Hey y'all!

I'm coaching D1 in the SEC, not sure if that matters. I'm curious as to how deep you'd suggest my bench being. I've always used a four-deep but, using a motion offense, I'm thinking that might actually allow too much playing time for players who are relatively unskilled in the positions that they're the third or fourth-string choice. I was considering experimenting with a two-deep and adding a third when it felt necessary/deserved.

Any thoughts?

I normally run two-deep at every position with the backup at one position being the third stringer at another (my backup PG to SG, SG to SF, SF to PG, and my bigs swapping). If I have an extra guard or big, I'll play them 3rd string (backup guard will 3rd string PG to SF, backup big to 3rd string PF and C) where they'll see a couple minutes a game barring blowouts / foul trouble / etc., but that extra player is entirely dependent on recruiting budget, redshirting, etc.

I wouldn't worry too much about which offense you run for depth unless it's FB but more so defense. FCP will generally want 11-12 players. M2M will want 10-11. Zone wants 10ish (I never run zone so I may be totally wrong for them). That's not a rule by any means, but a guide. M2M teams can absolutely play as much as 12 guys and as low as 8ish (LSU in Knight, for example, is a top 10 team with 2 walk-ons, an ineligible, and a player he hasn't played a minute).

Stamina plays a major factor in this game so keep all of that in mind.

not setting a 3rd position opens you up to disaster in the event of foul trouble. some people prioritize filling every spot; that is not necessary and often not optimal (but usually only by a little bit). still, of the two 'don't think about it' options (going 2 deep and 4), filling every spot is vastly better.

I would say most seasons I have 28-29 of the 30 possible slots on the depth chart filled. Sometimes it's fewer, but I'd rather have as many options as possible in the event of an injury or foul trouble. I've had guys foul out in 2 minutes - not often, but it happens. You don't want to be stuck with 1 dude playing 38 minutes. If you want your bottom-tier reserves to play fewer minutes, this will work out far more optimally by setting your starters and/or preferred reserves to a lower (more tired) fatigue level. That's still a controlled uptick in their usage and gives you a safety valve.

30 possible spots?

Posted by oldave on 12/11/2019 10:57:00 PM (view original):
30 possible spots?

My first thought too. Did some quick math, even went back and looked at the depth chart. Felt real dumb for a second.

Yeah, my hands were apparently off on the number row by 1 key...

18-19 of 20.

Okay, all of this is great input. Thanks!

One other note - you do NOT have to fill every spot in sequence. So, you could at some position fill the 1st and 2nd slots, leave #3 empty and fill #4. I think that tends to reduce the use of the guy in the 4th slot although I cannot describe in detail how the substitution engine works.

Also of course, you can put a guy on mopup at the bottom of your list - which I think will get him in there in the event of some foul issues/injury

Leaving 3 empty and filling 4 does not reduce the use of the 3rd guy. It's a tool to change prioritization when you have the same guys backing up multiple positions. So for example:

PG - A, B, C
SG - D, B, blank, C

Now you can say, I always want the first guard into the game to be B, but if B and C are both in the game at the same time I want C playing PG and B playing SG. If you had both depth charts set to A, B, C, blank then the engine is going to decide without your input which guy plays where.

Posted by dahsdebater on 12/12/2019 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Leaving 3 empty and filling 4 does not reduce the use of the 3rd guy. It's a tool to change prioritization when you have the same guys backing up multiple positions. So for example:

PG - A, B, C
SG - D, B, blank, C

Now you can say, I always want the first guard into the game to be B, but if B and C are both in the game at the same time I want C playing PG and B playing SG. If you had both depth charts set to A, B, C, blank then the engine is going to decide without your input which guy plays where.

in your example, you are right - leaving spots is definitely a tool for this kind of manipulation, which is quite important (many coaches skip this entirely - even many really successful ones - definitely something folks should look at if they are skipping it now!!)

mets is also partly right too, however. in certain cases, putting a guy at 4 instead of 3 can reduce their minutes - usually not by much, but its definitely possible. here's why: (and to mets's comment about not knowing exactly how it works, i'm not sure i can get it 100% of the way there, but pretty close)

the engine decides who to play, under a fatigue setup, based on the depth chart and the fatigue of the players. the first priority is to play players who meet the fatigue threshold for playing; the second is to play the minimum sum of positions of the players.

note there is special logic in the final minutes (to play starters / high depth chart folks) and the final seconds (to play better 3pt scorers - this used to be just the per rating, they may or may not have improved this), in competitive games - plus the logic if you opt for it on the team game plan, for playing subs in blowouts or whatever.

in short, when a player is at a 3rd spot, instead of at 4 with a blank 3 - if you consider just that 1 position, it doesn't at all reduce their playing time - because when 1 and 2 are below the fatigue limit, the 3 vs 4 makes zero difference. however, when you consider complex situations across 5 positions, you may have say 3 viable depth charts where the depth chart total is 9, and if the guy who is a 3 goes to a 4, one or two of them might go to a 10, changing the outcome.

