BuzzerBeater Forums

Here's my view on blank lineups:

If a player is significantly better than his backup, we're better off starting him. But if we have similar players, it's better to blank the position and try to get a better minutes distribution. After watching last season, I have a few concerns about a full blank lineup.

1. Towards the end of the season, we noticed that if someone shoots FT's in a full blank lineup, for some reason, the GE would automatically put that guy at PG for the next few minutes. This happened to us where he had Hammond and Hobilla playing some PG in game. This also happened to Poland against Italy, where Italy wen't on a 12-0 run in the last 2 minutes of the 3rd to seal the game, because their C couldn't defend PG. If this problem persists, we can't blank the PG spot going forward.

2. In addition, sometimes I'm not real happy with the way minutes are distributed. The GE didn't really like Goddard all that much last season. I'm not sure why, but if we blanked a few positions, he wouldn't get any minutes. Hobilla saw more minutes at PG than Goddard...

With these concerns, it seemed a little risky to blank a lot at last season's World's. But Americas is different. In the first round of America's at least, I plan on using a full blank and a few partial blanks just to see how the GE chooses players. In theory, blank lineups should work best for U21 teams, since all the players are fairly close in skill level to each other. But if blank and get the same results as last season, then I'd probably be a little less risky and set the lineups for the second round and beyond...

Oh jeeze you got me with that one lol. Im not good with names to be honest. But let me tell you, Ive been looking at those players since last season so Im pretty dang familier with what we have ability wise.

Rambo has a very nice new thread on the offsite listing season 19 (next worlds) prospects. Without looking at the thread (you're on your honor!) name as many of the players as you can off the top of your head.

uh... I might put some season 18 guys in here too..

Bigs:
Miller
Ebert
Nielson
A. Mattingly
Truong
Perez
Ojeda

SF:
Schultz?
Wade Harder needs a season of OD
F. Mattingly... probably a longshot

Guards:
Walter
Shepherd
Ellington? is he season 18?
Valenzuela
Atli
Flood.. but he needs a lot of OD as well

That's all I got.

Question for candidates:

By the end of last season we seemed to get away from using "blank" lineups. What are your feelings on blank lineups and how do you plan on using them if at all?

I am not against using blank lineups as it can assure a decent amount of playing time from everyone which means you can take advantage of the bench. However, that does not mean I will be using it all the time. I feel there are situations that you have to set the lineup yourself to make sure a player plays. An example was last year. We did a lot of LI and the GE wouldnt play Goddard in a LI even though he was one of the better option. Thats a good time to set it yourself to make sure someone plays.
I also feel a blank lineup is best when you have a clear advantage. Yes, it can still lead to wins against good opponents but sometimes the GE will play a big at SF even though that may not be best for defense. You have to be aware of all the possible outcomes and be sure the team will be able to win with those outcomes before you choose to blank.

Last edited by Isaiah at 11/4/2011 10:23:28 AM

I've been waiting for this question

I'm a fan of blank lineups in general but not a fan of full blank lineups. I believe you should blank your lineup when you have a plethora of options that you could play in two(or three but your asking for mistakes and miss matches when you blank 3 positions) positions. A blank Lineup would be effective there because the Game Engine will pick the two best out of the bunch they feel is best suited for the offense you run, and they will also distribute the minutes in a very equal manner. It is huge later in the game since those positions aren't as tired since they've been subbed out a lot more.

Magiker pointed out some of the flaws with going full blank lineup. At certain points(Almost always the last 2 minutes of the game) you'll have extremely weird and undesirable lineups in the game. An example he missed that you can add on to his list is that when we blanked 3 positions vs Hong Kong. Hobilla, a true center with ok subs, got a bulk of his minutes at SF. The reason? We ran LI and the game decided that a big at SF would be best suited for this offense. It didn't even care about the defensive math ups. Hong Kong ran motion in that game and as a result their two leading scorers were both SF's. Luckily we won that game but if it did that vs a better opponent we probably would have lost.

