I think there are somewhat more funky results with distros like 5-4-3-2-1 for a total of say 20 for the entire roster than one sees with distros like 15-12-9-6-3 for a total of say 60

Although we have been told often that is all about the ratios, it is possible the absolute size of the numbers has an effect on the fineness of the operation of the engine's calculations. The size of the denominator.

Does the engine work based on tolerances expressed in absolute terms or in percentages? Dont know. But if absolute numbers are relevant at all, then 15/45 may behave somewhat differently than 5/15

personally, I go with distros that total in the 70's or 80's. That means that I can add some distro to a player for a game without rejiggering the entire distro, but I am using relatively larger numbers than the OP here. Does it matter? hard to know.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/29/2018 2:04:00 PM (view original):
“You had close to even distro with one guard(Huang) and 1 forward and 1 center, so naturally when that happens, the guard will get a lot more shots.”

Interesting theory. So if it was reversed, and I had two guards with relatively even distribution, and one front court player with that same distribution number, do you think that front court player would have gotten more shots? That doesn’t really make any intuitive sense. If I set distribution relatively even between three players, wouldn’t it make more sense each of those players be expected to get roughly the same amount of shots?

Between those three players, they took 24 shots from the field. Their total distribution number was 23. And the guard took more than 50% more shots than the other two combined, despite having distribution set at roughly 1/3. Does this really not seem out of whack to you?

Yes, but for whatever reason, in this game, if you have even distro between guards and the F/C the guards are going to get a majority of the shots.

So remember distro=touches of the basketball.

In a real basketball game, it's guard to guard to guard pass and maybe get a touch in the low post. So in a way, this actually makes sense.

And yes, there are several instances in my games where the distro is out of whack, taking those comments I made above out of the equation.

To be clear since I am not sure what you meant,

Distribution = scoring plays set up for that player, not touches.
I have found the opposite of you, that given even distribution (in non FCP teams) my PF/Cs get more shots due to offensive rebounds and put backs that are not part of the distribution.

Posted by mullycj on 12/30/2018 4:05:00 PM (view original):
To be clear since I am not sure what you meant,

Distribution = scoring plays set up for that player, not touches.
I have found the opposite of you, that given even distribution (in non FCP teams) my PF/Cs get more shots due to offensive rebounds and put backs that are not part of the distribution.

I thought this was correct as well. Distro is the number of plays designed for that player to shoot/score.

If it were touches, you would want all your ball handlers and passers with higher distros every single game because you want them to touch the ball more. No one would give their post players with 10 PAS and 10 BH distro because they wouldn't be as efficient. The reason you give post players high distro is because of high LP, or high ATH.... scoring attributes.

Is anyone on your roster set to '0' distribution? Years ago I remember coaches like spasitcity/killbatman, jsajsa, Gillespie, etc, saying they would occasionally see really fluky results when players had a 0 for distro (I've noticed it as well, fwiw), and now always make sure the lowest number I have is a 1.

I usually use a total of like 30 at the most and my distro is always exactly what I want... I'm so confused lol

Posted by darnoc29099 on 12/30/2018 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Is anyone on your roster set to '0' distribution? Years ago I remember coaches like spasitcity/killbatman, jsajsa, Gillespie, etc, saying they would occasionally see really fluky results when players had a 0 for distro (I've noticed it as well, fwiw), and now always make sure the lowest number I have is a 1.

That’s interesting, never heard that. The freshman, King, was set at 0. Everyone else at least 2.

I’m going to divulge a bit of my personal gameplanning here, not like it’s a trade secret, or anything. I aim for about 50, give or take. No special reason, other than simplicity for my own sake. 50 is about the number of shots my teams take on average, in normal tempo games, so I’m basically setting distribution based on how many shots I would like each player to take. In this particular game, I had brought Salinas and Huang down a couple each from where they had been, because I was slowing down, and against this particular defense, I wanted a more balanced approach.

I normally view it something like doggg and fd, in that I have presumed the excess distribution gets distributed judiciously based on where the defense is set - so we’re not forcing it into the teeth of my opponents defense. Usually it plays out pretty close to what I expect. But this time, the opponent played a + defense, and my distribution skewed far in the direction opposite of what I wanted, or would have expected.

That has me leaning toward TJs explanation, along the lines of the constant doubleteam of a press skewing it more toward the guard, in spite of the defensive setting.

I also agree with what TJ said about the OP for this scenario. For a minute, we just kinda drifted into general distro talks instead of focusing on the OP.

I read threads like this, and I think a lot of folks are overthinking distribution.

I assign distribution based on individual player ratings, and not at a team level. There is no "target" that I shoot for. Wherever the total distro falls, so be it. I have formulas in a spreadsheet that will calculate distro values that range from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 11 per player (I believe the highest I've ever actually achieved for one of my players is 9). For any particular game, If I see a favorable matchup against weak defenders for one or more of my starters, I'll bump his distro up by a couple of points for that game only.

Because I'm looking at it solely at an individual level and not at a team level, my numbers will vary from team to team, from season to season, and will slightly change throughout each season as player's ratings improve.

