Open-Ended Commitments

Of all the pro-college talking points out there, the one I find most baffling is the one offered by my colleague Herschel Nachlis, namely the idea that the NCAA game is somehow more open and free-flowing. I'm troubled by this critique precisely because I sympathize with it, but to me the worse offender here is the amateur game with its long shot clock and sluggish pace.

Now it's true that because NBA defenders have more tactical acumen, and are larger, stronger, faster, quicker and more experienced, that there is, literally speaking, less space in which for an offensive play to develop. But that lack of space aside, the vastly greater skill levels of NBA players allows them to run more efficient offenses against superior defense with a shorter shot clock and a longer three point line. To me, advantage: NBA.

Photo by Flickr user terren in Virginia

Comments

Suggesting that college basketball is the more free-flowing of the two is like suggesting that Obama is the candidate trying to disenfranchise voters. A cute observation, but in fact opposite of reality.

Posted by Craig Greg | April 9, 2008 11:25 AM

I'm a fan of college ball and can't pay attention to the NBA for more than 2 minutes at a time until the playoffs, but even I'd admit that Nachlis's argument is patently false. One reason I like the college game is because there is a longer time for offenses and defenses to develop during a possession (which often leads to a slower-feeling game).

Posted by Indecisive | April 9, 2008 11:30 AM

High School basketball is more free flowing than college. And have you checked out a Pee-Wee League game lately?

Posted by Tony Adams | April 9, 2008 11:30 AM

Philip Roth's American Pastoral has the best brief summation of professional athletes and athletics from the era in which there was a measure of charm to their efforts,

"... there is a blackish, ink-heavy rendering of a scrawny, shadow-faced ballplayer starkly silhouetted on a blank page, isolated like the world's most lonesome soul, from both nature and man, or set in a stippled simulation of ballpark grass, dragging beneath him the skinny statuette of a wormlike shadow. He is unglamorous even in a baseball uniform; if he is the pitcher his gloved hand looks like a paw; and what image after image makes graphically clear is that playing in the majors, heroic though it may seem, is yet another form of backbreaking, unremunerative labor. "
pp 7-8.

Wealth like a minor raj killed professional sports. It's like buying those travel books of people who live in Tuscany or Provence. I should under-write their good fortune?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 9, 2008 11:38 AM

Jeffrey,
Uh, your nostalgia's showing. And its not pretty.

Posted by Stacy | April 9, 2008 11:41 AM

Aside from the fact that the court is probably too small for NBA players, they also have the illegal defense rule. Granted it's been relaxed recently, but it still obstructs the natural flow of the game. Also, the NBA awards far too many time outs, accounting for a ridiculous amount of breaks between plays down the stretch. Possession, time out, possession, time out. Compare that to the college game where the final seconds are often played uninterrupted, and you have much more exciting finishes than the NBA.

Posted by Tim | April 9, 2008 11:47 AM

I prefer college basketball (and football) to their professional counterparts precisely because they make so many mistakes; it's more fun to watch, for me. (And I realize I leave myself open to the reductio ad absurdum crowd, but I invite those people who are going to ask how I would like a game with infinite mistakes to submit their request to a more appropriate forum, like the WSJ editorial page.)

But then I'm also not passionately devoted to either sport; when I watch college hockey I find myself more like MY, wishing they were a little more skilled.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 9, 2008 11:48 AM

I think what he is referring to is that the pro game uses a lot of isolation plays, where college uses a lot more motion in the offense. Throwing the ball to Dirk and standing around watching him shoot a 20-footer over a defender isn't free flowing. Giving the ball to Kobe at the top of the key and letting him drive to the rim or stop-and-pop isn't free flowing.

And, in the last 10 years there's been a lot of Shaq in big games, and for all of Shaq's greatness, much of his game in the 2000's has been "bang the defender, bang the defender, defender gets banged backwards and maybe flops, Shaq powers to the rim or for a 6 foot hook shot or kicks to a 3-point shot". That's the antithesis of free flowing.

Now, those offenses may be more efficient given the skill levels of the players. But it isn't more interesting to watch, at least for some of us.

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 11:55 AM

Doesn't the longer three point line partially exist to create more space in the pro game?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | April 9, 2008 12:01 PM

At least in the NBA, they don't let teams steal the national championship!!!!!!!

I don't know what all this talk about Kansas is about, because Memphis won the NCAAs. They finished ahead in 3PT%, Assist/Turnover ratio, shot attempts, and blocked shots. Now, THOSE are the categories that count! And free throws? Those are supposed to be "Automatic points", and if they were counted as they were initially intended, then Memphis would be ahead in that category too.

Posted by LIJ | April 9, 2008 12:02 PM

Doesn't the longer three point line partially exist to create more space in the pro game?

Yeah, but there isn't any space to work behind the 3 point line near the baseline, so it only helps so much. Widen the court and you can create more room mid-range and in the paint.

