Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?

[crownsy]

This spawns from our rondo thread, and i just wanted to see what people think.

We all know the play, every team runs it. 18 seconds left on the clock, just inbounded/got a board, and the team walks it up, gives it to whoever they think is thier best option with no time on the clock, and goes into an iso.

we've all seen it, its as standered in the NBA as a kneel down is in football. My question is do you agree with the strategy?

On some level, i understand it of course. by dribbling out the clock, you negate the other teams chances to respond. But at what cost? most of those shots are highly contested, since the defense is kind of clued into what your doing, and while you negate the other teams chance to respond, you hurt your chances to get a good look.

Wouldn't a team be better served to run its normal offense and get the best look avalible, then press/ play defense for the remaining 5-8 seconds lets say? Is the threat of you missing a shot and you opposition netting a 2/3 point swing really that terrifing?

The most incredible time to run this, and some times do, is  in the 4th quarter down by one. Why help the other team out on defense? If you score and go ahead in the flow of your offense, great. go win on defense for the final possesion. Why trap a guy, even a great player above the 3pt line with the ball while the other team gets to load up its defense?

in summation: please NBA teams, run a play!

Discuss

also, bonus TP's for dicussing another hated play of mine releated to this, the "lets take TWO bad shots instead of one good one!" move known as the 2 for 1 trip. 

[Redz]

It is strange that this has become the expected model.  I can see the reasoning in the 4th quarter of a close game, but basically why be a slave to the clock if a decent scoring opportunity presents itself.  Take the hoop and play some D.

[TripleThreat]

It is strange that this has become the expected model.  I can see the reasoning in the 4th quarter of a close game, but basically why be a slave to the clock if a decent scoring opportunity presents itself.  Take the hoop and play some D.

It's a great strategy in high school basketball where you don't have a shot clock. I've seen teams kill entire quarters by just holding onto the ball. Its not fun basketball to watch but its effective. But of course we're talking about the NBA here and I agree, you should run your offense and if a good shot presents itself, take the shot!

[Redz]

It is strange that this has become the expected model.  I can see the reasoning in the 4th quarter of a close game, but basically why be a slave to the clock if a decent scoring opportunity presents itself.  Take the hoop and play some D.

It's a great strategy in high school basketball where you don't have a shot clock. I've seen teams kill entire quarters by just holding onto the ball. Its not fun basketball to watch but its effective. But of course we're talking about the NBA here and I agree, you should run your offense and if a good shot presents itself, take the shot!

No shot clocks in high school?

[Chris]

It depends on the situation.  If it is the end of the first, second, or third quarters, then I think running down the clock and running and isolation play is the best strategy.  This is because it gives your team one last chance to score, without giving the other team a chance. 

If you run a play, it increases the chances of a turnover, and if you don't run down the clock, then the other team can get the ball back.  By just running it down and playing isolation, the worst case scenario (within reason) is that neither teams score.  Otherwise, you are opening up the opportunity of a 4 (or 5) point swing.

If it is in the 4th quarter, and you absolutely need to score, then it makes much more sense to run a play, because you need to increase your chances of scoring, even if it means increasing the chances of a turnover.

[Steve Weinman]

It is strange that this has become the expected model.  I can see the reasoning in the 4th quarter of a close game, but basically why be a slave to the clock if a decent scoring opportunity presents itself.  Take the hoop and play some D.

It's a great strategy in high school basketball where you don't have a shot clock. I've seen teams kill entire quarters by just holding onto the ball. Its not fun basketball to watch but its effective. But of course we're talking about the NBA here and I agree, you should run your offense and if a good shot presents itself, take the shot!

No shot clocks in high school?

This brings up a question that could probably start its own threat - about HS rule variations in general.  Playing on Long Island, we always had a 35-second clock, and I presumed it was that way across the country until I attended my first game out in the Midwest a few years back to watch a Louisville recruit and was told that the lack of a clock was fairly standard there.  Is this a regional issue or just a state-by-state or county-by-county matter?  Anyone have any light to shed on this from different spots around the country?

-sw

[fatherscott]

I absolutely agree. The only reason it happens is so the star can have his ego stroked with a hero moment. If you score with 4-5 seconds left on the clock, you're leaving the other team with a pretty low-percentage shot, so you're way better off running a normal play.

This is especially true for the Cs, because KG would hound the inbound pass and Rondo would play the guy bringing the ball up tight; they would struggle to get to half court in whatever time was left over. Even so, with a defense as good as the Cs, get your best shot and then play D. Like I said in the other thread, would you rather have a play with a bunch of passes that ends up with an open Ray 3 or something, or Paul taking a 22 ft fadeaway (though the one against the Nets two years ago was pretty awesome ).

[crownsy]

It depends on the situation.  If it is the end of the first, second, or third quarters, then I think running down the clock and running and isolation play is the best strategy.  This is because it gives your team one last chance to score, without giving the other team a chance. 

If you run a play, it increases the chances of a turnover, and if you don't run down the clock, then the other team can get the ball back.  By just running it down and playing isolation, the worst case scenario (within reason) is that neither teams score.  Otherwise, you are opening up the opportunity of a 4 (or 5) point swing.

