One of the things I struggle most with is setting the depth chart. I’m mostly okay with starters, but how do you maximize a bench players minutes? If you have a guy that you want to play at multiple positions (regardless of whether he should actually play multiple positions), how do you set it? Does skipping a line on the depth chart help? Thanks.

The most common situation is you want two positions to be primarily covered by 3 players (two starters and a primary back-up). The best way to do this is to change the fatigue setting of the starter with the higher stamina to "getting tired". This stops the sim from trying to sub out both starter around the same time when they first pass the "fairly fresh" threshold. Hopefully, by the time the second starter passes the second fatigue hurdle, the first starter is ready to go back in and then the sim can rotate the other two back in. This is not perfect at all and will result in another player getting more minutes eventually, but works pretty well.

For the more in-depth answer to your question, Im going to copy and paste a sitemail gil sent me a few years ago on the mechanics on how the depth chart actually works. Nothing controversial so hope he doesnt mind me reposting.

(PS - hope you are well jodester, been nearly 10 years since we squared away in Gibson! I finally started that back up again.)

My question to gil:
The one item I've never really mastered is how to shift a starting player. Is there anyway to set it to rotate a starter? The most common one I run into is I want my SG to roll to the 1 when my first guard off the bench comes in. Sometimes I want to do something similar flipping the 4 to the five (or move around a SF) but all the same concept. Is there anyway to do this? I've never really been able to consistently get it to work.

Gils response:

The short version is this. Yes, you can do that. Fatigue plays a roll, and the depth chart is easiest to understand with fatigue, but the same concepts apply with minutes. The game tries to play fresh players first, but when there are many options (as is normally the case), the way it decides is it takes the minimum sum of positions with a left to right tie breaker (prioritizing the leftmost column). By that I mean the PG 1 counts as 1 point if he's in, the PG 2 counts as 2 points, the SF 3 as 3 points, and so on. The starting lineup has a total of 5 and is the minimum scenario. In general, the game plays the freshest lineup it can first, then gets the lowest total of positions second, then left to right third.

I'll use an example to illustrate. How about whatever you asked - you want your SG1 to slide left, versus you want your PF to slide right. Its the same concept, but the implementation ends up being different because of the way the tie breaker works. Let's suppose this is the relevant portion of the depth chart in a straight 10 man deep team:
PG1 SG1 SF1 PF1 C1
SG1 SG2 SF2 PF2 PF1
PG2 C2 C2

Now, if your PG1 is the only one tired, you want your SG1 in at PG, is how I understand it. This will happen - SG1/SG2 has a score of 2+2=4 (SG1/SG2 meaning your active 1 is player SG1 and active 2 is SG2). Meanwhile, PG2/SG1 has a score of 3+1=4, so the tie breaker kicks in - the option which uses the higher player in the left most column will carry, which is the SG1/SG2. Of course, if PG1 and SG1 have virtually identical stamina and don't get in foul trouble, this may not actually do much - but it will cover you for all the cases where PG1 and SG1 are on different rotations.

On the other hand, the big situation is not going to work so nicely. When the C1 is tired (or in foul trouble) and the rest are fresh, PF1/C2 (4) is the next best option, followed by PF2/PF1 (4), and then C2/PF1(5). So essentially, only if C2 is tired, and the first option is ruled out, will PF2/PF1 take over. Note that C2/PF1 is impossible because the inverse, PF1/C2 is strictly better and is always possible in any scenario in which C2/PF1 is possible (this logic does not apply to end game scenarios when the game is not close and subs are being given time - those checkboxes at the bottom of team game planning).

If you want your PF1 to slide to C, you could move C2 down a slot - out of the C3 spot on the depth chart and into the C4 spot (leaving C3 blank). Then, when C1 is tired, PF1/C2 would be 5 points - so PF2/PF1 (4) would have precedence.