Posted by Tim | April 9, 2008 12:08 PM

Al,
I'll concede your point, but would you agree the NBA is more "free-flowing" now than it has been in over 15 years? I think there is a lot less isolation, and the pace of the games has really been phenomenal lately. I think new defensive rules prohibiting hand-checking and the overall talent of the league are responsible for it.

Posted by Craig Greg | April 9, 2008 12:10 PM

Aside from the fact that the court is probably too small for NBA players, they also have the illegal defense rule. Granted it's been relaxed recently, but it still obstructs the natural flow of the game.

Very true - consequently, it leads to the overuse of isolation and 2 man basketball...and so - OMG, I agree with Al.

I was watching the KU v. NC game Saturday with people who aren't seasoned basketball fans, and I was trying to explain to them the motion offense (which both KU and NC are famous for). You simply do not see that kind of movement in pro ball.

Another way to look at it is to count the number of passes per possession, and to look at the movement away from the ball (which movement in college basketball does not generally involve the use of a set play, hence the term "free" flowing). Conversely, look at how infrequently players dribble without penetrating above the foul line extended in college ball compared to the NBA.

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 12:16 PM

The NBA game - thanks to the Suns (before Shaq) and Warriors successful running styles, has somewhat returned to its Celtics fast break roots of years ago. For years the NBA was walk it up ball which could highlight the "genius" of coaching and a few space eating big men. . . If the Celtics and the Spurs make the finals it could influence teams to slow down once again. . .

College ball is "genius coaches" dominated (how else to justify those 7 figure salaries) so the game slows down. Only a relatively few schools can attract enough McDonald's all-american types to enable playing the pure running style. . .It is rare to see a close game where both teams score around 100 points.

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | April 9, 2008 12:23 PM

I've probably made similar comments here before, but to me, the issues with the NBA are:

1) Too many regular season games. NBA ball is very physically demanding. Having an 82 game season isn't necessary to determine the best team, increases the rates of injury, and definitely has an effect on the quality of play, especially with some teams playing back-to-back road games in different cities, etc.

2) Too many teams in the playoffs. 16 teams make the playoffs. There are 30 teams in the league. So to make the playoffs, you need to be average! Due to the disparity of power between the leagues, you actually can be well below average and still be a playoff team. Combined with 1 above, it just makes regular season games way less important, and consequently less interesting.

3) Playoffs take too long. This is related to 2 above, but look, basket ball games are not things which require huge numbers of samples. 7 games in the first round is flat out stupid. By the time the finals rolls around I just don't care at all. The reason the NCAA tournament is so exciting (and arguably the NFL) is that it's one and out. Win or go home.

I watched an NBA game (well, half watched at the bar) recently and I did notice how much more skilled the players were, but the level of skill isn't the only aspect that makes sports competition interesting.

Posted by IMU | April 9, 2008 12:23 PM

Um, the NBA got rid of the illegal defense rule a few years ago. The only thing you can't do know is camp out in the lane -- there's a 3-second rule on defense just like on offense. Other than that, anything goes. The reason you don't see a lot of pro teams playing zones is because most pro players can knock down open jumpers.

I understand the "regular season is too long" argument, and I think I probably agree. But I don't get the "playoffs are too long" argument. The playoffs are awesome. And if there are too many teams in the playoffs, then I assume you're not enjoying the Western Conference playoff race right now, which means you have no soul.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 12:28 PM

Al:

I'll grant that there is far too much isolation play at the NBA level. But, if you think that the Lakers offense is based on isolation plays for Kobe, then you are sadly mistaken. In fact, the Lakers have the most structured offense in the entire league, based entirely on creating spacing through player movement. In the times where they Lakers go away from the triangle offense, it is usually for pick and rolls involving Kobe and Gasol or Bynum at the top of the key. That is also the opposite of an isolation play.

And Tim: regarding defense and offensive flow, I think you have it exactly backwards. It is zone defenses that bring the game to a halt. College offenses are simply designed to pass the ball around the perimeter in an attempt to find a hole in the zone defense. And, unfortunately, they have far too much shot clock time to do that. NBA defensive rules are designed to increase player movement and offensive flow. Especially now. But even in the illegal defense era when zone defense was outlawed, that was the intent. Make players guard one on one in order to allow offensive players the opportunity to showcase their skill. But the, of course, the Pistons and Pat Riley's Knicks decided to cludge up the game by taking advantage of relatively lax foul calling with respect to physical play.

Posted by ValisJason | April 9, 2008 12:30 PM

I think what he is referring to is that the pro game uses a lot of isolation plays, where college uses a lot more motion in the offense.

