Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area

    Dr. Krzyzewski or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Stall

    Time to dust this one off again:

    From observation and conversation, K predictably slows the pace if we're up by more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game, and if we're tired or in foul trouble he may push it a bit. He's been doing it for decades. We've been stressing and obsessing over it for decades, too. (OK, when we have an absolutely dominant team - i.e., '99 - he hasn't slowed as often, he generally won't slow until the last 10 minutes, etc. This post is for the more common end-game situations.)

    The math, as best I can figure it:

    Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

    If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

    If we average just over half a point per possession and hold them to average just under 2 points per possession, the math works. We should be able to average half a point per possession, even if we occasionally (or even three times in a row) get no shot off. On the other hand, it takes an extraordinary performance for a team to average 2 points per possession over multiple possessions. If we hold them to under 1.5 points per possession and 45 second exchanges then we don't even have to score to hold on. We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls.

    If the other team does start immediate fouling so that we go to exchanges every 15 seconds instead of 45, we need to hit 75% free-throws (shooting 2; 1-and-1 won't last long) to get 1.5 points per possession while still holding them just under 2 points per possession. We must inbound and pass to the best free throw shooters, and make sure everyone can shoot adequately.

    Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always...

    Some people deem slowing the game to be giving up the initiative. I don't. Whether you like stall ball or not, when we use it we dictate the pace of the game. The opponent must react to us. They can play straight up defense or start fouling - and when they start fouling, they admit to desperation.

    I won't dispute stalling does change the nature of the game considerably. However, an opponent capable of averaging 2 points or more per possession over a long stretch could also beat us without K slowing the game down.

    I'll trust K. And the math.

    -jk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    Time to dust this one off again:

    From observation and conversation, K predictably slows the pace if we're up by more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game, and if we're tired or in foul trouble he may push it a bit. He's been doing it for decades. We've been stressing and obsessing over it for decades, too. (OK, when we have an absolutely dominant team - i.e., '99 - he hasn't slowed as often, he generally won't slow until the last 10 minutes, etc. This post is for the more common end-game situations.)

    The math, as best I can figure it:

    Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

    If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

    If we average just over half a point per possession and hold them to average just under 2 points per possession, the math works. We should be able to average half a point per possession, even if we occasionally (or even three times in a row) get no shot off. On the other hand, it takes an extraordinary performance for a team to average 2 points per possession over multiple possessions. If we hold them to under 1.5 points per possession and 45 second exchanges then we don't even have to score to hold on. We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls.

    If the other team does start immediate fouling so that we go to exchanges every 15 seconds instead of 45, we need to hit 75% free-throws (shooting 2; 1-and-1 won't last long) to get 1.5 points per possession while still holding them just under 2 points per possession. We must inbound and pass to the best free throw shooters, and make sure everyone can shoot adequately.

    Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always...

    Some people deem slowing the game to be giving up the initiative. I don't. Whether you like stall ball or not, when we use it we dictate the pace of the game. The opponent must react to us. They can play straight up defense or start fouling - and when they start fouling, they admit to desperation.

    I won't dispute stalling does change the nature of the game considerably. However, an opponent capable of averaging 2 points or more per possession over a long stretch could also beat us without K slowing the game down.

    I'll trust K. And the math.

    -jk
    my impression is that UNC was using much less than 15 seconds per possession.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    my impression is that UNC was using much less than 15 seconds per possession.
    And yet they never got closer than 8 points, so the strategy worked.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Princeton, NJ
    Quote Originally Posted by Newton_14 View Post
    And yet they never got closer than 8 points, so the strategy worked.
    yes it worked. i'm not arguing that.

    in addition, i think the assumptions underlying the math in the op are questionable. UNC cut the lead from 19 to 8 in about 4 minutes. so they were making up about 2.75 points per minute during that period. fortunately, they were much less successful in the 2:49 after that.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    It makes me nervous to watch it and does seem to raise my stress levels, but I trust K, generally speaking so I'm (generally speaking) ok with stall ball.

