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

[-jk]

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

[freshmanjs]

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.

[Newton_14]

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.

[freshmanjs]

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.

[ChrisP]

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).

[Atldukie79]

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?

[FerryFor50]

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.

[OldPhiKap]

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.

[FerryFor50]

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? ;)

[OldPhiKap]

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 . . . .

[hustleplays]

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.

[JPtheGame]

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.

[ice-9]

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.

[BigWayne]

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.

[NSDukeFan]

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.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

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.

[91_92_01_10_15]

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?

[rsvman]

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.

[flyingdutchdevil]

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.

[Steven43]

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.

[Scorp4me]

Unfortunately, Quinn Cook isn't there yet...but he will with more time and practice. Hopefully.

He's a Junior (and the end of the year at that), they'll still be saying that around here when he graduates.

And to Steven who said just keep doing what you're doing. What they were doing allowed Carolina to catch up to within 3 at the end of the first half, no one was playing stall ball then. It's never so simple as keep on keeping on :p

[peterjswift]

I would just throw in another plug for stall ball that has been discussed before, though I didn't notice in this thread.

Rest. Stall ball is usually being used in end-of-game situations, and players have played quite a bit and could potentially be gassed. Stall ball gives them a few seconds of a breather here and there so they retain their energy to play effective defense. Someone pointed out in another thread that Coach K tells his team that they never rest on defense, so the only other option when rest is needed is on offense.

The downside is that this potentially gives the other team an opportunity to rest on defense...but if they're already losing, chances are they are more gassed than Duke, so Duke should still have the upper hand.

I've always thought that one of the most effectively ways that Duke prepares to play is physical conditioning. Duke's players seem more equipped to play at a high level over 40 minutes than most other teams. Other teams might be able to put up a strong effort in the first half of a game, but eventually Duke's conditioning wears them down in the second half (or, more often, the second half of the first half...). I think part of this conditioning is using the time on the court appropriately to get the most out of each player, hence stall ball or "rest offense."

[Kfanarmy]

...
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.

I completely get the purpose-- up by a two points per minute remaining ( I really think three is more realistic), limit the number of posessions, thereby limit the opportunity for the opponent to come back. I'm just not sure, nor have I ever seen anyone do a just analysis, that it actually increases the likelihood of a team winning...given that team is already ahead based upon the way the two teams have played up to that point.

I think you give up a lot in stall ball:
You give up the initiative on offense;
and then give up the flow of your offense.
You give up the number of options available to score per possession in a longer shot clock.
You allow the other team to rest on defense for 30 seconds, likely giving them more energy for the offense they need.

I know it has "worked," but I'm not convinced that continuing to play just the way they had been wouldn't have won every one of those games. afterall getting the lead is required to execute the strategy. Like the prevent defense in football, I think it really is a "safe" end-of-game strategy that isn't safe at all compared to the whole of game strategy that got the lead to begin with.

[JTH]

I am OK with stall ball. There are good arguments for and against but IMO, shortening the game and limiting the number of possessions is usually the best strategy when you have a significant lead in the latter stages of the game. It is not perfect and there have been a few examples cited in this thread where it may have backfired. But, this is a relatively small number compared to the number of games where it has been used with successful results.

In the end, I believe it is a matter of opinion that can not be proven one way or the other. No one knows how many games we might have "blown" by continuing to play up tempo after building a nice lead. It can be excruciating to lose a game when it appears the opponent came back after things were slowed down, but no more excruciating than feeling like you had a nice lead and blew it by continuing to go at the same pace.

Isn't that basically what happened to unc when Austin Rivers silenced the rams ? I believe they had a 10 point lead with about 2 min 30 seconds left and could have slowed the pace much more than they did. Sweet misery for them.

