Talking Basketball

[Eugene]

The reason this thread isn't in NBA section is because I want to open up the question to a more general arena than NBA basketball.

We talk a lot about stats, which player is better, who got into what kind of trouble, but on this forum, we haven't talked about the real nuts and bolts of basketball. Getting away from the typical "oh, Player X will be good for Team Y because of such and such reasons," I want to discuss the real stuff of basketball, i.e. strategies, philosophies, et al.

I'll start things off...

Which is better? 2-3 zone or 3-2 zone (in general--of course, it's going to differ based on the situation. Please don't respond with "it depends")

I prefer the 2-3 zone because it protects the middle--because you have at least three players who can collapse to the paint at any given time--and protects the baseline. The 3-2 covers the perimeter effectively, but leaves the baseline too exposed for my liking.

That's something simple to get this thing going... hopefully, it'll generate some new discussion that we haven't seen much of...

Of course, feel free to ask any questions you have for debate...

[23 LeBron]

wat do u think bout 2-1-2? or 1-3-1?

[Christopherson]

Each zone has its own specific strengths and weaknesses. It depends on the team you are playing and their strenths and weaknesses in order to say which zone works the best. Additionaly it works even better to mix things up and use several different defensive looks throughout the course of a game in order to keep the opposition on their toes.

Additionaly, each coach teaches different rotations in their zone defenses. I had one coach who taught us to run a 1-2-2 zone where the post was always doubled down on. It was a very fun defense to play, but the three guys at the top had to be in constant communication in order to be successful at it.

[Matt]

3-2 vs 2-3

I'll take the 2-3 because rebounding is so important. However, if your personell includes 2 excellent rebounders down low then your fine with a 3-2. It also depends on how many rebounders the offense commits, but to counter you can always leak out a guard to cherry pick once the shot goes up. If your getting beat up on the boards then go to a 2-3 or just stay with the 3-2 and commit an extra rebounder. The 3-2 obviously protects the perimeter better, and unlike the 2-3 it doesn't require the guards to use as much energy.

Then again, if you play against a team of shooters with good rebounders then man-to-man it is. Box & 1 is also effective against protecting the paint

The 3-2 covers the perimeter effectively, but leaves the baseline too exposed for my liking.

not if everyone makes adequate rotations and is on the same page defensively.

[BigKaboom2]

Please don't respond with "it depends".

It depends on the team you are playing and their strenths and weaknesses in order to say which zone works the best.

[dada]

Mayble Global Hoops.

[Eugene]

What's Mayble Global Hoops?

Matt, I agree with your point about the rebounding, although I hadn't even thought about it at first. I think 3-2 might be better if you want to get out and run, since you have outlets at the wings already.

I've always preferred man-to-man defense to zone, but it's weird, in Korea, people almost always play zone, even in pick up games, which got me thinking about this.

I've never played Box & 1. It seems too gimmicky for some reason...

Here's another question, would you prefer to force the offense to the middle or to the wings/baseline? I know the conventional wisdom is to keep the offense out of the middle at all costs, but the way I've played is that there's always more traffic in the middle. That's where the help is. Also, if you're attacking from the wing, you can see the whole court, more easily, I think. So, force to the middle and swarm, rotate to the shooters.

I don't know, what's you guys's take?

[Abctest123]

I think dada means 'Maybe Global Hoops," a section of this forum.

[Nick]

I like a 2-1-2 full court press defense for the amateur basketball i play in. It puts constant pressure on the other team, and REALLY fucks them over if they don't have atleast 2 strong ball handlers to rely on.

[Indy]

How could you argue this without saying it depends. If a team has great outside shooters obviously you aren't going to run a 2-3, and if a team is physical and big obviously you aren't going to run a 3-2.

Nick as for the 2-1-2 press, I've always hated that. A 2-1-2 is easily the easiest press to break unless you are playing a team of retards or streetball players. If you are facing a full-court press the last thing you want to do is dribble the ball, so if you are relying on strong ball handlers you are fucked to begin with. The way to break a 2-1-2 is pretty simple. You just need one guy to get the inbounds pass and 2 guys on opposite sides of the court just in front of the halfcourt line. The 1 guy in the middle can only cover one, and its just 1 pass and your across.

The 1-3-1 press is my favorite, and I've played it on a bunch of teams. This is probably my strongest expertise when it comes to the game of basketball. I can teach a bunch of scrubs how to play the 1-3-1 and they will be able to force turnovers.

However, it would be very difficult to do by typing, I need to have the 5 guys on the court, or at least be able to draw it up.

[Scotty]

What's Mayble Global Hoops?

Global Hoops is a thread on this forum.

Anyway with the quality of players shooting these days i'm going to say the 3-2 zone is better, because you have 3 players that are situated outside most of the time. (PG, SG, SF-most of the time)

[Indy]

Anyway with the quality of players shooting these days i'm going to say the 3-2 zone is better, because you have 3 players that are situated outside most of the time. (PG, SG, SF-most of the time)

But then you are leaving the corners open. Especially if you are pressuring the ball which most teams do. You can cause a lot of turnovers with 3 guys really playing actively and aggresively in the backcourt, but most shooters are money from corners.

[Eugene]

Actually, you should argue this without using "it depends" because if you say it depends on the situation, then there's really no argument.

Unless, of course, a certain circumstance was described.

Besides, most coaches/players have tendencies... something they are prone to do or defense/offensive sets they prefer to run. I was merely trying to generate discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of each type of zone.

I feel like any full-court press can be broken with patience and ball-handlers. Presses usually work when the other team is completely unprepared for it--i.e. it's a co-ed team of casual ball-players playing another co-ed team stacked with mens and girls varsity players...

But if you are, then even the smallest amount of patience can break a press because an entire court is too big to cover with 5 people.

It might be better when you have the other team back on their heels and the momentum on your side to run the press, to absolutely bury them. I think the press has a bigger psychological impact than anything else.

[[Q]]

i love the 1-3-1 full court pess or half court zone because it allows trapping and gives you a better chance at forcing turnovers

[The X]

the Fighting Irish play a basic, tight 2-3 zone....partly because we don't have practice time or whatever....

I always wanted to play a 1-3-1, but yeah anyway, suggest a defense for the Fighting Irish....

- we are mostly unfit
- some people don't know the meaning of moving their feet on defense
- our rebounding is piss weak because half our team doesn't realise you use your arse to box out
- we have alright height
- we don't have great speed
- although on a positive note, we have enough size to hammer an opponent if necessary....

any suggestions?

[[Q]]

I say some sort of zone to make up for the unfit players that don't move their feet. zone really helps hide players that can't play D.
however, it does expose you to rebounding issues beause you aren't manned up so opposing players may have easier shots at an offensive rebound and since you guys can't rebound, i wouldn't suggest it or you guys will get blown out by all the tip ins

you guys could try a box & 1, pack it in and pray they miss their 3s

[CouchPotato94]

Sorry for the necropost, but...

Anyone tried Triangle & 2? My team tried it once, works pretty well.

[Oznogrd]

Triangle and 2 is what my wheelchair team used to excel at. We actually were pretty terrible at offense but this D is what kept us in the game. We always had at least 2 speedsters (one was me when i came in off the bench) and its amazing how many teams were messed up by a little pressure. As long as our triangle stayed home, we were tough to score on. Several of our games over the years ended up with scores like 15-14 against teams that usually scored 40+.

[[Q]]

I'm not a big fan of triange and 2 because with only 3 inside, you can really give up rebounds and allow penetration easier. With zone, I think it's good to use to confuse the offense, but it can't be played every possesion or else they'll eventually find a way to beat it. I would suggest playing like Nellie and zoning after every made basket or after any type of inbound

[The X]

I say some sort of zone to make up for the unfit players that don't move their feet. zone really helps hide players that can't play D.
however, it does expose you to rebounding issues beause you aren't manned up so opposing players may have easier shots at an offensive rebound and since you guys can't rebound, i wouldn't suggest it or you guys will get blown out by all the tip ins

you guys could try a box & 1, pack it in and pray they miss their 3s

cheers, although I think we have played that at times (when have been reduced to 4 players due to ejections, we ran the Box, no & 1, as missing a player & it has worked pretty well....we defended better with 4 than 5, although that team wasn't good from the perimeter....