If this were true, coaches would be using a shot clock regularly in practice to help advance kids through progressions more rapidly.
Do we need a shot clock in Ohio high school basketball
- Thread starter Lancermania
- Start date
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
LOL - why would a coach practice with a shot clock if a shot clock isn't used in games?
Seriously some backwards people in here. LOL
winbypin
Well-known member
Did I say it would make it worse? Just said kids are already moving from freshmen to JV and then to Varsity today. With or without the shot clock that would continue to happen. That isn't going to change.
If there was a shot clock, the kids would adjust to the new rule just like they always do.
Talk some sense
Active member
And some who won't move forward and get over it. You act like kids aren't working on their skills. The ones who really want it are working year round. Otherwise, how are your beloved "AAU" games so entertaining.
winbypin
Well-known member
If it helps their development like you are claiming wouldn't it benefit a coach to use a shot clock during training? I mean, you said the shot clock makes for a better basketball player, more rounded, able to create offense, etc. If you truly believe that then utilizing some sort of shot clock in their training can only help their game, right?
Red14
Well-known member
There's really two facets to basketball to consider when implementing a shot clock. One is to eliminate "holding" the ball. I think that's what 98% of the shot clock proponents wish. The second, and the lesser talked about part is the elimination of protecting the lead. Now one reason I don't want a shot clock is that I feel it's inherently unfair to earn a 5-8-10 point lead over 3 quarters, then be forced to shoot in the last few minutes of a game just because people like shot clocks. Think about it, if you're up 6 points with 2 minutes to go, you are required to give the ball up in 30 seconds or less?
And let's face it, we talk about this once a year because someone holds the ball, in the thousands of other games across the county, it's not a factor. So why implement a rule that only affects a tiny percentage of games? Fact is, most teams are not good enough to hold the ball for any long term time frame. It takes skill to hold the ball.
And let's face it, we talk about this once a year because someone holds the ball, in the thousands of other games across the county, it's not a factor. So why implement a rule that only affects a tiny percentage of games? Fact is, most teams are not good enough to hold the ball for any long term time frame. It takes skill to hold the ball.
AllSports12
Moderator
Exactly, just like they adjust to every new rule that is implemented.
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
W
When have I said AAU is beloved? I said kids enjoy it more because it's a more free flowing style. It's not better basketball. Something between great coaching in high school and free flowing in AAU is what's ideal.
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
Because they don't have to. If there was a shot clock, they would be forced to.
One of my main arguments in this has been around coach control. No shot clock gives the coach 100% control. They love that.
Adding a shot clock takes that away.
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
Yes, aging is indeed inevitable. You are right about that.
Coaches don't put a premium on offensive skill playmaking because they don't have to. With a shot clock, they'd be forced to.
I think more kids having those skills is better for the game in the long run.
winbypin
Well-known member
Seems to me if all of the benefits you claim to be true....are indeed true...coaches would use the shot clock to build better basketball players. They win more games and the coaches with those "huge" egos would live on forever in local community folklore. Maybe even get a street names after them.
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
I would argue the opposite. A shot clock kind of levels the coaching playing field, and I think coaches know it. It would 100% make the good (and the bad) ones stick out much more.
Anyone schmo can stand there and hold the ball as a "strategy". You don't need a coach for that. It takes true basketball chops to develop the skills needed within the parameters of a shot clock.
Even with a shot clock, someone has to win, and someone has to lose. Overall, the winning percentage is exactly the same.
Anyone schmo can stand there and hold the ball as a "strategy". You don't need a coach for that. It takes true basketball chops to develop the skills needed within the parameters of a shot clock.
Even with a shot clock, someone has to win, and someone has to lose. Overall, the winning percentage is exactly the same.
winbypin
Well-known member
So the shot clock actually won't improve basketball skills then?
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
Again, where do you come up with that? Where do you possibly come to this conclusion based on what I said?
Do you think improving skills, regardless of how you do it, equates to both teams winning?
Every kid can improve their skills 1000% percent, it doesn't guarantee victory. There still has to be a winner, and there still has to be a loser.
Unless you just want ties and co-wins. I'm sure that's coming next.
winbypin
Well-known member
I came up with that from your own posts. Maybe you should communicate more clearly.
Co-winners? Wth are you blabbering about?
CasualFan24
Well-known member
My post isn't meant to say teams are ultimately going to score 100 points a night.....but what happens right now when you're watching a game where a team is up 10+ points (sometimes less) in the 4th quarter? Or when a team is blowing out another team? Usually, the team that is up will go to a motion offense and work the clock down through 5 or 6+ passes before they will attempt a shot. They are holding the ball, without just standing there and holding it.....they are deliberately working the clock down.
My point was that adding a shot clock doesn't just solve the "problem" of teams holding the ball and stalling - it changes other aspect of the game as well. My example happens in almost every single game - every team out there has the same pass and cut, motion offense that they run to kill time.....There are a lot more blow outs on a nightly basis (that will carry larger deficits with a shot clock) than there are teams holding the ball for 7 minutes....
CasualFan24
Well-known member
And my additional point was - if I was coaching and I had to deal with a shot clock, I'm probably just going to scrap that motion offense, and just run my normal sets all night because as a coach, I'd rather see a normal set run to perfection than a sloppy last second heave to beat the shot clock just to spare the opponent that I'm already blowing out....
