I play a zone and my personnel is more adept for a 3-2. My Small Forwards are either SGs or similar to SGs. My post players are very good rebounders and shot blockers. So here's my question:

If I run a 2-3, will my SFs rebounding and shot blocking deficiencies actually make my team rebound and shot block worse than if I played a 3-2; since they would be averaged together with my PF who is good at those things?

Hello Sean! Glad you reached out with a valid new guy question. And yes you’re correct in your thought process.

Its not a death sentence to play it that way. But if its a big time NT game, I’d avoid making that decision. The SF is always key in zone defense. You can switch to 3-2 and still be effective, but it would be ideal to use a different player type at SF when doing so. GOOD zone teams can get away with switching from 2-3 to 3-2 with no problem. GREAT zone teams are constructed during recruiting, by signing the right players that allows you to properly make that switch.

On Block:
If it breaks down like this in a 3-2:
PF and C's BLK - Very Important (!00% VI)
PG, SG, and SF's BLK - Not very important (100% Not VI)
Then when you switch to a 2-3:
PG (33% Not VI) + SG (33% Not VI) = 100% Not VI
SF (33% Not VI) + PF (50% VI) = 40% Not VI and 60% VI
and C (50% VI) = 100% VI
So the relative importance (of total VI) is about 37.5% (60% out of 160%) to SF-PF and 62.5% (100% out of 160%) to C.
So my point here is it is actually much more important to have outstanding BLK in the C than high BLK in the SF.
If fact, in light of this new math (which I had way too much fun with), I think it's better to think of needing sufficient BLK in the PF to run a 3-2. SF BLK is not going to hurt you though.

On Rebounding:
Is zone defensive rebounding averaged in the same way that zone defense is? I think player distance from the basket has to factor in some way. Which would make it worse to have a bad rebounder closer to the basket (as in the SF in 2-3) vs a bad rebounder farther away from the basket (as in the SF in the 3-2). Would love forum input on this.

rebounding in zone is not averaged like defenese. also, the SF is not averaged with the PF on defense. the entire team is averaged on every shot, its that the SF uses the SF-PF formula for calculating their defensive contribution instead of the PG-SG-SF formula in the 3-2. so a guard-like SF will contribute more defensively in a 3-2 than a 2-3.

always, a 2-3 is going to be better on rebounding than a 3-2, assuming all else the same (same players at the same positions, same +/-). its not a massive difference though, its pretty tolerable.

on the shot blocking front, i'm not positive. overall defense wise, if your SF is basically a SG, then typically playing a 3-2 will yield better defense than a 2-3.

Looking at your roster, I'd agree this team probably needs to stay mostly in 3-2. If you come across a team that takes <20% of their shots from 3, I think could play Gray at SF in a 2-3. I would not do it with the more guard-like options. Gray isnt super far off from what I want in a 2-3 SF with a D prestige, although his BH/pass will hurt the offense a bit playing SF as well putting a less optimal player at C.

I was thinking the same thing about Grey, but being inexperienced I thought I might be wrong Texashick. From one Texan to another, I appreciate you pointing that out.

So if you have a SF that is a converted PF (so slower, high LP, lower PE, meh ball skills), is the 2-3 always the better option? What if the C is only a mediocre defender?

I’ve really had trouble with the 2-3 and seem to be more successful with the 3-2 regardless of personnel.

Posted by hypnotoad on 11/18/2022 6:31:00 PM (view original):

So if you have a SF that is a converted PF (so slower, high LP, lower PE, meh ball skills), is the 2-3 always the better option? What if the C is only a mediocre defender?

I’ve really had trouble with the 2-3 and seem to be more successful with the 3-2 regardless of personnel.

the thing to keep in mind is the center is averaged into your defense regardless of whether its the 2-3 or 3-2. the FAQ or whatever about zone, says you can hide a bad defender, but to me it is the opposite. you CANT hide a bad defender, because if he's on the court, he's being averaged into your team defense. it doesn't matter if its the 2-3, 3-2, a pg, sf, center... they are playing a significant role in the defense of every shot. meanwhile, in man, you can move a defender to face less scoring - to me, that is hiding the defender. press is much more man-like than zone-like. so IMO zone is the place you can least hide a bad defender.

the decision about the 3-2 versus 2-3 primarily comes down to the offense of the other team. in general in this game, you are supposed to play your team first, and the opponent a distant second - meaning, your team setup should be tailored to your strengths, with tweaks for the opponents that don't cost you much. when in doubt, stick to your strengths. zone defense is one of the few places i don't take such a strong stance on the subject. the 3-2 versus 2-3 is a lot about the other team. 3-2 is the best 3pt defense in the game. the 2-3 is the best defense for close to mid range 2s in the game. the SF you have, how much your team needs rebounding, these are also factors, but in general if you are playing an unbalanced team, which perhaps most are, that is going to be the most important factor.

i'm not sure where you play, but 3pt scoring is pretty powerful in a lot of segments of this game. high d1 is probably the most balanced, in most other settings, 3pt scoring is at a premium. as a result, the 3-2 tends to be pretty powerful in lots of settings in HD.

couple things about the SF. high lp, low per, meh ball skills... those kinds of things are totally irrelevant. its about the defense, and whether you are a pg or a center, in any defense in this game, ath/def are very important. blk is more important as you get closer to the center, and speed the closer to the pg, but the significant majority of defensive quality for all players in all systems in all scenarios, is ath/def. so its not like you can really have a good defensive sf in 3-2 who is **** in 2-3, or vice versa. i personally like to have a SF in high d1 zone who is like, 90s ath/def with like 60 speed, so i am confident he'll perform at a high level no matter what i play. its normal for folks in zone to overly worry about spd and blk in their sf, and i would recommend not doing that.

