So since there is no penalty for starting a PG at C or C at PG has anyone done anything crazy with thier line-ups. like reversing everybody and dumping the Distro on the C cause the mismatch will obviously be huge, or running an ALL PG line-up?

I think I already know the ansewr to the following Question, but Does the Engine value ratings like Passing and BH when the player is in the PG slot, and when the sim gives a player a look, runs a play for them, does it decide if the play is a post up on the block or a spot up jumper by what position that player is currently playing? or by his ratings? and do some attributes get cancelled out when a player plays a certain position, like LP at PG? or PER at C? cause I have seen some PG's post up, like Tyreke Evans did when the Kings upset the Hornets earlier this month, and I have seen some C's with range, Like Zydrunas Illgauskas. Or how bout the Carrot Top kid who hit the three for wisconsin that handed Ohio State thier first loss this year? Does the SIm in HD not take those kinds of plays into consideration?

I think, in the distant future after a slew of much higher priority changes to the game, that it would sweet if we could control what kind of looks a player gets, rather than just how many he gets. We have that tool somewhat with the 3pt frequency, but I think it would be better to just have that as an Inside/Outside tool like the defensive positioning is.

I think a few have tried some variation of the 4 guard/1 post or all-guard speed lineup in a fast break/FCP alignment...maybe one of them will chime in with their observations. Would love to know if the inherent rebounding disadvantage of going all-guard is made up for via the presumable speed/steals edge the all-guard lineup would produce. 

The Carrot Top Kid -- Brusewitz -- is not a good outside shooter. (Which made that shot even sweeter.) But if you want good examples of bigs who can stroke the three, you're on the right team (Nankivil, Leuer).

People have experimented. Someone won a title a couple years ago playing an all sf lineup. (Though they did tailor it somewhat so that the guards had some more guard-like skills, etc.) Unless you have a very special player (not really possible at DIII), the negative of doing something like playing a center at pg would far outweight the advantages.

That said, I encourage you to experiment and see what kind of results you get. (Though make sure not to get to up or down when you're dealing w. a small sample size.) If you took a sf with 50 pa and put him at pg, he's get more assists, and if you put him at center, he'd get less assists, even though his pa rating is the same. There is definitely something built into the engine that artifically ties what position the player is playing to some of his results.That's not to say that you can't succeed w. a pg at sf or a sf at c, etc. but I do think there are limitations.

At Fresno St. a few seasons ago I was fairly successful with the 4 guard 1 post lineup. I had my driving guard play the 4 and he seemed to get the other teams post in foul trouble before his rebounding advantage became too glaring. Although my guards all had at least 50 rebounding that season so my team rebounding average was pretty good. I only did this for one season because my recruiting netted me lots of guards and no posts and only had 2 posts on my roster.

I made the NT that season and played everyone pretty tough.

Yeah, I haven't actually played around with unusual lineups a whole lot yet (I plan to, but it hasn't happened to date).  It certainly seems to me that a C playing PG would be a huge liability that would pretty much never be a good option, on balance.  Even a great post player will get outplayed by an average freshman guard.  The C would be a turnover machine in the PG spot.  I can see playing guards at post positions because their speed will give them a ton of scoring opportunities (particularly against man defenses) and could help generate foul problems for the opponent.  If you have one dominant rebounding post player you can sometimes get away with mediocre rebounding at the other post position.  Now that they've given PFs and Cs essentially equal opportunities to grab boards it gives you more flexibility in terms of where you'd play the guard-type player and where you'd play the dominant post guy.  Once I get a little experience playing the press I have every intention of playing at least 1 season with a lineup consisting only of guards and guard-type players with mid-50s speed or higher.  I do expect to get killed on the glass, and my guess is that the team won't be competitive with high-level teams.  I get the feeling that it would exaggerate the greater variance that seems to be inherent in the press; ie., greater probability of upsetting better teams and of being upset.

I've seen a line-up with 4 guards and a pg at PF this season that palyed man defense.  My 6ft 11 PF couldn't do anything against a 5ft 11 PG at the 4 spot, lol.

I'm thinking seriously about doing something like this with my Baptist Bible team and even when I leave there with other press teams, I'm thinkin I'll go PG-PG-PG-SF-C type lineup, or mabey a PG-PG-PG-PG-C line-up. Just put a premium on ATH and REB. I think my biggest concern here is getting into a situation where All my points come from outside shooting and I'm easy to gameplan against. So i think slashing guards would be at a premium. I was thinking about doing crazy things like putting the C at SF or SG instead of C or PF, but these posts are implying that would put him at a disadvantage. I am however wondering if the new matchup rebounding feature would overcome the rebounding disadvantage that comes with the position. All things bieng equal a C might grab more board when he's in a C slot, but if the opposing SG has a REB rating of 15 and the opposing C has one of 80, and my C also has one of 80, then I thinkt he matchup advantage that occurs there might be enough to overcome the position disadvantage. Guess the only way I can find out is to try it, and reocrd the results over multiple seasons. Sounds like a ridiculous amount of fun. just hope we dont have a major engine change and rain on my parade.

Posted by grantduck on 3/3/2011 2:28:00 AM (view original):
I've seen a line-up with 4 guards and a pg at PF this season that palyed man defense.  My 6ft 11 PF couldn't do anything against a 5ft 11 PG at the 4 spot, lol.

He had 15 points and 11 rebounds, while shooting 7 - 12.  That isn't exactly _nothing_.

And a 95/89/94 Speed/ATH/DEF at that.

And at least unless you mean a different game than Texas Tech vs Portland ( http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=6721451 )

Height matters not...  ratings do.

Posted by turtis21 on 3/3/2011 4:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm thinking seriously about doing something like this with my Baptist Bible team and even when I leave there with other press teams, I'm thinkin I'll go PG-PG-PG-SF-C type lineup, or mabey a PG-PG-PG-PG-C line-up. Just put a premium on ATH and REB. I think my biggest concern here is getting into a situation where All my points come from outside shooting and I'm easy to gameplan against. So i think slashing guards would be at a premium. I was thinking about doing crazy things like putting the C at SF or SG instead of C or PF, but these posts are implying that would put him at a disadvantage. I am however wondering if the new matchup rebounding feature would overcome the rebounding disadvantage that comes with the position. All things bieng equal a C might grab more board when he's in a C slot, but if the opposing SG has a REB rating of 15 and the opposing C has one of 80, and my C also has one of 80, then I thinkt he matchup advantage that occurs there might be enough to overcome the position disadvantage. Guess the only way I can find out is to try it, and reocrd the results over multiple seasons. Sounds like a ridiculous amount of fun. just hope we dont have a major engine change and rain on my parade.

You can put ur 80 Reb C facing the 15 Reb SG, but doesn't that also mean you have a 15 Reb SG facing their 80 Reb C? Seems like an even tradeoff to me. 

A few seasons ago in Wooden, Rowan(III) won a NC running motion with 4 guards and a center. The guard playing the 4 position was a beast. I know height doesn't matter but he was 6-7 and a tremendous rebounder with high highs in spd & ATH. Almost a freak player.

tiany, thats a good point. haha. guess I didn't really think that through.

With my Heidelberg team, I played my SG Lundin at C for a few games. Seemed to be fairly successful at it. His LP increased from 16 up to 51 over the course of the season so he wasn't an effective low post threat in those early games. I had him shooting 3's whenever he could to draw the opposing center out from the hoop.

Which few games?(Wanna look)

Look at the first 5 games.