Decent article. I 100% disagree with the analogy that a team without a shot clock will "catch- read- attack", while a shot clock makes a team "read-catch-attack".Fantastic article on the impacts of a shot clock and how it can impact practice prep, player development and coach control. THIS is exactly what we're talking about. It has nothing to do with scoring, fan interest, or college readiness. This article is spot on and this author gets it.
You can have offenses designed to read first and be very deliberate in ball movement then final attack 30-90 seconds later.
Also, I would not call 45 seconds a long shot clock. In a hotly game many possessions require 90 seconds or more to play out, by design. The first minute is ball movement designed to make the defense shift and recover. This wears down the legs of the opponet over the course of the game.
A shot clock makes the defense aware of how long it is until the offense must take a shot. That heavily favors the defense. Ironically, it also teaches kids to only work for a specific length of time. No shot clock, means the mentality is you can not give up . The mental requirements to defend without a shot clock is requires much more determination.
Even though I am an old guy, we (AAU) experimented with the shot clock a few years back in practice. I wanted to personally experience it myself, as I had never played under one.
We found success offensively had best results with a floor of guards who can create on their own, shoot the three. We had a rather tall team that often played a 3-2 zone or hedged and gave back on screens when playing man defense. With the shot clock that tall lineup was not as essential as agile feet made up for extra height, when only needing to defend for 30 seconds.
Think I have a pretty clear idea how it would change the game, and it would favor more athletic teams. We already made one huge change in adding the three that favored additional guards on the floor vs big physical rebounders and kids to post up inside.