In general, you'd want to fill out the big man depth chart with C2 as PF3 or PF4 for foul trouble and such. So the depth chart would be (only columns 4/5, PF/C)
PF1 C1
PF2 PF1
C2 -
- C2

You could put C1 at that 4th spot on the PF line, but it could never actually happen, so it has no effect good or bad (perhaps take a moment to convince yourself of that). So, I tend to reserve that slot for a SF who could slide over in a pinch. Putting PF2 at the C3 slot would cause PF2 to play center over PF1, which I don't think you want (when C1 is out, it would be PF1/PF2 (4)). So you basically lose that slot on the depth chart to gain the control, and have to decide if its worth it (with a 4 big rotation, it almost definitely is, having only 3/4 listed on a spot gives up literally nothing. with a 5 big rotation, in a high fatigue set like press or especially fb/pr, its often not worth it).

There's all kinds of scenarios you can control, like when you have a 3rd and 4th guard rather than a PG and SG. For example (just the PG and SG columns):
PG1 SG1
G3 G3
G4 G4

This results in a situation where G3 will play either spot when only 1/2 of the starters are tired. However, if the two backups play together (which is often fairly common), G3/G4 is how it would go. Maybe you want the reverse. Move G4 down from SG3 to SG4 and it will be done, G3/G4 would then be 6 while G4/G3 is only 5. Just to make sure this is clear, it would look like this:
PG1 SG1
G3 G3
G4 -
- G4

Hope that helps! It can be a bit confusing at first, the math itself is very simple but just the way of thinking through the logic (fatigue first, minimum sum of positions second, prioritize leftmost column third) takes some getting used to. If I failed to make anything in that clear don't hesitate to reach back out, I'll try to clear it up!

no problem with you posting this! i have meant to explain this sort of thing and post it somewhere so i could point folks to it, because it comes up all the time and i've probably written several page 'short versions' at least a dozen times... i was never happy enough with one to just call it good, i guess, but this seems as good as any? impressive that i made it through the whole thing without reverting to my casual form with all lowercase and lots of profanity.

one correction / clarification, on the first example, after the 'I'll use an example to illustrate' paragraph - on the third line, it should read PG2 - - C2 C2
(this indicates, in my shorthand, that your team's second point guard player is listed at PG3 spot, your team's second center is listed at the PF3 and C3 spots. i would use spaces to spread out the words but then the sitemail would eat them, as happened here)

(if anyone cares to read this, it is split into sections to facilitate bailing or pausing along the way. ordered by relevance. section 1 is short and the first 3 sections are pretty on point, i think? section 4 is more than half of the total, it is advanced topics and considerations, and more rambly)

1. that guard explanation is kinda terrible actually. its true but that is a sort of weird way for things to shake out, and its not illustrative. the right scenario i should have considered, i think, is this one: you have a PG1 and SG1, with a 3rd and 4th guard best guard who are basically lesser developing players, who you'd rather have play at SG when they play. so basically, you want SG1 to play PG whenever PG1 is out, and let's call your 3rd and 4th guard, SG2 and SG3. this is how it should look (column 1/2 only):
PG1 SG1
SG1 SG2
------ SG3
SG2 ------

now when PG1 is out, if you have SG1 and SG2 in, if they play as SG1 / SG2, its a sum of 4 (2+2), and if its SG2/SG1, its a sum of 5 (4+1), so SG1 will play PG as desired. if SG1 and SG3 are in, if they play as SG1 / SG3, its a sum of 5 (2 + 3), and SG3/SG1 is impossible, so clearly SG1 will play PG. this seems to accomplish the goal, yes? this completes the example, safe to stop reading here, but i am going to ramble on about some additional considerations you could make.

---

2. when SG2 and SG3 play, SG2/SG3 is the only option so SG2 plays PG. what if you don't want this? is there any recourse to allow you to play SG3/SG2 without disrupting the other configurations? (note: these are the team-centric, basketball-centric questions you really should be asking yourself, to drive how you actually set the details of your depth chart). you might say, well i already got SG1 to slide left, that's enough. but if SG1 has about the same stamina as PG1, they are likely to sub together most of the game, making the SG2/SG3 vs SG3/SG2 configuration far more relevant than the prior configurations (when SG1 plays with SG2, and when SG2 plays with SG1). i actually don't know the answer at this point because i didn't try to figure out how to do it yet, but i'm guessing the answer is yes, because sliding left is easy. if i was trying to slide right, and then i wanted to tweak additional, lower priority configurations (sets of players who play together), i would be much more skeptical. so in the end this may go nowhere, just be forewarned. anyway, we will discover the answer regardless, and sort out how.

