Oak Hills - Turpin

cincyhoops

Well-known member
Because Oak Hills is more than willing to run offense for 2 minutes at a time before they shoot. I think the first possession of the game, Oak Hills had the ball for about 2 minutes.
 

SMARTY22

Well-known member
Because Oak Hills is more than willing to run offense for 2 minutes at a time before they shoot. I think the first possession of the game, Oak Hills had the ball for about 2 minutes.
This and OH missed 30 Shots from the Field. Both Teams were a combined 15-64 from the Field. No wonder they don’t want to Shoot. Thats just plain awful Shooting.
 

Kurt Rambis

Active member
64 shots(including OT) and 23 FT's(11 trips to the foul line) and 11 turnovers would ,mean abut 86 possessions?

Thats about 2.3 possesions per minute.

about 25-28 seconds per possession(Including the 4 minutes of OT)? That's UNDER what a shot clock would be

not too bad

maybe mostly bad shooting and good defense
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
64 shots(including OT) and 23 FT's(11 trips to the foul line) and 11 turnovers would ,mean abut 86 possessions?

Thats about 2.3 possesions per minute.

about 25-28 seconds per possession(Including the 4 minutes of OT)? That's UNDER what a shot clock would be

not too bad

maybe mostly bad shooting and good defense
Sometimes you get multiple shots on same possession with offensive rebounds. It was definitely a slow paced game. You are also assuming when you turn it over or shoot it takes a full 30 seconds. A shot clock would've definitely come into play on many possessions in this game.
 

Philly_Cat

Well-known member
Sometimes you get multiple shots on same possession with offensive rebounds. It was definitely a slow paced game. You are also assuming when you turn it over or shoot it takes a full 30 seconds. A shot clock would've definitely come into play on many possessions in this game.
But they both shot horribly. A shot clock would have just lead to even worse shooting.
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
But they both shot horribly. A shot clock would have just lead to even worse shooting.
I don't think the point of a shot clock is to increase scoring... it may or it may not. The point of the shot clock is so that the offense has to shoot the ball every 30 (or 35 or 45) seconds. Maybe they shoot it and get it back and run the shot clock some more... so be it. But the shot clock ensures the offense doesn't go 2 minutes without shooting the ball.
 

Philly_Cat

Well-known member
I don't think the point of a shot clock is to increase scoring... it may or it may not. The point of the shot clock is so that the offense has to shoot the ball every 30 (or 35 or 45) seconds. Maybe they shoot it and get it back and run the shot clock some more... so be it. But the shot clock ensures the offense doesn't go 2 minutes without shooting the ball.
Yea but my point is if a team is having a horrible shooting night, forcing them to shoot faster is just going to make their shooting even worse. You want better basketball, but I think a shot clock would be forcing worse basketball. At least in the case of this particular game I'd argue it would make it worse.
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
Yea but my point is if a team is having a horrible shooting night, forcing them to shoot faster is just going to make their shooting even worse. You want better basketball, but I think a shot clock would be forcing worse basketball. At least in the case of this particular game I'd argue it would make it worse.
I didn't say I want better basketball. I want the offensive team to not be able to hold the ball for 1-2 minutes at a time. A shot clock would accomplish that. More scoring, better basketball... I am not sure if a shot clock would accomplish those. But, I would like to try it and see.
 

Philly_Cat

Well-known member
I didn't say I want better basketball. I want the offensive team to not be able to hold the ball for 1-2 minutes at a time. A shot clock would accomplish that. More scoring, better basketball... I am not sure if a shot clock would accomplish those. But, I would like to try it and see.
Well I want the best possible basketball to be played. I don't understand the need to force kids to play worse basketball just to appease fans. This isn't the NBA or any professional sport. These kids aren't playing to entertain the people in the stands in hopes to gain fans and thus make more money. The game is literally being played just for them.
 

Bull GreenDog

Well-known member
I went back and just watched the first 2 possessions, one for each team.

