BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

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.

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

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.