so the first thing to note is, because we are sliding left, the tie breaker works in our favor. i am using a spot at PG3 for a blank spot - this is not actually necessary. this configuration would achieve the same ends, as far as the stated goal (SG1 slides left when playing with SG2 or SG3)
PG1 SG1
SG1 SG2
SG2 SG3

now, when we consider SG1 and SG2 playing together, SG1/SG2 is a 4 (2+2), and SG2/SG1 is a 4 (1+3). the leftmost column's highest player is what breaks the tie, SG1/SG2 has the 2nd highest player in the 1st column, while SG2/SG1 has the 3rd highest player in the 1st column, so the tiebreaker goes SG1/SG2.

in this example, i specifically called for 3rd and 4th best players - where its not arbitrary. the 3rd best player is desirable over the 4th, here. if it wasn't, we could easily just put SG3 in the place of SG2 on the PG3 spot, if we wanted SG3 to play PG when SG2 and SG3 are playing (in the original scenario, and in the scenario above, SG2 will play PG when playing with SG3). so, if that was your situation, you'd be done (well, with this consideration, anyway). but we are going to try to keep SG2 above SG3 in the listing for both columns, so that if we only need one of the backups, and SG2 is fresh, its always him.

to make it possible for SG3 to play PG, they obviously need to be listed there. let's add them and see how it shakes out:
PG1 SG1
SG1 SG2
SG2 SG3
SG3 ------

here, it is now possible for SG3 to play PG. so when SG2 and SG3 come on, who plays where? SG2/SG3 is 3+3=6, SG3/SG2 is 4+2=6, so the tie breaker of which combo is higher in the PG column carries, and SG2 is higher, so SG2/SG3 it is. so, we don't have what we want here. adding SG3 to the PG4 did absolutely nothing, as things stand (you could consider all the other pairings to convince yourself of this - but as it stands, SG3 can't play PG - ignoring the possibility of what happens when the whole team fouls out and things get weird)

hopefully now, though, its clear that a solution is possible here? if not, perhaps take a moment to consider?

what we want to do is to slide SG3 down from the SG3 spot (sorry!) to the SG4 spot. this would look as follows:
PG1 SG1
SG1 SG2
SG2 ------
SG3 SG3

now, when we consider SG2 and SG3, SG2/SG3 is a 7 (3+4) while SG3/SG2 is a 6 (4+2). as a result, when SG2 and SG3 play, SG3 will play PG - mission accomplished! this time, the blank space actually did something. folks ask all the time, 'does the blank space make a difference'? the simple answer is 'sometimes'. it really just depends what you are trying to do, you have to game out the specifics of your situation to figure out when blank spots are helpful and when they aren't. to slide right, you almost always need one (usually on line 3), and by using one, you usually are giving up something. figure out how to make the slide, figure out how what you are giving up, and then you can make a sensible decision about it. most folks do not micro-optimize their depth chart, but combining depth chart optimization with your strategy for distribution, to ensure a quality offensive flow throughout the game, is the absolute highest level of coaching i have discovered. it is the most difficult thing to master, when it comes to tactical coaching, that i have found in HD. and when i am really nailing this part of coaching (which isn't to be taken for granted!), it gives me a massive advantage over your average a+ prestige program.

this is the point where its probably really sensible to stop reading, but i want to finish the line of inquiry. this is a nice checkpoint though! (to bail... or pause??) (after actually writing the next part - there's a problem here, we mess up the SG1, SG2 arrangement, and so its kinda more important than i intended it to be)

---

3. so, about that mission accomplished! at this juncture, its good to make sure that is really the case. what about the other pairings? couldn't we have broken like, what happens when SG1 and SG2 play together? to answer this question, we generally should consider the combinations again in light of our 'final' depth chart. with SG1 and SG2, SG1/SG2 is 4 (2+2) and SG2/SG1 is 4 (3+1), just like before, because those didn't change. tiebreaker to the SG1/SG2 because SG1 is higher on the PG stack. with SG1 and SG3, SG1/SG3 is 6 (2+4), the now possible SG3/SG1 being 5 (4+1), so uh... ok this does actually break our stuff. whoops. not sure i could avoid that, this is why when folks ask if i could have 1 change, what would it be, i say a 5th line on a depth chart, and ideally, a 6th.

