Do Teams Run the Clock Down Too Much

[ChapelTower]

I watched the end of the Kentucky/UL game. UL started running the final play with about 8 seconds left. Am I the only one who thinks that is just too late? I cannot remember how many times I saw teams fail to put up a good shot when trying to run down the clock to less than 10 seconds.

Is there a study (or consensus) on the optimal number of seconds to leave on the clock when a team wants to shorten the game? My gut feeling is 12 seconds (at the college level) -- at worst you end up leaving 2-3 seconds for the other team, but you give yourself some margin for error in addition to a chance for an offense rebound.

Any thoughts?

 

[skysdad]

I agree with you. Most of you know how I feel about running down the clock. For us it always ends up not getting a good shot off or the clock running out which is a turnover. Most posters disagree with me I think. But I'm just a fan with an opinion and not a coach and shouldn't be one. OFC

 

[ChapelTower]

For our own team, we would often have a lead and want to play some stall ball. That is fine, but just don't be so greedy and try to squeeze out the last a few seconds of each possession (especially when there are still minutes left in the game). At that point, it is far more important to have a good shot attempt than shortening the game by 4-5 seconds.

 

[Dad2ze]

I don't think there is really a good answer to this. Kentucky thought the same thing when they left 2.1 left on the clock and look how that turned out for them. I say set up with 10-15 seconds left and shoot with 3 left in the clock. Just my opinion but if you hit it and tie or take lead, you leave the other team a tip chance but then again anything is possible nowadays.

 

[DukeDenver]

Do what the Warriors do. Ignore the clock and take the first open look. If nothing presents itself, give it to your best scorer and clear out.

 

[hpnole]

I agree with you. Most of you know how I feel about running down the clock. For us it always ends up not getting a good shot off or the clock running out which is a turnover. Most posters disagree with me I think. But I'm just a fan with an opinion and not a coach and shouldn't be one. OFC

Yes , and I believe that the longer you stall and throw the ball around , the more chance that you will turn it over.

 

[JCColsCane]

There is a difference between beating the shot clock during the game and ending of the game. To beat the shot clock you are not worried about a second shot, only getting your first shot off in time. You have couple of seconds more ending the game, but the key is, and where most teams have a problem is, they are not decisive or have a second option when they start the play. If the ball handler is stopped, and doesn't have a second option, you usually don't get the shot off in time.
I don't think there is a set time on beating the shot clock, just run your offense and be aware of the shot clock.
In end of game situations, you must be more decisive and precise, as you want to take your last shot with enough time to get a rebound and put back if you miss, still using up all the clock. I think somewhere in the 10-12 second range to start the attack is probably pretty close.
Hope this helps and I didn't confuse you with the explanation.
Go Duke!!


JC-OFC

 

[ChapelTower]

To D2Z: Of course, it is all about odds. But there have been far more games lost to self-destruction on the offense end than to the "the shot" from your opponent. (I am still excited even to this day, when typing up this sentence

To JC: It is exactly my contention that one needs to start at 12 second (for college) and 10 (for NBA) to have a chance to go to option 2. Too many things can go wrong with option 1. Ball handler can get trapped unexpectedly, kick out pass may be a bit off target, outside shooter can fumble on catching the pass and so forth.

Assume that we all agree 10-12 seconds feels about right, then it is an empirical puzzle that it seems 90% of the time teams start offense at around the 8 second mark (based on my ad-hoc observations). My hypothesis is that the players systematically over-estimate their abilities to get a good shot off. But all the coaches, knowing far more than I do, surely would have noticed. So I am still perplexed.