Hardwood - Bug Reports: Shot Distribution Heavily Skewed Toward Paint

Forum >> Bug Reports >> Shot Distribution Heavily Skewed Toward Paint

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#22851	01/25/2026 9:45:18 am	Nov 20th, 2049
branhd123 Joined: 03/21/2022 Posts: 8 Assumption Greyhounds I.1	I hope this doesn’t come off as a complaint or saying the game is bad. Hardwood is easily the best sports sim I’ve played. I’m also not trying to push for full realism, but at no point in any basketball league have teams been able to score in the paint at this combination of volume and efficiency. Because paint attempts are so heavily rewarded, most teams end up playing very similarly, at least in terms of shot distribution. Toning down paint attempts a bit would allow for more variety in playstyles and make perimeter-oriented teams more viable. I’m not sure how difficult that would be to implement, but compared to other proposed changes, it doesn’t seem like an extreme fix, and it would likely have a meaningful impact on overall game balance. Updated Sunday, January 25 2026 @ 9:49:56 am PST

#22853	01/25/2026 10:44:22 am	Nov 25th, 2049
Blackbeard Joined: 03/17/2019 Posts: 658 St. Johns Red Storm VI.7	Well, I certainly can't answer to that. I guess that's not something that I personally feel is a problem so I'm not concerned with something like that. Only the game developer Steve can comment on or answer it. However, I will say this and I'm not trying to be a smart azz but you are in league 1 and to me that would seem to make you be quite an accomplished Hardwood manager because not every one can advance like that. And you have done it in around 2 years or so. Congratulations on that. Maybe I will start hitting you up for some tips. lol Myself, I've been in the game for 6 years or so and only made it to league 2 for a cup of tea, way back. I'm not as accomplished of a player as you obviously are (evidenced by the assessment that you have investigated for this posting.) If I was able to get to league 1 I would be happy with that but I'm just a casual player that happens to have been around for a long time. Congrats on the team, well done. I'm certainly not the person to be commenting on such an accomplished managers opinion like you are, and I mean that as an compliment. Cheers...

#22854	01/25/2026 11:03:12 am	Nov 25th, 2049
nobodyjones Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 118 UPR Río Piedras Roosters III.2	- NCAA 2023/2024/2045 - .332 / .251 / .339 >>>>>>>(7.8% missing) - NCAA 2014/2015/2016 - .318 / .301 / .342 >>>>>>>(3.9% missing)

#22855	01/25/2026 12:51:47 pm	Nov 25th, 2049
branhd123 Joined: 03/21/2022 Posts: 8 Assumption Greyhounds I.1	I’m showing the average shot distribution for NCAA D1 teams here. Basically, I just took each team’s paint, midrange, and three-point attempt rates and averaged them across all teams, so it’s more about what a typical team looks like rather than the total league volume. The average number distribution doesn’t need to add up to 100%.