[Trapper_John]

My impression has been that stall ball is especially ineffective vs a zone defense. Obviously, it's easier to run time against zone, but the resulting shot is not likely to be high quality. Vs. man, a simple clear out and penetrate can net a quality shot (although not always), taking little time to execute. Good shots vs a zone involve more set-up--swing the ball side to side on the perimeter, dump to the high post (and then out for a shooter, etc.), skip passes, etc. etc. When you start your offense with 10 seconds on the shot clock, this limits the number of passes, which limits the number of chances to catch defenders out of position. Beating a zone takes patience, which is one thing an offense cannot afford (ironically) during stall ball. Curious how this plays out against Syracuse in coming years.

[gus]

:
You give up the initiative on offense;

Since you're dictacting the pace of the game by going to the stall, I'm not sure how you can say you're "giving up the iniative". Exactly the opposite is happening.



and then give up the flow of your offense.
You give up the number of options available to score per possession in a longer shot clock.

Yes, that's the trade off. You reduce your points per possession, but limit the number of possessions possible.


I know it has "worked," but I'm not convinced that continuing to play just the way they had been wouldn't have won every one of those games.

Unfortunately there's really no way to prove that any of the games we used the stall would have been losses without the strategy. You have to accept the logic and the math, or not. I get why people don't like it: it's boring. You're not doing what got you the lead to begin with. But I've long ago accepted the logic and the math.

[gus]

My impression has been that stall ball is especially ineffective vs a zone defense.

Again -- getting a good shot is not the point of the stall. Eating clock is. A shot clock violation isn't even a terrible result (though not ideal). If your opponent doesn't have enough time to get the possessions they need to overcome the deficit, they lose.

[NYBri]

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.

The reason why 4 corners worked so well was personnel. Phil Ford was a master at it.

I don't mind stall ball, but it really reduces our options at the end of the shot clock with 6 seconds left. We usually end up heaving up a well covered three. If we looked to go to Jabari down low and let him operate or get fouled, I'd be happier.

[gwlaw99]

My impression has been that stall ball is especially ineffective vs a zone defense. Obviously, it's easier to run time against zone, but the resulting shot is not likely to be high quality. Vs. man, a simple clear out and penetrate can net a quality shot (although not always), taking little time to execute. Good shots vs a zone involve more set-up--swing the ball side to side on the perimeter, dump to the high post (and then out for a shooter, etc.), skip passes, etc. etc. When you start your offense with 10 seconds on the shot clock, this limits the number of passes, which limits the number of chances to catch defenders out of position. Beating a zone takes patience, which is one thing an offense cannot afford (ironically) during stall ball. Curious how this plays out against Syracuse in coming years.


I agree completely. You can still play stall ball to some extent. Just start at around 16 seconds not 8 seconds.

[JTH]

The reason why 4 corners worked so well was personnel. Phil Ford was a master at it.

I don't mind stall ball, but it really reduces our options at the end of the shot clock with 6 seconds left. We usually end up heaving up a well covered three. If we looked to go to Jabari down low and let him operate or get fouled, I'd be happier.

I agree that Phil Ford was excellent running the four corners. But even with him, unc lost the 1977 championship to Marquette after going 4 corners. I always felt that Dean used the 4 corners for more than just shortening the number of possessions, which is a major part of what K is doing with stall ball. Dean used it very often and very effectively to make opposing teams play man to man where he often had more talented players that the opposition could not match. With no shot clock, unc often got a lead, and would then spread the court to bring the other team out of the zone. That was the situation that Ford really excelled in. It seemed that he could have his way with any guard, one on one.

In the 1977 championship, most folks seem to agree that Dean went to the 4 corners to early with to small a lead and allowed an exhausted Marquette team a chance to come back. I know Al McGuire said that his team was spent and that gave them the chance to regroup. I was at that game (Atlanta, the old Omni) and felt the same way. I expect that some folks may rightly point out that unc had some injuries to key players (Tommy LaGuarde, Phil Ford and Walter Davis) but Ford and Davis played well. Marquette was probably the least talented team in the final four, but they played Al's very methodical and disciplined slow paced game and won it all.

