BuzzerBeater Forums

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!

Yes, I was speculating regardless of the division, assuming those defensive levels were somehow acceptable for this context. I know ID=SB is the best combo, I was wondering if a combination like the one discussed would have been considered acceptable even if far from perfection.

It's always a pleasure read your passages. Thank you again

Only love for Haek also from Italy, I hope he'll continue as long as possible with his current skills! He's a BB legend ;)

I somewhat disagree with Nachtmahr on the ID=SB approach.
If the goal is to stop an inside shot, ID=SB is certainly the most effective combination, true.
BUT: The goal in a 3-2 is not just stopping inside shots.
The goal is to goad all enemy players to try inside shots vs your high SB bigs, particularly the guards and SF.
ID and OD has an intimidation component, high ID or OD will make the engine avoid inside / outside shots vs this defender.
Thus, you want to have effective ID slighly lower than your opponents IS but maximum SB.

One crude example:
You guard a team of IS 12 on 1-3 and IS 16 on PF/C
Bigs with ID/SB 18/18 will have nice attempts to stop ratio but Bigs with 16/20 will have much more defensive actions because the engine will shoot more against them.

Hence, ID should be in line with opponents IS, but SB should be as high as possible.

Last edited by Tugipus at 3/10/2018 9:32:57 AM