I've read in here that there's a point of diminishing returns with distribution. I think it was 25. Is that correct or at least in the ballpark?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/15/2017 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I've read in here that there's a point of diminishing returns with distribution. I think it was 25. Is that correct or at least in the ballpark?

I don't think there is a "correct" answer for that, because as I understand it, how distribution impacts a particular player is dynamic. It depends on who you have on the court at a given time and what their distribution numbers are.

Whether there is a correct answer or not, it's been discussed. As I understand it, the program is designed to stop users from setting one player to take almost all the shot by lowering his efficiency. There's a number, I don't know what it is. Maybe no one knows exactly but I'm sure others have a better idea than me.

And I did word it incorrectly. Is less a distribution number than % of offense.

I'm assuming it should correlate somewhat because I believe % of offense is based on shots taken not points scored.

Gotcha. I agree that it's based on shots taken, and my observation is that efficiency does drop significantly if you try to jack one guy way up. I tried that once or twice in my first season with my #1 scorer, and while he ended up taking something like 66% of the team's shots for the game, his FG% sucked.

I would think that it has to be somewhat more than 25%, because even if you had a purely even distribution for all your players, everybody would get 20% when they're on the floor. That doesn't give you much leeway to designate one guy as your main scorer.

I don't know. A guy that plays 25 minutes is only eating up 12.5% of the playing time.

Which, of course, is why I asked.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/15/2017 9:22:00 AM (view original):
I've read in here that there's a point of diminishing returns with distribution. I think it was 25. Is that correct or at least in the ballpark?

6/3/2015 2:31 PM	scaturo
Is there a penalty applied to players if they take to many shots? I thought it was like more than 40% of the team's shots but I can't find it anywhere.
6/3/2015 4:33 PM	Customer Support
There is a penalty in some cases, but it's based on a particular player's FGAs in that game being at least half of the total FGAs of the 5 players currently in the game.

I think it's generally accepted that there is a point where a players high distribution starts to hurt his efficiency. I don't think anyone's pinned down what that threshold is, or if one formally exists, or if it differs by the sets being run, and the players involved.

I try not to have any one guy set for over 20% of the teams total distribution number (so 20, if my teams total distribution is 100, 10 if distro is 50, 5 if it's 25, etc). Then I break it into starters and bench, and try to keep him also below 33% within that set. If my teams total distro is set to 100 (which I never do, but hypothetically) my starters may have 60, to 40 for my bench. So I'm still keeping that top guy at or below 20. In my triangle sets, that might shake out to something like 20-16-16-8-0. With FB or motion, it's more likely to look like 16-12-12-12-8. Or maybe 16-16-16-12-0 if I'm hiding a freshman in the starting lineup. But as I said before, I don't get too rigid with how many scorers I have. I decide on a game by game basis, according to my players 1st, and expected matchups 2nd.

Damn, that seems hard to manage. My best shooter is out there with 15 shots. Due to foul trouble and fatigue, I've got my Defensive C with 3 shots, a low shot starter with 5 and two back-ups with a total of 4. Two guys with 10 shots each are on the bench. Odds are my top shooter is going to fire 'em up and be penalized for doing so.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/15/2017 11:03:00 AM (view original):
Damn, that seems hard to manage. My best shooter is out there with 15 shots. Due to foul trouble and fatigue, I've got my Defensive C with 3 shots, a low shot starter with 5 and two back-ups with a total of 4. Two guys with 10 shots each are on the bench. Odds are my top shooter is going to fire 'em up and be penalized for doing so.

This is the danger of getting too rigid. The first consideration you always make in distro, in my opinion, is an assessment of the scorers you have. Especially in the first couple years of a rebuild, you're likely to have a team full of less than ideal players.

For what it's worth, If I'm running Lander, I probably set Carter, Guertin, Carpenter and Jordan (all in my starting lineup) to 4 or 5, based on matchups. I'd have Lott and Adams at 2 or 3 off the bench, everyone else at 0 (if below B- IQ) or 1. Sometimes simplicity is a good option for teams you didn't build.

I've mostly been tinkering with it. I have 4 set at 15, 2 at 10 and the other 20 split between 4(high of 5, low of 3) to equal 100. Carter, Adams, Fairfield and Carpenter are over 50% so they're at 15. They're all starting. Jordan and Guertin are first off the bench with 10 each. I'm playing SIMs so I really have no idea how effective it is. But I'm not getting crazy attempt numbers from anyone.

Posted by shoe3 on 3/15/2017 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I think it's generally accepted that there is a point where a players high distribution starts to hurt his efficiency. I don't think anyone's pinned down what that threshold is, or if one formally exists, or if it differs by the sets being run, and the players involved.

I try not to have any one guy set for over 20% of the teams total distribution number (so 20, if my teams total distribution is 100, 10 if distro is 50, 5 if it's 25, etc). Then I break it into starters and bench, and try to keep him also below 33% within that set. If my teams total distro is set to 100 (which I never do, but hypothetically) my starters may have 60, to 40 for my bench. So I'm still keeping that top guy at or below 20. In my triangle sets, that might shake out to something like 20-16-16-8-0. With FB or motion, it's more likely to look like 16-12-12-12-8. Or maybe 16-16-16-12-0 if I'm hiding a freshman in the starting lineup. But as I said before, I don't get too rigid with how many scorers I have. I decide on a game by game basis, according to my players 1st, and expected matchups 2nd.

I'm doing distribution a little differently, so what you've posted here is a bit confusing and making me wonder if my understanding of how distribution works is back-asswards.

Rather than working with the team on a scale of 100, I'm working with each individual player on a scale of 1-5, where 5 is going to be my primary scoring threat, 4 is a guy I feel pretty comfortable with shooting, down to 1, who is a "rarely shoot" guy (maybe out there for defense only).

For my current team in Rupp, I have 11 active players (one RS). My starting 5 are set with distribution of 4-4-4-2-2. The guys on my bench are 3-3-3-2-1-1. That's a total of 29 (16 for the starters, 13 for the bench).

My understanding of distribution is that it depends on the current mix of players on the floor. So for instance, with my starting 5 (4-4-4-2-2), I have three guys who are each getting 25% of the the distribution (4 out of 16), and two who are each getting 12.5% (2 out of 16). If one of my 4's come out and is replaced by a 3 (i.e. 4-4-3-2-2), the numbers change a bit (26.6%, 26.6%. 20%, 13.3%, 13.3%).

So I'm not looking at distribution as a factor into total shots taken by the player during a particular game, but as the likelihood that he'll be taking shots at a point in time while he's on the floor with the other 4 guys.

I'll also adjust based on my opponent's defense If they have strong inside defense, I may drop down the distribution a bit for my post players and bump it up a notch for my perimeter shooters. Or vice-versa.

Am I missing anything?

Are your game and season shot totals in line with what you think your settings call for?

Yep.

I'm just wondering if my "individual" approach to distribution is hurting me in terms of efficiency as opposed to the "team" approach that shoe was talking about. I don't think it is, but am looking for a sanity check from a more experienced coach.