BuzzerBeater Forums

I meant interior (=inside) and not inferior (=weaker). ;-)

But you still answered my question anyway. So thanks a lot!

Low salary is, of course, still relative. :)
For div 1, I would say something like 60-100k depending on the offense skill set that goes a long with it.

I would try to keep the salary as low as possible to achieve higher than average inside defense and decent offense which would need to be focused on outside shooting to keep the salary low.

However, taking Nachtmahrs explanations into consideration it does not seem to be possible without staying rather low on RB. That is close to what I'm currently running and I feel like it's worse or simply much more expensive than other strategies.

The problem with such players is that you cannot expect to balance out RB between C and PF. I already have high RB on C and much less on PF. 50% of the games it works fine and the other 50% it doesn't because rebounds are distributed somewhat randomly among the positions. This ratio is often not good enough for high-level play. You can't give up that many possessions unless you even that out with other means like steals/forced TOs or super low allowed FG%.

This thread is really interesting because I have some dificulties to realize how 3-2 works.

Question 1: So, we have 3 players that defend outside and 2 that defend inside, so if for example I want to train one of my guards in IS and put him playing at C and defend 3-2, he will defend inside right? With 3-2 there's no chance of putting him defending another position like in man-to-man right?

Question 2: In my case I have already one big that has high skills in RB, IS and ID and has average JS and JR. The other big should be someone with high ID and SB?

Last edited by Jonas at 2/3/2018 8:20:09 PM

I've been playing 3-2 for a while now, although i haven't yet gotten the right players for it.
Still works relatively well and i'm learning how to maximize the benefits.

Would you say that RB has very little weight in 3-2? Can you get away with all the offensive boards your opponent gets?

Let's assume you have a team with players good at m2m defence. We all know the advantages of the 3-2 zone and the crucial role played by SB.

I would like to use your experience to understand what level of SB should be considered acceptable to use 3-2 zone. I know this is just speculation, and there are a lot of factors we're not going to consider. There's no need to say that a team built properly for a 3-2 is a way more efficient than the one proposed in my scenario.

By the way, let's assume you have 3 guards with OD 15-16 (ID 5-6), one SF 12-12 OD-ID, and a couple of PF/C with ID 15-16 (OD 5-6).
You may play m2m defence, using the SF, or play a 3-2 zone putting all the guards in the lineup. What's the minimum level of SB do you believe the big men have to possess? For example, with SB 12, would you prefer a m2m defence or a 3-2?


I know this is just a game. Without knowing the opponent is impossible to give a proper answer, I'm just trying to understand what's the "cut-off" or the ratio (if there's one) at which you may prefer the 3-2 over the m2m without a perfectly 3-2 zone team

Thank you in advance!