This seems really wrong. I think he is referring to the effect of poorer skills: lots of mistakes mean lots of "broken field" plays. They're exciting initially, but after the third time in a two minutes, you'll find yourself screaming at the television. Which, I guess, is also exciting.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 9, 2008 12:38 PM

This is a case where selection bias comes into play. There are literally hundreds of college basketball teams, and several of them play with a free-flowing up-tempo style that would be much more difficult to pull off in the NBA (for precisely the reason MY suggests-- vastly superior defensive play). But if you tune into any given college basketball game, you're likely as not to see a slow, plodding pace.

One could just as easily watch a college football team run the option and conclude that the NCAA featured a more creative and free-flowing offensive style than the NFL. It's a misleading claim, but it's not entirely false.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 9, 2008 12:39 PM

IMU,
I agree that skill level isn't the only aspect that makes sports competetion interesting, but I disagree that the playoff series need to be shortened. I think seven games is neccesary to see who the best team is. While I agree that March Madness is the most exciting, there is no way to convince me that the best team always wins. And isn't that what we are trying to determine?

I think some of your ideas are spot-on. 16 teams is far too many. I think they should shorten the season by about 10 games. 6 teams from each conference make the playoffs with the top two teams from each conference getting bye's, much like they do in football. The only risk is the teams that get the byes, while fully rested, might take a game or two to get back into the flow of their game.

Anyways, just a few thoughts...

Posted by Todd Doug | April 9, 2008 12:41 PM

LaFollette,
I think you nailed it. Just like people who say they prefer college basketball often mean they prefer March Madness, which is something else entirely. Well yeah, the Final Four is obviously going to be more exciting than a regular season NBA game in the middle of January.

Posted by Stacy | April 9, 2008 12:46 PM

I have seen both free flowing and non-free flowing games on both the college and pro levels.

I have a more fundamental objection to all of this. At some point, the tinkering with the rules got us away from the game of basketball. The shot clock is an abomination-- it takes stalling, a crucial equalizer that allows bad teams to stay with good ones, out of the game. The number of timeouts, as someone else mentioned above, is incredibly disruptive and puts too much power in the hands of coaches. The three point line bastardizes the game, especially with respect to late in the game strategy, and cheapens scoring records. The defensive 3 second rule in the NBA, though not as bad as the zone defense rule it replaced, is still an unwarranted intervention against Bill Russell-style enforcement inside.

I went to high school just during the time when many of these rules came into play in high school competition. The game was much better without them. They tinkered to produce higher scoring (and didn't even really succeed at that over the long term), but they made the game worse.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 12:48 PM

Following too many steves' point, the discussion of isolation and illegal defence here makes me think that the people who argue basketball here don't actually watch it. I'm only a casual watcher, but even I knew that much, plus the difference it (plus the hand check plus the lax moving screens) has made in game flow.

Posted by nolaboyd | April 9, 2008 12:51 PM

Craig Greg: I'll concede your point, but would you agree the NBA is more "free-flowing" now than it has been in over 15 years? I think there is a lot less isolation, and the pace of the games has really been phenomenal lately. I think new defensive rules prohibiting hand-checking and the overall talent of the league are responsible for it.

Yes. The new rules, combined with the effectiveness of D'Antoni and (renewed) effectiveness of Nellieball, have helped the league. Heck, I'd argue that even New Jersey and Sacramento's experimenting with importning some Princeton concepts has helped. In that respect, the NBA has improved greatly over the past 15 years. But I think that shows that Matthew's point - that talent is the reason - isn't really very true. 15 years ago, NBA players were still more talented than college players.

ValisJason: But, if you think that the Lakers offense is based on isolation plays for Kobe, then you are sadly mistaken.

Yeah, probably a bad example. LeBron's Cavs might be a bit better. I can't stand the 1-4 set, with the best player simply taking the ball at the top of the key and trying to get to the rim, draw a foul, or shoot a long jumper, while the other 4 just stand around until the main guy is doubled. Bo-ring.

SCMT: I think he is referring to the effect of poorer skills: lots of mistakes mean lots of "broken field" plays.

Are there a lot more mistakes and broken plays in college? The Memphis games might be a bit unrepresentative in that respect.

Posted by Al | April 9, 2008 12:57 PM

Wow, I've never heard anybody argue against the shot clock, until Dilan Esper. Stalling is a leveling tactic that allows bad teams to beat good teams -- exactly, that's why stalling is terrible. Good teams should beat bad teams, unless the bad team earns it by outplaying the good team, rather than getting ahead by 1 and stalling. Does anyone want to watch basketball games that involve long stretches of a guy standing there holding the ball? And that end in scores of 27-25? Seriously? That's nuts.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 12:59 PM

If you want to see the return of the 19-18 final score in the NBA, getting rid of the shot clock would do it. One of the reason I dislike soccer is that it is too easy for the inferior team to prevent the better team from scoring. Gotta love those 0-0 games decided by a shootout!

