I tried:

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

and

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

In both cases, when A and B need subbed at the same time, C always subs in at Position 1.
Which is aggravating because I want him to sub in at Position 2 if both A and B exit at the same time.

what if you went:

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

?

or do you need a player E in that 4th spot at position 2?
i can see where you probably *would* need player E in case of fouls or extreme fatigue,  but just curious if that would change the sub pattern.

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.

Actually, this was just totally ignorant on my part.  Not sure how I took this long to see it.  If I just change it to:

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

it's clearly deterministic.  In that case you've got 2/3 vs. 2/4.  Silly me.