My point being that blank lineup is a high risk/high reward tool.

Also If I'm elected I'm never going to blank the SF spot ever. That is the position where too many weird sub packages and head scratching line-up choices occur.

I've been waiting for this question

I'm a fan of blank lineups in general but not a fan of full blank lineups. I believe you should blank your lineup when you have a plethora of options that you could play in two(or three but your asking for mistakes and miss matches when you blank 3 positions) positions. A blank Lineup would be effective there because the Game Engine will pick the two best out of the bunch they feel is best suited for the offense you run, and they will also distribute the minutes in a very equal manner. It is huge later in the game since those positions aren't as tired since they've been subbed out a lot more.

Magiker pointed out some of the flaws with going full blank lineup. At certain points(Almost always the last 2 minutes of the game) you'll have extremely weird and undesirable lineups in the game. An example he missed that you can add on to his list is that when we blanked 3 positions vs Hong Kong. Hobilla, a true center with ok subs, got a bulk of his minutes at SF. The reason? We ran LI and the game decided that a big at SF would be best suited for this offense. It didn't even care about the defensive math ups. Hong Kong ran motion in that game and as a result their two leading scorers were both SF's. Luckily we won that game but if it did that vs a better opponent we probably would have lost.

My point being that blank lineup is a high risk/high reward tool.

Also If I'm elected I'm never going to blank the SF spot ever. That is the position where too many weird sub packages and head scratching line-up choices occur.

Also If I'm elected I'm never going to blank the SF spot ever. That is the position where too many weird sub packages and head scratching line-up choices occur.

I'm going to disagree on this. We lost the first 2 games at Worlds to Poland and Israel, and they both had bigs playing at SF. Poland blanked it, and Israel set it. Difficult to say the GE made the wrong decision by playing a big at SF against us when they won. Also, the other 3 world's semi-finalists played bigs at SF for most of the season, either by blanking or setting.

We had a unique player to play SF for us the season, but we won't have that all the time and we might have to be a little more creative... although it looks like we have a good one again in season 18. If we didn't have B-rod this past season, it might have been good for us to blank SF to get a rotation of a big and a guard.

Moreland played well when the GE put him at SF, so I don't think it's something to just discredit. Probably best to test it out and see what the GE does in the first round of Americas, rather than never doing it.

That was a great question fewmit. *Hat tip*

Yes but Poland playing a SF vs Italy was the reason they lost that game. Again blank lineup cares about offense and only offense. We all know that defense is what wins games. Now if we are planning on running LI vs a team we are 100% sure they're running LI, than it's not as big a problem but it is very risky, more so than other positions, to blank the SF. There was much discussion on the offsite forum about R@G the championship game to take advantage of the big at SF like Italy did, so even though we may not have directly thought and said "Let's R@G and take advantage of the blank lineup" our reasoning behind that discussion was we knew Poland would play a big at SF.

Last edited by oriolekid at 11/4/2011 11:55:38 AM

Playing a big isn't always bad though like magiker said and as you have said now about playing one in a LI. Thats why when making the decision on the lineups and tactic, whether it is myself, or you, or magiker, or someone else, needs to think about all the options and make a decision from there. There may be times when playing a big at SF is the best option which means blanking the lineup may be the best option too. Even at SF. That's what makes the question tricky because we have all seen what blanking does and while we can say our opinions now on what we may want to do or think about doing we cant officially decide till the time comes.

If you look at the results and back at the debate thread, you'll notice two things: 1. They voted for a homegrown manager. (Makes sense. Would you want someone from another country running your team for two seasons?) and 2. No one asked me any questions. (I have no explanation for this, maybe because they were settled on a candidate since they barely had enough managers to put together a vote. I'm still unsure.) Anyways, it was an NT too. Not to take the U21 lightly (it most definitely is not), but the NT is kinda a big deal, ya know?