Thanks Gill. I'm mid-D1 (MAC) so the idea of a 90's ATH/DEF at any position is certainly a luxury - not impossible at all, but not frequent.
I feel like at the lower levels you have more decisions to make like this because you aren't loaded all over. In this case the guy is 75 ATH/66 DEF so nothing special, but a decent enough player, especially for the MAC.

If you a switch from the 3-2 to the 2-3, you need a C that can do it as well. In the 2-3, the Center's defensive metric values block more than in the 3-2. It's not a huge deal in most cases, but a lot of guys punt block and you probably should avoid playing low block centers in the 2-3.

Gil says not to worry about blk in the SF but if you are playing guards at the SF in the 2-3, the real low (like 1-30) block guards do hamper defense.

EDIT: I just realized bpielcmc more or less said that a few posts up.

I play (and recruit) for the 3-2 exclusively. I drop to -5 pretty frequently but only really switch to the 2-3 when I play a team that shoots less than 5% of their shots as 3 pointers.

Some things have already been said by others. but I'll highlight.

1) block is only *really* important for one position in one set - the C in a 2-3 base defense. In any other situation, it's a secondary consideration at best. Not irrelevant, but not worth making big decisions on.

2) defense is terribly important for zone, and the idea that you can "hide" poor defenders is really misguided. What you *can* do is pair elite defenders with simply adequate defenders within a grouping (guards in a 2-3, for example) in order to utilize players with complementary skills.

3) zone is trying to win by repressing your opponents FG%. Block is part of the defense formula for post players in zone, as part of that strategy. It's a primary component for C in a 2-3, but it's significant for SF-PF in 2-3 and for post players in a 3-2 as well. It's not just about getting blocks, although you will get some, it's about your teams zone defensive goodness.

4) 3-2 tends to work better than 2-3 against most human coaches, because most human coaches tend to get most of their scoring from guards. The game engine is a bit biased toward guard scoring in general. And some astute coaches play around this against zone by attacking with heavy distribution from the SF; this all feeds into the perception that the SF position is more important than others, which I don't really agree with - but if others are playing it that way, you do need to be aware of that tendency. Double teams (plural) can help, but so can defensive setting. I tend to default to -2 for 3-2 and +1 for 2-3, by that I mean if my opponents are getting a "normal" amount of scoring from the perimeter (about 1/3 of total FGA from 3, and/or guards are leading scorers). For those special teams that get a lot of guard scoring without many 3FGA, I find 3-2 at -4 or -5 tends to work better than 2-3, *unless* those guards are elite LP scorers. FWIW.

5) all that said, I do love a versatile SF, one with enough speed to play as a guard and enough rebounding to play forward. I don't do it often, but I love the ability to switch back and forth, it's one of the joys of playing a zone base defense.

Posted by Trentonjoe on 11/22/2022 10:03:00 PM (view original):
If you a switch from the 3-2 to the 2-3, you need a C that can do it as well. In the 2-3, the Center's defensive metric values block more than in the 3-2. It's not a huge deal in most cases, but a lot of guys punt block and you probably should avoid playing low block centers in the 2-3.

Gil says not to worry about blk in the SF but if you are playing guards at the SF in the 2-3, the real low (like 1-30) block guards do hamper defense.

EDIT: I just realized bpielcmc more or less said that a few posts up.

I play (and recruit) for the 3-2 exclusively. I drop to -5 pretty frequently but only really switch to the 2-3 when I play a team that shoots less than 5% of their shots as 3 pointers.

i don't mean to imply not to worry about blk in the SF. or speed. just that those concerns can be overblown, and are part of a bigger picture. i generally decide on my 2-3 and 3-2 based primarily on the opposing offense and the type of SF i have. also based on team rebounding and some other factors. the SF is important but if you have a pretty good ath/def SF you are probably good to play either 2-3 or 3-2, i think some folks feel locked in to 2-3 or 3-2 because their SF is a bit better in one set or another, and that goes too far. i don't like to run a 2-3 with a pure guard sf or a 3-2 with a PF sf though. but it can work especially if the SF has solid ath/def.

i was saying that 2-3 and 3-2 choice is different to me than most. most decisions in team setup i say to play your team first and the opponent a distant second. the +/- i guess doesn't fit that mold either. but the 2-3 vs 3-2 decision for me is heavily dependent on the opposing team, i think that is often the #1 factor even above the SF. not to say SF isn't important.

"but the 2-3 vs 3-2 decision for me is heavily dependent on the opposing team, i think that is often the #1 factor even above the SF."

This 100%