I've said above that I'm OK with stall ball, but this was an example of where it was misused. Insufficient lead, to much time, you have the horses to run and the other team is gassed. I will always believe that Dean would have had his first championship then if he just had not let Marquette off the ropes.

[Dev11]

He's a Junior (and the end of the year at that), they'll still be saying that around here when he graduates.

Brian Zoubek was a player who was often lost on the court until mid-February of his senior year, and we now all remember him fondly. As we see written around here often, everybody runs their own race.

[Kfanarmy]

Since you're dictacting the pace of the game by going to the stall, I'm not sure how you can say you're "giving up the iniative". Exactly the opposite is happening.

I don't equate dictating pace and having the initiative. A team could theoretically dictate the pace of a game entirely and never try to score a point. This strategy is about preserving a lead by trying to limit the damage the other team can do. So while I would say Coach K is executing his strategy, he is giving up a significant amount of offensive initiative...unfortunately that also has a tendency to affect the Defense as well.


Unfortunately there's really no way to prove that any of the games we used the stall would have been losses without the strategy. You have to accept the logic and the math, or not. I get why people don't like it: it's boring. You're not doing what got you the lead to begin with. But I've long ago accepted the logic and the math.

I agree.
at the same time, you can't argue they were wins because of stall ball,,,only that the win included it for a period of time.

[Matches]

I know it has "worked," but I'm not convinced that continuing to play just the way they had been wouldn't have won every one of those games. afterall getting the lead is required to execute the strategy. Like the prevent defense in football, I think it really is a "safe" end-of-game strategy that isn't safe at all compared to the whole of game strategy that got the lead to begin with.

Yea I think the success or failure of the strategy is nearly impossible to measure. We'd win most games in which we have significant leads late no matter what strategy we employed (with the possible exception of our "pass the ball into the corner against the full-court trap" stratagem). On the other hand, we might have lost the games where stall-ball failed, too, esp. if players were gassed or whatever.

I have no problem with stall-ball in theory but I don't particularly like it with this team, if for no other reason than it takes the ball out of the hands of our two best players. I don't think Jabari touched the ball at all in the last 5 min Saturday night except where he got rebounds.

[Kedsy]

I have no problem with stall-ball in theory but I don't particularly like it with this team, if for no other reason than it takes the ball out of the hands of our two best players. I don't think Jabari touched the ball at all in the last 5 min Saturday night except where he got rebounds.

Well, he turned the ball over with 4:30 to go, so he must have touched it then.

But putting that aside, soon after 5 minutes to go, UNC went into foul mode. Duke didn't take a shot in the last five minutes, only free throws. I can't tell (and don't remember) whether Jabari touched the ball during the 35 seconds preceding our second shot clock violation at 3:36, but unless he caught an inbounds pass that probably would have been more or less his only opportunity after his turnover at 4:30.

[jv001]

I like the stall ball if we have a lead of 12-14 points with 5:00 minutes left. I'm afraid of stall ball if there's more time on the clock(5mins) because it takes us out of our offensive flow. If we have a 4-5 point lead, I like stall ball around the 3 min mark. But who am I to question Coach K. I'm just a fan that sits back and enjoys Duke games. He's the one putting in the long sleepless nights getting the team ready. GoDuke!

[Clay Feet POF]

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.
Brilliant!

I don’t like it, but I understand its merits. I am somewhat comfortable with a 2-3 minute stall, anything longer then I’m on pins and needles. Changing the focus from trying to Win to trying not to Lose might be difficult to recover from if the stall doesn’t work as planned.

But that why we have Coach K, he has to determine when to use it based on Time and players available.

[MChambers]

Well, he turned the ball over with 4:30 to go, so he must have touched it then.

