Shot clock

[tradertwo]

6 minutes ago, CoachAnderson said:

I’ve coached teams in the state tournament in Puerto Rico, WA, Hawaii, NC and TN and never had the guys to out athlete anyone. We simply lost to better teams...or at least teams that played better that night. 
With a shot clock and some talent I believe I can beat anybody as no lead is safe. (Holding the ball is difficult, beating a team holding the ball with 2-3 skilled guards is nearly impossible, even with good M2M defenders).
An example is Franklin (boys) spreading the floor with a lead vs a well coached and talented Brentwood team....the Bruins gave up layups. (Franklin boys were 12-3 vs Brentwood the last 4 years).

You make my point. First, you need to have the lead, and that's only earned on the floor. Next, you say that Franklin beat "a well coached and talented Brentwood team" (and do it consistently) by figuring out a way to shoot layups against them. Last, you admit to being beat by "better teams, or that played better that night" yourself, when, according to your example, you would have stood a better chance by spreading the floor.

  Not trying to be confrontational, but I couldn't read your post without coming to the conclusion that you favor the "best team" winning (even if you lose) over being clever enough to beat a team that your not "supposed" to beat.

[CoachAnderson]

1 hour ago, tradertwo said:

You make my point. First, you need to have the lead, and that's only earned on the floor. Next, you say that Franklin beat "a well coached and talented Brentwood team" (and do it consistently) by figuring out a way to shoot layups against them. Last, you admit to being beat by "better teams, or that played better that night" yourself, when, according to your example, you would have stood a better chance by spreading the floor.

  Not trying to be confrontational, but I couldn't read your post without coming to the conclusion that you favor the "best team" winning (even if you lose) over being clever enough to beat a team that your not "supposed" to beat.

No need to worry about confrontation, we’re just 2 adults with different opinions and I appreciate you sharing yours. 

With a shot clock, Brentwood wouldn’t have to spread its D out and chase the ball, resulting in basket cuts & point blank layups. They could try to turn Franklin over in the backcourt (deny inbound, run & jump, etc) and if unable to do so, Franklin would have to shoot within :25-:30 of crossing into the front court (assuming :35 shot clock).

When I was In WA (8 straight state tournaments) we lost a semifinal vs a team that shot 15/18(?) from FT in second half. We traded a 2fg for 2/2 FT over most of the last 9 minutes. With a shot clock, who knows, we may have still lost but I’ll always believe we would have had a better chance to win.

At the end of the day, I believe a shot clock doesn’t hurt the player and forces coaches to improve at their craft (decision making, teaching, in game adjustments, etc). The pace of most boys games will see little change, minus the “battle of wills” (packline M2M or zone vs UNC’s 4 corners for 8 minutes) LMAO. 

[CoachHolly7]

Who will run the shot clock- a teacher, former student, old man across the street, or will an official run it that is assigned in which case we don't have enough officials to begin with.  We barely have people that can run the game clock correctly.  And then money, money, money.   

[ecu]

Most teams never take 30 seconds to shot unless at end of quarter. Make it two halves.

 

[dogtruth]

I've enjoyed reading both sides of this discussion and both sides make good points. One other observation I will point out is in regards to small rural schools.

When Hampton High played Memphis Mitchell in the state tourney in 2015 for example, they tried to limit possessions on offense but MM made it tough to do with their high pressure man to man.  Hampton lost by 15 but my point is that was the only way Hampton could play against that type of talent and have a chance to win. If there would have been a shot clock, Hampton would have been blowed out of the gym. 

Most rural single A schools rarely have more than 2 to 3 good players and a few role players. If they learn good ball handling fundamentals and how to play as a team on defense, they have a shot at defeating a more talented team. Personally, I would rather watch a fundamentally sound, well-coached team over one that just runs and guns and fires the three every position. 

Now with that being said if Hampton had 10 to 15 athletes that could run the floor then they would probably play a run-and-gun style of fast-paced offense too but unfortunately these small rural schools don't have that many athletes to play that style. Just another observation thrown out there.