#22856	01/25/2026 2:55:34 pm	Nov 25th, 2049
Bherold6 Joined: 03/24/2019 Posts: 2 American International Yellow Jackets II.1	These stats basically sum up what I've always thought. Inside Scoring is too overpowered and trying to play somewhat unconventional against top teams is just gimmicky at the end of the day. Here are some things I've noticed 1. There is an overabundance of consistent 60% inside scorers in this game. Just go recruit 1 star recruits with great size and vertical, just like that you have a player who can score incredibly well in any level(including Legends). The inside scoring skill doesn't even matter. 2. What Branhd said earlier about defenses seems to be true as well. Extending/Packing only lowers percentage and doesn't limit/force shots. Packing the paint against a really good inside-oriented team changes their offense from really good to good(and in low game sample sizes it does nothing). Here are 2 games I vividly remember during the 2047 season where I was fighting to stay in Legends. Marist is team known for it's low 3 point shooting rate and inside scoring. They had a 3 point shooting rate of below 22% and their PITP contributed to over 53% of their points. Both these games I decided to Zone -5 extension and it did nothing https://onlinecollegebasketball.org/game/1106412 -> 57% shots At the rim or Inside https://onlinecollegebasketball.org/game/1106413 -> 69% shots At the rim or Inside Packing the paint every defensive possession should clog up the paint and force their team to shoot more outside shots. I know it's a game at the end of the day, but there shouldn't be enough space inside the paint to shoot that many shots. (Also sort of proved spacing is negligible) (In those games I'm also playing an offensive style that not suitable for the game engine and I pay the price) 3. Branhd didn't even mention how free throws also play a role. So not only is Inside scoring too overpowered in it's current state shown by the data, the data UNDERSELLS it when including free throw data. The more inside oriented a team is, the more free throws it they generate, creating a larger gap between its inside and outside scoring. Which, once again, ties back to Big Men being broken as they generally generate the most free-throws for a team. Suggested fixes: 1. Lower the effect size and vertical have on inside scoring. As of now there are too many factors other than the skill that heavily effect a players inside scoring, which dilutes the skill itself(height,weight,wingspan,vertical,strength) all of this while all outside scoring mostly has these 3 skills: OS,Range,Speed. This allows for the IS skill to matter more and not seeing huge players with sub 12 IS scoring 60%. Yes size and athleticism should matter when it comes to inside scoring, but as of now it's simply too much. It is incredibly more rare to find players with sub 12 OS who can consistently shoot 40% from 3 on high attempts no matter how high their Shooting Range or Speed stat is. Hell, there are players with high attributes in OS,Range,Speed who can never seem to shoot in general. Don't even think that's possible for an inside scorer 2. Make spacing matter more. Extending/Packing should not only lower efficiency but force teams to shoot other shots. Extending against an Outside oriented teams(which doesn't really exist in this game anyway) should force the team to take more inside shots. Packing the paint against Inside oriented teams should limit their paint shots and force more mid-range/threes Love this game but the longer I've played it, the more I realized how gimmicky things like 3 point shooting, spacing, or the "Stretch 4" position are. Don't see why every team shouldn't have this same exact starting 5 and offensive tactics: PG: Inside Point Guard with OS,PA,Driving (Offensive Positioning: I -> allows for more FTA, High OS -> Good Ft%, Low Shooting Range -> helps reduces 3pt attempts) SG: Outside SG (1 player to shoot over 50% of the team's 3-point attempts) SF: Inside SF (still shoots 2-3 3-pointers) PF: Big man with decent OS and good size (with only 10 IS, 0 3-point attempts) C: Big man with decent OS and good size (with only 10 IS, 0 3-point attempts) Inside/Outside Emphasis: I Every other lineup that doesn’t follow this exact blueprint feels too gimmicky and ultimately loses out against high level competition. The only reason I don’t do this is for purely for fun/experimentation, but it gets increasingly demoralizing when anything unconventional is consistently punished.

#22857	01/25/2026 10:31:57 pm	Nov 25th, 2049
nobodyjones Joined: 07/02/2018 Posts: 118 UPR Río Piedras Roosters III.2	its the interior passing that bugs me. multiple consecutive paint passes. first passes going to pf in the paint for no reason. no 3 seconds.

#22860	01/26/2026 9:21:43 pm	Nov 27th, 2049
branhd123 Joined: 03/21/2022 Posts: 8 Assumption Greyhounds I.1	After looking at team-level shot distribution imbalances, I decided to go a step further and compare shot distributions by player role (perimeter players vs bigs) between Hardwood and the NCAA. Perimeter Players are not the issue. The shot type distributions and contributions when comparing between Hardwood and NCAA are pretty similar. The real issue comes from Big Men (PF/C). Big Men in Hardwood: - Bigs (on average) take ~81% of their shots in the paint - These are by far the most efficient shots available - Inside shots (post-ups and other paint shots that aren’t driven layups or dunks) make up ~98% of those attempts - Paint shots account for ~85% of a big man’s offensive value - Midrange and 3PT are almost nonexistent - These shot types should meaningfully lower overall efficiency, but they barely factor in Big Men in NCAA : - Bigs still shoot mainly in the Paint but: - Paint shots (on average) are ~56% of total attempts taken (significantly less than Hardwood's 81%) - Midrange and 3PT shots are more used due to limited paint space - Paint shots contributes ~67% of offensive value, not 85% Issues with Inside Shots - Bigs take too many of them - The Paint does not have enough space for two Bigs simultaneously shooting 80% of their shots in the paint - Possible Fix: - Redistribute the shots to better reflect spacing - More Midranges and 3pts (even for Centers) - Shot distance clustering - Most inside shots are taken within 1-3 feet - Possible Fix: - Increase the shot distance spread of inside shots (from 1 ft to the free throw line) - Shot Distance likely doesn't matter enough - FG% in the paint doesn’t seem to decline meaningfully with distance - Possible Fix: - After ~3 feet, FG% should gradually shift away from inside shot and physical traits - Inside shot and physicals would still matter most overall, but the outside shot skill should increasingly factor in as distance increases - Real World reference (basketball-reference.com) - NBA 2025 season - 0-3 ft: 69.6% FG - 3-10 ft: 46.1% FG (major drop-off) - Average Perimeter/Big Shot Distribution Scatter Plot - Last 2 pages: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTGlaWD6a759FbFb1c6bJZ8gsgsudVj_KIrBttF0gAt-vzGHwvB4yK4HD0T-SaIdbFPzvIDyH88_SW1/pub Updated Monday, January 26 2026 @ 9:22:59 pm PST Updated Monday, January 26 2026 @ 9:23:45 pm PST Updated Tuesday, January 27 2026 @ 9:40:27 am PST