so in short, we have to decide what is more important, how SG1/SG3 play together, or SG2/SG3, which depends largely on how often those things happen. with close stamina for PG1 and SG1, its more likely SG2/SG3 play together more often. but of course you also have to weight how much you care about the ordering, in those scenarios. maybe SG2 is a really crap PG, and so its really important he never plays PG - then you prioritize SG3 at PG, giving up that SG3 will play PG when he plays with SG1. usually there's a good reason to go one way or the other, but sometimes in the end of the day it just ends up being a wash.

its usually more complicated than just two considerations; in the paragraph above, i am implicitly implying that prioritizing SG2 over SG3 trumps everything, so its not even up for debate. sometimes SG2 is a good soph and SG3 is an ok freshman, and it absolutely does trump everything. but a lot of times things are more fungible. if you were not that worried about SG2 playing over SG3, you could have your cake and eat it, too, when it comes to sliding your SG1 left when he plays with SG3, and also having SG3 play PG when playing with SG2, (note: this then matches the original message posted by texashick above). such as this (there are multiple answers with varying considerations but trying not to go on too long of a tangent):
PG1 SG1
SG1 SG2
SG3 SG3
------ ------ (a good fill in here might be SG2 and SF2)

alright, so some tradeoffs, and life isn't always simple... but also, we only really have considered three of six possible pairs of players, thus far. this was an intentional simplification, as those other ones all involve PG1 and are generally trivial. however, i want to talk about when those aren't trivial and when to pay attention to them, and that sort of thing, but now this section has really tied up the main topics, and i'm doubtful the next will end up upending what came before, like this one did. there's basically two advanced topics left, and i will introduce, but not deeply explore, them in the following.

---

4. so those other 3 pairings, they are PG1 and SG1, PG1 and SG2, and PG1 with SG3. the PG1 and SG1 is guaranteed trivial, because HD doesn't allow the same player to fill multiple spots on the depth chart, so those PG1 and SG1 are always going to be listed as PG1 and SG1 and that is always going to be the minimum sum of scores (2). in reality, the game considers all 5 positions together, and its possible in the full, 5 column depth chart, for this to be more complicated - but in practice this never happens, so let's just ignore that.

with the PG1 and SG2, and SG3, we know the whole premise of this story was that we want SG1 sliding to PG. so presumably we sure as heck don't want an even better fit for PG sliding right all the sudden when playing with the two lesser PGs. seems trivial enough.

however, the thing that is actually important here, is that all arrangements are covered - meaning, there is a possible arrangement on your depth chart. for all pairs of players. sparse depth charts do not do that, and then you end up having undefined situations, where the engine fills the gaps with potentially crazy ****.

in the example i gave originally, in the post texashick made, there is such a gap. i provided:
PG1 SG1
SG1 SG2
PG2

i think i was trying to keep things simple, because as you can see, that is a challenge! however, PG1 and PG2 is not a covered scenario, they cannot play, so if SG1 and SG2 foul out, the game might pick some random center to play SG. i'm not saying what the engine does when you don't tell it, is completely random or anything, but i've been very surprised by what happens around the margins, and so i just consider it all undefined territory. also its mostly easy to avoid, so its not like i really needed to go figure it out, i just generally don't let it happen. at least not with 4 players covering 2 positions, and it screws you not only when you have hard sub reasons (2 players foul out) but softer ones (2 players in foul trouble, 2 players fatigued, or some combination).

also, sometimes the setup isn't trivial - you don't just have this need for pg or whatever, where anyone who can play pg, needs to. there are times you really want to run through all 6 combinations (in our story, PG1 SG1, PG1 SG2, PG1 SG3, SG1 SG2, SG1 SG3, SG2 SG3), because its unclear which ones may be trivial and/or negligible.

plus, we are simplifying things here by only considering 2 positions. which is really how you want to focus, that is mostly how i look at things, 2 and 3 positions at a time. its enough. but definitely there are times the way like, your subs rotation between the 1-2-3, or the 3-4-5, are complex and you really need to be considering who plays where over sets of 3 players. that can get a little nutty, because in theory that could be like 6 players over 3 positions, or more. many of those combinations are either trivial or nonsensical (and many won't be possible on any given depth chart), but for 6 players and 3 positions, there's 20 combinations there. anyway, just kinda be aware that the engine is following the logic i explained over 2 positions, over 5 positions, and on occasion weird things happen as a result. you'll only catch these if you really pay attention, but the rotation is one of the most impactful things to nail down, and its tough to do that without watching pbps and seeing how players are rotating, and using that to help you figure out if what you wanted is what you are getting, and if that's really what you wanted, and all those sorts of things.

