Author Topic: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?  (Read 9856 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2008, 02:01:34 PM »

Offline TripleThreat

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 77
  • Tommy Points: 7
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

I was actually quite surprised when I read that you guys had a shot clock in New York as I never saw one, nor heard about one, growing up playing high school basketball. So I did a little research and found out that there are only seven states that require a shot clock in high school basketball.

Quote from: http://www.deposoft.com.ar/pastore/the_rule_clock.pdf
...seven Union states (Californian, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Washington) have adopted 30” for women and 35” for the men time possesion rules. The rest of the states does not have established time of possession.

I found it interesting that the shot clock was a shorter time period for girls than it is for boys.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2008, 02:01:34 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
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.

I certainly see the logic, and there are certainly coaches in the league who agree.  But on a team like the C's, who are so dedicated to the defensive end, I think it makes more sense within their team philosophy to err on the side of not giving up points over trying to score more.
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.

You may not be looking, because Doc is usually calling plays out, including at the end of quarters.  On a lot of teams, it is a set play anyways though.  They don't need to call it, because they already know that the play when the shot clock is off is to run the clock down and run and iso.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2008, 02:06:50 PM »

Offline fatherscott

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 124
  • Tommy Points: 9
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.

I certainly see the logic, and there are certainly coaches in the league who agree.  But on a team like the C's, who are so dedicated to the defensive end, I think it makes more sense within their team philosophy to err on the side of not giving up points over trying to score more.
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.

You may not be looking, because Doc is usually calling plays out, including at the end of quarters.  On a lot of teams, it is a set play anyways though.  They don't need to call it, because they already know that the play when the shot clock is off is to run the clock down and run and iso.

I'll have to keep an eye out -- I've never noticed, but I'm not sure I've ever gone out of my way to look, either. I mean, I've seen Doc yell out plays to Rondo, but I hadn't noticed in the iso situations.
Formerly scotthp49 at the old site. Didn't have much to say last year, but I missed you guys too much.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2008, 02:11:04 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777

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.


The whole 4-point swing and 5-point swing stuff is just horrible math. You can't assume that you would have score. I can't stand when announcers use that cliche.

That being said, there is a clear logic in running the clock down. Even if you run your offense, you might not score. There are 4 likely outcomes:
-You score, opponent misses their last shot
-You score, opponent also scores
-You don't score, neither does opponent
-You don't score, opponent hits last shot
(I am ignoring the chance of 3 pointers, etc)

You have one scenario where you end up +2, one scenario where you end up -2, and two where you end up even. Running down the clock eliminates the possibility (or at least decreases the odds greatly) of ending up -2, because it does not give the other team another possession.

It is a great strategy. The part that can be questioned is the choice of play to end the quarter.

The 2-for-1 is also a good idea if you agree with D'Antoni's idea that you usually get a good shot in the first 8 seconds. Why not take it and get a second possession before the game ends. It also doesn't let the other team run the clock down for a final shot. I consider the 2-for-1 a dangerous play if you are playing against a really good offensive rebounding lineup.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2008, 02:15:06 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
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.

Sure, but the problem is you just made up those numbers. I would rather take a show with 95% chance of going in while running a play with a 1% of a turnover, but those are just magic numbers and are irrelevant.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2008, 02:18:51 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9931
  • Tommy Points: 777
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.
False dichotomy. You imply only 2 options - the coach is going to yell, or the players are going to do whatever they want. The most natural assumption is that the team has discussed such situations and what plays to run.

Haven't you noticed that the other players go do particular spots on the floor when a player is running down the clock, and then go into motion when the play is starting? These are plays the coaches put in, not the egos of the stars.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2008, 02:32:23 PM »

Offline Steve Weinman

  • Author / Moderator
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
  • Tommy Points: 33
  • My alter ego
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

I was actually quite surprised when I read that you guys had a shot clock in New York as I never saw one, nor heard about one, growing up playing high school basketball. So I did a little research and found out that there are only seven states that require a shot clock in high school basketball.

Quote from: http://www.deposoft.com.ar/pastore/the_rule_clock.pdf
...seven Union states (Californian, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Washington) have adopted 30” for women and 35” for the men time possesion rules. The rest of the states does not have established time of possession.

I found it interesting that the shot clock was a shorter time period for girls than it is for boys.

Wow, Triple, TP for dropping the knowledge - I had no idea it was such a small number of states with that requirement.  So where did you play?

-sw


Reggies Ghost: Where artistic genius happens.  Thank you, sir.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2008, 02:55:19 PM »

Offline fatherscott

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 124
  • Tommy Points: 9
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.

Sure, but the problem is you just made up those numbers. I would rather take a show with 95% chance of going in while running a play with a 1% of a turnover, but those are just magic numbers and are irrelevant.