    I realize the OP didn't start this thread in response to last night's UNC game, but...did we really use stall ball last night or were we just sort of unfocused and a little weak with the ball for a bit there? I'm not being facetious - I honestly couldn't tell that it was a deliberate stall. I guess it was since it fits the pattern and would have made sense last night. I guess it just didn't look as intentional to me, for some reason (if that makes sense).

  6. #6
    So we must all concede that K usually gets it right...his record speaks for itself.
    It is, however our nature to quibble with various decisions he makes or philosophies he holds.

    Many of them were hotly debated and later put to bed...for example, the early 80's we debated why play zone with the talent we had. (the answer: to build an identity and establish a system)
    Others debated include ...why does K:
    - play too few guys
    - wear out his starters
    - play small ball
    - Live by the 3

    But the issue of stall ball rankles many of my Duke friends. (me too)
    My issue is not that K chooses to stall when he does, but rather the nature of the shot we get. Too often, we take a forced or ill advised shot. I attribute this to the "back yard count down conundrum". Everyone loves to count down "3-2-1" and hit the shot at the buzzer. It appears we try to do that too often. Why not start to attack the basket at 15 seconds instead of 10 or fewer seconds.

    I would give back 5 seconds on every possession in exchange for a better shot attempt. I wonder if the better shot attempt in this scenario alters the math JK provides?
    Last edited by -jk; 03-09-2014 at 08:21 PM. Reason: spelling - I'm not JD

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisP View Post
    It makes me nervous to watch it and does seem to raise my stress levels, but I trust K, generally speaking so I'm (generally speaking) ok with stall ball.

    I realize the OP didn't start this thread in response to last night's UNC game, but...did we really use stall ball last night or were we just sort of unfocused and a little weak with the ball for a bit there? I'm not being facetious - I honestly couldn't tell that it was a deliberate stall. I guess it was since it fits the pattern and would have made sense last night. I guess it just didn't look as intentional to me, for some reason (if that makes sense).
    It was genuine stall ball for the last 5 min at least.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    I would rather run time off the clock, than give in to UNC's press zones and jack up shots quickly. You not only give Carolina time to come back if you shoot, you throw up rushed shots and let Carolina get out in transition.

    There are three parameters in basketball. The court is 94 feet long; the court is 50 feet wide; and the game is 40 minutes. All three are immutable and your strategy needs to recognize all three.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I would rather run time off the clock, than give in to UNC's press zones and jack up shots quickly. You not only give Carolina time to come back if you shoot, you throw up rushed shots and let Carolina get out in transition.

    There are three parameters in basketball. The court is 94 feet long; the court is 50 feet wide; and the game is 40 minutes. All three are immutable and your strategy needs to recognize all three.
    So you are suggesting we should never pass into the corner on a full court press?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    So you are suggesting we should never pass into the corner on a full court press?
    . . . Or dribble it over the half-court line and stop, or inbound the ball two feet over the end line in the corner . . . .

  11. #11

    Stall Ball and Players' Cognitive Functioning

    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    Time to dust this one off again:

    From observation and conversation, K predictably slows the pace if we're up by more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game, and if we're tired or in foul trouble he may push it a bit. He's been doing it for decades. We've been stressing and obsessing over it for decades, too. (OK, when we have an absolutely dominant team - i.e., '99 - he hasn't slowed as often, he generally won't slow until the last 10 minutes, etc. This post is for the more common end-game situations.)

    The math, as best I can figure it:

    Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

    If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

    If we average just over half a point per possession and hold them to average just under 2 points per possession, the math works. We should be able to average half a point per possession, even if we occasionally (or even three times in a row) get no shot off. On the other hand, it takes an extraordinary performance for a team to average 2 points per possession over multiple possessions. If we hold them to under 1.5 points per possession and 45 second exchanges then we don't even have to score to hold on. We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls.