64 passes combined
2 fouls
2 Offensive Rebounds
3:16 off clock
0 points
Passing 30 times in a possession without turning the ball over is actually extremely impressive. These coaches should get an award for teaching the players how to pass so well. Unfortunately, it looks like they forgot to teach them how to shoot.
 

cincyhoops

Well-known member
Well I want the best possible basketball to be played. I don't understand the need to force kids to play worse basketball just to appease fans. This isn't the NBA or any professional sport. These kids aren't playing to entertain the people in the stands in hopes to gain fans and thus make more money. The game is literally being played just for them.
I would be willing to bet 95% of high school kids would say they'd rather play with a shot clock than allow the offensive team to hold the ball.
 

Philly_Cat

Well-known member
I would be willing to bet 95% of high school kids would say they'd rather play with a shot clock than allow the offensive team to hold the ball.
I don't want to see that either. But I do have to agree with the last poster, whether his comment was tongue in cheek or not. That is kinda impressive to be able to pass that much without turning the ball over.

Also, I'd say 95% of high school kids could care less if there was a shot clock or not. And it wouldn't surprise me if that was actually 100% lol
 

Chop Stix

Well-known member
I don't think the point of a shot clock is to increase scoring... it may or it may not. The point of the shot clock is so that the offense has to shoot the ball every 30 (or 35 or 45) seconds. Maybe they shoot it and get it back and run the shot clock some more... so be it. But the shot clock ensures the offense doesn't go 2 minutes without shooting the ball.
NYC has a 35 second shot clock. I've watched a number of schools play here and there's a lot of variation between styles of play even with the shot clock. Some teams are straight up run-and-gun and their scores are regularly in the 70s and 80s. Other schools play a slower more methodical style and I've seen teams that regularly win games with scores in the 40s.
 

D4fan

Well-known member
Cant have it both ways. Many are complaining about the 20 point plus blowouts. I enjoy watching a game like this myself. So long as the low score was not the result of a zone standing while the point guard stood holding the ball.
 

Talk some sense

Active member
I would be willing to bet 95% of high school kids would say they'd rather play with a shot clock than allow the offensive team to hold the ball.
Yeah and 100% of kids would like to shoot whenever they like and from wherever they like without their coach getting upset. And then encouraging them to keep shooting no matter how many they miss.
 

Talk some sense

Active member
NYC has a 35 second shot clock. I've watched a number of schools play here and there's a lot of variation between styles of play even with the shot clock. Some teams are straight up run-and-gun and their scores are regularly in the 70s and 80s. Other schools play a slower more methodical style and I've seen teams that regularly win games with scores in the 40s.
Mass has a shot clock too but really never comes into play until the very end of a game. But the losing team is already fouling then anyway.
 

Vike16

Well-known member
I know these games don't happen often, but a team should not be allowed to run an offense( play keep away) for 2 mins. at a time. I'm definitely in favor of a shot clock in Ohio
 

Vike16

Well-known member
I don't want to see that either. But I do have to agree with the last poster, whether his comment was tongue in cheek or not. That is kinda impressive to be able to pass that much without turning the ball over.

Also, I'd say 95% of high school kids could care less if there was a shot clock or not. And it wouldn't surprise me if that was actually 100% lol
Philly I usually agree with you. But I can almost guarantee most kids would love to play with a shot clock, and not to just jack up shots
 

MooseJaw

Active member
Maybe a "compromise" shot clock could work? Maybe it doesn't need to be 30 or 35 seconds but make it 50 or 60 seconds. That is still plenty of time for a methodical/conservative offense to do their thing and get up a shot and it would also eliminate the 2+ minute stall offense. Although this could possibility just piss off both sides of the debate.
 
Last edited:

HardCorps

Well-known member
I know these games don't happen often, but a team should not be allowed to run an offense( play keep away) for 2 mins. at a time. I'm definitely in favor of a shot clock in Ohio
When OH has a strong point guard and the other key ingredients the out is usually a lot different. Players like back door layups, wide open layups and open jump shots. The coach has a system and he sticks to it. Good for him.
 
.
Top