BuzzerBeater Forums

I messed up setting my lineup for Saturday's game (1004704) and used a lineup that I had saved as a default from an earlier game. Two of my reserve players had been sold, so I had a 10-player roster, but this shouldn't have been too big of a problem. When I had used the lineup earlier, the two players had played 4 and 0 minutes.

What was unusual about this lineup is that my backup PF was my starting SF. In the previous game, that player had split his time between the two positions, playing 25 at SF and 15 at PF.

But in Saturday's game my starting PF played 12, his backup played 4, and then the backup SF played 15, and the reserve SF played 17. The starting PF did get in a bit of foul trouble (3 fouls in the 1Q, when he played 7 of his 12 minuters), but it seems odd that his backup didn't play more PF, and let the SF backup and reserver play more at SF rather than moving them over to PF.

Did the lack of a reserve PF and PG confuse the GE?

i'm confused a bit here... you said your backup PF was your starting SF? so how many minutes did your starting SF play?

am i correct in saying your depth chart looked like this

SF) A B C
PF) D A _

??

This was my depth chart, which was my default - I somehow managed to set the lineup for Tuesday's game with the one I intended for Saturday's.

PF: Winters, Olaya, (Sardo)
SF: Olaya, Castillo, Bustos

Sardo had been sold, I assume it is the same as if I didn't have a reserve. The minutes played were:

PF: Winters 12, Olaya 4, Castillo 15, Bustos 17
SF: Olaya 32, Castillo 16

Winters did get in foul trouble with 3 fouls in the 1Q (and he played 7 of his 12 minutes in the 1Q). And I was up by 28 early in the 4Q, so Bustos played 11 at PF then, and Castillo played most of the 4Q at SF.

But in the middle, it would have seemed like Olaya would have played more PF and Castillo more SF.

The previous game when I used the lineup (when Sardo was still on the team):

PF: Winters 29, Olaya 15. Sardo 4
SF: Olaya 25, Castillo 23, Bustos 0.

ok so that makes sense to me... the GE doesn't consider doing those kinds of complicated swaps in order to keep more people playing who are in the depth chart at some point.

I think the previous game shows that when you submit a full lineup the algorithm does a pretty good job of substituting. I can think of algorithms that would decide that 2 backups is better than one starter and one no DC option... but they would involve considering all possible combinations of players and this would be too computationally intensive to do in a game.

I don't think we are going to change the algorithm to try to better handle incomplete lineups.

I guess what was confusing me was that in the previous game, the 2 reserves didn't play very much.

So in this game, it was also the fact that the starting PF got into foul trouble, and then the game was a blow out in the 4Q.

When the starting PF, Winters, was in foul trouble early, the coach looked for his backup, Olaya, but he was already in at SF. So he then just look over all the other players and picked Castillo - not because he was the backup at SF, but because he was the best available PF. And then when he was thinking about giving Olaya a rest at SF, he saw that his backup, Castillo was in at PF, and the reserve Bustos wasn't in good enough form or skills enough to come in, so Olaya stayed in at SF.

Then in the mop up time in the 4Q both starters at PF and SF were benched. At that time Castillo came in as the backup at SF, and Bustos came in as the only remaining forward at PF.

If Sardo were still on the team, he would have seen more action at PF, because of the foul trouble, and Castillo would then have been available to spell Olaya at SF?

exactly!