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 1:01 PM

Wow, I've never heard anybody argue against the shot clock, until Dilan Esper. Stalling is a leveling tactic that allows bad teams to beat good teams -- exactly, that's why stalling is terrible. Good teams should beat bad teams, unless the bad team earns it by outplaying the good team, rather than getting ahead by 1 and stalling. Does anyone want to watch basketball games that involve long stretches of a guy standing there holding the ball? And that end in scores of 27-25? Seriously? That's nuts.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 1:01 PM

Following too many steves' point, the discussion of isolation and illegal defence here makes me think that the people who argue basketball here don't actually watch it.

Oh please.

Nobody who understands basketball can honestly say that isolation is not a much greater feature of the NBA than the college game. It may not be exactly as prevalent as it was with the old rules, but not only does it remain much more common - it is much more common in large part *because* of the NBA's defensive rules (which don't exist in college - and hence don't encourage use of isolation in college). An effective counter balance against isolation is overplaying from the weak side, which the defensive 3 second rule makes much more difficult.

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 1:03 PM

Dilan,
You're trying to be funny, right? Not to sound too much like a young whippersnapper, but c'mon, how old ARE you? You don't like the shot clock and favor stalling because it allows bad teams to stay in a game? How can you possibly be serious? And really, no one gives a shit about scoring records in basketball outside of Wilt's 100. And that's not being beat anytime soon.

Posted by Craig Greg | April 9, 2008 1:04 PM

Stacy,

You touch on one of the big problems with the NBA -- most of the games played during the interminable NBA season, taken individually, are virtually meaningless. As IMU says, there are many things that make competition interesting, chief among them would be having something at stake.

The Shaq-Kobe era Lakers understood this and pretty much snoozed through the entire 82-game regular season, which, if my math is correct, would equal almost all of their games. Remember that? That was great!

I have to say, though, that I am excited about this year's playoffs. There are a lot of really good teams involved.

Posted by Walter Sobchak | April 9, 2008 1:05 PM

I think the style of NBA basketball has improved recently. There is nothing more boring than watching a semi-superstar go one-on-one in the face of lackadaisical or non-existent team defense, or watching a team run down the court, take one shot without passing and then run the other way.

But having watched almost every Celtics game this year, I haven't really seen a lot of that, particularly against the good teams in the West (which is pretty much all of them), and even against fast-break teams like Philly. There seems to be a lot more passing, and a lot more focus on pounding the ball inside before passing it out to the three-point line. And, as the Celtics have shown, you can go a long way with three old stars and great team defense.

I'm curious about whether Matt has a prediction for tonight's Washington - Boston game.

Posted by Walter Crockett | April 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Walt,
I agree, but unfortunately, there's not too much to do about it. I liked Todd Doug's suggestions earlier. Shortening the season by about 10 games and reducing the playoff teams from 8 to 6 per conference. The reward of a bye would be far to great for teams not to shoot for. Right now, I think too many teams jockey to get a favorable first round matchup. A team like the Spurs might prefer the 3 seed over the 2 seed if they match up well with the team sitting in the 6 spot. There's definitely a lot of room for improvement in regards to scheduling, playoff format, and draft order.

Posted by Stacy | April 9, 2008 1:14 PM

I think we might need to do a better job of defining our terms. Up-tempo, fast break basketball is not necessarily the same thing as "free flowing" basketball (mind you, I find both more entertaining and thus preferable). So D'Antoni and Nelson have encouraged the former, and NBA game pace is quicker than it was back in the hey day of the Bad Boys and Rockets (although some of this is also a product of changing the back court violation to 8 from 10 seconds too).

But in many ways the NBA shot clock inhibits "free flow" basketball. There simply isn't time enough in a possession for the kind of passes and screen aways that you see in the NCAA. As a result, there is much more emphasis on isolation and on set plays (and when I think of set plays, I think the very definitional opposite of "free flow"). One can debate whether or not this is *better* basketball (and the NBA, by virtue of having better players *should* produce better basketball), but it isn't "free flow".

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 1:17 PM

My post was directed at Sobchak, not Crockett.

Posted by Stacy | April 9, 2008 1:17 PM

Are there a lot more mistakes and broken plays in college? The Memphis games might be a bit unrepresentative in that respect.

Gawd, yes. That's what makes the college game so painful. Kansas "flowed" pretty well in the UNC game, largely because UNC couldn't or wouldn't play decent defense.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 9, 2008 1:30 PM

Both college and pro ball suffer from there being little reason to watch prior to the playoffs. I haven't watched an entire college game before March in years, and I might watch four or five entire regular season NBA games a year, between two top teams that have a good chance to meet in the playoffs, just to see the what the matchups are like.

I'd like college ball better if they went back to a 32 team tournament format, with no more than two teams from any conference qualifying. To those third teams from the top conferences that would yelp, I'd simply tell them that they had two chances to make it in, either by winning the regular season or the conference tourney, so they ought to just shut up.

It goes without saying that the NBA would benefit from a reduced playoff field.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 1:40 PM

What the NBA is doing to the Sonics - now there's the college basketball talking point ne plus ultra.

