If you had a team with weak team rebounding and two real rebounders ...
Would you rather:

A: start both of those two rebounders beside each other, to maximize the resounding on court in your starting unit or b: play one as the backup to the other to guarantee that at least one rebounder is on the court all the time? Might instinctually seem to be choice a, but does b have any merit?

I'd start both, you gotta have em' in, when it's crunch time.

I'd bring one off the bench to ensure that you have at least one rebounder in there... From my experiences (I've often had teams short on rebounding), splitting them is better based on the fact that your opponents will kill you on the offensive glass and get a bunch of second-chance points if neither is in.

I would have the most dominant rebounder start at 5 with the 2nd best rebounder as first backup at 4 and 5. 

start them both and run slowdown

ETA: I'm guessing this is for Drury. Keeping in mind we are conference foes 

It would be interesting to see how you'd fare with this lineup:

POS	Starter (3pt/distro)	1st Back-up	2nd Back-up	3rd Back-up
PG	Blessing(-1/9)	Hofman(-1/2)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SG	Buckley(0/6)	Reames(-1/4)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SF	Root(+1/14)	Meacham(-1/6)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
PF	Lumsden(+1/17)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)	Jones(-2/2)
C	Baumgardner(-2/6)	(blank)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)

Posted by dacj501 on 8/23/2012 5:39:00 AM (view original):
start them both and run slowdown

ETA: I'm guessing this is for Drury. Keeping in mind we are conference foes 

It would be interesting to see how you'd fare with this lineup:

POS	Starter (3pt/distro)	1st Back-up	2nd Back-up	3rd Back-up
PG	Blessing(-1/9)	Hofman(-1/2)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SG	Buckley(0/6)	Reames(-1/4)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SF	Root(+1/14)	Meacham(-1/6)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
PF	Lumsden(+1/17)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)	Jones(-2/2)
C	Baumgardner(-2/6)	(blank)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)

On the other hand, dacj right now at least you want me winning every gam(eg)

Posted by dacj501 on 8/23/2012 5:39:00 AM (view original):
start them both and run slowdown

ETA: I'm guessing this is for Drury. Keeping in mind we are conference foes 

It would be interesting to see how you'd fare with this lineup:

POS	Starter (3pt/distro)	1st Back-up	2nd Back-up	3rd Back-up
PG	Blessing(-1/9)	Hofman(-1/2)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SG	Buckley(0/6)	Reames(-1/4)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SF	Root(+1/14)	Meacham(-1/6)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
PF	Lumsden(+1/17)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)	Jones(-2/2)
C	Baumgardner(-2/6)	(blank)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)

That wus be a three fest ...

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/23/2012 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/23/2012 5:39:00 AM (view original):
start them both and run slowdown

ETA: I'm guessing this is for Drury. Keeping in mind we are conference foes 

It would be interesting to see how you'd fare with this lineup:

POS	Starter (3pt/distro)	1st Back-up	2nd Back-up	3rd Back-up
PG	Blessing(-1/9)	Hofman(-1/2)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SG	Buckley(0/6)	Reames(-1/4)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SF	Root(+1/14)	Meacham(-1/6)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
PF	Lumsden(+1/17)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)	Jones(-2/2)
C	Baumgardner(-2/6)	(blank)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)

That wus be a three fest ...

that was the idea...

Posted by dacj501 on 8/23/2012 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/23/2012 6:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/23/2012 5:39:00 AM (view original):
start them both and run slowdown

ETA: I'm guessing this is for Drury. Keeping in mind we are conference foes 

It would be interesting to see how you'd fare with this lineup:

POS	Starter (3pt/distro)	1st Back-up	2nd Back-up	3rd Back-up
PG	Blessing(-1/9)	Hofman(-1/2)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SG	Buckley(0/6)	Reames(-1/4)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
SF	Root(+1/14)	Meacham(-1/6)	(blank)	Parisi(-2/0)
PF	Lumsden(+1/17)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)	Jones(-2/2)
C	Baumgardner(-2/6)	(blank)	Zicker(-2/8)	Scoggins(-2/1)

That wus be a three fest ...

that was the idea...

Ok it might be just me being slow but I still haven't picked up exactly what effect leaving a blank spot in the depth chart has ..

it plays in when you have a player listed as a backup in more than one position. When subbing, the engine tries to put the lowest value of players on the court (ie, all your starters have a value of 1, next down has a value of 2) so by leaving a blank spot you are telling the engine to sub the player at the other position first and rotate him over to the other spot only if both guys ahead of him are out of the lineup. For your bigs in my example above Zicker would come in for Lumsden first. If both Lumsden and Baumgardner left the game at the same time, assuming no fatigue or foul issues for your backups - well, in this example I maybe messed up (it was late) because it would still be a toss up which player went where...My intent would be to have Zicker be at PF over C...I think over the course of the game Zicker would see more time at PF and Scoggins more at C, but to really accomplish what I was trying to do you'd need another blank at 2nd backup PF behind Zicker and put Scoggins where Jones is, leaving Jones out of the rotation unfortunately...so maybe it wouldn't work right...for Parisi, he has the lowest skill set and IQ, so I put him low so that the total value for him being in the game is high, meaning that the engine will get him out as soon as it can I think...

now this is new stuff for me ... gotta copy and paste this.

i didn't even know that was possible. i thought it would give you an error if you tried to save it like that.

Posted by pjbrankin on 8/23/2012 10:39:00 PM (view original):
i didn't even know that was possible. i thought it would give you an error if you tried to save it like that.

lol! you should have tried if you thought it would error :)

on a serious note, this stuff is very important, this advanced depth chart manipulation. it is invaluable when you want a guy to play 2 positions, like dac said. i use it all the time, for example, if i have a 3rd guard who is a strong soph, and a 4th guard who is a scoring oriented freshman (which means he sucks as a freshman, basically), i obviously want my 3rd guard playing as much as possible. if 3rd and 4th are both on the floor, i much prefer the soph to play PG. so i have my soph 2nd on both spots, and the fr guard 3rd on sg and 4th on pg.

i believe there is a little more to it than just that, if you have for example a player in 1st position and 1 in 2nd, then blank blank, compared to a player in 1st position and 1 in 4th, im pretty sure the 1st position player will play more minutes.

So as an example, if I had as a depth chart:

Pg: A/E/blank/F
Sg: B/E/blank/F
Sf: C/D/blank/F

Would result in roughly what?

I would start them both ... unless starting one of them was putting an overall inferior player in your starting lineup. Rebounding is important, but if you're sacrificing a bunch of other things and/or overall quality, then it's not worth it. If other options are relatively equal but can't rebound, then I'd go with both of them.