BuzzerBeater Forums

This was an honest question. He said in his next post that he did not, in fact, play SFDC.
Maybe you weren't following the thread. I asked if anyone had proof of what I suggested not working, he said take a look at his game, I asked if he played SFDC, and he said no.

I think what you're trying to say is that if you select something like "coach picks from depth chart" that the coach will still favour the starter that you select, even if the back-up is the better option. Do I have that right?

The best explanation of the situation is: Let Coach Decide puts a lot of weight on the artificial AI for sub decisions, Strictly Follow Depth Chart puts a lot of weight on the depth chart, and CPFDC is somewhere in between.

The best explanation of the situation is: Let Coach Decide puts a lot of weight on the artificial AI for sub decisions, Strictly Follow Depth Chart puts a lot of weight on the depth chart, and CPFDC is somewhere in between.

I still get from your message that in every case, there is some weight attached to the depth chart. It is just that the level of the weight changes.

I am pretty sure there is some weight attached to the coach at all times. Otherwise you would really get close to fixed minutes for all players at strictly follow depth chart, which is obviously not the case.

I worked this out to mean there is always some weight attached to the depth chart, but obviously I don't now 100%.

that is correct

early on we had a setting of the AI which just let the coach choose the best all the time, and people didn't like this because essentially bots and players who didn't bother to set depth charts at all could compete just as well with those people who took the time to set their lineup intentionally, and we agreed that it was silly not to reward people for putting some effort into setting their lineups, so all lineups take the depth chart into account at some level and poor depth charts will result in a poor choice of players.

the usual complain we have now is that the coach took too much liberty with the depth chart and refused to play my sucky substitute that I wanted to get training minutes for and instead opted to play the player who was more effective in the role.

really i think of this situation like you started a guy who isn't very good.. made him run up and down the court 3/4 of the game, he's out of shape and overwhelmed, and the coach couldn't help take mercy on him getting dunked on every play and took him out to give him a breather, and it seemed to him that if he was gonna put someone in it might as well be the guy best suited for the role.. i mean as a manager you put him on the roster for the game for a reason.

If you don't want someone to play, don't activate him for the game, he won't be play.

If you don't want someone to play, don't activate him for the game, he won't be play.

The situation I am presently trying to figure out is when you have a star player with next to zero stamina. I have tried coach picks but I still feel like he is staying on the court too long. I guess I will try LCD and see what happens.

I was also wondering if this is skewing people's analysis on stamina, as people only seem to analyze it by how long a player stays on the court vs the option on the bench. But maybe the option on the bench would be better at some point, it is just that the coach is following the depth chart to some degree.

Does that make sense?

Last edited by HeadPaperPusher at 9/24/2009 2:38:32 PM

It happened again. http://www.buzzerbeater.com/match/15489554/boxscore.aspx

This time the trainee has strong FT. What could be the culprit this time?