 

 

 

 

[SportsWestTN]

14 hours ago, dogtruth said:

I've enjoyed reading both sides of this discussion and both sides make good points. One other observation I will point out is in regards to small rural schools.

When Hampton High played Memphis Mitchell in the state tourney in 2015 for example, they tried to limit possessions on offense but MM made it tough to do with their high pressure man to man.  Hampton lost by 15 but my point is that was the only way Hampton could play against that type of talent and have a chance to win. If there would have been a shot clock, Hampton would have been blowed out of the gym. 

Most rural single A schools rarely have more than 2 to 3 good players and a few role players. If they learn good ball handling fundamentals and how to play as a team on defense, they have a shot at defeating a more talented team. Personally, I would rather watch a fundamentally sound, well-coached team over one that just runs and guns and fires the three every position. 

Now with that being said if Hampton had 10 to 15 athletes that could run the floor then they would probably play a run-and-gun style of fast-paced offense too but unfortunately these small rural schools don't have that many athletes to play that style. Just another observation thrown out there.

I understand, somewhat, that argument. 

My argument back is that if a team is truly fundamentally sound they should be able to still be successful. We arent talking about an NBA shot clock where you have two passes and then a shot. Plenty of slower paced offenses can still succeed with a shot clock. If you get a rebound the shot clock resets too. The difference is you couldnt just hold the ball without shooting for a minute and a half. When you do that it is just gambling that you can luck up and win if you limit the possessions enough.

Ive seen lots of rural teams that have beaten athletic teams. Some can run with them. Some have to utilize other strategies. When it comes down to it talent normally comes out on top though.

[dogtruth]

2 hours ago, SportsWestTN said:

I understand, somewhat, that argument. 

My argument back is that if a team is truly fundamentally sound they should be able to still be successful. We arent talking about an NBA shot clock where you have two passes and then a shot. Plenty of slower paced offenses can still succeed with a shot clock. If you get a rebound the shot clock resets too. The difference is you couldnt just hold the ball without shooting for a minute and a half. When you do that it is just gambling that you can luck up and win if you limit the possessions enough.

Ive seen lots of rural teams that have beaten athletic teams. Some can run with them. Some have to utilize other strategies. When it comes down to it talent normally comes out on top though.

I understand your point and I agree 45 seconds is long enough for an offense to be ran well and force the defense into making a mistake.

Hampton rarely holds the ball for more than 45 seconds either however they will do that if they have say a lead with three to four minutes to go in the game and force their opponent into a fouling situation. I guess I hate to see that part of game strategy taken away with the shot clock.

What would you think about turning the shot clock off with less than 5 minutes to go in a game? Just throwing another possibility out there. Also I know that a team takes a risk holding the ball in that situation but Hampton has won many more games that way rather than losing them.

Edited June 1, 2021 by dogtruth

[SportsWestTN]

2 hours ago, dogtruth said:

I understand your point and I agree 45 seconds is long enough for an offense to be ran well and force the defense into making a mistake.

Hampton rarely holds the ball for more than 45 seconds either however they will do that if they have say a lead with three to four minutes to go in the game and force their opponent into a fouling situation. I guess I hate to see that part of game strategy taken away with the shot clock.

What would you think about turning the shot clock off with less than 5 minutes to go in a game? Just throwing another possibility out there. Also I know that a team takes a risk holding the ball in that situation but Hampton has won many more games that way rather than losing them.

I wouldnt. One of the benefits of having a shot clock is that it forces teams to keep playing even when they have a lead late. I dont want to watch five minutes of teams intentionally fouling. It is going to happen down the stretch of close games even with a shot clock. I dont think it is good basketball when a team just stops playing because they are winning. Slowing things down is fine. But not a fan when teams just refuse to shoot because they are too afraid of losing their lead.

