Stall-ball is AWESOME!

[Ping Lin]

Ok, I kid, sort of.

But I'm sure I couldn't have been the only one breathing a sigh of relief when Duke entered stall-ball with 7-8 minutes to go in the game. Just about every trip down the floor with stall-ball resulted in a good look at the basket, foul shots, or (in a memorable case) an offensive rebound.

It's funny how little people complain about stall-ball when a) it's completely necessary and b) it works.

[TruBlu]

Stall ball was needed in this game, mainly because of the foul trouble on our bigs and was a welcome sight. Biting my tongue (restraining my typing finger?) about stall ball in some other cases.

[gus]

Ok, I kid, sort of.

But I'm sure I couldn't have been the only one breathing a sigh of relief when Duke entered stall-ball with 7-8 minutes to go in the game. Just about every trip down the floor with stall-ball resulted in a good look at the basket, foul shots, or (in a memorable case) an offensive rebound.

It's funny how little people complain about stall-ball when a) it's completely necessary and b) it works.

I'd rather people complain about us winning games by smaller margins with stall ball than complaining about blowing leads and losing without it.

[Billy Dat]

Ok, I kid, sort of.

But I'm sure I couldn't have been the only one breathing a sigh of relief when Duke entered stall-ball with 7-8 minutes to go in the game. Just about every trip down the floor with stall-ball resulted in a good look at the basket, foul shots, or (in a memorable case) an offensive rebound.

It's funny how little people complain about stall-ball when a) it's completely necessary and b) it works.

I think stall ball worked yesterday because, for whatever reason, Creighton, despite being down, was content to keep the game at a slow pace, even in the final 5 minutes. I don't know their team really well so maybe they just don't have that extra gear, but I felt that Coach McDermott did a really poor job of exploiting the foul crisis we found ourselves in. So, I think stall ball worked mostly because Creighton allowed it to work.

[UrinalCake]

Great topic for discussion. We did start a pseudo-stall ball once Mason went out with his fourth, which was just a few minutes into the second half. There were several reasons why it worked so well IMO:
- we began to initiate our offensive with 15 seconds left, rather than waiting until under 10. This gave us a better chance at getting a quality shot
- we continued to attack. My biggest criticism of stall ball is that it puts the team in a passive mindset, and causes us to dribble and pass around the perimeter before putting up a rushed 3. But yesterday we attacked the basket and were willing to take an open shot early in the shot clock if it presented itself. A few times we took and hit early threes
- we got offensive rebounds off of some of our misses. This is as good as a basket, and really deflates your opponent. Thank you Amile!
- Creighton helped us out by making some really poor decisions. This surprised me as I know they are well coached and experienced, but our defensive pressure had a lot to do with disrupting their rhythm.

So bottom line, we were able to run clock while still running our game.

[CDu]

Great topic for discussion. We did start a pseudo-stall ball once Mason went out with his fourth, which was just a few minutes into the second half. There were several reasons why it worked so well IMO:
- we began to initiate our offensive with 15 seconds left, rather than waiting until under 10. This gave us a better chance at getting a quality shot
- we continued to attack. My biggest criticism of stall ball is that it puts the team in a passive mindset, and causes us to dribble and pass around the perimeter before putting up a rushed 3. But yesterday we attacked the basket and were willing to take an open shot early in the shot clock if it presented itself. A few times we took and hit early threes
- we got offensive rebounds off of some of our misses. This is as good as a basket, and really deflates your opponent. Thank you Amile!
- Creighton helped us out by making some really poor decisions. This surprised me as I know they are well coached and experienced, but our defensive pressure had a lot to do with disrupting their rhythm.

So bottom line, we were able to run clock while still running our game.

Stallball doesn't inherently prevent you from attacking. What you described in the bolded text above is exactly the way stallball should work. The key to stallball is being able to run an offensive set confidently when starting with only 10-15 seconds left on the clock.

Where stallball goes wrong is when you just dribble down without movement until the clock reaches 5-10 seconds and wind up having to take a contested 3pt shot. If you don't have good discipline, stallball can result in a huge dropoff in offensive efficiency. If you have good guard play, you can make stallball work.

[yancem]

I think stall ball worked yesterday because, for whatever reason, Creighton, despite being down, was content to keep the game at a slow pace, even in the final 5 minutes. I don't know their team really well so maybe they just don't have that extra gear, but I felt that Coach McDermott did a really poor job of exploiting the foul crisis we found ourselves in. So, I think stall ball worked mostly because Creighton allowed it to work.

Well, I think that part of the reason they didn't exploit our foul crisis had to do with the fact they were also experience one. They had several players with 3-4 fouls (including McDermott) so they couldn't get too aggressive. Plus I think that their poor shooting really had them out of sorts. I know that everyone is saying we played really good defense (and for the most part I agree) but they missed more than a few pretty open 3's. They go in and the game is much tighter and probably play with more confidence.