    If the other team does start immediate fouling so that we go to exchanges every 15 seconds instead of 45, we need to hit 75% free-throws (shooting 2; 1-and-1 won't last long) to get 1.5 points per possession while still holding them just under 2 points per possession. We must inbound and pass to the best free throw shooters, and make sure everyone can shoot adequately.

    Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always...

    Some people deem slowing the game to be giving up the initiative. I don't. Whether you like stall ball or not, when we use it we dictate the pace of the game. The opponent must react to us. They can play straight up defense or start fouling - and when they start fouling, they admit to desperation.

    I won't dispute stalling does change the nature of the game considerably. However, an opponent capable of averaging 2 points or more per possession over a long stretch could also beat us without K slowing the game down.

    I'll trust K. And the math.

    -jk
    The "math" doesn't take into account how stall ball affects players' cognitive functioning. We know that top performers of all kinds [sports, music, dance, etc] do their best when they are in so-called "intuitive" mode, not in deliberate, rational mode in which each mental and physical operation is consciously intended. Pianists, for example, can't consciously instruct each finger to play single notes, one after another. Our unconscious plays a powerful role in our conscious, voluntary actions. When athletes are in so-called intuitive mode, they are able to access the much more powerful processing of their unconscious. Some cognitive psychologists estimate that our "conscious brains" can perform up to 20 simultaneous operations, while our "unconscious brains" can perform a vast amount [maybe millions] of simultaneous operations. That's why pianists can guide their ten fingers to play many notes/second in complex figurations, and why top jazz players can improvise complex melodies at warp speed, not only solo but with fellow musicians. Basketball players can make amazing shots going full speed, making myriads of "mid-flight" adjustments in seconds. Yet these same, amazingly gifted players can't make free throws. Their fully conscious minds impede access to the incredibly complex circuitry and programming residing in their unconscious.

    In stall ball, players have to wrest themselves out of their unconscious ["the flow"] and become fully conscious and deliberate. They become aware of their own thinking and of their bodies performing the mental and physical operations, rather than being fully focused on the action as a whole. As opposed to being fully immersed in the activity, they become observers to their own actions. Passing and shooting become mechanical. btw, this is one reason why baseball is so demanding, because its intense activities are punctuated by periods of inactivity, in which players become fully conscious of themselves and their surroundings.

    Even given all that, I understand that the time gained by stall ball can increase the need of the defensive team to foul, which may offset the negative cognitive effects of stall ball. It sure isn't as much fun to watch, since the players often lose their fluidity.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Blasphemy to invoke the name but any chance that K has "borrowed" or modified this concept from Dean Smith's four corners? Same concept and this just seems like the shot clock era version. Not a bad thing if two of the all time greats agree.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by hustleplays View Post
    The "math" doesn't take into account how stall ball affects players' cognitive functioning. We know that top performers of all kinds [sports, music, dance, etc] do their best when they are in so-called "intuitive" mode, not in deliberate, rational mode in which each mental and physical operation is consciously intended. Pianists, for example, can't consciously instruct each finger to play single notes, one after another. Our unconscious plays a powerful role in our conscious, voluntary actions. When athletes are in so-called intuitive mode, they are able to access the much more powerful processing of their unconscious. Some cognitive psychologists estimate that our "conscious brains" can perform up to 20 simultaneous operations, while our "unconscious brains" can perform a vast amount [maybe millions] of simultaneous operations. That's why pianists can guide their ten fingers to play many notes/second in complex figurations, and why top jazz players can improvise complex melodies at warp speed, not only solo but with fellow musicians. Basketball players can make amazing shots going full speed, making myriads of "mid-flight" adjustments in seconds. Yet these same, amazingly gifted players can't make free throws. Their fully conscious minds impede access to the incredibly complex circuitry and programming residing in their unconscious.