Posted by mike | April 9, 2008 1:49 PM

I spent years swinging between pro basketball and hockey before settling on hockey. What I dislike most about basketball, pro or college, is that during a close game at the end, the action often slows, not quickens. Committing fouls is not only common, it's often intentional.

It's the opposite for hockey. Referees are less likely to call a penalty near the end of a close game. And a player wouldn't blatantly commit one unless it would clearly save a goal.

Posted by asl | April 9, 2008 1:49 PM

I have seen both free flowing and non-free flowing games on both the college and pro levels.

I have a more fundamental objection to all of this. At some point, the tinkering with the rules got us away from the game of basketball. The shot clock is an abomination-- it takes stalling, a crucial equalizer that allows bad teams to stay with good ones, out of the game. The number of timeouts, as someone else mentioned above, is incredibly disruptive and puts too much power in the hands of coaches. The three point line bastardizes the game, especially with respect to late in the game strategy, and cheapens scoring records. The defensive 3 second rule in the NBA, though not as bad as the zone defense rule it replaced, is still an unwarranted intervention against Bill Russell-style enforcement inside.

I went to high school just during the time when many of these rules came into play in high school competition. The game was much better without them. They tinkered to produce higher scoring (and didn't even really succeed at that over the long term), but they made the game worse.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 1:55 PM

"I might watch four or five entire regular season NBA games a year, between two top teams that have a good chance to meet in the playoffs, just to see the what the matchups are like"

Will, have you been watching this year? Every single game between the Western Conference teams that are in the playoff race has been outstanding. There have been 2 or 3 great games a week for the entire 2nd half of the regular season.

Seriously, anybody who's saying there should be fewer playoff teams must not be watching this year. Either the Warriors, the Mavs or the Nuggest aren't going to make the playoffs, and those are all good teams. Portland won like a million games in a row early on and they're already out.

What the NBA does need to do is drop the conference-by-conference playoffs. Just put the top 16 teams in, with the conference winners guaranteed the top 2 seeds.

I do understand asl's complaint about slowing down the end of the games. Maybe teams shouldn't have an absolute right to foul and stop the clock -- maybe in some cases the team that gets fouled should get 2 shots and the ball, or have the choice of either 2 shots or taking the ball out of bounds.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 2:00 PM

The game was much better without them.

I feel confident that yours is a minority opinion among basketball fans, basketball players, or basketball coaches. I'm not sure even Dean Smith liked the Four Corners offense.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 9, 2008 2:01 PM

There are other ways to make the regular season more meaningful. The NBA is not going to shorten the season or reduce the number of playoff teams. That would reduce incomes.

You could give more than just a 1 game home court advantage to teams that do well. Instead of 4&3 it could be 5&2. You could even spot the top seed a win and play 3&3. That would make the top spot worth having. I wouldn't mess with the second and later rounds though.

Less time off in the playoffs would also be good. They've had 4 days off between games 3 and 4 in some series. That's nuts.

Posted by Njorl | April 9, 2008 2:01 PM

There are other ways to make the regular season more meaningful. The NBA is not going to shorten the season or reduce the number of playoff teams. That would reduce incomes.

You could give more than just a 1 game home court advantage to teams that do well. Instead of 4&3 it could be 5&2. You could even spot the top seed a win and play 3&3. That would make the top spot worth having. I wouldn't mess with the second and later rounds though.

Less time off in the playoffs would also be good. They've had 4 days off between games 2 and 3 in some series. That's nuts.

Posted by Njorl | April 9, 2008 2:02 PM

First, sorry about the double post.

Wow, I've never heard anybody argue against the shot clock, until Dilan Esper. Stalling is a leveling tactic that allows bad teams to beat good teams -- exactly, that's why stalling is terrible. Good teams should beat bad teams, unless the bad team earns it by outplaying the good team, rather than getting ahead by 1 and stalling. Does anyone want to watch basketball games that involve long stretches of a guy standing there holding the ball? And that end in scores of 27-25? Seriously? That's nuts.

One of the most entertaining games I ever saw was when Don MacLean, a high school stud at Simi Valley who later became a star at UCLA and eventually a radio and television commentator, and his team was forced to play against a stall put on by Coach Russ Keith at overmatched Burbank High School. MacLean was held to his lowest point total in his high school career, and Simi won the game 19-15. They had to earn it, and the way they did, with everyone in the stands aware of the strategy, was fascinating.

So yes, I would have rather watched that than watch a 90-52 Simi Valley rout, like they were doing to everyone else that year.

If you want to see the return of the 19-18 final score in the NBA, getting rid of the shot clock would do it.

There was only one game in history that was that low scoring. There are ways to beat the stall. In any event, the stall is an interesting game tactic and it's fun to watch teams try to beat it. Dean Smith used to have a wicked stall in college basketball, pre-shot clock, as well.

