Could somebody tell me for certain whether the lineup prefers a 3/3 or a 2/4 depth chart configuration?  For example, say we have 5 players, A, B, C, D, and E, who play 2 positions.  If the depth chart looks like so:

Position 1: A | C | D | E
Position 2: A| (blank) | C | D

and C and D are on the court at the same time, does C start at position 1 (ie. 2/4) or position 2 (3/3).  My memory is telling me that the answer is 2/4, so C would play position 1 and D would play position 2, but I'm not confident in it.  I suppose it's also possible that it's not deterministic, but that would definitely be poor programming.

I thought the same, but the last 2 games it has not been the case:

Position 1:  A | (blank) | C | D
Position 2:  B | C | D

Every game, when A and B need subbed at the same time, player C continues to sub in at Position 1 instead of Position 2.

As I understand it, the sim will always take the lower total.  That being the case, 3/3 (6) and 2/4 (6) are treated equally and the sim makes the call.  You could flop C and D against a bad opponent and test the theory.

huh?

what do 2/4 and 3/3 mean and why do you add them together?

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/3/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Could somebody tell me for certain whether the lineup prefers a 3/3 or a 2/4 depth chart configuration?  For example, say we have 5 players, A, B, C, D, and E, who play 2 positions.  If the depth chart looks like so:

Position 1: A | C | D | E
Position 2: A| (blank) | C | D

and C and D are on the court at the same time, does C start at position 1 (ie. 2/4) or position 2 (3/3).  My memory is telling me that the answer is 2/4, so C would play position 1 and D would play position 2, but I'm not confident in it.  I suppose it's also possible that it's not deterministic, but that would definitely be poor programming.

i think the tie is broken placing the higher listed player from left to right, but im not sure, its just been that way the few times i had the situation and cared to check. also, the poor programming thing is definitely debatable :) i prefer it to be deterministic, obviously, but in simulating a coaches behavior, i think you could argue either way. this isn't systems programming here, and randomness is fairly desirable in games in general. or in particular, i suppose?

Posted by oldave on 12/3/2014 10:56:00 PM (view original):
huh?

what do 2/4 and 3/3 mean and why do you add them together?

the way you decide the depth chart, when you break the ties after fatigue, is based on the depth chart ordering - the possible lineups are summed by listed position, and the minimum sum is what is played.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2014 12:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/3/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Could somebody tell me for certain whether the lineup prefers a 3/3 or a 2/4 depth chart configuration?  For example, say we have 5 players, A, B, C, D, and E, who play 2 positions.  If the depth chart looks like so:

Position 1: A | C | D | E
Position 2: A| (blank) | C | D

and C and D are on the court at the same time, does C start at position 1 (ie. 2/4) or position 2 (3/3).  My memory is telling me that the answer is 2/4, so C would play position 1 and D would play position 2, but I'm not confident in it.  I suppose it's also possible that it's not deterministic, but that would definitely be poor programming.

i think the tie is broken placing the higher listed player from left to right, but im not sure, its just been that way the few times i had the situation and cared to check. also, the poor programming thing is definitely debatable :) i prefer it to be deterministic, obviously, but in simulating a coaches behavior, i think you could argue either way. this isn't systems programming here.

You think the same coach would routinely take the same 2 players and put them in the game together and swap their positions back and forth?  I mean, things of that nature happen occasionally, depending on performance, but I don't think on a whim a coach would tell his 2 backup guards, "ok, I know that Bob was handling point last game, but this time I think I want Steve to do it.  We'll swap it again on Saturday."

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/4/2014 12:17:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/4/2014 12:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/3/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):
Could somebody tell me for certain whether the lineup prefers a 3/3 or a 2/4 depth chart configuration?  For example, say we have 5 players, A, B, C, D, and E, who play 2 positions.  If the depth chart looks like so:

Position 1: A | C | D | E
Position 2: A| (blank) | C | D

and C and D are on the court at the same time, does C start at position 1 (ie. 2/4) or position 2 (3/3).  My memory is telling me that the answer is 2/4, so C would play position 1 and D would play position 2, but I'm not confident in it.  I suppose it's also possible that it's not deterministic, but that would definitely be poor programming.

i think the tie is broken placing the higher listed player from left to right, but im not sure, its just been that way the few times i had the situation and cared to check. also, the poor programming thing is definitely debatable :) i prefer it to be deterministic, obviously, but in simulating a coaches behavior, i think you could argue either way. this isn't systems programming here.

You think the same coach would routinely take the same 2 players and put them in the game together and swap their positions back and forth?  I mean, things of that nature happen occasionally, depending on performance, but I don't think on a whim a coach would tell his 2 backup guards, "ok, I know that Bob was handling point last game, but this time I think I want Steve to do it.  We'll swap it again on Saturday."

if there is literally no preference (which roughly never happens), i could definitely see the coach leaving the guy in the position he is at when the other player subs in, and/or having the desire to play both players at pg OR sg, and splitting the time intentionally to determine the future starting pg (or primary backup), thus leaving the placement of the two when in together, non deterministic (when you are only aware of the current situation, even though the coach's actions may be deterministic if you had all the information). given the information into the sim - that there is literally no preference whatsoever (can seble add that 5th spot yet?) - i think it would be reasonable not to address the situation with an explicit tie breaker. you could leave it up to the (non-random yet not deterministic from our view) tie breaker of the way the sort happens to break the tie, that is a pretty reasonable approximation of the coaching decisions i described in the first place. 

also i edited my post since you quoted it, just fyi

but back to the real point, i am curious if my theory checks out there, care to update after you deal with your situation here? or was that purely theoretical?

Theoretical.

oh, that sucks. i suppose its easy enough to play around and figure it out, im just lazy...

If I hadn't failed to set not only my distros but my starting lineup for the first 3 games of the season with Rochester and managed to blow 3 eminently winnable matchups with a team that's very young and always had a mountain to climb just to make it into the tournament I could play around with it, but I'll see what I can find out next season with Methodist...

Here's my 2 cents.  For a while I've set it up as if it reads down line by line until it finds C and D.  I'm not a programmer so I don't know if that's how it would be done but it seems to work for me.

So in Dahs' case I would assume that when C and D are in the game the depth chart stops at line 3 and player C is at position 2.

In dacamel's case I would think that when A and B are out, we would stop at line 3 again and C would be at postion 1.

I don't know if that's how it works but like I said, every time I check it seems to be working.

My experience ... in a 3/3 vs 2/4 (or any equal combo 1/4 vs 2/3) the sim will always choose the combo that puts a player in the highest position.

So 2/4 will be chosen over 3/3 because it put s a player in the 2 position.

And 1/4 will be chosen over 2/3 because it puts a player in the 1 position.

1/3 over 2/2 .... etc.

interesting... maybe the left to right thing is just breaking ties between 2/3 and 3/2 type of situations