i split the last post in half - begin extended rambling:

on the first part, i believe it basically will try to find a set of 5 players such that they all are under the fatigue limit where they'd sub out. if you have the 5 guys who are dead last on the chart, and all 5 are barely under the fatigue limit, while all 5 starters are barely over the limit, i believe it will play the 5 subs. i do not think there is a balancing of factors, like you might expect.

on the second part, what that means is that if a guy is the starter, he basically gets a value of 1 - line 2 gets a value of 2, and so on. if you play 5 starters, the depth chart total is 5. if you play 5 guys on the 2nd line, your depth chart total is 10. the game tries to find the minimum depth chart total, breaking ties from left to right (from the 1 to the 5). this tie breaker is quite important and is the #1 reason i wish we could get a 5th line on the depth chart (for some reason nobody else seems to care about this, but its been my #1 ask for team setup control for almost 10 years now. come on people, get on board! maybe we'll get it in 10 more years if people really start asking for it now! i'd like to be able to have 6-7 lines but i figure that is out)

anyway, i call it 'depth chart math', i don't know if there is really a name, but it is a *very* important part of this game, to do the depth chart math (luckily its all adding little whole numbers, its really easy math wise). there are so many cases where fine tuning a rotation is incredibly valuable, its one of the couple things, along with getting the distro right, that really separates the great teams from the elite ones.

dahs gives a good example, but i want to reverse it to match an ultra-common and important real world case that folks screw up all the time (north of 50%??). let's say you have 4 players, 2 starter seniors (SR), a soph sub who is a good passer and you are OK playing PG (SO), and a sub who is a **** passer freshman and would wreck you at PG (where pass/iq is so important) (FR). let's suppose the soph is significantly better than the fr overall as a guard, but is way better as a PG

what do you do? many folks will punt - say well its TOO important for SO to play PG, so i'll do this -
PG - SR, SO, FR
SG - SR, FR, SO

this is a mistake 95% of the time - you can fairly safely play the SO over the FR at SG as follows:
PG - SR, SO, ---, FR
SG - SR, SO, FR, ----

the consequence of this is as follows: if the two SR are tired, the SO will play at PG, the FR at SG (because SO/FR lineup is 2 + 3 = 5; FR/SO lineup is 4+2 = 6, so 5 is less and the engine picks it).

if only 1 SR is tired, it will always play the SO over the FR.

even if both SR and the SO is tired, the engine still has to play 2 players - so what will happen is the PG1 will play and the FR will play SG, because 1+3 is less than 4+1 (FR at PG and SG1 playing) - assuming the PG1 and SG1 are equally tired.

the only downside is this - if only 1 SR is tired AND its the PG1 AND the SO is tired, then the SG1 will play with the FR at PG. in higher fatigue sets and/or with higher stamina SG1 than PG1, this can happen with non-negligible odds. if your SO is higher sta, you are pretty much protected, but that isn't always the case. so there are some cases - especially in higher fatigue sets - where i'd go the route of the folks who punt, listed above.

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/12/2019 8:12:00 PM (view original):

i split the last post in half - begin extended rambling:

on the first part, i believe it basically will try to find a set of 5 players such that they all are under the fatigue limit where they'd sub out. if you have the 5 guys who are dead last on the chart, and all 5 are barely under the fatigue limit, while all 5 starters are barely over the limit, i believe it will play the 5 subs. i do not think there is a balancing of factors, like you might expect.

on the second part, what that means is that if a guy is the starter, he basically gets a value of 1 - line 2 gets a value of 2, and so on. if you play 5 starters, the depth chart total is 5. if you play 5 guys on the 2nd line, your depth chart total is 10. the game tries to find the minimum depth chart total, breaking ties from left to right (from the 1 to the 5). this tie breaker is quite important and is the #1 reason i wish we could get a 5th line on the depth chart (for some reason nobody else seems to care about this, but its been my #1 ask for team setup control for almost 10 years now. come on people, get on board! maybe we'll get it in 10 more years if people really start asking for it now! i'd like to be able to have 6-7 lines but i figure that is out)

anyway, i call it 'depth chart math', i don't know if there is really a name, but it is a *very* important part of this game, to do the depth chart math (luckily its all adding little whole numbers, its really easy math wise). there are so many cases where fine tuning a rotation is incredibly valuable, its one of the couple things, along with getting the distro right, that really separates the great teams from the elite ones.