Yes, I made up the numbers, but do you think they're far off? An average possession yields something like a 50% shot, right? Probably a little lower - 46-47 we'll say. If you run a normal play without considering the clock, it's going to take some of the time away, leaving the other team with very little time. If you leave the other team with 4-6 seconds or so, I don't think they would score any more than 15% of the time in those situations. I could be wrong on either number, but I think both are very reasonable, and thus not irrelevant. I don't have any true numbers, I wasn't attempting to present some sort of irrefutable proof, just illustrating my feeling on it.
Formerly scotthp49 at the old site. Didn't have much to say last year, but I missed you guys too much.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2008, 02:58:06 PM »

Offline fatherscott

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 124
  • Tommy Points: 9
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.
False dichotomy. You imply only 2 options - the coach is going to yell, or the players are going to do whatever they want. The most natural assumption is that the team has discussed such situations and what plays to run.

Haven't you noticed that the other players go do particular spots on the floor when a player is running down the clock, and then go into motion when the play is starting? These are plays the coaches put in, not the egos of the stars.

This is fair, but I really don't believe this is a set play. Yes, they run to spots -- the four corners to get the way out of the star player. They move around, but because the player is waiting for the clock to get down to a second, whether by design or out of wanting to take the shot themselves, they don't leave themselves enough time to pass, so to me it's irrelevant where the other guys are. If I saw guys pass out of this situation, I would be fine with it. They just don't pass, and as a result, the defense knows exactly what's going to happen. On-ball defenders don't go for ball fakes/head fakes because the guy never drives, so it's always a highly contested, usually to some degree fade away, jumper, with a hand in the face, and another defender coming at the player.
Formerly scotthp49 at the old site. Didn't have much to say last year, but I missed you guys too much.

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2008, 03:12:05 PM »

Offline TripleThreat

  • The Green Kornet
  • Posts: 77
  • Tommy Points: 7
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

I was actually quite surprised when I read that you guys had a shot clock in New York as I never saw one, nor heard about one, growing up playing high school basketball. So I did a little research and found out that there are only seven states that require a shot clock in high school basketball.

Quote from: http://www.deposoft.com.ar/pastore/the_rule_clock.pdf
...seven Union states (Californian, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Washington) have adopted 30” for women and 35” for the men time possesion rules. The rest of the states does not have established time of possession.

I found it interesting that the shot clock was a shorter time period for girls than it is for boys.

Wow, Triple, TP for dropping the knowledge - I had no idea it was such a small number of states with that requirement.  So where did you play?

-sw

I played high school basketball up in Maine. The only time I ever saw a shot clock was when I played in a tournament up in Canada and that was AAU. Our style of basketball was very defensive minded and we weren't afraid to let the clock run with our motion offense. With the shot clock on the back of our mind we rushed our offensive more than we should have. The trapezoidal lane was also fun to get used to.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 03:17:21 PM by TripleThreat »

Re: Dribbling down the clock: good strategy?
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2008, 05:01:44 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586

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.


The whole 4-point swing and 5-point swing stuff is just horrible math. You can't assume that you would have score. I can't stand when announcers use that cliche.

That being said, there is a clear logic in running the clock down. Even if you run your offense, you might not score. There are 4 likely outcomes:
-You score, opponent misses their last shot
-You score, opponent also scores
-You don't score, neither does opponent
-You don't score, opponent hits last shot
(I am ignoring the chance of 3 pointers, etc)

You have one scenario where you end up +2, one scenario where you end up -2, and two where you end up even. Running down the clock eliminates the possibility (or at least decreases the odds greatly) of ending up -2, because it does not give the other team another possession.

It is a great strategy. The part that can be questioned is the choice of play to end the quarter.

The 2-for-1 is also a good idea if you agree with D'Antoni's idea that you usually get a good shot in the first 8 seconds. Why not take it and get a second possession before the game ends. It also doesn't let the other team run the clock down for a final shot. I consider the 2-for-1 a dangerous play if you are playing against a really good offensive rebounding lineup.

You know I guess I always thought differently with the 4-5 point swing rationale.  My thinking behind it was that if you took a shot with enough time left on the game clock for the opponent to get down the floor and take and make a shot they get 2 points (and lots of times 3 because they can get a decent trey off many times with only a few seconds left on the clock), so now the opponent is up +2 or +3. Then when the next period starts and the opponenet starts off with the ball and hits a shot on the first posesssion that is another +2 (or possibly even +3), so that totals a +4 or +5 (or even +6) swing before you even get posession again.  That's how I always thought it works, but it looks like we have some different opinions here.  (Obviously my theory is only applicable at the end of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quaters).


And with holding the ball at then end of quarters, especially at the end of games, I also think there is another thinking here that no one has mentioned yet.  Refs.  I think (just my opinion, I have no stats or proof on this) that refs are more likely to help out an offensive player out (by calling a foul) and are much less likely to hurt the offensive player (by calling traveling, an offesnive foul, etc.) at the end of games.  So this gives another advantage to the offense.  Also I think it's tougher to play defense at the end of games because nobody wants to lose a game by fouling the player and giving him free throws, so that's a negative for the defense.  I think those things go together and also have to do with players holding the ball at the end of games.

Ideally, I would rather have my guys hold the ball just until there is enough time for an offensive putback but not enough time to for the other team to inbound the ball and get off a good shot.  I personally think this is a good strategy, and I also think we see more kick outs on these isolation plays than some other posters think (but just my opinion, no stats or proof).

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class