In truth, NBA games have become much more low scoring since Phil Jackson and Chuck Daly revolutionized defense and brought back the 80 point game. We aren't that far away from where we were before the shot clock anyway.

And really, no one gives a shit about scoring records in basketball outside of Wilt's 100.

Well, Kobe wouldn't have gotten his 81 without the 3 point shot.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 2:05 PM

God, I'm glad most people with Dilan Esper's approach are baseball fans and not basketball fans. The great thing about basketball has been its ability to evolve, ditch rules that don't work and adopt new ones that get the job done better.

I'm a bigger basketball fan than probably anybody I know, and if I had to sit through a 19-15 game, I would gouge my eyes out. That must involve minute-long stretches of one guy standing there holding the ball. That's not basketball. That's ... standing there and holding the ball.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 2:11 PM

By the way, most high school leagues don't have shot clocks, and yet, you still see very few stalling tactics. Why? because players and coaches have more respect for the game than that. If my high school coach had said, "in the 2nd half, you're going to stand there and hold the ball," there'd be a mutiny.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Re: Stall offense

There's a counter to the stall (or 4 corner) defense: man-up pressure defense. To the extent that a guy stands around with the ball, it is only because the defense chooses to let him. Indeed, the 4 corner offense is an effective way of forcing teams out of a compact zone, or a lax man D.

What makes the 4 corners offense effective is that it still provides lots of mechanisms to score - which explains why a defense might not be anxious to force the action.

I remember officiating a high school championship game which went to OT. The one team had a huge centre, so they easily won the tip. They decided to stall and play for last shot. It went to 4 OTs, as they'd win each tip, let the clock wind down and take the last shot (but miss); in the 4th OT they tried the same thing but fouled on the rebound and the team that literally hadn't touched the ball in 12 minutes (of gametime - there were 3 minute OTs) hit both ends of their 1 and 1 and won the game and championship.

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 2:34 PM

Too many steves, I thought Dilan was joking at first, but he obviously isn't. Its a bit odd to think the way he does, but I don't think he is simply being subversive. I don't know how someone could come to the conclusions he has, though.

As far as the playoffs, I still think 16 teams is too many. While the playoff hunt has been incredibly exciting this year, it would still be just as exciting if you took the top 12 teams from both conferences. Is anybody dying to see Atlanta and Chicago battle it out for the 8th seed in the East? So if you get rid of the conference requirements, the playoff hunt still stays incredibly intriguing.

By the way, I don't believe ASL went back and forth between hockey and basketball if he acts shocked that basketball players sometimes INTENTIONALLY(!) foul at the end of games. Refs in basketball are also much more apt to swallow their whistles at the end of close games, although you wouldn't know it by watching college basketball this year. The thing is, EVERY hockey game is close at the end, so I don't see his point.

Posted by Stacy | April 9, 2008 2:39 PM

As a NCAA official (and someone who has worked lower level pro leagues with NBA rules), the thing that strikes me about this is that NBA does not have a "closely-guarded" 5 second rule. So while NBA games are generally more athletic and free-flowing because of the shot clock, you also have situations where a guy walks the ball up, dribbles another 10 seconds off the clock, while the other 8 guys are on the other side of the floor. Then we see some one-on-one move that may or may be enjoyable to watch, usually the latter. That is boring as hell and cannot happen at the college level.

I'd love to see a five-second rule come into the NBA so the ball would keep moving.

Posted by NAPatriot | April 9, 2008 2:42 PM

As a NCAA official (and someone who has worked lower level pro leagues with NBA rules), the thing that strikes me about this is that NBA does not have a "closely-guarded" 5 second rule. So while NBA games are generally more athletic and free-flowing because of the shot clock, you also have situations where a guy walks the ball up, dribbles another 10 seconds off the clock, while the other 8 guys are on the other side of the floor. Then we see some one-on-one move that may or may be enjoyable to watch, usually the latter. That is boring as hell and cannot happen at the college level.

I'd love to see a five-second rule come into the NBA so the ball would keep moving.

Posted by NAPatriot | April 9, 2008 2:45 PM

Basketball should take a page from the hockey book, and instead of awarding free throws to the other team after a foul, the offending player should be put in the penalty box, and his or her team forced to play 4-on-5 for a period of time.

Only after the team has committed a certain numbers of fouls, though. 7 or 8 per half, with the penalty box to follow instead of going to 1-and-1's or 2 free throws.

Posted by Greg Abbott | April 9, 2008 2:45 PM

Basketball should take a page from the hockey book, and instead of awarding free throws to the other team after a foul, the offending player should be put in the penalty box, and his or her team forced to play 4-on-5 for a period of time.

Only after the team has committed a certain numbers of fouls, though. 7 or 8 per half, with the penalty box to follow instead of going to 1-and-1's or 2 free throws.

Posted by Greg Abbott | April 9, 2008 2:47 PM

McKingford,
They should have just fouled this center, hoped he made 1 FT at best, and then play for their own last shot. Right?

