Posted by billyho1515 on 5/20/2011 1:01:00 PM (view original):
How would you suggest I set it up, then? For that particular game, it was set like so:

PG - Clements, Parkey, Edington
SG - Atwood, Diapolo, Parkey
SF - Reed, Sauceda
PF - Roth, Waters, Powell
C - Mosley, Waters, Powell


Why would you leave my starting SG and backup SF on the bench, while moving everyone around and playing guys at SG and SF out of position? Neither were in foul trouble. Neither were tired. They had actually been on the bench for over a minute after only playing a 2:40 stint before that.

You're saying the logical move is to play my SF at PF (where he's not listed), my backup SG at SF (where he's not listed) and my third string SG over my starting SG (who's not tired, nor in foul trouble)? 

The answer isn't "set your depth chart better", it's that there is a flaw in the logic of the sim.

I'd send a ticket about it and see what CS has to say, and then when CS gives a BS answer, see if you can get it through to seble and see what he has to say...
 

My advice still stands...

How do I get it through to seble? 

To be honest, I haven't had a big customer support issue in a couple years.

I'm really confused as to why you are making such a huge deal about a 1:19 stretch that a # of things could've caused it to happen. If this were something you saw all the time that would be 1 thing but it happens once for 1:19 and you want Seble to give you an answer?

I think when the engine shows it is doing things it shouldn't that someone probably ought to know about it and maybe fix it. 

There's no proof that something happened that wasn't supposed to. I already showed 1 of his rotation players was in foul trouble, and it's possible a couple others were beyond their fatigue points so the engine compensated for that for a brief stretch.

yes, its possible, but you also admit you don't know. seble can find out though, so why not get through to him and get an answer? Not sure why this idea seems to bother you.

set your depth chart to 4 deep at all positions

Not that it bothers me but this is a very small issue. Everytime something happens in the game that we think is off we shouldn't be trying to bother seble. There are much bigger issues that he should be handling not a depth chart error that lasted for 1:19 of 1 game when nobody else has noticed the same problem.

This is a computer! That means it's set to do this. Why not fix it now, when it's noticed during a 1 minute stretch in the first half of the first game of the season? Would you rather it wait until it's lasting the entire last 5 minutes of the championship game? This is a computer engine, it's not going to differentiate between how important the game is.

Posted by billyho1515 on 5/20/2011 1:01:00 PM (view original):
How would you suggest I set it up, then? For that particular game, it was set like so:

PG - Clements, Parkey, Edington
SG - Atwood, Diapolo, Parkey
SF - Reed, Sauceda
PF - Roth, Waters, Powell
C - Mosley, Waters, Powell


Why would you leave my starting SG and backup SF on the bench, while moving everyone around and playing guys at SG and SF out of position? Neither were in foul trouble. Neither were tired. They had actually been on the bench for over a minute after only playing a 2:40 stint before that.

You're saying the logical move is to play my SF at PF (where he's not listed), my backup SG at SF (where he's not listed) and my third string SG over my starting SG (who's not tired, nor in foul trouble)? 

The answer isn't "set your depth chart better", it's that there is a flaw in the logic of the sim.

going to work through this here - i am mostly out of it due to recent surgery so i can't do it in my head on the fly -

after the sub, by the PBP, you have:

Parkey, Dipaolo, Reed, Waters, Clements (PG).

waters is, at the last printout, playing on pretty low fatigue, at PF (tiring). and ur 3rd string powell is in on fairly fresh. so theres got to be a good reason for roth and mosely to be sitting - you said somewhere, neither is tired, neither is in foul trouble, that does not sound right. so lets see..

well - 13:28 - foul #2 on Michael Roth. roth has 2 fouls, so that makes sense why he is out. if you are on normal settings, 7 minutes left is considered foul trouble.

mosely? 13:36 - foul #2 on David Mosley... ok, also 2 fouls. so right now, you basically can't play mosely or roth. so you are left with waters and powell. powell presumably just hit getting tired, what were your fatigue settings?.... ok, you said "Fatigue. "Getting tired" for Atwood, Mosley and Waters. "Fairly Fresh" for everyone else during this game. "

so, your big fell outside of the acceptable fatigue range to sub him out. not that he can't play, if you had no foul trouble, i doubt the engine would dig deeper on your chart. but because you did have foul trouble, the engine doesnt want to run single players into the ground. makes a lot of sense - to me, at least. you can easily combat this fact by setting your depth chart all the way at every position, unless you have a good reason not to.

what you essentially are complaining about is the following - you tell the engine, through your PF/C settings, that you have 4 big men - period. 2 are in foul trouble. no intelligent coach is going to play the other 2 into the ground. eventually, they are going to find someone else to play the position. so, the sim played your 2 other bigs for a pretty long period of time (about 7 minutes), and then, gave in to their low fatigue. i would be thanking the sim, if i were you. so, i totally disagree there is a flaw in the logic of the sim (in this case). if you really think it is obvious that there is a better solution - please, can you explain what is a better solution when you have 2 bigs in foul trouble and only 4 total bigs specified to play the position, and you have spent 7 minutes running your other 2 bigs to low fatigue? its got to be OBVIOUSLY better to have a gripe here, IMO, not just splitting hairs. this is an edge case, after all!