As for the stall ball, I thought we did a good job of playing a more "deliberate" offense more than a complete stall for much of the time. In other words, we moved the ball around looking for good scoring opportunities and making sure not to force anything. I think that this allowed us to still attach but also run some clock.

On a different note, does anyone know why Cook was sitting from like 5:00 to 2:00? I was concerned that maybe he was injured but then he came back in at the end and seemed to be fine. Cramp maybe?

[Reisen]

Well, I think that part of the reason they didn't exploit our foul crisis had to do with the fact they were also experience one. They had several players with 3-4 fouls (including McDermott) so they couldn't get too aggressive. Plus I think that their poor shooting really had them out of sorts. I know that everyone is saying we played really good defense (and for the most part I agree) but they missed more than a few pretty open 3's. They go in and the game is much tighter and probably play with more confidence.

QFT. That was absolutely ridiculous refereeing that made for an atrocious basketball game. I say that a day later, and with my team winning by double digits. The calls in that game were so different from virtually every other tournament game this year. Fortunately, it really threw off both teams, and they did seem to make the (bad) calls equally.

Stall ball was the right choice in those circumstances. We were nearly assured of getting fouled if we simply moved the ball around long enough.

[Lulu]

I remarked to a friend last week that I couldn't remember a Duke game this season where foul trouble was a factor for either team; I'm not sure I saw any non-Duke games where foul trouble factored in either, but these days I'm not seeing many games outside of Duke. Well, that certainly changed last night. It seemed to me like a jarring lack of consistency in collegiate officiating, but I'm still curious what others here thought. The officiating seemed like the story of the game to me. Play has gotten so rough, and if called by the rulebook I'm not sure how many teams could last a game and still have any players remaining, but last night sure didn't seem very consistent with how the rest of our games have been called this year. Sure, I saw the "fouls", but I see tons of fouls every game that are guaranteed not to be called, so last night was a huge change of pace. Awesome that we survived with foul trouble, if not because of foul trouble, but man... makes for a scary scenario. Would have been a huge shame had we lost that game with our best guys on the bench (the whistles did get swallowed a little late in the game, and not just because of the pace the way I saw it).

So, last night was the first time ever, I think, that I was cheering the move to stall-ball. Wasn't too early last night, and was against a team that wasn't going to attack and speed us up at that point while we're slowing down (usually mentally, too). I know by the numbers stall ball looks great sometimes, but there's no accounting for the psychological impact and difficulty revving back up again if needed, imo. Of course, heck, I think we enter stall-ball last night even tied or down a few points - didn't look like we were going to survive too many possessions. So that's a completely different rationale than when we usually enter it.

Also, cannot not say how incredible Amile was last night, and at the perfect time. My POTG, particularly because we haven't seen him that much. I understand the sentiment around here regarding Thornton, and for him I think the difference in opinions simply comes down to the dumb mistakes he also makes a bit too often.

[Reisen]

Totally agree, Lulu. I'll fully admit that maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but calling the game super tight is a huge advantage for a team like Creighton, that is an excellent shooting team. We had 16 fouls on our bigs with over 7 minutes left to go in the game. A few of those were legit (including Mason's 5th), but that was absolutely ridiculous.

Shades of 2004 UConn. We were truly lucky that Creighton had their worst shooting game of the season. We certainly played a big role in that, but some of those 3 pointers they make most other nights...

I'd really like to see the foul limit raised (or removed) in college basketball. What other sport do you see top talent sitting on the bench so much, for such an arbitrary reason?

[g-money]

Stallball doesn't inherently prevent you from attacking. What you described in the bolded text above is exactly the way stallball should work. The key to stallball is being able to run an offensive set confidently when starting with only 10-15 seconds left on the clock.

Where stallball goes wrong is when you just dribble down without movement until the clock reaches 5-10 seconds and wind up having to take a contested 3pt shot. If you don't have good discipline, stallball can result in a huge dropoff in offensive efficiency. If you have good guard play, you can make stallball work.

Agreed. Seth, Rasheed, and particularly Quinn have each shown the ability to A) burn time off the clock without turning it over and B) get a good look (or get a good look for a teammate) late in the shot clock. This is perhaps the main reason we've been able to close out games effectively this season.

[Bob Green]

But I'm sure I couldn't have been the only one breathing a sigh of relief when Duke entered stall-ball with 7-8 minutes to go in the game.

Watching the game, I did not get the feeling we were in full stall ball mode. A more accurate description would be we were patient with the ball and not looking for a quick shot. A subtle difference for sure but still a difference.

Between the under 8 official timeout and the under 4 official timeout, Duke had six possessions of 14 seconds, 21 seconds, 34 seconds, 21 seconds, 20 seconds and 18 seconds for an average of 21.33 seconds per possession. Creighton fouled Duke on two of the six possessions (the 1st and 6th).