OK, so back to the two position scenario! there's one more possibly interesting thing going on here. we know there are six possible configurations. we know that in many cases, we can control exactly what happens in most or all of those configurations. so, isn't that the whole story? it turns out, there is one more layer. our depth chart choices can also impact the probabilities of seeing those six configurations.

what does that even mean? well, we already talked about the probability of certain configurations, at least in reference, here. for example, if you have a high stamina differential on your PG1 and SG1, and you run man defense, you can probably run something close to a 3 man rotation (not 0 minutes for the 4th guy, but low). more if you are willing to push the fatigue, but i don't usually recommend too much of that (there is another advanced topic i suppose, which is, when do you completely leave players off the depth chart). anyway, let's suppose we still have a SG2 and SG3, same base scenario we've had the whole time. then, PG1 and SG3, and SG1 and SG3, as well as SG2 and SG3, are all decently rare. they will mostly occur in the case of foul trouble or against high pace opponents (like press). that means you probably want to make sure how PG1 and SG2 play, and how SG1 and SG2 play, is top priority, and then work your way down from there. but on a press team with a similar stamina level on your PG1 and SG1, then the predominant pairings by far will be PG1 and SG1, and SG2 and SG3. then you just have to sort out how to deal with foul trouble - but that isn't too bad - i like to pretend, for any 1 player, if he gets 2 fouls in 2 minutes, how does that all shake out? ... but i do that for like, the entire team, lol. actually for press or fb/press teams, i do it for any 2 players too. its not as bad as it sounds, when you are good at this, there are a lot of places you know intuitively to skip over or what the answer is.

its easy to get that we can adjust the odds, when you consider relatable things like, trying to have a 3 man rotation, or just a higher priority backup big or guard, a 3rd man big etc. we talk about that kind of stuff all the time. if we want our SG2 to play more than our SG3, then we put SG2 higher on the depth chart, right, at both positions, and now our PG1, SG2 and SG1, SG2 configurations are more likely than our PG1, SG3 and SG1, SG3 configurations. if we had the sort of 'base' setup like this, then those combinations would have roughly equal probability
PG1 SG1
SG3 SG2
SG2 SG3

(here, normally we think of SG3 as PG2, and then its the base 10 man rotation that is sort of the starting point for all HD rotations).

so, trying to influence the probabilities of these configurations, on its face, its normal and relatable. but it can REALLY make things complicated under the hood. instead of juggling a few tradeoffs in your consideration, it might end up being a half dozen.

let me just give a fairly reasonable example. suppose one of our backups is in foul trouble, and our two starters are fairly fresh, while the other backup is fresh. this is very specific, but its extremely normal - any time you have a backup in foul trouble, you are probably running into this exact case at some point.

so let's suppose SG2 is in foul trouble, and therefore SG3 is fresh, while PG1 and SG1 are fairly fresh. you are playing a fatigue depth chart, fairly fresh for everybody. who plays? the priority order for the depth chart is basically foul trouble, fatigue, depth chart total (sum of positions), and leftmost column tiebreaker. the foul trouble, fatigue situation is a tie, which is normal, it happens literally all the time (otherwise, depth chart would be irrelevant). both PG1 and SG3, and SG1 and SG3, are a tie when it comes to foul and fatigue trouble. let's consider a simple setup like the base 3 man rotation:
PG1 SG1
SG2 SG2
SG3 SG3

here, PG1/SG3 will beat SG3/SG1 on the tie breaker (4 to 4), so PG1/SG3 wins. but we could push SG3/SG1 by moving SG3 from the SG3 spot to the SG4 spot (sorry!), pushing the PG1/SG3 setup total to 5 while leaving the SG3/SG1 setup at 4.

