Hardwood - Bug Reports: Shot Distribution Heavily Skewed Toward Paint

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

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#22844	01/24/2026 3:11:12 pm	Nov 20th, 2049
branhd123 Joined: 03/21/2022 Posts: 8 Assumption Greyhounds I.1	I wanted to understand why perimeter play struggles compared to interior offenses. That led me to review shot data I had collected earlier comparing: - Hardwood D1 teams (2044 / 2045 / 2046) - NCAA D1 teams (2023 / 2024 / 2025) - NCAA D1 teams (2014 / 2015 / 2016) (seasons before Hardwood's creation) - NBA (1997 season, as a paint-heavy historical reference) TL;DR - Shot efficiency (Points per Shot Type (PPS)) is mostly realistic in Hardwood - Shot Distribution (how often each shot type occurs for a team) is not - Hardwood allows too many paint touches to occur (>=13% more) at too high of an efficiency when compared to the NCAA seasons which causes interior offenses to dominate far more that in real life What are the 3 Major Shot Types in Basketball? - Paint Shots (Paint) (Finishes & Inside Shots) - Midrange (MR) - 3PT Data: - Average Team Shot Type Attempt Rates comparisons - Hardwood 2044/2045/2046 - .468 / .209 / .324 (Paint / MR / 3PT) - Highest PaintAr: .668 - NCAA 2023/2024/2045 - .332 / .251 / .339 - Highest PaintAr: .514 - NCAA 2014/2015/2016 - .318 / .301 / .342 - Highest PaintAr: .524 - NBA 1997 Season - .483 / .305 / .212 - Highest PaintAr: .563 - Average Team Shot Type PPS (Points Per Shot) comparisons - Hardwood 2044/2045/2046 - 1.173 / .853 / 1.066 - NCAA 2023-2024-2045 - 1.167 / .770 / 1.013 - NCAA 2014/2015/2016 - 1.182 / .708 / 1.038 - NBA 1997 Season - 1.036 / .840 / 1.08 - Average Team Shot Type Contribution to Offensive Efficiency - (Shot PPS × Shot Attempt Rate) - Shot Type Value to a Team's Offense (not accounting for fts) - Hardwood 2044/2045/2046 - 51.2% / 16.6% / 32.2% - NCAA 2023/2024/2045 - 41.8% / 20.9% / 37.3% - NCAA 2014/2015/2016 - 39.9% / 23.9% / 36.2% - NBA 1997 Season - 35.0% / 28.4% / 36.5% - Scatter Plots - https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTGlaWD6a759FbFb1c6bJZ8gsgsudVj_KIrBttF0gAt-vzGHwvB4yK4HD0T-SaIdbFPzvIDyH88_SW1/pub - Key Takeaways: - In Hardwood, Paint shots contribute to more than half a team's offense whereas in real life its a lot closer to 3PT shot contribution. - Efficiency isn't the issue as PPS of Paint Shots in Hardwood compared to real life is essentially the same - Why this might be the case - Paint Shots in general might just be too easy to get - Defenses might not actually prevent shots, they just lower efficiency - ex: - Packed Defenses just limit Paint FG% and doesn't also prevent paint touches - Suggested Fixes: - Reduce Paint accessibility - ex: Better Paint Congestion - If shot distribution can’t be changed - Reduce Paint FG% to help re balance offense Updated Saturday, January 24 2026 @ 3:13:49 pm PST

#22848	01/24/2026 10:51:08 pm	Nov 20th, 2049
Blackbeard Joined: 03/17/2019 Posts: 658 St. Johns Red Storm VI.7	From my understanding according to what Steve has said over the years, is that he imports real college data in to the game and then the AI tries (very well I might add) to duplicate the data like percentages, game results etc and have the over all stats match real life. One thing I think about that tough is that sometimes there might be higher or lower than normal swings in game results which is the Ai trying to get the over all stats to match the real league averages and stats of real life college BB. I'll add my 2 cents here, this is a text based management game that is a hobby for the developer and wanting the results to be picture perfect every game is unrealistic and asking too much. So with that said, personally i think that Steve has done a great job. He has made a lot of changes to make things even more realistic and being perfect probably is not attainable. I think it's fine as is...