dahs gives a good example, but i want to reverse it to match an ultra-common and important real world case that folks screw up all the time (north of 50%??). let's say you have 4 players, 2 starter seniors (SR), a soph sub who is a good passer and you are OK playing PG (SO), and a sub who is a **** passer freshman and would wreck you at PG (where pass/iq is so important) (FR). let's suppose the soph is significantly better than the fr overall as a guard, but is way better as a PG

what do you do? many folks will punt - say well its TOO important for SO to play PG, so i'll do this -
PG - SR, SO, FR
SG - SR, FR, SO

this is a mistake 95% of the time - you can fairly safely play the SO over the FR at SG as follows:
PG - SR, SO, ---, FR
SG - SR, SO, FR, ----

the consequence of this is as follows: if the two SR are tired, the SO will play at PG, the FR at SG (because SO/FR lineup is 2 + 3 = 5; FR/SO lineup is 4+2 = 6, so 5 is less and the engine picks it).

if only 1 SR is tired, it will always play the SO over the FR.

even if both SR and the SO is tired, the engine still has to play 2 players - so what will happen is the PG1 will play and the FR will play SG, because 1+3 is less than 4+1 (FR at PG and SG1 playing) - assuming the PG1 and SG1 are equally tired.

the only downside is this - if only 1 SR is tired AND its the PG1 AND the SO is tired, then the SG1 will play with the FR at PG. in higher fatigue sets and/or with higher stamina SG1 than PG1, this can happen with non-negligible odds. if your SO is higher sta, you are pretty much protected, but that isn't always the case. so there are some cases - especially in higher fatigue sets - where i'd go the route of the folks who punt, listed above.

I also sometimes do something like this:

PG: A, B, - - -, C
SG: B, C, D

In this situation Player B is usually by far my second best PG but is also too good to not start.

Posted by mrslam34 on 12/12/2019 11:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 12/12/2019 8:12:00 PM (view original):

i split the last post in half - begin extended rambling:

on the first part, i believe it basically will try to find a set of 5 players such that they all are under the fatigue limit where they'd sub out. if you have the 5 guys who are dead last on the chart, and all 5 are barely under the fatigue limit, while all 5 starters are barely over the limit, i believe it will play the 5 subs. i do not think there is a balancing of factors, like you might expect.

on the second part, what that means is that if a guy is the starter, he basically gets a value of 1 - line 2 gets a value of 2, and so on. if you play 5 starters, the depth chart total is 5. if you play 5 guys on the 2nd line, your depth chart total is 10. the game tries to find the minimum depth chart total, breaking ties from left to right (from the 1 to the 5). this tie breaker is quite important and is the #1 reason i wish we could get a 5th line on the depth chart (for some reason nobody else seems to care about this, but its been my #1 ask for team setup control for almost 10 years now. come on people, get on board! maybe we'll get it in 10 more years if people really start asking for it now! i'd like to be able to have 6-7 lines but i figure that is out)

anyway, i call it 'depth chart math', i don't know if there is really a name, but it is a *very* important part of this game, to do the depth chart math (luckily its all adding little whole numbers, its really easy math wise). there are so many cases where fine tuning a rotation is incredibly valuable, its one of the couple things, along with getting the distro right, that really separates the great teams from the elite ones.

dahs gives a good example, but i want to reverse it to match an ultra-common and important real world case that folks screw up all the time (north of 50%??). let's say you have 4 players, 2 starter seniors (SR), a soph sub who is a good passer and you are OK playing PG (SO), and a sub who is a **** passer freshman and would wreck you at PG (where pass/iq is so important) (FR). let's suppose the soph is significantly better than the fr overall as a guard, but is way better as a PG

what do you do? many folks will punt - say well its TOO important for SO to play PG, so i'll do this -
PG - SR, SO, FR
SG - SR, FR, SO

this is a mistake 95% of the time - you can fairly safely play the SO over the FR at SG as follows:
PG - SR, SO, ---, FR
SG - SR, SO, FR, ----

the consequence of this is as follows: if the two SR are tired, the SO will play at PG, the FR at SG (because SO/FR lineup is 2 + 3 = 5; FR/SO lineup is 4+2 = 6, so 5 is less and the engine picks it).

if only 1 SR is tired, it will always play the SO over the FR.

even if both SR and the SO is tired, the engine still has to play 2 players - so what will happen is the PG1 will play and the FR will play SG, because 1+3 is less than 4+1 (FR at PG and SG1 playing) - assuming the PG1 and SG1 are equally tired.

the only downside is this - if only 1 SR is tired AND its the PG1 AND the SO is tired, then the SG1 will play with the FR at PG. in higher fatigue sets and/or with higher stamina SG1 than PG1, this can happen with non-negligible odds. if your SO is higher sta, you are pretty much protected, but that isn't always the case. so there are some cases - especially in higher fatigue sets - where i'd go the route of the folks who punt, listed above.

I also sometimes do something like this:

PG: A, B, - - -, C
SG: B, C, D

In this situation Player B is usually by far my second best PG but is also too good to not start.

Agree with this. I've even had seasons where my PG depth consists of.....
1. My starting PG
2. My starting SG at backup PG
3. My starting SF at 3rd string PG

And I'll put my remaining guards at the backup spot at SG and SF. I am also a coach that uses 3 guards consistently. And I don't often have a "True SF" as some call it