as ATH as his is going to the line once and going 2-11 with 51 LP. or my 80ATH 85LP all American C going 7-18.

My PG, SG and C are too damn good to shoot 14-45 against ANY defense. My offense is balanced with actual skilled players.

I'm sick and tired of being fkd over by bullshit coding. There is simply no way that a zone +3 should give up twice as many FTs as a press -2 when the zone defenders have both higher Def IQ and higher DEF ratings.

Posted by shoe3 on 4/19/2019 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/19/2019 11:05:00 AM (view original):
IMHO, you destroy the strength of a zone by playing with such a radical +/- setting. Those +/- settings are, for the most part, for the other defensive sets. Zone has the natural ability to defend against the PER (3-2) or the inside (2-3.)

You would have been much better off playing a 3-2 (0 +/-) rather than the 2-3 (+3) if you wanted to guard outside.

Dickinson teams are solid and potent (even when young), but predictable. They’re generally going to do one thing, and he leaves it to you to decide how you want to stop it. I think the zone is actually well suited to more extreme settings, especially negative settings. I think the big problem here is that OP went the wrong way. Instead of 2-3 with a +3, I usually go 3-2 with a heavy negative against Dickinson. He’s not shooting 3s, there is no reason to focus your defense that far out. You aren’t going to force guards with low LP to drive to the basket. They’ll happily take wide open 12 footers instead, because you’re out there defending the perimeter. The athletic advantage they have means a lot more to fouls than your own defensive positioning.

The athletic advantage he had was NONE. His guards were both 65. My guards were 61 and 64 with Def IQs higher than his Off IQs.

Dickinson had a significant ath advantage over your team. You’re playing zone, which means individual matchups aren’t nearly as important as the composite defensive goodness of your players on the court. Your starting 5 is pretty good, but your good defensive players spent a lot of time covering for weak defenders getting minutes from the bench. That’s how Zone works.

“The point of the +3 is to not commit fouls.”
As for setting, that simply isn’t how the game works. +3 means you are focusing your defense significantly toward the perimeter. It isn’t about fouling, there’s no “don’t foul them” setting. Zone itself is good for fouling less in general, but you still need to set it up well. If you’re playing a tough opponent who doesn’t shoot 3s and you play +3, you are going to have a bad time.

I think that plus defenses tend to reduce fouls and minus defenses tend to increase them. BUT, in my experience that is not the primary effect of plus/minus. And any effect on fouls can be drowned out by differences in IQ and in spd and ath. I have not looked at the rosters, but I think it is risky to plan a defense primary on plus setting reducing fouls in light of the many other effects.

Maybe I misunderstood part of this. But OP mentioned the PG driving into his monster C..... zone doesn't allow for penetration. It forces passes and ball movement to create openings. Which is why it's used to take away the high athletic players strengths. In real life, and in HD I would assume.

Am i wrong here? I don't see anyone penetrating to the paint against zones. They may get an entry pass into the paint at the free throw line. Or maybe a guard sneaks into the paint and receives a pass from the back side. But a PG isn't going to zoom by 3 defenders and challenge a center in zone defense

Posted by shoe3 on 4/19/2019 3:47:00 PM (view original):
Dickinson had a significant ath advantage over your team. You’re playing zone, which means individual matchups aren’t nearly as important as the composite defensive goodness of your players on the court. Your starting 5 is pretty good, but your good defensive players spent a lot of time covering for weak defenders getting minutes from the bench. That’s how Zone works.

“The point of the +3 is to not commit fouls.”
As for setting, that simply isn’t how the game works. +3 means you are focusing your defense significantly toward the perimeter. It isn’t about fouling, there’s no “don’t foul them” setting. Zone itself is good for fouling less in general, but you still need to set it up well. If you’re playing a tough opponent who doesn’t shoot 3s and you play +3, you are going to have a bad time.

Now, this is a comment I can agree with.

I was going to post about the "point of the +3" comment but after I read that the OP was blaming the program and not his own gameplan, I decided to let it go. shoe's 2nd paragraph summary is hopefully something the OP can learn from.

I always play -5s against Myers with my zone teams if I have similar ath