Looking at the play-by-play on ESPN: (http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/playbyplay?gameId=330830150)

1. The under 8 minutes TV timeout took place at 7:31 due to a Jefferson foul with Duke leading by 11 points (45-34). McDermott made both free throws to cut the lead to nine points (45-36).
2. Creighton committed a foul 14 seconds later (7:17) and Curry made one shot (46-36).
3. Duke committed a foul 14 seconds later (7:03) and McDermott made both shots (46-38).
4. Curry sank a 3-pointer 21 seconds later (6:42) to bump Duke's lead back to 11 points (49-38).
5. Echenique made a lay-up at 6:18 (49-40).
6. Ryan Kelly missed a jumper 34 seconds later at 5:44. This is the only time we ran the shot clock all the way down.
7. Gibbs missed a jumper at 5:25 and Thornton grabbed the defensive rebound.
8. Sulaimon made a jumper 21 seconds later at 5:04 (51-40).
9. Gibbs made a jumper at 4:37 (51-42).
10. Sulaimon made a 3-pointer 20 seconds later at 4:17 (54-42).
11. Echenique made a dunk at 4:01 (54-44).
12. Gibbs committed a foul at 3:43 resulting in the under 4 minutes official timeout.

During those 3 minutes and 48 seconds, Creighton reduced Duke's 11 point lead to 10 points. In the last 3:43 of the game seven fouls were committed by Creighton and Duke increased the lead from 10 points to 16 points.

[-jk]

...

I'd really like to see the foul limit raised (or removed) in college basketball. What other sport do you see top talent sitting on the bench so much, for such an arbitrary reason?

If players cannot refrain from "physical", "hard-nosed", "aggressive", "in-your-face", "tenacious", pick-your-euphemism defense, they should sit. It's basketball. Not boxing. Not football. Not a back-alley brawl. There should be a flow. Players who can't get that should sit. They do get several warnings, after all.

(Put me down for athletic, flowing games before slug-fests pretty much anytime a Duke win isn't on the line. And if they'd be consistent, pretty much anytime.)

-jk

[bbosbbos]

What other sport do you see top talent sitting on the bench so much, for such an arbitrary reason?

In soccer, you are out after a red card or two yellow cards. No substitution and playing with one player less. :p

[Newton_14]

I always have been and always will be a fan of controlled stall ball, where we stay aggressive enough to attack the defense and get a good shot rather than as CDu put it, holding it in freeze mode until under 10 seconds and then jacking up a contested shot. K long ago convinced me it is the best method to close out wins. I have seen Clemson give away at least 5 wins over UNC over the last 4 or 5 years alone, some at the NoseDome, and screamed at them every time for jacking up shots early in the clock rather than shortening the game and sealing the win. Other teams lose games all the time not managing clock properly in the last 5 minutes of games. The key is to execute correctly such that you do not lose momentum, and just as important, don't take dumb shots that lead to runouts and quick scores by the team trying to come back.

I thought K coached a beautiful game last night managing the foul trouble with substitutions, and slowing the game down. Having a Quinn Cook helps.

Agree with others that the officiating was putrid the entire game. Games like that is why I sometimes hate college refs. Kids kill each other and nothing is called, then a McDermott gets breathed on heavily and shoots 14 free throws. Ryan's 1st and 2nd fouls, and Mason's 2nd and 3rd fouls were horrible calls. Mason's 3rd was one of the worst all night. A clean block of a putback attempt by McFreethrow. Not even close. The worst though was I what I believe was Amile's 4th. McDerm nailed him in the mouth with a push off to get open then flailed his arms and leaned back as though Amile had hit him with a right cross or something and bam, McFreethrow is at the line again, while Amile is picking himself off the floor wiping blood off his bottom lip.

[Listen to Quants]

Great topic for discussion. We did start a pseudo-stall ball once Mason went out with his fourth, which was just a few minutes into the second half. There were several reasons why it worked so well IMO:
- we began to initiate our offensive with 15 seconds left, rather than waiting until under 10. This gave us a better chance at getting a quality shot
- <snip a lot of interesting stuff>

So bottom line, we were able to run clock while still running our game.

Seems oh so reasonable. Start early enough, 15 or even 20 sec left on the clock and then run an aggressive offense. It worked this time anyway. It is an interesting exercise to think through what the difference in getting started with 10 sec versus 20 produces. If the first 2 or 3 seconds will have essentially no shots, the average shot probably occurs with about 3 sec on the clock if they start with 10. If they start with 20, the slightly less panicky pace probably means the first 3 to 5 seconds are usually without a shot and the average is perhaps 8 [half way between the 16 sec mark I arbitrarily chose as 'first likely shot' and 0 (you pick your own estimates and substitute them in, please). This means that the added hurry of a 10 sec start, compared with the 20 sec start time, gains something around 5 sec of additional clock use, on average. I wouldn't want to pay with much loss of offensive efficiency for a 5 sec (or your number) tick down. There may be little loss of offensive efficiency if (So. or Jr.) Jason Williams or (So, Jr., or Sr.) Bobby Hurley or similar stars are running the point but with mortals it is a high price. Nothing milks a stall like scoring.

