Shot Clock?

I do not get the shot clock thing. Too many coaches in this state refuse to challenge their athletes and sit in zone hoping teams will take perimeter shots. Guys in this state are rarely ask to defend and come away from the hoop to move their feet and get into passing lanes already. I think the shot clock only adds another crutch to teams who do not have athletes and coaches that do not want to build college ready players. This is not the best for the athletes in my mind. It only helps this state continue on the road to developing players that struggle at the next level defending.
Thoughts?

I don't think there is a right answer here. I agree that most kids are set up for failure on the defensive side of the ball when they have to transition to the college game (not at all high schools but quite a few) I do and don't want to see a shot clock as it might pick the pace of games up, but it won't change the defense in NH, I think it would actually make it worse and even more teams would play a lazy/sagging zone forcing the offensive team to either chuck up bad shots or force into a packed zone, so I'm split on the decision.

I'm not opposed to zone if it's active they're applying SOME pressure to the ball, I just hate seeing teams sitting a step inside of the 3pt arch because it forces a team the offensive team to stall, which is the right move and if a team wants to play that kind of defense it's there choice, but no one wants to see that kind of defense and offense being played.

The biggest issue to me is the big men in this state who have the best chance to play high level college basketball are not being asked to learn to defend in the open court enough. Shot clock just makes that worse. I understand not all our varsity players are college players but that should be the goal in my eyes.

I agree - we need something. Can't stand the whole lets dribble at half court while the other team sits in a zone for 3 minutes. Saw Oyster River do it last year for 4 minutes vs. Portsmouth, saw Milford vs. Portsmouth in the final this year (Mulvey sticks to his guns, eh?) and it's happened numerous times around the State. Just hate that its an option.

That said - playing devils advocate - seem it's worked out ok for a lot of Syracuse alumn who play in Boeheims defensive zone schemes. Then again, Carmelo Anthony doesn't play a lot of defense, does he?

Last time I checked Melo still cashes checks that have a lot of 000000 in the box that counts

for a shot clock. However, from what I understand it costs around $2,000 per school for shot clocks. Another huge issue and often ignored is you need another volunteer to run the clocks, I don't believe it can be one-man banded anymore.
The reason why I am for it is more for the girls game then boys. I have seen smaller schools employ this tactic all game long on every possession during a championship. The final was like 22-17. I am all for a team doing this, because it is legal. I also feel that if they are forcing you to hit your outside shots, you need to do it.
I bet Mulvey would have done the same thing as Murray if the rolls were reversed. I don't think Portsmouth ever lead though. That game might have been different if Portsmouth led 24-18 at half, as in Four Corners. Not to mention I think Portsmouth had ball to start second half.
I some what agree with getting ready for the next level. However, most college teams still employ zone defenses, it maybe a 2-1-2,3-2,2-3,1-3-1, Box on 1, Triangle and 2. How many teams start in a zone and switch to a man and vice-versa? Basketball is also one of those sports that most of the game teams are not running their offenses or defenses, I won't say rarely, but most basketball games at every level don't run plays all the time. It is the offensive turnovers that lead to easy baskets. I feel that the NBA also plays zone d, they just hide it much better. Some say you could call a Zone D on every possession. Just like holding in football.
I am not sure about the suffering big men in the state of NH, most big men in the state of NH turn into Forwards at the next level, where many are no longer the big man. Most forwards in the state of NH become guards at the next level. For some reason NH doesn't produce the 6'9 and above kid too often. That is my opinion and observations I have made.
I think NH has produced some very good players in the last 10 years, one is in the NBA. I think it was 3 or 4 years ago there were 5 or 6 kids from NH playing in the NCAA DI tourney. Which leads me to my next post. LOL

I am an advocate of the shot clock even though it gives the referees one more thing to consider (does the clock run out and whether the ball hits the rim). As I understand it, the current philosophy why it isn't implemented is cost - cost of the clock and in some places the cost to operate. Not all gyms have volunteers running clock(s) and being official scorers (but that's a different argument). Next, the rules around when to reset need to be understood by the operator - that gives coaches, parents, and players one more thing to complain about. Also, consider sub-varsity games where the clock/book is often manned by some student - now add another student doing the shot clock. You know one of them is going to be texting at a bad time .

Suffice to say a stall is generally done by the team that is ahead against the team still in its zone looking to get a rebound on a missed shot from outside. So for BOTH sides it's a tactic that gives neither side an advantage. If I'm Trinity with 3 bigs underneath - I'll play the percentage game. If I'm Milford with 3 good shooters - I'm happy if you play zone, but I'm also happy if you come out and guard me because I've got a point guard that can find the open guy.

I don't believe that just because there is a shot clock that you won't see zone defenses. Whether more points are scored in a shot clock game still depends on whether the teams are hitting their shots. One only needs to watch the NCAA's to see the variety of styles and the variety of scores. Games are not always high scoring just because there's a shot clock. A shot clock doesn't guarantee that the floor is opened up because if I have bigs, then I''m still playing zone until you start hitting your outside shots. A few weeks ago I saw a game that was something like 20-16 at half time - I have no idea if that was because the two teams couldn't shoot or if it was because both teams played zone and both teams milked the shot clock.

So is the argument that you don't want to see zone defenses or that you want a shot clock? The lack of the shot clock only gives the opportunity to the team that is ahead against an opponent playing zone to attempt to force that team to come out which they hope will widen their lead. In the end, the goal is to score more points than your opponent and the last time I checked 99.9% of the time you have to have the ball to score. The 0.1% is the confused player shooting at the wrong basket. I don't necessarily like a zone, but it does serve a purpose.

Tuesday and Friday wrote:Last time I checked Melo still cashes checks that have a lot of 000000 in the box that counts

True - but he's definitely not getting paid for his defense. I guess if you are that talented an offensive player nobody gives a *bleep* how good your man-to-man defense is.

Here's some more NBA players from Syracuse, lets see how they've faired...

Johnny Flynn - One of 18 Point Guards taken by the TWolves a few years back. Averaged 13/4Assists last year in NBA.
Wes Johnson - Great college players, starting for the TWolves.
Demetris Nicols - He was a huge part of the back line of the Cuse zone with his wingspan, averaged 18/6 his Senior year...bouncing around the NBDL.
Hakim Warrick - Very effective in the zone. Having a nice little 10/4 type career in the NBA.

Those are just a couple of recent examples in addition to 'Melo. Zone does not mean you cannot be a successful NBA player.

Back to NH though...zone does mean the opposing team can stop playing offense, especially when they have a lead. You do what you have to win under the rules of the game. If everyone would agree not to stall we wouldn't have a problem, but winning is more important than entertaining the crowd. I'm actually on the fence with a shotclock. It would add another huge element into the referees job, which is already shaky in this state. Also add another person at the scorers table to operate it. Do we need replay too? Joking...but where does it end?

Shot clock would only make coaches in NH more comfortable playing zone. My guess is that man to man is used at the college level at probably at least 90% of the games. That being said don't we want out players college ready? Does creating a excuse for coaches to play more zone help prepare our players for the next level? I know a small percentage of our high school players go on to play college ball but I am sure if you polled the current crop of players more would love the chance if the skill level was there. So our goal should be to teach the game to prepare them for the next level. Zone does not do that.

Well sure, I guess. At least for 35 seconds. At least a shot clock would not allow the pg to dribble at halfcourt for 4 minutes.

I guess I don't understand the point of your original post. You said you don't want the shot clock b/c if we had it, it would mean less man-to-man, wouldn't prepare kids for the next level, etc. Well...NH doesn't have one, so........

Does somebody know about a rule change for next year that I missed out on?

Gary Fitz has an article in the telegraph stating we need a shot clock. I attest that it will make things worse for preparing players to play college ball. While a stall is upsetting to the fans it happens very seldom and I think the shot clock would only promote zone in more gyms making out players less prepared to play man in college. Or even worse have college coaches doubting we could man up because they do not get to see it enough.
Small example of this in a different way. When Mikes coach from Plattsburgh came to the first Portsmouth game in the regular season Milford used Holder on Walker. The coaches actually asked why Holder was on Walker and not Mitchell. It seemed to worry them that Mike was not guarding the other teams point guard. After the championship game the coach commented that he was very impressed with Mikes Defense. So not getting to see him even on the right player sometimes can lead to doubt in a coaches mind. If college coaches show up in our gyms and the teams are all in zone they assume it is because they cannot stay in front of the guy they should be guarding. So being that on a national scale our players are undersized and not as athletic as most if a coach gets a feeling that you cannot man up in NH, how can he trust you will be able to at the next level. I think it is sooooo important to both teach and train players to defend as well as showcase them doing so. Shot clocks would give coaches the crutch to zone more often. Not good training in my eyes at all.

If your college tean doesn't have the team to play man, then a smart college coach goes with a zone. Is the zone D illegal now in college?

A college coach is going to find kids that will/can play man if that's what he wants to play on D. They're not going to just recruit a bunch of kids that can't play man and go to zone, they'll go else where and find kids that know how.

I think I understand now. My answer would be what level of college? To be honest a coach has to make adjustments as to who they are playing, and then make in game adjustments too.
Example if Harvard plays Kentucky, do you think Harvard is going to man up with Kentucky? Of course not, but Harvard may play man against any Ivy League teaml.
A HS coaches job is to teach and win, one thing no coach should ever worry about is showcasing some player.
A DIII college basketball players number 1 priority should grades, hoop team second.

You guys are making it seem like zone is "easier" to play than man. Actually it's a much harder defensive scheme.

I have to be honest - if NH had a shot clock, I don't think you'd see any more/less zone than you do now. MOST coaches want to play man because its the more effective defense. Coaches aren't going to say..."oh we have a shot clock now, time to play zone all season!". Just not gonna happen.

Coaches decide to play the defense that will help them win the game, in more cases than not it's man. That's why Man is the predominate defense in basketball today.

Is it not the whole idea to "get the shot clock" or "of the shot clock" toooo prepare the kids for next level of play ??? What ever that might be for some. The idea that having a shot clock could prepare them less does not hold water when 90% + of states high schools and all levels of college have shot clocks. Whether it promotes more zone or man to man depending on your athletic ability as a team it definetely makes them think the game, play ,and situation alot quicker, hence demanding more/better? execution faster. This state is way over due for the shot clock as I have never heard of any state getting rid of it once it has been implemented. I could obviously be wrong but the Shot clock gets my vote for "Better Basketball".

I don't disagree with what you're saying that college coaches have to make adjustments of course they do and I'm not saying don't play zone either if that's what gives you the best chance to win. I'm just saying that if a college coach is wants to play man to man he'll find someone that can do it he's not going to settle for someone less thinking "well we can just change our defensive philosophy and go zone 100% because we recruited people that can't play man" coaches are going to try and recruit for there style.

I have no problem with zone, and as you said it's a game of match-ups so if zone benefits your team that game then go with it. I think more time should be spent on man-to-man in highschool, but if you're going use a zone for whatever reason at least teach it right.

The Assistant wrote:You guys are making it seem like zone is "easier" to play than man. Actually it's a much harder defensive scheme.

If I came off sounding like that I didn't mean it that way at all. Zone is much harder to teach, I was an assistant (not this year but the previous 2) at a girls program and one of the years zone gave us the best chance to compete a lot of the time, but having them grasp the concepts of zone d was was very difficult, as far as thinking goes from what I've seen it's far harder to teach zone than man.

So if zone is more difficult to run why do stall tactics work?

If the shot clocks cost around $2000 and that is an issue, how about the fact some schools don't have a portable Defibrillator which goes for roughly the same $$ amount. Talk about priorities. There was a referee who had a heart attack while refereeing on the court in Raymond on Jan. 24th this past season. He would not be alive if Raymond High didn't have a portable Defribrillator. His heart stopped beating.

I would suggest before any school outlays 2K for a shot clock that they have a portable Defribrillator near the gym..... Priorities.

You'd think those defribillator's would be mandatory at games. Seems like there have been quite a few instances as of late that one could've been used and potentially saved a life, but wasn't there.

There are about 40 schools in NH that don't have a portable Defribrillator. I don't know what percentage are Jr High and HS. Even if 1 school doesn't have one it is one too many. The referee who had the heart attack on Jan 25th and was miraculously saved is heading up a movement to get those 40 schools to have a PD.

“I do not get the shot clock thing. Too many coaches in this state refuse to challenge their athletes and sit in zone hoping teams will take perimeter shots. Guys in this state are rarely ask to defend and come away from the hoop to move their feet and get into passing lanes already. I think the shot clock only adds another crutch to teams who do not have athletes and coaches that do not want to build college ready players. This is not the best for the athletes in my mind. It only helps this state continue on the road to developing players that struggle at the next level defending.
Thoughts?”

“The biggest issue to me is the big men in this state who have the best chance to play high level college basketball are not being asked to learn to defend in the open court enough. Shot clock just makes that worse. I understand not all our varsity players are college players but that should be the goal in my eyes.”

“Gary Fitz has an article in the telegraph stating we need a shot clock. I attest that it will make things worse for preparing players to play college ball. While a stall is upsetting to the fans it happens very seldom and I think the shot clock would only promote zone in more gyms making out players less prepared to play man in college. Or even worse have college coaches doubting we could man up because they do not get to see it enough.
Small example of this in a different way. When Mikes coach from Plattsburgh came to the first Portsmouth game in the regular season Milford used Holder on Walker. The coaches actually asked why Holder was on Walker and not Mitchell. It seemed to worry them that Mike was not guarding the other teams point guard. After the championship game the coach commented that he was very impressed with Mikes Defense. So not getting to see him even on the right player sometimes can lead to doubt in a coaches mind. If college coaches show up in our gyms and the teams are all in zone they assume it is because they cannot stay in front of the guy they should be guarding. So being that on a national scale our players are undersized and not as athletic as most if a coach gets a feeling that you cannot man up in NH, how can he trust you will be able to at the next level. I think it is sooooo important to both teach and train players to defend as well as showcase them doing so. Shot clocks would give coaches the crutch to zone more often. Not good training in my eyes at all.”


Not sure what your logic is here. Exactly how do you arrive at the use of a shot clock increasing the use of zones and making players less ready for college? You seem to be complaining about something and reaching into clouds for a reason for it. I have re-read your posts a number of times and see nowhere in there the how/why of your assumption. You are making a claim, but offering no insight as to how or why this would happen. Why would a shot clock keep a big from going out on the perimeter? What evidence of this do you have? Sorry, but your reasoning on this is really out there.

A more intelligent assumption about the use of a shot clock would be that it would lead to more active defensive play. Knowing that a shot must be taken within a finite number of seconds will keep defenders on their toes. As far as the defensive fundamentals go, I do agree with you – ALL coaches should be emphasizing that. more than they currently do.

As far as moving onto play in college, we all know you are not going to achieve that if you are only going to rely on what your HS coach passes on to you. In ANY sport you are going to have to seek out more advanced coaching and playing opportunities. You of all people should know this. I do agree with you on the fundamentals of defensive play – ALL coaches should be emphasizing that. One of things ALL college bound players in this state need to be better at - Boxing out. One of the fastest ways to get your rear put on the bench in college is give up an extra offensive possession because you were lazy on boxing out. Again though, if you want to go to the next level, you are going to have to put in much more time than HS practices/games provide.

Your assumption about what college coaches think when they see a zone is way off. Why would they think that first? If they are truly curious about it, they will have already done their research and know if it is simply his coaching style or something he switched to this season due to the makeup & overall skill level of his team. (In a case similar to yours - where the coaches had already seen & talked with your son, the question of HS defensive & offensive styles should already have come up) It sounds like your making a basic assumption that all teams are made up of high level athletes that should all be capable of playing tight man-to-man. This is simply not the case. A lot of teams in this state are powered by players whose primary sport is not basketball. They are not putting in any extra time beyond the in-season practices.

That leads me to your point about the goal of HS coaches. When a coach has a player or two who are going to move on, obviously it is going to effect how he does things. The opposite is also true. If your team is not made up high end basketball players, you cannot expect them to go out and play the game in the manner you want everyone to play it. Remember, this is High School ball, not college where basketball is pretty much the only athletic thing players are focused on. Their goal is to get the maximum out of their team, not to build college basketball players. The percentage of kids playing in NH high school that play in college is miniscule. To say the goal of HS coaches is to produce college players is just unrealistic. This is not to say they wont do all they can to help a kid achieve playing in college, but if playing zone gives the team the best chance to win, then that is what the coach should do. By the way, we often see zone based teams switch into a box-in-one or triangle-and-two to better defend against a team that relies on one or two guys to do everything on offense. You also see teams switch to a zone if a big gets into foul trouble but you feel you need him on the offense end to stay in the game. I remember seeing Souhegan play a few years back when the Lapham kid was a senior. Now at 6’8” and over 300 lbs, you did not see him playing chase on the perimeter. Of course he was a high end football player – could be drafted this year into the NFL.

I do find it interesting that a college coach who has seen your son play many times from what you have told us would worry about what a HS coach chooses to do with matchups in one game. Especially in Milford’s case where you have multiple options in defensive matchups. They should have seen enough of Mike in AAU (remember how others here have stated that the AAU team he played on was playing at a level far superior to anything here in NH HS land) to know what his defensive skill set was. Everyone has strentghs & weaknesses - The simple truth is Mike is always going to face issues at the next level because of his size – all small PG’s do. Teams with smart coaches & bigger guards are going to run plays to post Mike up. I am sure the Plattsburg people have already talked to him about putting on body mass and getting stronger. I got to about a dozen or so D3 college games this past year and saw all kinds of matchups that looked odd. Also, why should any HS coach base his game-time decisions on how to run his team on the fact one player has someone from a college in the crowd?

Right now, I’m watching the Kentucky-Ohio St game right now, Kentucky is putting a different defender on OSU’s PG. Nothing to do with staying in front of him, but this guy is bigger with a big wing span. They are trying to cut down his vision and passing lanes as much as they can. I’m guessing that might have been a similar case for using Holder to guard Walker.

Actually Plattsburghs head coach had only seen Mitchell play in AAU and on video coming into the Portsmouth game in the regular season. He had also seen him in open gym at Plattsburgh over the Summer. So this was his first time seeing him play on his high school team. So when he seen that match up he asked me about it. As for coaches choosing to match up differently because a coach was there... Not sure what you meant about that it never bothered me that Milford played Jamie on Walker as Jamie is a great defender but I was right in my feelings that Mike could do a very good job on Walker as well. Some of the best AAU teams in this area still use zone to compete against better more athletic players. They do that because NH players do not have the size and athleticism across the roster to defend the Elite players that you sometime see in AAU. I have always thought that this was good marketing but bad training. The zone can help you offset some of the athleticism but it also puts into coaches minds that it is done because of a weakness in lateral quickness and athleticism. On the AAU circuit college coaches are looking for skill sets and athletes they can plug into their system. If they are a team that plays a lot of zone (not many out there) this is great but if they are a team that mans up and even more so likes to pressure and get in passing lanes they want to know the player they are interested in can do so. NH players have many of the offensive skills and fundamentals needed to play college ball but lack athleticism to defend. So to me putting a band aid on it to win games does not help you get to the next level.

As far as the shot clock and zone go. I think zones will be used more often if the shot clock is added. I would rather see a stall once every 20 games than to see teams sitting in zone for 18 a season.

Certain teams are going to play what fits them best. You are looking at it one sided. You can actually recruit a kid and in HS he looks like he has blazing speed, at the college level he may not. Other players are just as fast or faster. The court actually gets smaller the higher you go in basketball, the players get bigger and bigger, less open court. You see players who can dunk in high school but can't in college, they don't get the same amount of space to set up for the dunk. If we are talking DIII college.
I also think that you will see SUNY Plattsburgh use zone defenses next year. There will be match-up issues during certain times. They may run a 1-3-1 in situations. If you go man there will be size issues with a player being able to post another up. A regular 2-3 zone could be risky too. If one guard is 5 or 6 inches taller than another, the taller guard will have the ability to shoot right over the player, a good shooter could do this in man as well.
Penetration on offense next year will be tougher too. Like I mentioned early the players are taller, all of them. You may not see a 5'8 PG all year. Shooting could be tough too. If a defender is just as fast and 5 inches taller.
As for the Portsmouth game, I don't get your point at all about Plattsburgh coach, you in a way are making the guy sound like he is not knowledgeable about basketball. I hate to disappoint you, but I bet that coach was just trying to chat with you, he really didn't go home and write everything down you said. He has no idea how much you or any other parent knows about basketball. He and you actually may have a different philosophy than he does.
Most college coaches are smart enough to figure things out, let us hope anyways. As far as the match ups the first time Portsmouth/Milford played the match up was probably exactly what JT stated, bigger and longer wing span. Also let us not forget that the second time they played Portsmouth was down a player. That would also create a different match up, no one can guard the kid who is not playing. Best of luck to you next year Coach Curle, as your wisdom has already been called into question.
Another issue that is huge in a freshman college basketball players career that has not even been brought up, is to stop playing. Many players start to realize that the dream of the NBA is over and school is more important. This happens a lot at DIII schools because players are not on athletic scholarships. Basketball in college becomes a full-time job (any college sport). Classes are tougher. Some colleges actually have practices at 5am daily for weeks. Some kids have never had practices at that hour. It can be tough for a coach to schedule any other time, because the gym is being used, can't get all 15 players there in the afternoon, because all players are taking different classes. Some classes a upperclassman needs may only be available at 3pm. The coach needs to adjust.
Doesn't MA have a shot clock? They always seem to produce some pretty good ballplayers at the next level. Not too mention now that I really think about it. What is wrong with a team and a player learning both? It certainly makes for a more rounded player and would open more options for that player that they can do two things instead of one.