Talk some sense
Active member
Good luck running the same plays over and over. That gets really easy to guard, especially for only 30 seconds. Well run motion can take the first good shot that the defense gives based on how they react to the action. Except when stalling, which can be a legitimate tactic (not the mutually agreed upon staring contest).
CasualFan24
Well-known member
You watch much basketball? Do you really think those plays get any easier to defend by the team that's getting blown out? No - they can't defend because they're not as good or lack talent. Do you think if the LA Lakers played your local high school team and only ran the same play every time down the court that the play would get any easier to defend?!?!
Quite honestly - I see a lot of basketball, probably more than most - and I see all the time where a team getting blown out, not only loses on the scoreboard, but gets completely demoralized because there is literally NOTHING they can do to stop teams that are clearly better than they are....which brings me back to my original point - I'd much rather those really good teams be able to go into a motion offense and throw the ball around and eat clock for 2 or 3 minutes at a time than for them to just continually shove it down the throat of the losing team.....
I don't know about everyone else....but pretty much every time I see a score where a team wins 100-30, I give a real solid eye roll and move on to reading something else.....
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
It's funny people think you can't run a motion offense with a shot clock. LOL
CasualFan24
Well-known member
It's funny when people post things insinuating that someone said one thing - but when you look back at all the posts, you realize they actually never said that at all. LOL
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
Let me rephrase:
It's funny people insinuate you can't run a motion offense with a shot clock. LOL
It's funny people insinuate you can't run a motion offense with a shot clock. LOL
CasualFan24
Well-known member
OMG I guess I have to spell it out.....I did not ever say that you can't run a motion offense nor did I insinuate it. Go back and reread the posts! I'm making the point that teams often times run the motion set and kill MINUTES of time from the clock. Specifically I said 2-3 minutes. Then, I followed up by saying that I would scrap the motion offense altogether.......Please quote my post where I said or suggested that people can't run the motion offense with a shot clock......I'll wait..... ?
Talk some sense
Active member
Actually I've played, watched, and coached a lot of basketball. Perhaps the nuance of what I posted escaped you. That's sarcastic because it was pretty obvious. Not talking about the superior team running motion - they can run whatever they like if it's going to be 100 - 30. I'm talking about evenly matched teams or maybe when one is less athletic. Then the motion run to score can be a great offense. And the same play to beat a shot clock gets less effective when everybody in the gym knows what's coming. Like knowing pass or run in football makes it easier to defend. And so on.
OldSchoolPanther
Well-known member
OMG I guess I have to spell it out.....I did not ever say that you can't run a motion offense nor did I insinuate it. Go back and reread the posts! I'm making the point that teams often times run the motion set and kill MINUTES of time from the clock. Specifically I said 2-3 minutes. Then, I followed up by saying that I would scrap the motion offense altogether.......Please quote my post where I said or suggested that people can't run the motion offense with a shot clock......I'll wait..... ?
In this post you just said that you would scrap the motion offense altogether. I bolded it for you. LOL
So everyone else can run it, but you wouldn't. Oh ok, gotcha.
So you're saying the motion offense is better for teams that want to kill clock? Not really. The motion offensive is a great offense to get good offensive looks. It's especially impactful within the parameters of a shot clock. It's a read and react style that really can't be "scouted". It's a great offense for the shot clock, but it requires great coaching and player IQ and execution. It's not meant to pass the ball around for 3 minutes, that's just keep away.
The motion offense is meant to score.
So many comments are made relative speaking. What percentage of success is required for a play to be considered to "work". If I score 48% of the time on new plays and 40% on old standby plays does it still "work"?
I think alot of times we are much closer to agreement on here than disagreement. We just suffer from a lack of defining terms.
CasualFan24
Well-known member
OldSchoolPanther - my whole point was that adding the shot clock changes the game more than just the elimination of the stand a hold it offense and that the shot clock will effect the final scores in what are already blow outs in a negative way. Without the shot clock, the team that is up could go into the motion offense and kill 3 minutes, easily. In 3 minutes, thats 6 shot clock possessions v. 1 non shot clock possession. I understand that more possessions doesn't necessarily mean more points, but its certainly more opportunity for points - and when the talent is already lopsided, that team is probably going to convert those possession more than not. That is all.
I'd be happy to debate the effectiveness of the motion offense and its use for actually scoring any time......but not what I was conveying in any of my previous points....
Pickeringtonsports
Well-known member
Yes, there needs to be a shot clock. I have watched way too many games where one team just runs through sets to burn as much time off the clock as possible. I also think the 3 point line needs to be moved back. In my opinion, AAU basketball is changing the sport but not for the better. Low post offense is almost non existent. I have watched players with a 6-7 inch size advantage stand around the 3 point line for the entire game. It is starting to be hard to watch. Lastly, the officiating at the high school level is terrible. I think this gets back to AAU which is pretty much a pickup game. When you have 3 refs and 1 or 2 of the 3 are calling AAU style and the other ref(s) are calling real fouls, the game gets out of hand.
There is a reason low post play is disappearing. With all the physical contact allowed today why would you post up only to get hacked and not have possibility of scoring? Instead, make cuts to the basket and short floaters over top or layups. Not to mention 33% from the 3 is like drugs as you get long rebounds and have a guard or two in better position to stop transition game on misses. This is what basketball is becoming, I'm sure it will morph again soon.