Posted by Todd Doug | April 9, 2008 2:48 PM

Basketball should take a page from the hockey book, and instead of awarding free throws to the other team after a foul, the offending player should be put in the penalty box, and his or her team forced to play 4-on-5 for a period of time.

Only after the team has committed a certain numbers of fouls, though. 7 or 8 per half, with the penalty box to follow instead of going to 1-and-1's or 2 free throws.

Posted by Greg Abbott | April 9, 2008 2:49 PM

too many steves, making judgements based upon this solitary year, which is quite an anomaly, seems petty unsound. In any case, two fewer slots in the Westen Conference just would have made the bottom four teams all the more desperate, with no drama lost.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Greg,
That's silly. Power plays in basketball? For how long? If anything, they should take a page from football and allow to teams to decline the foul/penalty.

Posted by Stacy | April 9, 2008 3:00 PM

Dilan, if you think it was a solitary 19-18 game which produced the shot clock, you are in error. It was merely the punctuation mark. The fans were leaving, because you are the exception, and most paying customers don't to watch low scoring stalling contests. Hell, with a shot clock, we see teams take the air out and produce scores in the sixties and seventies on occasion. If Riley hadn't had to respect a shot clock this year, half of Miami's games would have featured scores along the lines of 38-28. You think anybody is going to pay 1000 bucks for a good seat at Staples Center to see that?

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 3:08 PM

NA Patriot gets it exactly right. Enforcing a 5 second rule would drastically cut down on isolation plays; its non-enforcement simply fails to reward good defense.

The 5 second rule is the main reason a 4 corner offense is limited in scope - even where there is/was no shot clock rule.

~

Todd Doug:

Well, they didn't need to do anything, because they won notwithstanding the absence of an equally sized centre. But more fundamentally, (even though they won anyway), they should have simply played a tight D; they were a better man-defense team, and the team playing stall didn't look like it had a whole lot of experience running it. It was actually a case of neither team playing to its strength.

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 3:15 PM

McKingford,
Yes, in retrospect, they didn't need to do anything because the won. But, given the situation, I would have forced their worst free throw shooter to get the ball back. That particular winning team seems to have gotten lucky that the losing team didn't make any of their last shots in the first three OT's.

Posted by Todd Doug | April 9, 2008 3:31 PM

Todd,

You almost never need to foul to get the ball back, you simply play good, pressure, defense. Indeed, a team that is behind late in a game rarely fouls for the sake of fouling, but fouls in the course of trying to steal the ball (iow, you are trying to steal and - unlike most other times in the game - don't care whether or not you foul).

Posted by McKingford | April 9, 2008 3:38 PM

Yes, but obviously they didn't get the ball back until the final few seconds of the 4th OT. But yeah, they should have been aggressive as possible, and yes, if they happen to foul, so be it. I'd pay to see the video of those overtimes.

Posted by Todd Doug | April 9, 2008 3:44 PM

"Indeed, a team that is behind late in a game rarely fouls for the sake of fouling,"

Maybe that's how it was back in ought-seven (the other ought-seven), but here in the present day, teams foul all the time just to get the ball back. I get tired of it sometimes, and that's why I think an NFL-style rule where you "decline" the foul and get the ball out of bounds instead of shooting free throws might be a good idea.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 4:57 PM

I'm a bigger basketball fan than probably anybody I know, and if I had to sit through a 19-15 game, I would gouge my eyes out. That must involve minute-long stretches of one guy standing there holding the ball. That's not basketball. That's ... standing there and holding the ball.

You think it's that because you have never seen a stall. If you stand and hold the ball, you get called for 5 second violations. You have to pass, and you have to keep the ball away from the other team and not make errors, and the other team can concede you easy baskets, foul, or force you into mistakes.

"Standing there and holding the ball" has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Dilan, if you think it was a solitary 19-18 game which produced the shot clock, you are in error. It was merely the punctuation mark. The fans were leaving, because you are the exception, and most paying customers don't to watch low scoring stalling contests.

Will, that's wrong. The NBA wasn't drawing very well those days anyway, and it didn't change after the shot clock. Further, the 19-18 game actually was in front of a big crowd, because it involved the game's only drawing card in those days, the Minneapolis Lakers' George Mikan. (They were playing the Fort Wayne Pistons.)

Most pro games in that era featured significant scoring-- Mikan, despite facing a bevy of stalls and ball-control tactics, plus intentional fouls (more effective in those days because you only got 1 foul shot), scored more than 2,000 points a season.

The point is, the stall is a legitimate tactic in a basketball game. The fact that some of the people here don't even know what it looked like shows you that the game has lost an element as a result of the shot clock.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 5:50 PM

Dilan, you seem to be trying to say, "the stall SHOULD BE a legitimate tactic in a basketball game," because the fact is, it's not a legitimate tactic, because at most levels of the game we have a shot clock. I've never seen a stall, but if you say it involves passing and dribbling around with no attempt at scoring, I believe you. THat still sounds absolutely horrible to watch. The point in basketball is to put the damn ball in the damn basket. When, because of a strange fluke of circumstance, that basic goal becames perverted, and you had teams trying NOT to score, something had to be done. Hence, the shot clock.