Posted by dacj501 on 5/20/2011 5:09:00 PM (view original):
I think when the engine shows it is doing things it shouldn't that someone probably ought to know about it and maybe fix it. 

i agree, but  that is clearly not the case here.

Posted by kmasonbx on 5/21/2011 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Not that it bothers me but this is a very small issue. Everytime something happens in the game that we think is off we shouldn't be trying to bother seble. There are much bigger issues that he should be handling not a depth chart error that lasted for 1:19 of 1 game when nobody else has noticed the same problem.

i think if there is clearly an issue, it should be brought to seble's attention, no matter how small an impact it had in one case. depth chart subbing is a VERY important part of the game, and none of us are capable of figuring out the extend of the impact such an issue could have. that said, as there is no issue here, i see no reason to bother seble.

Posted by billyho1515 on 5/21/2011 1:31:00 PM (view original):
This is a computer! That means it's set to do this. Why not fix it now, when it's noticed during a 1 minute stretch in the first half of the first game of the season? Would you rather it wait until it's lasting the entire last 5 minutes of the championship game? This is a computer engine, it's not going to differentiate between how important the game is.

i agree with the sentiment. if there was an issue here, i would agree it should be brought to seble, because you are right that you never know when it could come up.

I'll be damned. A logical, well thought out and constructively typed post. Never thought I'd see the day. Thank you, coach.

I never said I didn't have two big guys in trouble. Just for the record. What I said was that my starting SG and starting SF were not in foul trouble. I see your point, but why not just take my starting SF, move him to PF, where he's not listed, but may be needed, and leave it at that? 

On the floor would be my (based off where I had them on depth chart): starting PG, starting SG, backup SF, starting SF (at PF, not listed) and backup C.

Instead, the sim just moved everyone around and I ended up with: starting PG, backup PG (at SG), backup SG (at SF, not listed), starting SF (at PF, not listed) and backup C.

I'd compare it to instead of just going up one block to the store (moving my starting SF to PF and that's it), the computer went north three blocks, east one block, south two blocks and west a block to get there. 

Posted by billyho1515 on 5/21/2011 2:35:00 PM (view original):
I'll be damned. A logical, well thought out and constructively typed post. Never thought I'd see the day. Thank you, coach.

I never said I didn't have two big guys in trouble. Just for the record. What I said was that my starting SG and starting SF were not in foul trouble. I see your point, but why not just take my starting SF, move him to PF, where he's not listed, but may be needed, and leave it at that? 

On the floor would be my (based off where I had them on depth chart): starting PG, starting SG, backup SF, starting SF (at PF, not listed) and backup C.

Instead, the sim just moved everyone around and I ended up with: starting PG, backup PG (at SG), backup SG (at SF, not listed), starting SF (at PF, not listed) and backup C.

I'd compare it to instead of just going up one block to the store (moving my starting SF to PF and that's it), the computer went north three blocks, east one block, south two blocks and west a block to get there. 

i see what you are getting at. but, i think you are thinking in an absolute context - not in the relative context of the exact situation at that exact time. you already had backups in at every position - except sf - so the setup you describe doesn't make a ton of sense. i think the lineup you had, and im not 100% sure, after the sub in, was this-
clements at pg (just came in)
dipaolo at sg (stayed where he was)
reed at sf (stayed where he was, starter)
parkey (sim had to find somebody who was a fresh body to play in the spot)
waters (moved from pf)

those last two, parkey and waters, i have no idea which order it was.

the way the sim tries to optimize the depth chart is by finding the minimum sum, where you are summing the position of the guy you have at a spot. so, if you have a starter come in for a tired guy, it is going to redo the whole depth chart if needed - which makes sense - you always want your starters playing at the right spots if they are in, and so forth. for example, your starting pg comes in, do you want him playing center, or pg? i think its pretty obvious you want him at pg, so the sim put him there (i am sure on that part, even without the PBP telling you).

the sim also has to throw in adjustments for out of fatigue range players, fouls, not listed players, etc... so its not always exactly as i said. the reason i say for sure on those first 3 (pg - sf) is because there is  a clear advantage of playing each at the position i listed - they are the best by your depth chart at those positions. on the last 2, its a toss up. waters is equally listed at pf and c, and parkey is not listed at either, so its an arbitrary decision to the sim - which likely flips a coin, stick them in, and goes.

if you followed the above, hopefully then, you can understand why its beneficial to specify 4th players at positions. the sim wont usually use those players there, but when **** hits the fan, it will use the additional info you provide, instead of flipping a coin. does that make sense? its probably pretty confusing the first time you read it, but if you think about it a bit, hopefully it will make sense. the sim using a minimum sum arrangement to order 5 players is actually a theory i came up with on my own, and seble confirmed, so i think it is really (one of) the most logical ways to go about it.