    In stall ball, players have to wrest themselves out of their unconscious ["the flow"] and become fully conscious and deliberate. They become aware of their own thinking and of their bodies performing the mental and physical operations, rather than being fully focused on the action as a whole. As opposed to being fully immersed in the activity, they become observers to their own actions. Passing and shooting become mechanical. btw, this is one reason why baseball is so demanding, because its intense activities are punctuated by periods of inactivity, in which players become fully conscious of themselves and their surroundings.

    Even given all that, I understand that the time gained by stall ball can increase the need of the defensive team to foul, which may offset the negative cognitive effects of stall ball. It sure isn't as much fun to watch, since the players often lose their fluidity.
    That's why it's so important to practice it, so it goes from cognitive to intuitive. Pianists weren't born with the ability to "guide their ten fingers to play many notes/second in complex figurations" -- they had to cognitively practice to reach that level of intuition.

    Is stall ball cognitively heavy? Yes, for those who are learning it. But for players like Nolan Smith on the 2010 team and Jason Williams on the 2001/2 teams, it was like second nature and they executed stall ball incredibly well. Unfortunately, Quinn Cook isn't there yet...but he will with more time and practice. Hopefully.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santa Cruz CA
    Quote Originally Posted by hustleplays View Post
    The "math" doesn't take into account how stall ball affects players' cognitive functioning. We know that top performers of all kinds [sports, music, dance, etc] do their best when they are in so-called "intuitive" mode, not in deliberate, rational mode in which each mental and physical operation is consciously intended. Pianists, for example, can't consciously instruct each finger to play single notes, one after another. Our unconscious plays a powerful role in our conscious, voluntary actions. When athletes are in so-called intuitive mode, they are able to access the much more powerful processing of their unconscious. Some cognitive psychologists estimate that our "conscious brains" can perform up to 20 simultaneous operations, while our "unconscious brains" can perform a vast amount [maybe millions] of simultaneous operations. That's why pianists can guide their ten fingers to play many notes/second in complex figurations, and why top jazz players can improvise complex melodies at warp speed, not only solo but with fellow musicians. Basketball players can make amazing shots going full speed, making myriads of "mid-flight" adjustments in seconds. Yet these same, amazingly gifted players can't make free throws. Their fully conscious minds impede access to the incredibly complex circuitry and programming residing in their unconscious.

    In stall ball, players have to wrest themselves out of their unconscious ["the flow"] and become fully conscious and deliberate. They become aware of their own thinking and of their bodies performing the mental and physical operations, rather than being fully focused on the action as a whole. As opposed to being fully immersed in the activity, they become observers to their own actions. Passing and shooting become mechanical. btw, this is one reason why baseball is so demanding, because its intense activities are punctuated by periods of inactivity, in which players become fully conscious of themselves and their surroundings.

    Even given all that, I understand that the time gained by stall ball can increase the need of the defensive team to foul, which may offset the negative cognitive effects of stall ball. It sure isn't as much fun to watch, since the players often lose their fluidity.
    It also has a psychological effect on the losing team. In some games stall ball, especially if the first few stall trips are successful in scoring, demoralizes the losing team and makes them start thinking about fouling. In other games, stall ball gives the losing team a chance to catch their breath and start becoming more aggressive. If they start to close the gap a bit, they can get a momentum going and feed off of it. It can go either way.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Quote Originally Posted by freshmanjs View Post
    yes it worked. i'm not arguing that.

    in addition, i think the assumptions underlying the math in the op are questionable. UNC cut the lead from 19 to 8 in about 4 minutes. so they were making up about 2.75 points per minute during that period. fortunately, they were much less successful in the 2:49 after that.
    The other extremely important variable with stall ball is not turning it over. I think Duke turned it over in the timeframe you mentioned, where Carolina quickly closed the gap. I believe in stall ball and the math, especially after 2010, when the team was up by more points than there were minutes left, I figured the game was almost won, with the great D and good shots at the end of most possessions.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    Time to dust this one off again:


    The math, as best I can figure it:

    Before the other team begins immediate fouling, we can burn about 30 seconds in each stalled possession. In the other direction, we try to force the other team to use at least 15 seconds per possession with a soft, low-risk full-court press and solid half-court D. That gives us a 45-second exchange of possessions, on average.