If it is in the 4th quarter, and you absolutely need to score, then it makes much more sense to run a play, because you need to increase your chances of scoring, even if it means increasing the chances of a turnover.

but is the lower risk of a turnover worth giving up, lets so you a good offensive team, the 45% chance to increse your margin on the off chance of a turnover or long rebound score?

and how would it result in a 5 point swing? if you get burned once, you'll probley default to your iso set and run the clock out the second time rather than run the risk of a second turnover.

To me, this play seems like the prevent defense in football, an overreaction to a situation that doesn't warrent it.

[Redz]

Running down the clock makes a whole lot more sense in football than it does in basketball.  Each possession means so much more in football. 

[Chris]

I absolutely agree. The only reason it happens is so the star can have his ego stroked with a hero moment.

I vehemently disagree with this.  There is completely logical, strategic reasons to do it (as I explained in my earlier post).  You may not agree with them, but they are the basis for it.  It is not the coach just throwing a guy a bone, it is the coach deciding it is the best strategy to maximize their chance of scoring while minimizing the risk of the other team scoring.

[Chris]

and how would it result in a 5 point swing? if you get burned once, you'll probley default to your iso set and run the clock out the second time rather than run the risk of a second turnover.
 

A 5 point swing happens when a team tries to run a play (which dramatically increases the chances of a turnover with every pass made), they turn the ball over, and the other team hits a 3 pointer. 

If a guy can dribble down the clock and get a shot off, he either hits it, or misses it.  Worst case scenario is neither team scores.

I certainly understand why some people don't agree with the strategy, I am just trying to explain the thinking.  It is very similar to the strategy of running a draw with 40 seconds left and you are on your own 30.  It is the coach deciding to minimize the chance of damage rather than maximizing the chance of scoring.

[cordobes]

It depends on the situation.  If it is the end of the first, second, or third quarters, then I think running down the clock and running and isolation play is the best strategy.  This is because it gives your team one last chance to score, without giving the other team a chance. 

If you run a play, it increases the chances of a turnover, and if you don't run down the clock, then the other team can get the ball back.  By just running it down and playing isolation, the worst case scenario (within reason) is that neither teams score.  Otherwise, you are opening up the opportunity of a 4 (or 5) point swing.

If it is in the 4th quarter, and you absolutely need to score, then it makes much more sense to run a play, because you need to increase your chances of scoring, even if it means increasing the chances of a turnover.

This.

[fatherscott]

I absolutely agree. The only reason it happens is so the star can have his ego stroked with a hero moment.

I vehemently disagree with this.  There is completely logical, strategic reasons to do it (as I explained in my earlier post).  You may not agree with them, but they are the basis for it.  It is not the coach just throwing a guy a bone, it is the coach deciding it is the best strategy to maximize their chance of scoring while minimizing the risk of the other team scoring.

Maybe I'm not looking, but I don't often see the coach yelling to his guys to iso. I see the star player grab the ball (or run over directly next to whoever has the ball) look up at the shot clock, see the time, stand by themselves dribbling until 2 seconds are left, and throwing up the same stupid long-2 fade away. I have a really hard time believing that smart coaches think their best option to score is to have a guy play 1-on-2 at minimum (because a help defender always comes once it's too late to pass). If that was the best option to score, you'd just do it every possession.

[crownsy]

I absolutely agree. The only reason it happens is so the star can have his ego stroked with a hero moment.

I vehemently disagree with this.  There is completely logical, strategic reasons to do it (as I explained in my earlier post).  You may not agree with them, but they are the basis for it.  It is not the coach just throwing a guy a bone, it is the coach deciding it is the best strategy to maximize their chance of scoring while minimizing the risk of the other team scoring.

Maybe I'm not looking, but I don't often see the coach yelling to his guys to iso. I see the star player grab the ball (or run over directly next to whoever has the ball) look up at the shot clock, see the time, stand by themselves dribbling until 2 seconds are left, and throwing up the same stupid long-2 fade away. I have a really hard time believing that smart coaches think their best option to score is to have a guy play 1-on-2 at minimum (because a help defender always comes once it's too late to pass). If that was the best option to score, you'd just do it every possession.

Every other posession doesn't end with the end of a quarter though. chris's point is that its not about the shot quality, but the denial of your opponents chance to respond.

[fatherscott]

I absolutely agree. The only reason it happens is so the star can have his ego stroked with a hero moment.

I vehemently disagree with this.  There is completely logical, strategic reasons to do it (as I explained in my earlier post).  You may not agree with them, but they are the basis for it.  It is not the coach just throwing a guy a bone, it is the coach deciding it is the best strategy to maximize their chance of scoring while minimizing the risk of the other team scoring.

Maybe I'm not looking, but I don't often see the coach yelling to his guys to iso. I see the star player grab the ball (or run over directly next to whoever has the ball) look up at the shot clock, see the time, stand by themselves dribbling until 2 seconds are left, and throwing up the same stupid long-2 fade away. I have a really hard time believing that smart coaches think their best option to score is to have a guy play 1-on-2 at minimum (because a help defender always comes once it's too late to pass). If that was the best option to score, you'd just do it every possession.

Every other posession doesn't end with the end of a quarter though. chris's point is that its not about the shot quality, but the denial of your opponents chance to respond.

I understand that, but I'd rather see a shot with 50% chance of going in with the opponents getting a 10-20% chance of responding than a shot with 15% chance of going in (and contested long-2 fadeaways can't be much higher than that) with 0% chance of the other teams responding. That's why I believe in treating it like a normal possession.