another simple setup, the base 4 man rotation:
PG1 SG1
PG2 SG2
SG2 PG2

here, if PG2 gets in foul trouble, then we'd be comparing PG1/SG2 and SG2/SG1, which is 3 to 4, with the tie breaker favoring the PG1/SG2 setup - we cannot overcome this.

however, if SG2 gets in foul trouble, then we'd be comparing PG1/PG2 to SG1/PG2, which is 4 to 3, with the tie breaker favoring PG1/PG2. so, we get SG1/PG2 here, but if we like our PG1 better, we can force PG1/PG2 by sliding PG2 and SG2 down the PG column, leaving a blank at PG2. the result is this:
PG1 SG1
------ SG2
PG2 PG2
SG2 ------

now, with SG2 in foul trouble, PG1/PG2 is 4, and PG2/SG1 is 4, with the tie breaker going to PG1.

anyway, a lot of times, you have roughly equally good PG and SG, and you don't care all that much about who take precedence in a variety of edge cases. but they probably aren't as edge-casey as you think! note that SG2 having getting tired fatigue here, is identical in every way to the foul trouble, because he's completely ruled out. but more importantly, with SG2 at fairly fresh, its the exact same scenario, too!! you technically also have to consider the SG2, PG2 stack over all the PG1, PG2 and SG1, PG2 stacks, but that is extremely unlikely or probably impossible for it to work out that those would EVER take precedence - at least if you limit yourself to 2 positions (but probably not if you consider all 5). and to be clear here, the scenario is no foul trouble, and your PG1, SG1, and SG2 are all fairly fresh, while the PG2 is fresh. situations where 3/4 of your 4 guards are fairly fresh while 1 is fresh probably happen to you every single game. so if you DO have a preference on your starting PG or your starting SG, then you probably DO care about this stuff! you may just not know it yet!

alright, i think that does it. no need for a part six or whatever. approximately my entire brain dump on the topic of the depth chart, or of 'depth chart math' as i sometimes call it. obviously, when you think about the way that you have 6 parings in even the simplest of cases (4 players over 2 positions), the ways you could influence those pairings, and the ways you could influence the probabilities of those pairings when you take into account the full picture of foul and fatigue... its a lot. but if you are like, holy ****, what is this guy even talking about, no way i am spending like 6 hours figuring out these 82 scenarios and all that nonsense... i get it! i would just slowly start working it up, focusing on what matters most. its not actually that bad to eat most of this in bites.

if you want to making more of your 3rd guard or big, just focus on that part, don't worry about the probabilities and all that crap. just try to make that work in a way that makes sense. if you want to slide a player over when the other guy comes out, maybe your SF slides to SG or your SG slides to PG, just focus on that. but if all that stuff is old hat, maybe you start thinking through the foul and fatigue combos, trying to eek out a few extra minutes here and there for your better players. as a lifetime press fanatic, the more severe foul and fatigue scenarios... gaming all that out... man, there was some real juice in that squeeze!

what did i do, to win 5 or more titles in less than 10 seasons, four different times - up to 7 titles and 9 final fours in 10 years - that most really good coaches aren't doing? for me, its wasn't recruiting talent, although i was great at that in my prime, but definitely below the best. for me, there's really 2 main things, its planning out your team into the future, you know, having that vision of what you want your team to look like, and then in recruiting thinking about what each recruit means for that vision not just now but 2, 3, 4 seasons out, making sure you are building to have a good team and a good team core, every step of the way. that's the first part where i got huge value. the second part is in really optimizing the flow of the offense and the rotation. those go hand in hand, they are not really separable if you want to be elite. the offensive flow is really depth chart and distro. distro is one of the toughest parts of HD coaching, but mastering the depth chart is probably tougher. so if you can master this part of the game, you are really well on your way to nailing the biggest thing there is when it comes to in-season coaching, the rotation / offensive flow. this part of the game is also highly system specific, you just don't have all the answers for man just because you knew press, or even, for triangle or fastbreak because you knew motion. its the most highly technical and exacting part of the game, probably by a mile. its not for everyone, but if you are into that sort of thing, i found it to be really fun to try to master.