[UrinalCake]

Seems oh so reasonable. Start early enough, 15 or even 20 sec left on the clock and then run an aggressive offense. It worked this time anyway. It is an interesting exercise to think through what the difference in getting started with 10 sec versus 20 produces. If the first 2 or 3 seconds will have essentially no shots, the average shot probably occurs with about 3 sec on the clock if they start with 10. If they start with 20, the slightly less panicky pace probably means the first 3 to 5 seconds are usually without a shot and the average is perhaps 8 [half way between the 16 sec mark I arbitrarily chose as 'first likely shot' and 0 (you pick your own estimates and substitute them in, please). This means that the added hurry of a 10 sec start, compared with the 20 sec start time, gains something around 5 sec of additional clock use, on average. I wouldn't want to pay with much loss of offensive efficiency for a 5 sec (or your number) tick down. There may be little loss of offensive efficiency if (So. or Jr.) Jason Williams or (So, Jr., or Sr.) Bobby Hurley or similar stars are running the point but with mortals it is a high price. Nothing milks a stall like scoring.

If you've got Jason Williams or Kyrie Irving then you're probably okay taking the clock down to 10 before you initiate. Those guys can create at will, so you may as well wait until the very end. Our current team doesn't have that; Rasheed would be the closest thing, but our offense usually involves setting a lot of ball screens out in the backcourt and waiting for a defensive switch that creates a mismatch or a solid pick that frees up a guy to get past his man. Sometimes a shot opens up right away, but sometimes it doesn't and we have to try to create something else. So waiting until 10 seconds can often put us in a position where we have to settle for a bad shot. Also, it lets the defense relax for a while, then play hard right at the end of the shot clock because they know we have to shoot.

I agree with the many posters who described our offense as more of a slow-down game rather than true stall ball. The bigger the lead got and the more the clock ran down, the closer we got to full-blown stall ball.

[Lulu]

I'd really like to see the foul limit raised (or removed) in college basketball. What other sport do you see top talent sitting on the bench so much, for such an arbitrary reason?

I've this exact conversation recently, too. And it's obviously not just the time spent on the bench after fouling out, but all the "strategic" time spent sitting after just 1 or 2 close or questionable calls by a ref. It just amplifies the effect the officiating has on the game, and its outcome. I think if they raised or removed the limit it could actually be the start of more consistent officiating, because they might actually start calling more of the actual fouls. In my opinion, the game has gravitated to where it is now due in part to officials' willingness to swallow their whistles, being aware of the weight of their calls and fouling players out.

It might be pretty great to watch games where the possibility of fouling out has been removed. Clearly, it affects even more than bench time, since players have to adjust their style/intensity of play based on the number of fouls they have as well.

[gep]

I'd really like to see the foul limit raised (or removed) in college basketball. What other sport do you see top talent sitting on the bench so much, for such an arbitrary reason?

What about... normal 5 fouls. But after the 5th foul, player sits out for 2-4 minutes, then gets back in after the next media timeout... or something like that. Then, after 3 or so of this (after 5 fouls), player then "fouls out" and cannot get back in the game.

[gep]

During the Harvard/New Mexico game, I thought I heard one commentator say that Harvard's offensive strategy is to go fast and hard for the first 10-12 seconds... and if there's no shot, then slow down, look for a good shot, and if not there, then take it hard for the last 10-12 seconds of the shot clock. Seems like a controlled stall ball.:cool:

[FerryFor50]

During the Harvard/New Mexico game, I thought I heard one commentator say that Harvard's offensive strategy is to go fast and hard for the first 10-12 seconds... and if there's no shot, then slow down, look for a good shot, and if not there, then take it hard for the last 10-12 seconds of the shot clock. Seems like a controlled stall ball.:cool:

I wonder where Harvard's coach learned that... :)

[ice-9]

What about... normal 5 fouls. But after the 5th foul, player sits out for 2-4 minutes, then gets back in after the next media timeout... or something like that. Then, after 3 or so of this (after 5 fouls), player then "fouls out" and cannot get back in the game.

I never understood why college basketball doesn't just adopt the rules of the NBA en masse.

I understand that in a previous era, the maturity of a college player was vastly different to a professional one. But in this modern era, the distinction is blurred. I say make it 48 minutes, 6 fouls per player, farther 3-point line, et. al.