Shot clock

[mtdew_fever]

I haven't seen 500 games, but seem to have watched more stall ball in the final few minutes of a game than you have. DM Hoover has employed this type of game for years. The Class 4A championship game was brutal to watch in the final OT.

At least to me, adding a shot clock in an attempt to increase scoring is the wrong reason to do it. I think adding in a shot clock would help with the final 2-3 minutes of the ball game. If the defensive team knows they will get another chance at the ball after the shot clock expires, then it should be one less foul.

I also think that stopping the clock after a made basket in the final minute of the game would be a positive change as well.

How often have you ever really seen this though? I mean, honestly, within the course of a normal game, how often in a high school season have you seen intentional possessions that last "minutes?" I've seen/coached in over 500 games, and I've seen that less than 1/10th of 1% of all possessions probably. It's a myth that all these teams are playing this stall ball type offense. It's just not reality. Number 1, most teams aren't good enough to do that; it takes a measure of skill to run a possession for that long if you're guarded at all. Number 2, the overwhelming majority of coaches simply don't play that way.

And for the record, we have 8 shot clock states currently, and only 1 of those 8 cracks the top-10 in average scoring (and they did before their shot clock as well).

 

[cidhawkeye]

I haven't seen 500 games, but seem to have watched more stall ball in the final few minutes of a game than you have. DM Hoover has employed this type of game for years. The Class 4A championship game was brutal to watch in the final OT.

At least to me, adding a shot clock in an attempt to increase scoring is the wrong reason to do it. I think adding in a shot clock would help with the final 2-3 minutes of the ball game. If the defensive team knows they will get another chance at the ball after the shot clock expires, then it should be one less foul.

I also think that stopping the clock after a made basket in the final minute of the game would be a positive change as well.

That puts an awful lot of faith in the skill level of a hometown clock operator.

 

[mtdew_fever]

I'd agree. Some college operators don't always get it right either.

My friend who is an Athletic Director at a high school in South Dakota feels the same way about adding the shot clock.

That puts an awful lot of faith in the skill level of a hometown clock operator.

 

[DarkThunder#61]

I also think that stopping the clock after a made basket in the final minute of the game would be a positive change as well.

I would be in favor of this change.

 

[wolverine55]

A 42-37 game could be an intense game with two good defenses, much like a defensive battle in football or pitcher's duel in baseball. Why is defensive basketball the only sport that gets relegated as "ugly" for good defense? It could also be two bad offenses. Or, a combination thereof.

The easiest answer to improved offense, in my opinion, is twofold. One, we (coaches) need more access to coach kids. We get basically 9 practice days before the first game. There's no good reason we can't start practice the first Monday in November. Offensive skill and cohesion is much more difficult and time consuming to teach than defense. Defenses are always much further along than offense because teams simply don't have enough time to prepare, and more preparation time would lead to much better overall quality of play, especially for freshmen thru JV kids. Some will argue "Football!!!" My response is: why is this 3 week gap/transition between football to basketball the only transition that we (the state) seem to think must be protected? And besides, the vast majority of 9-12 basketball players are done with football or cross country by this date. Every other season has overlap. Baseball started this week, almost 3 weeks before state track, and 3 weeks before their first game. Do basketball players not deserve preparation time? Allowing an earlier start would only benefit the game and kids.

The second major issue is officiating. Teams are simply allowed to play organized-fouling defense across the board. The NCAA's emphasis on cleaning this up is as much to do with their offensive trend than anything, and this is certainly true in the NBA. It takes no skill, zero, to bump cutters, forearm chuck dribblers, grab big guys, ect., and these are all taught and allowed far too much. The state send their empahases memos which say all the right thing, but their is zero follow through or teeth in these. Our training and licensing of officials is a joke as well. We really have a crisis, I believe, in high-school level officiating in Iowa.

Based on my experience watching basketball in southeast Iowa, I'm VERY surprised to hear you think the game is too physical. A lot of fouls get called down here; it's not unusual at all for both teams to be in the bonus by the end of the first and third quarters.

 

[Red87]

Based on my experience watching basketball in southeast Iowa, I'm VERY surprised to hear you think the game is too physical. A lot of fouls get called down here; it's not unusual at all for both teams to be in the bonus by the end of the first and third quarters.

That's interesting. Thsnks for the feedback. In Northeast Iowa, and the tournament trail, it appears officials almost consciously try not to get to the bonus. A few crews are excellent and call fouls, fouls, but many let it become a wrestling match.

 

[Bulldog198240]

That because lesser talented teams foul!...they don't and can't play good defense because they are such poor athletes.

 

[mtdew_fever]

Let's be honest, even superior athletes can be poor defensively.

