BuzzerBeater Forums

Maybe the question was asked by his first team and his answer provided by his Utopia team?

I like that idea. The coach from my first team wrote the first post and then the coach from my Utopia team answered him.

In reality, it was just me trying to keep the thread going with hopes of some input into the original question, which has started happening, so that is cool.

Have you seen it ever play players out of the depth chart positions?
Like, if you start a clear SG at PF, would it move him back to SG at the first sub opportunity?
Obviously, you probably didn't start guys out of position in NT games, so it may be hard to find an example.

I wish I'd thought of doing that at the time, but I'm almost certain I had everyone where they should have been. Even those players who were good enough to play at multiple positions didn't. It was, as you've found, almost exactly like SPDC, with what appeared to be slightly different minute ratios.
I also named different backups for every position, so I can't say what happens if you, for example, use one player at PF and C from the bench.

Thanks for the info.
The reason I started thinking about this is that my Utopia team is homegrown, so the players are much more balanced than my first team. Thus, several guys can play across 3 positions, even 4, depending on what kind of opponent I'm facing and strategy I want to play. I was hoping that playing LCD in my playoff game (which I lost) would enlighten me to some interesting new lineups that I hadn't thought to use in the past as the game progressed.
Perhaps the LCD option would allow OT games to follow a better sub pattern, as with SFDC the coach tends to unload the bench to start off the extra period, which is not so good.

I almost never used LCD, even before the blank lineups removal.

Interesting, so, for this game, I inverted my lineup (Backup C Eroz starting at PG, backup PF Anscom starting at SG, etc...) by starting my bench, and had my regular starters inverted as well, but as backups. Then I had the two next best guys unassigned to make up the 11th and 12th roster spots.
(85412738)

LCD was quick to sub out Eroz & Anscom from PG & SG at the first possible chance, but only subbed in my regular starting C & PF (T Anderson & Taylor), who were the designated backups for this game at those positions. Looks like they played about 50/50 minutes, although Eroz fouled out early in the 4th, so T Anderson took on more minutes. With about 53 seconds left, LCD subbed in a viable PG to replace him (Paul), who was not assigned a roster spot.

SF was interesting, as those are my usual SF players, just reversed in terms of who was starting. LCD played my regular starter 21 minutes as a sub, which is a lot in a non-blowout, but not as much as if LCD decided that he was clearly better than the starter (which he clearly is, by the way).

C & PF were treated kind of like normal, but my backup PG and SG are actually way better at those positions than my starting PG and SG, so that's not too weird.

Key takeaways:

- LCD follows the depth chart, and will not change players' assigned positions.
- LCD will try to put the best player from the depth chart into that position, but still respects the starter to some degree, letting them play more than they should even if they are clearly inferior to the backup.
- LCD will put in an undesignated player in the final minute, although SFDC does this as well. I'm not sure that it was because Anderson was tired, or it was just the final minute coding.

Next step:

- Play an LCD game with my real starting lineup, but name NO backups while fielding 12 players.

Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 7/30/2015 4:14:32 PM

Very interesting (and detailed) stuff. I'm planning to use LCD on saturday, but I wasn't planning to leave the backups blank. If you find players playing in multiple positions as backups that would be even more interesting. Its certainly possible, though by no means certain, that apart from your starters the lineup will be treated in the same way LCD used to treat a complete blank.

Update at the half: LCD thus far hasn't made a single sub. Apparently, players have to be in the depth chart to be selected during regular game time. Looks like I'll be playing these guys for 48 minutes.
Although, it is gearing up to be a blowout, so I'm curious if garbage time subs will take place.
Also, I have a player who might foul out...

Update at the end of the 3rd: LCD did indeed bring in the subs for garbage time with 1:28 remaining in the 3rd. LCD chose viable subs for each position.

Final update: LCD goes into super strategy mode in garbage time, swapping players between positions and subbing very often, using all 7 players in the starting lineup. Seriously, it seemed like there was player movement every single time there was a dead ball.

Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 7/31/2015 10:44:05 PM

@CoachWard95
Clearly he was showing findings.

@Iguanadon Joe
I use SFDC now but previously used LCD in my early seasons. I found that due to the coach making decisions, he'll run what he thinks is right. If there is a huge difference between the starters ability and the designated sub for the same positions ability then I find that the starters minutes do build up (obviously ST could be a factor here, but I've never had high stamina players).

SF was interesting, as those are my usual SF players, just reversed in terms of who was starting. LCD played my regular starter 21 minutes as a sub

Without looking at your team, this finding is quite interesting. 21 minutes for a non-blowout is a lot of minutes for a back up IMO. Maybe there is a gulf between the two SF's abilities?



Last edited by GM-Perpete at 8/1/2015 5:36:16 PM

SF was interesting, as those are my usual SF players, just reversed in terms of who was starting. LCD played my regular starter 21 minutes as a sub

Without looking at your team, this finding is quite interesting. 21 minutes for a non-blowout is a lot of minutes for a back up IMO. Maybe there is a gulf between the two SF's abilities?

It is certainly more minutes than SFDC would use, but still not favoring the better player overall. I kind of expected LCD to play the better player more minutes regardless of who was the starter. Stamina may be a factor, but I don't think so. Here are the details in: minutes played (starter vs sub), % variance in ability for the starter vs sub at that position, and ST for both players (starter vs sub).

SF: 27-21, -15%, 3-5
SG: 25-23, -40%, 7-5
PF: 34-14, -27%, 4-3
C: 37-11, +16%. 5-3 (My backup PG is actually a better C than my starting PG)
PG: invalid due to foul out.

As you can see, the SG position had the most minutes for the sub along with the biggest talent gap at that position, which makes sense, and the C position followed the inverse rule. PF is a bit of a quandary, as the starter was 27% worse at PF than the sub, but the sub still only played 14 minutes, while the SF starter was 15% worse than the sub, but the sub played 21 minutes.

Note: The ability ratings are based upon a formula I found in the help forums a while back for each position.

Last edited by Iguanadon Joe at 8/1/2015 11:11:16 AM

Hard to make conclusions based on a scrimmage, especially with my game shape being all over the place, so I can't assume this would happen in every game I used this lineup, but I don't think I'll be using LCD during the season.

(85520109)
My SG played 48 minutes, perhaps because his backup was a scrub. My SF played 44, his backup has terrible GS due to an injury. And my PF played 42, there's a dropoff to his backup too, but probably not as much as with the other two.

Like I said, scant evidence of anything, but its possible in a big game, where minutes don't matter and you want your best players on court as long as possible, that LCD might be the way to go.