BuzzerBeater Forums

In my scrimmage game, I had a rotation where my backups were also my reserves (at SG and SF), and in one notable case (starting PG), one player was set for all three roles (starter, backup, reserve). For my reserve PF and C, I had my third set of trainees.

Now here is what happens at the beginning of the 4th quarter. The coach clears the bench, putting my reserve PF as a PG. I will take that, since I assume he didn't want to leave a starter on the floor, no matter the circumstances (although this is also a questionable call).

However, why did he have to rotate my backup PF with my backup C at the PG position is beyond my imagination. The backup PF was actually a guard, and the backup C was a real center. There is no particular reason whatsoever not to keep the C on the bench and put him in at the right position for 2-3 minutes depending on stamina. Not to mention, that when I've set up someone to fill out the _entire_ rotation, I probably want him to stay on the pitch at all times, barring foul trouble.

This is probably not a bug, but the behavior of the GE is really, really weird.

like i said before it is a difficult task to come up with an algorithm that works well in all situation....

how should we handle blowouts? not take starters out? if your player got injured wouldn't somebody also be pissed off that the coach left in a starter and the starter got tired/hurt. if you set up a wierd depth chart like you have it really constricts the options.

in any case this is what the coach did in your situation. It took a look at the depth chart at PG... decided it was a blowout so ruled out putting in any starters... then since nobody else was on the depth chart at PG, he simply used the degree a players skills qualified him at PG, modulated by energy level, foul trouble, etc to determine who was going to play. The GE has no information about the "suggested position" that shows up on the roster page... and that "suggested position" has no bearing on how a player plays at another position. We have in fact at times lobbied to get rid of it.. because actually what happened would have been a lot less "wierd" if you didn't have a sense that your backup C was a C and not a guard.

I am more or less fine with the PF getting subbed in as PG, that was just for context. There was no foul trouble to speak of, either.

What I don't understand is why the C also rotated at PG when he was clearly assigned to sub in at C, and 4 players were going to play a full quarter anyhow. I thought my depth chart took precedence over whatever the coach might come up with. This issue shouldn't have aanything to do with the suggested position.

You can also argue that the PG was, at this point, the freshest of all, since he hadn't played at all in the first three quarters.

let me get your depth chart straight

rows are different position PG, G, SF, PF, C from top to bottom
columns are different depths, starter, backup, reserve from left to right
different letters correspond to different players

A A A
B C C
D E E
F G H
I J K

now as i understand it in the fourth quarter A,B,D,F and I were taken out as the blowout logic dictates. So then in looking to fill the PG spot, first the algorithm picked H, and then rotated the rest of the PG time between G and J? is that correct?

So i'm guessing at first J played center, then got tired, got taken out for K at center, but at some point became a better option at PG than H and so got subbed in there, even though he was still not rested enough to be a better center than K.

does that jive with what happened?

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 4/3/2008 3:09:06 PM

and which game are you talking about? as in your most recent scrimmage, it seems that after your starting point guard was taking out at the start of the 4th quarter.. the same two guys swapped back and forth.

and which game are you talking about? as in your most recent scrimmage, it seems that after your starting point guard was taking out at the start of the 4th quarter.. the same two guys swapped back and forth.

I am talking about my most recent scrimmage.

To use your chart: in the beginning of the fourth quarter, A got replaced by H. Subsequently, the game proceeded to rotate H and K at the PG position for the remainder of the quarter. The remaining 4 players (all backups) played the entire fourth quarter.

I don't see a reason why this should happen: H was, allegedly, the freshest player on the floor, and K is a C in the depth chart and C by suggested position. Why didn't the GE rotate K at the C position?!

because J was a better center than K throughout the entire 4th quarter... exaggerated by the fact that J is higher on the depth chart than K. Whereas K is on an even playing field with H (and everyone else) in terms of depth chart at PG...they are both not on it. If you had even a single other PG in the depth chart, they would have played over both H and K... and K probably would have gotten very little or no PT at all.

Remember the coach isn't asking... how can I get time for K. The coach is asking.. ok.. how do i put the best possible team out on the court, given their ratings/energy and modulation by the instructions for my GM. And I think that is the question the coach should be asking.

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 4/3/2008 6:36:19 PM

I guess the explanation is fair enough. Which of course doesn't make it less bizarre (or annoying ;)) in terms of end result.

I guess that the bizarre part comes from the fact that even though the coach is generally trying to rotate the best players, the blowout rule causes him to unconditionally rest the starters. Which might in effect field a better squad ;)

I understand what the case in point is, but monitoring the minutes of players is not unheard of, and just about any NBA coach that's worth his salt does that one way or another. That is, "how can I get time for K is a very legitimate coaching question. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be hard coded in BB's GE.

To put it another way, when the other guys are getting blown out, the coach has no business worrying about putting the best team on the floor. If he did, he wouldn't be benching the starters anyhow. I imagine his primary concern should be playing as few players out of DC position as possible.

I guess I am going to stop here, because I am rambling. Cheers

so its very easy to take specific players out of consideration within the context of a "put the best team on the floor" sort of algorithm.

its harder to write a whole separate algorithm based upon equalizing minutes amongst backups and reserves. (but maybe we should do that)

its even harder to write an algorithm which both tries to put the best team on the floor and distributes minutes... for how do you quantify that tradeoff.

fwiw its not clear to me that a nba coach really pays close attention to minutes. He pays closer attention to how tired a player is and what his foul situation is, and how he is matching up with the opposing team.

it is precisely because he is not thinking "oh i need to get so and so some minutes" that you see this big difference in minutes between starters and backups generally... cause once someone has moved in the coaches mind to being better the coach leans towards having him in the game if he isn't too tired, having foul problems, or he needs a different sort of lineup for some reason. A smart coach might think ahead and say.. oh.. if i don't give him a rest now he's gonna get tired at the end of the game so i better do that.

i really don't mind debate... i've just spent time thinking about this problem a lot so I tend to have a lot of opinions.

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 4/3/2008 7:35:21 PM

Dammit, there's a thread somewhere from back around Christmas where BB-Charles (I think... maybe it was you, though?) and I had a productive discussion on this topic, and where there was even agreement to try to change a few things, although I'm not sure if anything came of it.

I can't find it... if you have any super BB-tools to find that thread, it might be helpful to this discussion.