That because lesser talented teams foul!...they don't and can't play good defense because they are such poor athletes.

 

[cyard31]

I agree, 42-37 could be a good well played game, more often than not it isn't, good offense can come from good defense. The officiating is poor at best quite a bit. Increased pre season practice may be the answer, with 9 practices you are fortunate to get a few solid sets in, a defensive concept or two and that is it. Red, do you think the proliferation of AAU has helped or hurt in this area?

with out the SC in HS - the strategy can be to foul & put the team holding the ball on the line to "make" free throws. 8 minute quarters are too short to begin with & getting kids to work for a good shot is difficult to begin with.
On a side note: who remembers jump balls that were actually jumped. my dad played in the 1940's & they jumped ball after every score.

 

[RoundMound1]

An old coach from Dowling used to tell me that to attempt to stall for a minute in a high school game is one of the more difficult things for a team to accomplish. So if shot clock isn't the answer to the 42-37 game what is? Or is a 42-37 game considered to be a quality game by two strong defensive teams? Personally 42-37 bores the heck out of me, give me 75-68 most any day.

This is the argument that drives me up the wall. Next time you go to a game I want you to yell at the kids on YOUR team to stop playing good defense so YOU can see more scoring. Or, tell YOUR team to shoot a bad shot when they're holding the ball too long to keep the pace up to YOUR liking. Lame!

I feel like everybody wants every team to be exactly the same. Run up the floor, pick and roll, 3 ball or drive...again...and again...and again. One reason I can't stand to watch the NBA is because every game looks exactly the same. Where are the post feeds? The inside out game? Where are the backdoor cuts and screens? I sound like an old man, but the game was more exciting when every team had 3 or 4 different ways to score rather than the Warriors for example who only score with the 3 or Thompson driving. Even the Warriors would be fine to watch, if that was their staple and they were the only team doing it. Problem is now everybody is trying to copy their formula and it's watering the game down. I'd much rather watch college or high school games because you see such a variety of play. I can appreciate Cascade's incredible 2-3 defense holding teams to 20 points just as much as I can appreciate Anamosa going up and down the court putting up 80.

You know what keeps games interesting? When they're close. If you go to a shot clock and force less offensively talented teams to take quicker shots I predict more blowouts. I think the teams that can score get an advantage and the teams that can't get hurt. Some would say that's the way it should be, but as others have alluded to I think there is an art to being able to control the ball in an offensive possession and find a great shot. There's also an art to playing great defense. I can appreciate both, it's too bad others can't.

 

[cidhawkeye]

This is the argument that drives me up the wall. Next time you go to a game I want you to yell at the kids on YOUR team to stop playing good defense so YOU can see more scoring. Or, tell YOUR team to shoot a bad shot when they're holding the ball too long to keep the pace up to YOUR liking. Lame!

I feel like everybody wants every team to be exactly the same. Run up the floor, pick and roll, 3 ball or drive...again...and again...and again. One reason I can't stand to watch the NBA is because every game looks exactly the same. Where are the post feeds? The inside out game? Where are the backdoor cuts and screens? I sound like an old man, but the game was more exciting when every team had 3 or 4 different ways to score rather than the Warriors for example who only score with the 3 or Thompson driving. Even the Warriors would be fine to watch, if that was their staple and they were the only team doing it. Problem is now everybody is trying to copy their formula and it's watering the game down. I'd much rather watch college or high school games because you see such a variety of play. I can appreciate Cascade's incredible 2-3 defense holding teams to 20 points just as much as I can appreciate Anamosa going up and down the court putting up 80.

You know what keeps games interesting? When they're close. If you go to a shot clock and force less offensively talented teams to take quicker shots I predict more blowouts. I think the teams that can score get an advantage and the teams that can't get hurt. Some would say that's the way it should be, but as others have alluded to I think there is an art to being able to control the ball in an offensive possession and find a great shot. There's also an art to playing great defense. I can appreciate both, it's too bad others can't.

A well played close game excites me. Most of the 42-37 games are boring, a team doesn't need to score 80 to make it exciting. Cascade plays a very solid 2-3 defense, how do you beat that defense, what I see currently is a lot of walking the ball down the court analyzing the defense and calling a scripted play to attack a defense that has had plenty of time to get set and ready, I enjoy watching a team getting the ball out and attacking the zone before it is set up and at it's most effective. Making kids make a decision on the fly is a way to create defensive lapses, may also create the air mailed out let pass as well but if you let teams jog back and set up then they may be a touch more effective. Shot clock the answer? doubtful, other ways to attack the problem? there are.

 

[DarkThunder#61]

Shot clock the answer? doubtful

/thread