Currently, my three teams total baseline distro ratings are:

D1 (Rupp) - 58
D2 (Iba) - 47
D3 (Smith) - 51

My D2 team is relatively low compared to the other two teams because it's only my second season there and I've only gone through one season of recruiting, so I have mostly crappy SIM recruits on that roster.

My D3 team is also higher than usual because I've got a pretty solid (for D3) roster right now in Smith. Normally, they're low to mid 40's.

Overall, I'm happy with the way my offense plays out. My better offensive players take more shots than my weaker ones. And at an individual game level, when I bump somebody up based on matchup, they tend to be the primary guy for that game.

I feel like I've had a couple of seasons of really lucky sims since I changed my distro strategy to the 0-1-2-3 scheme, which is opposite to what most are saying here. I like the thought that any given night a random guy might get more shots based a good matchup that I didn't expect. There are plenty of times I get surprised by M-2-M lineup or doubleteam changes by the opposing coach and having a low distro means I'm not screwed if they really focus on one or two guys. Even players with zero distro still get fastbreak layups. Sometimes I'll jack up a low post player to 4 distro if they have a great matchup and I really want to hammer them down low, but haven't put a guard above 3.

I'm not sure if those last 2 seasons were a fluke or a result of something else but the distro is the only thing I changed. The team was pretty average for a D2 top25 squad as far as ratings were concerned, nothing overpowered.

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 12/31/2018 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I feel like I've had a couple of seasons of really lucky sims since I changed my distro strategy to the 0-1-2-3 scheme, which is opposite to what most are saying here. I like the thought that any given night a random guy might get more shots based a good matchup that I didn't expect. There are plenty of times I get surprised by M-2-M lineup or doubleteam changes by the opposing coach and having a low distro means I'm not screwed if they really focus on one or two guys. Even players with zero distro still get fastbreak layups. Sometimes I'll jack up a low post player to 4 distro if they have a great matchup and I really want to hammer them down low, but haven't put a guard above 3.

I'm not sure if those last 2 seasons were a fluke or a result of something else but the distro is the only thing I changed. The team was pretty average for a D2 top25 squad as far as ratings were concerned, nothing overpowered.

I usually recommend something like this approach for new players, 2-3 featured scorers up to 5, everyone else 0-3 based on IQ. Generally works pretty well; bumping up distribution for a more “granular” gameplan is a more advanced tactic. It’s usually more forgiving to leave distribution lower until you are very confident you know where your efficient scoring will come from in any given game.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/31/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pdxblazerfan on 12/31/2018 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I feel like I've had a couple of seasons of really lucky sims since I changed my distro strategy to the 0-1-2-3 scheme, which is opposite to what most are saying here. I like the thought that any given night a random guy might get more shots based a good matchup that I didn't expect. There are plenty of times I get surprised by M-2-M lineup or doubleteam changes by the opposing coach and having a low distro means I'm not screwed if they really focus on one or two guys. Even players with zero distro still get fastbreak layups. Sometimes I'll jack up a low post player to 4 distro if they have a great matchup and I really want to hammer them down low, but haven't put a guard above 3.

I'm not sure if those last 2 seasons were a fluke or a result of something else but the distro is the only thing I changed. The team was pretty average for a D2 top25 squad as far as ratings were concerned, nothing overpowered.

I usually recommend something like this approach for new players, 2-3 featured scorers up to 5, everyone else 0-3 based on IQ. Generally works pretty well; bumping up distribution for a more “granular” gameplan is a more advanced tactic. It’s usually more forgiving to leave distribution lower until you are very confident you know where your efficient scoring will come from in any given game.

Right that's exactly my point. I think from what I've learned I will always play the low distro against M2M and go 'advanced' as you call it against other types of defenses that focus less on individual matchups.

Posted by darnoc29099 on 12/30/2018 8:56:00 PM (view original):
Is anyone on your roster set to '0' distribution? Years ago I remember coaches like spasitcity/killbatman, jsajsa, Gillespie, etc, saying they would occasionally see really fluky results when players had a 0 for distro (I've noticed it as well, fwiw), and now always make sure the lowest number I have is a 1.

I use zero all the time. As many as 5 guys on any team I have are perpetually set to zero. It more or less leads them to take zero shots (minus put backs and end of half heaves) unless all guys on the court have zero distro. Occasionally when someone is at 1 and the rest are zero the zero guys take more than the expected amount of shots but it still isnt alot.

In my comments, i'm not really trying to say that bigger distro is "better" distro. For those that are confused. All I'm pointing out, is that sometimes I want a bigger discrepancy between my players shot attempts.

i think lower distros work just fine. But I think it just causes player shots attempts to be more balanced. Sometimes I don't want balanced. And I want 3 guys to take more a majority of the shot attempts.

In those situations, i've had less success getting what I want by using a 0-1-1-2-4, compared to 0-3-3-6-12 for example. I don't feel either is "better" necessarily. But i feel like one produces a larger number of shot attempts on the top end. Meaning, in the smaller model, i'm getting attempts like 2-3-4-7-9. But in the larger model I'm getting shot attempts like 2-3-4-10-13. And that's what I prefer in some cases

Neither is better or worse. I just believe it stretches things a bit.