#22868	01/28/2026 11:10:26 am	Dec 4th, 2049
Blackbeard Joined: 03/17/2019 Posts: 658 St. Johns Red Storm VI.7	I remember developer Steve saying that he takes data each new season from real life college basketball teams and he attempts to use the real data to adjust and get the over all percentages in hardwood as a whole to come as close as possible to real life college BB statical data. I also remember him saying that for some teams the percentages won't match up perfectly to real life teams (for individual teams) because the data is meant to match up to the over all total data taken from RL. So there could be a smaller or bigger discrepancy in what some individual teams are doing percentage wise compared to the real life team or league(s) stat average. I will say that I'm not an in depth numbers guy like you guys are so the stuff you posted doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I generally just take things as they are. But with that said, I do remember statements by the developer and I think that is basically what he said about matching up real life percentages to hardwood stats. Maybe the discrepancies you are seeing is due to that? I'm just trying to help but thats what I remember and I guess if Steve wants to chime in he will. I always enjoy reading his insight in to the game. Cheers. Updated Wednesday, January 28 2026 @ 11:00:12 pm PST

#22879	01/31/2026 4:35:29 pm	Dec 16th, 2049
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2590 Hardwood Administrator	Let me start by saying I appreciate this thread. I think it presents a well-thought-out argument supported by a substantial amount of data, rather than the more typical reaction of “my team lost a road game to a lower-TPI opponent.” A few observations. First, basketball has evolved significantly. In its current incarnation, the game has shifted from a balanced inside-outside approach to one that is heavily perimeter-oriented—the “Steph Curry era,” as it’s often described. Watching the NBA today, post play is rare, many teams run five-out offenses, and when there is an interior player, he’s often stationed in the dunker spot. College basketball still offers more stylistic variety, but it too has largely moved away from traditional post play. Over Hardwood’s nine-year history, I’ve wrestled with how the game engine and player builds should evolve alongside these broader changes in the sport. It’s also difficult to directly compare Hardwood to the NCAA, as there isn’t a single, consistent tendency in how teams structure their offenses and defenses. Additionally, at lower levels of basketball, you still see plenty of three-point attempts, but games are often dominated by strong interior players. That said, I do agree that Hardwood currently advantages inside play more than modern real-world basketball—at least as we’ve seen it this century. I’ve already made some adjustments and will continue to do so, especially in light of the data presented here. My goal is to ensure the game is playable and competitive in multiple ways while still reflecting real basketball. I want room for teams that resemble most college offenses of today, but also for players like Zach Edey at Purdue—who felt like throwbacks to an earlier era of dominant centers. I’ll continue to make subtle, incremental changes to the game engine, and I would welcome further statistical feedback after a few more seasons. Steve

#22906	02/18/2026 9:45:23 pm	Feb 17th, 2050
admin Joined: 01/24/2017 Posts: 2590 Hardwood Administrator	Over the next couple of seasons, we'll be making some subtle changes to try to make shot distribution/inside dominance more inline with college basketball norms. Steve