[dogtruth]

27 minutes ago, SportsWestTN said:

I wouldnt. One of the benefits of having a shot clock is that it forces teams to keep playing even when they have a lead late. I dont want to watch five minutes of teams intentionally fouling. It is going to happen down the stretch of close games even with a shot clock. I dont think it is good basketball when a team just stops playing because they are winning. Slowing things down is fine. But not a fan when teams just refuse to shoot because they are too afraid of losing their lead.

I guess it's just two ways of looking at things here. I have watched too many teams shoot their lead away late in the game and lose.  They really didn't take high-percentage shots and ended up giving the other team an opportunity to beat them. My belief is late in the game you need to value the basketball and take nothing but a lay up or free throws when you have the lead.

Again I'm not saying you're wrong though it's just we have different opinions on how a team should  try to win. Thanks for the discussion.

[SportsWestTN]

39 minutes ago, dogtruth said:

I guess it's just two ways of looking at things here. I have watched too many teams shoot their lead away late in the game and lose.  They really didn't take high-percentage shots and ended up giving the other team an opportunity to beat them. My belief is late in the game you need to value the basketball and take nothing but a lay up or free throws when you have the lead.

Again I'm not saying you're wrong though it's just we have different opinions on how a team should  try to win. Thanks for the discussion.

I dont disagree with what you are saying is the smart thing to do. With no shot clock why should you shoot? Football teams run the ball when they are trying to ice a lead for the same reason. The difference is football has a play clock. You have to continue to take snaps. With no shot clock in basketball you dont have to give the ball back unless they foul you.

Too often teams actually are hurt by playing slow with a lead IMO. It takes them out of their rhythm. If you are up by 15 points on a team why suddenly change the way you are playing? Why not continue to play the same way that gave you that lead rather than playing not to lose? I think it develops bad habits to stop playing with a lead. Plus it isnt fun to watch.

[pioneer42]

21 minutes ago, SportsWestTN said:

I dont disagree with what you are saying is the smart thing to do. With no shot clock why should you shoot? Football teams run the ball when they are trying to ice a lead for the same reason. The difference is football has a play clock. You have to continue to take snaps. With no shot clock in basketball you dont have to give the ball back unless they foul you.

Too often teams actually are hurt by playing slow with a lead IMO. It takes them out of their rhythm. If you are up by 15 points on a team why suddenly change the way you are playing? Why not continue to play the same way that gave you that lead rather than playing not to lose? I think it develops bad habits to stop playing with a lead. Plus it isnt fun to watch.

A 45 second shot clock is sufficient, IMO. It is actually hard to hold on to the ball very long anyway when a team is really putting pressure on you unless you are in the true 4 corner Marquette stall. Last three minutes is when even the fast teams slow it down a bit and it could change some outcomes but I am still for it. Hard for me to watch slow basketball. 

[dogtruth]

34 minutes ago, SportsWestTN said:

I dont disagree with what you are saying is the smart thing to do. With no shot clock why should you shoot? Football teams run the ball when they are trying to ice a lead for the same reason. The difference is football has a play clock. You have to continue to take snaps. With no shot clock in basketball you dont have to give the ball back unless they foul you.

Too often teams actually are hurt by playing slow with a lead IMO. It takes them out of their rhythm. If you are up by 15 points on a team why suddenly change the way you are playing? Why not continue to play the same way that gave you that lead rather than playing not to lose? I think it develops bad habits to stop playing with a lead. Plus it isnt fun to watch.

I agree with you if you got a 15-point lead, no used to slow it down then. I was talking about a situation with less than 5 minutes and you're only up by about 8 points or less. In that situation I love to see teams go to the Four Corners and play disciplined basketball. You can tell the teams that work on that situation in practice and are good free throw shooting teams.  

On the opposite end of that if I'm the team down by six or eight points and my opponent  is firing up illl-advised shots, it tickles me because they're giving your team a chance to get back in the ballgame.  

I'm the opposite I despise watching teams just give ball games away when they could have easily won the game if they were more disciplined.