    If we limit them to netting (pun intended) less than 1.5 points per 45-second exchange, we'll win.

    We need to value the ball, make occasional shots, and play smart defense. No turnovers. No fouls.

    Is it perfect? Of course not. Effective? Usually. Induce ulcers? Always...


    -jk
    And here's my issue with Stall Ball usage for this years team.

    We don't always value the ball(Cook and 'Sheed), we can go several minutes without making shots(ND, Wake, Clemson, Carolina, etc.), we don't play smart defense consistently(all season), and we foul alot(all season).

    So while I agree that in seasons' past(see 2010), Stall Ball was an effective weapon to use to close out games, this year's team hasn't shown the ability to use Stall Ball to their advantage consistently.

    We play our best when we are in "Attack Mode" on Offense. Having intensity on offense can be just as valuable as having intensity on defense. For this year's team, I think our best defense is our attacking offense.

    If we agree that Stall Ball is a tool that has to be used in the right way to be effective, then just as giving a carpenter a scalpel and telling him "Go build a house" is bad idea, giving this team Stall Ball and expecting them to use it correctly isn't the best choice, either, IMO.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wilmington, NC

    Unsuccessful?

    Another way to evaluate this would be to identify how many games we have lost over the years when using the "stall ball" technique vs. how many times it has been used.

    I am having trouble recalling times when we have lost while using "stall ball." It seems like it might have cost us the game when Michigan and Robert "Tractor" Traylor beat us at home, but I really can't remember others.

    Admittedly, however, I am old and crusty. Can some of you that have better brains recall times when it has cost us wins?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by 91_92_01_10 View Post
    Another way to evaluate this would be to identify how many games we have lost over the years when using the "stall ball" technique vs. how many times it has been used.

    I am having trouble recalling times when we have lost while using "stall ball." It seems like it might have cost us the game when Michigan and Robert "Tractor" Traylor beat us at home, but I really can't remember others.

    Admittedly, however, I am old and crusty. Can some of you that have better brains recall times when it has cost us wins?
    Not sure that I have a better brain or not, but it has definitely cost us some games. The first one that pops into my mind is the ACC championship game against Maryland back in....here's where my brain is proven to be no better than yours...um...I'm gonna guess 2004? Maybe 2003? or 2005? Anyway, we pretty famously lost that game to a furious comeback that, at least, happened when we were attempting stall ball.

    I don't remember whether we were in full stall ball mode in 1998 when we lost to Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament. There was a tornado watch during the game; my wife and children were huddling in the downstairs bathroom, and I was sneaking out to watch the game. We blew a 17-point lead, though, to lose that one.

    I'm sure there were others. Did we use stall ball in the 2004 Final Four against UConn? If not, we probably should have. We didn't have any defenders left to cover Okafor.


    For the record, I'm a fan of stall ball. I explained a bit about why in the UNC post-game thread. Ultimately, the answer to your question is that it succeeds WAY more often than it fails. When it fails, it can fail spectacularly, and those failures can be very, very memorable. I think the people that despise stall ball do so because the spectacular failures are much more memorable than the ho-hum successes. That and the fact that it can be aesthetically displeasing when a lead shrinks from 15 or so and the game ends with a 4- or 5-point win.

    I like stall ball because I focus more on the part of the sentence that says "ends with a win." I like winning.
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Not sure that I have a better brain or not, but it has definitely cost us some games. The first one that pops into my mind is the ACC championship game against Maryland back in....here's where my brain is proven to be no better than yours...um...I'm gonna guess 2004? Maybe 2003? or 2005? Anyway, we pretty famously lost that game to a furious comeback that, at least, happened when we were attempting stall ball.