on edit - just a broad stroke on man/zone vs press, on some of this more advanced topic stuff - in press i found leveling fatigue, minimizing fatigued players, to be so overriding, that that is really where i spent my time. on a 12 deep press team, you don't have depth chart spots for blanks, you fill every slot every time, and so things like, trying to shift a couple minutes from this player to another - your options are just so much more limited. however, on press, its actually important to consider 2-foul combinations, just really to make sure you are covered. so not so much about the order of the players, but making sure you have warm bodies in reasonable spots even when **** hits the fan. its incredibly important if have incredibly good teams, i guess, because really bad stuff has to happen to sink really good, 12 deep press teams. a top 10 or top 25 team would care much less about the fine details here, obviously.

with man/zone, i find its not so critical to have insane foul coverage, for obvious reasons. i still like a pretty full depth chart, but in man and zone, making the most of your upper talent is a very high priority. compared to press, that means you want to optimize minutes, concentrating those minutes, and you care more about what positions your guys are playing in, you want your best players playing in their best spots. you can use blank spots to affect change on where players play and how much they play, and that is really how you want to use your influence over the depth chart, when you play man and zone.

how did you ever figure this all out? was this hours and hours of reverse engineering or does this emerge if you are just thoughtful - more thoughtful than i am - looking at sub patterns in games?

Texashick! So good to hear from you! I definitely miss our days battling in the NL South in Gibson. I’d love to play again, but I just don’t really have time. I hope your doing well.

thanks to you and Gil for all this great information. It might take me a while to comprehend it all, but I’m sure it will be very helpful. Thank you.

Posted by metsmax on 2/9/2022 3:17:00 PM (view original):
how did you ever figure this all out? was this hours and hours of reverse engineering or does this emerge if you are just thoughtful - more thoughtful than i am - looking at sub patterns in games?

i put in the hours, but not explicitly reverse engineering so much. in my first year i just really was super interested and paid a lot of attention to things. that included the play by play. now, most of us recognize that is mostly window dressing, but i didn't know back then! plus, there is SUPER important rotation information in there, that you can't get any other way. this is why whenever those 'do you / should i read the pbp?' threads come around, i pretty much always say the same thing - read it if its fun, but otherwise, you don't need to. but you do have to look at some pbps from the season and watch the rotation, because the rotation is essential and the info is available nowhere else.

its not just the fatigue levels printed every 4 minutes - those are valuable - but who is playing where, when. when you have a guy get in foul trouble, if you are looking at the pbp, you see the lineup that happens. i just looked and saw the lineups that were happening, and was like wait, i don't want that! why is that happening? i have to imagine looking at the pbp and tracking the active lineup would trigger similar thoughts for most of you guys? wasn't that hard to puzzle out the order from there (for whatever reason i just happen to be good at that), after i messed around trying to get it to do what i wanted a few times, it started to click what was going on. so it was mostly just having the awareness, i think.

but yeah certainly now i look at the sub patterns for the teams i care about, and i expect to understand everything that is happening at every sub. i mean, i find surprises literally all the time, but its because i don't have the settings right yet and am still adjusting and stuff. when you are adjusting a lot and still thinking about lots of different options, its hard to go through and consider every possibility for that setup, like if player x fouls out and player y is fairly fresh, who plays, and do i like the ordering and stuff... i can sit there and game that all out, but it usually doesn't make sense to just go do that all the time, especially while making lots of macro adjustments. so i do i end up finding a lot of my little tie breakers that are wrong and such, through pbp observation. it also triggers things for me to consider i suppose. most of the time i spend 'game planning', its not really about the next game, its me continuing to work on the base team setup for my team (or perhaps for the type of opponent - a lot of times in m2m or zone i have materially different approaches for a press opponent and a non press opponent, because of the pace difference). its not crazy for me to spend 20 hours 'game planning' in a season where about 3 hours are really game planning and the other 17 are just slowly chipping away on the team setup, plus just random contemplation about the future of the team and how players need to grow, and using that to drive practice plans and stuff. for me 'game planning time' is really mostly not about my opponent, its about trying to understand what is going on with the sim engine in general, and how my team works in general. calling the in-season coaching we do, that is totally outside recruiting/scheduling, 'game planning' is really selling it extremely short, IMO.

really interesting - going to have to look at this in greater depth, thank you!