Posted by too many steves | April 9, 2008 6:15 PM

Dilan, you seem to be trying to say, "the stall SHOULD BE a legitimate tactic in a basketball game," because the fact is, it's not a legitimate tactic, because at most levels of the game we have a shot clock. I've never seen a stall, but if you say it involves passing and dribbling around with no attempt at scoring, I believe you. THat still sounds absolutely horrible to watch. The point in basketball is to put the damn ball in the damn basket. When, because of a strange fluke of circumstance, that basic goal becames perverted, and you had teams trying NOT to score, something had to be done. Hence, the shot clock.

Steves:

It was a legitimate tactic in basketball on the college and high school level for 100 years. And the only reason you think it is boring is because you never have seen one.

And I don't think you can reduce any sport's purpose to scoring. The purpose of baseball is not simply to score; it is to deprive the other team of scoring. (For this reason, the most exciting moment in baseball is a perfect game-- 27 outs in a row.) Same with football, and basketball.

A stall in basketball is not any different than a football team using running plays to deny the other team the ball. Clock management, time of possession, and preventing the other side from scoring are always valid strategies in sports. The problem is that you are too obsessed with putting the ball in the hole to see it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 7:02 PM

Dilan,
You are wrong and your analogies suck. It is not similar to running the ball in football. In football, you still have to get 10 yards in 3 attempts otherwise you face a tough decision. But really, its stupid for me to even have to point this out. You view yourself as some type of basketball romantic and I find it ridiculous. And no, you can actually have the ball for over 14 seconds in basketball. Hold it. Dribble it once. Hold it again. Don't be obtuse.

Posted by Todd Doug | April 9, 2008 7:27 PM

Dilan,
However, just for the record, I do like your blog!

Love,
Todd Doug

Posted by Todd Doug | April 9, 2008 7:42 PM

From wikipedia, admittedly not a 100% reliable source.....

"Very low-scoring games with many fouls were common, boring fans. The most extreme case occurred on November 22, 1950, when the Fort Wayne Pistons defeated the Minneapolis Lakers by a record-low score of 19-18. A few weeks later, the Rochester Royals and Indianapolis Olympians played a five-overtime game with only one shot in each overtime. To speed up the game and reduce fouls, the NBA tried several rule changes in the early 1950s before eventually adopting Biasone's idea."

....yeah people will be scalping like crazy to see a five overtime game in which there are five shots after regulation.

I'm old enough to remember Dean Smith's 4 corner offense. Didn't care for it. The proper analogy for football would be a rule that said the offense could keep the ball forever, as long as they ran quarterback sneaks and didn't fumble. Teams would get out to a 3-0 lead, and it would be sneak, sneak, sneak for the rest of the game.

Posted by Will Allen | April 9, 2008 8:57 PM

You are wrong and your analogies suck. It is not similar to running the ball in football. In football, you still have to get 10 yards in 3 attempts otherwise you face a tough decision.

Well, in basketball, you couldn't hold the ball forever in a stall; you had to pass it if the defense came up on you, which was the key to breaking the stall-- forcing a team into mistakes, or passing to the worst foul shooter, or whatever.

The thing you have to remember is that the shot clock is only just over 20 years old in college basketball, and yet stalls were uncommon in the pre-shot clock era. The reason is that they didn't usually work-- you had to be really amazingly good to get them to work (as USC, for instance, was when they became the first visiting team to ever win in Pauley Pavilion, running a stall to beat Kareem and the Bruins).

The stall is not a successful long-term strategy. But it can work in specific situations, and the shot clock takes a tool out of the toolkit of some of the game's greatest coaches, not just Dean Smith but Pete Newell, for instance.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 10, 2008 3:01 AM

It's also possible that the shot clock is much more important to the NBA than it is in college, given professionals would be much more proficient in stalling. I still prefer a shot clock in college as well, however. Having Pete Newell's team almost pull off a titanic upset once every fifteen or twenty isn't enough of a benefit for what losing the shot clock also entails.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 12:20 PM

I used to like the stall as a tactic in college ball when it was used by teams with big leads late in the game. Then I watched the NC/Duke game that was 7-0 at halftime. I should say that I watched the first ten minutes or so.

It was awful.

The problem is, the defense's best strategy is to make only very conservative, safe attempts to steal the ball until the offense screws up. Then you apply the pressure. It is a truly horrible thing to witness. When it is used late in the game, the defense can't afford to play it safe, so it is actually an interesting thing to watch. But 40 minutes of it ... shudder.

Posted by Njorl | April 10, 2008 1:23 PM