    I don't remember whether we were in full stall ball mode in 1998 when we lost to Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament. There was a tornado watch during the game; my wife and children were huddling in the downstairs bathroom, and I was sneaking out to watch the game. We blew a 17-point lead, though, to lose that one.

    I'm sure there were others. Did we use stall ball in the 2004 Final Four against UConn? If not, we probably should have. We didn't have any defenders left to cover Okafor.


    For the record, I'm a fan of stall ball. I explained a bit about why in the UNC post-game thread. Ultimately, the answer to your question is that it succeeds WAY more often than it fails. When it fails, it can fail spectacularly, and those failures can be very, very memorable. I think the people that despise stall ball do so because the spectacular failures are much more memorable than the ho-hum successes. That and the fact that it can be aesthetically displeasing when a lead shrinks from 15 or so and the game ends with a 4- or 5-point win.

    I like stall ball because I focus more on the part of the sentence that says "ends with a win." I like winning.
    This. Stall ball is, for lack of a better word, ugly. It's not pretty basketball at all. Duke, especially this year, plays very enjoyable and pretty basketball. Stall ball is boring, it's uneventful, it's watching a bunch of kids stand around for 30 seconds. Not exactly everyone's cup of tea.

    But, like more posters, I absolutely see the value. And, at the end of the day, that value translates to winning most of the time.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by hustleplays View Post
    The "math" doesn't take into account how stall ball affects players' cognitive functioning. We know that top performers of all kinds [sports, music, dance, etc] do their best when they are in so-called "intuitive" mode, not in deliberate, rational mode in which each mental and physical operation is consciously intended. Pianists, for example, can't consciously instruct each finger to play single notes, one after another. Our unconscious plays a powerful role in our conscious, voluntary actions. When athletes are in so-called intuitive mode, they are able to access the much more powerful processing of their unconscious. Some cognitive psychologists estimate that our "conscious brains" can perform up to 20 simultaneous operations, while our "unconscious brains" can perform a vast amount [maybe millions] of simultaneous operations. That's why pianists can guide their ten fingers to play many notes/second in complex figurations, and why top jazz players can improvise complex melodies at warp speed, not only solo but with fellow musicians. Basketball players can make amazing shots going full speed, making myriads of "mid-flight" adjustments in seconds. Yet these same, amazingly gifted players can't make free throws. Their fully conscious minds impede access to the incredibly complex circuitry and programming residing in their unconscious.

    In stall ball, players have to wrest themselves out of their unconscious ["the flow"] and become fully conscious and deliberate. They become aware of their own thinking and of their bodies performing the mental and physical operations, rather than being fully focused on the action as a whole. As opposed to being fully immersed in the activity, they become observers to their own actions. Passing and shooting become mechanical. btw, this is one reason why baseball is so demanding, because its intense activities are punctuated by periods of inactivity, in which players become fully conscious of themselves and their surroundings.

    Even given all that, I understand that the time gained by stall ball can increase the need of the defensive team to foul, which may offset the negative cognitive effects of stall ball. It sure isn't as much fun to watch, since the players often lose their fluidity.
    What an OUTSTANDING post! It makes perfect sense to me. This explains why stall ball is so horrid to watch from the perspective of a fan of the team in the lead. Players are suddenly asked to switch to an entirely different style than they had been playing the entire game. It's almost not even basketball anymore. I don't understand it and I don't agree with it. And the justification of slowing down the game because our guys are tired doesn't make sense to me either. Why would our guys be more tired than theirs? Keep doing what got you the big lead in the first place. Just keep playing basketball.

Similar Threads

  1. Stall-ball is AWESOME!
    By Ping Lin in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-26-2013, 03:19 AM
  2. Replies: 140
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 11:10 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 09:10 PM
  4. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 02:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •