BuzzerBeater Forums

About that 1-3-1 vs 3-2 zone defense. Provided that you have a strong rebounding, what's the advantage of 1-3-1? Does it provide better perimeter defense than 3-2?

as Yungbeast sais..it provides much better perimeter defense , but leaves only one guy in your paint to fight for rebounds (the general idea) so you need strong rebounding skill...

i think you should think about your PF's od also i wouldnt play 1-3-1 with a PF who has very low OD.

When you're playing a zone, the defensive alignment refers to which zone your player will guard instead of which player your player will guard. For example, in a 1-3-1 zone you can select who plays at the top of the key or who plays under the basket by putting them in the PG or C spots respectively.

I think a key component of deciding between the 1-3-1 and 3-2 is the versatility of you 2,3, and 4 positions in OD/ID.

Just as it was mentioned I would hesitate to play a 1-3-1 with a PF that has a low OD, but I would also hesitate to play this defense with a 2 that has a low ID as well. In theory this defense is a trapping perimeter defense where the PG forces the opposing PG into a trap. The PF plays more of a centerfield alignment and the opposing wing is responsible for activity above the free throw line. An effective 1-3-1 then re-traps the second pass.

If you have a PG that is a fantastic defender, you will see the OD rating be higher.

The caveat to all of this is that you will absolutely get killed against Look Inside and Low Post if the opponent has decent bigs.

Technically what you are asking your team to do is to have your best perimeter defender guard the PG, and your best interior defender isolated at the hoop as a last line of defense.

When I play 1-3-1 I match my best OD at the 1, best ID at the 5 and then play my most versatile defenders (ideally a min of resp OD, resp ID at the 3 and 2, and no worse than Med OD at the 4).

3-2 I utilize when I have guards/wings that have good OD but aren't strong inside. The middle is open a lot and you are leaving your bigs one on one with no help from perimeter defenders.

To answer your question theres nothing wrong with playing man to man against run and gun if you think your outside defense is good enough already.

Perhaps, but surely a 3-2 zone would be better than man to man wouldn't it? For example, lets say you have a far superior team to the opposition and the opposition is playing Run and Gun. Would you play a 3-2 zone because they are going to be increasing their outside shooting, or would you play man to man knowing that your players at every position is better than the other teams players at those respective positions? Sorry if that is confusing.

Or on the contrary, perhaps the opposition is far superior and you know they are going to play Run and Gun, surely a 3-2 zone is the best way to go right?

The only reason I could think of for playing something else, is if your outside defence (while playing man to man) is far superior to their outside offence even after they are playing Run and Gun (which I think is what you are referring to in your post). However, even in this case, I would probably play a 3-2 zone anyway purely because it seems the right tactic to play.

Just curious what you (and others) think.

Well a 3-2 zone also takes away from your inside presence so you will get less rebounds. I just wanted to make the point that just because a team always plays Run and Gun doesn't automatically mean you need to play a 3-2 zone or 1-3-1 zone. Theres also the chance a team plays run and gun but have low shooting percentages from outside in which case you don't mind them taking the shots but you want to be there to get the rebounds.