But putting that aside, soon after 5 minutes to go, UNC went into foul mode. Duke didn't take a shot in the last five minutes, only free throws. I can't tell (and don't remember) whether Jabari touched the ball during the 35 seconds preceding our second shot clock violation at 3:36, but unless he caught an inbounds pass that probably would have been more or less his only opportunity after his turnover at 4:30.
If stall ball puts the other team in foul mode, all the better, especially with our shooters. Of the players likely to be on the floor, only Amile is a poor free throw shooter.

I do wish we were better against the press, but that doesn't have much to do with stall ball.

[sagegrouse]

Maybe my dyspepsia is receding, but since 2009, Duke has been OK or better at running the delay offense. Prior to that, we never seemed to score when we were holding the ball; it was like the NFL "Prevent Defense" -- "Prevent Victory," we call it. I credit Scheyer and Singler with making it work, at last.

This year, comme ci, comme ca. When we have problems, we seem to go into meltdown at the 4-5 minute mark, which hasn't necessarily been because of the delay offense.

Gary

[jv001]

Maybe my dyspepsia is receding, but since 2009, Duke has been OK or better at running the delay offense. Prior to that, we never seemed to score when we were holding the ball; it was like the NFL "Prevent Defense" -- "Prevent Victory," we call it. I credit Scheyer and Singler with making it work, at last.

This year, comme ci, comme ca. When we have problems, we seem to go into meltdown at the 4-5 minute mark, which hasn't necessarily been because of the delay offense.

Gary

Sage, maybe we begin calling the stall ball, "the mongoose". I think that was an offense we used when Gary Melchionni played at Duke. I agree regarding the so called prevent defense. It's a sure way to snatch a victory away from the team that goes into it. GoDuke!

[gus]

I don't equate dictating pace and having the initiative. A team could theoretically dictate the pace of a game entirely and never try to score a point.

A team could also decide to not bother lacing up at all. Not even Dean Smith pre-shot clock teams went an entire game without attempting to score. It's not a winning strategy.

You and I have different definitions of "taking the initiative". To me, forcing the other team to respond to your strategic move means you have the initiative. As already noted, Carolina had to change their defensive strategy: they began the desperate act of fouling to shorten Duke's possessions.

[ice-9]

I credit Scheyer and Singler with making it work, at last.

It was Nolan Smith that made it work primarily. He was often the guy holding the ball and making the play (often penetration to layup or kickout) during the last few seconds of a possession. It was beautiful stall ball, because often we'd ADD to the lead while eating clock.

[Kedsy]

Not even Dean Smith pre-shot clock teams went an entire game without attempting to score. It's not a winning strategy.

Well, they went an entire half. :cool:

[MChambers]

Maybe my dyspepsia is receding, but since 2009, Duke has been OK or better at running the delay offense. Prior to that, we never seemed to score when we were holding the ball; it was like the NFL "Prevent Defense" -- "Prevent Victory," we call it. I credit Scheyer and Singler with making it work, at last.

This year, comme ci, comme ca. When we have problems, we seem to go into meltdown at the 4-5 minute mark, which hasn't necessarily been because of the delay offense.

Gary
Funny, the single best stall ball I remember was against GT in the ACC tourney in 2004. Duke, led by Duhon, scored on more than 10 possessions. Just amazing.

Anybody else remember this or is my memory flawed?

[Newton_14]

I completely get the purpose-- up by a two points per minute remaining ( I really think three is more realistic), limit the number of posessions, thereby limit the opportunity for the opponent to come back. I'm just not sure, nor have I ever seen anyone do a just analysis, that it actually increases the likelihood of a team winning...given that team is already ahead based upon the way the two teams have played up to that point.

I think you give up a lot in stall ball:
You give up the initiative on offense;
and then give up the flow of your offense.
You give up the number of options available to score per possession in a longer shot clock.
You allow the other team to rest on defense for 30 seconds, likely giving them more energy for the offense they need.

I know it has "worked," but I'm not convinced that continuing to play just the way they had been wouldn't have won every one of those games. afterall getting the lead is required to execute the strategy. Like the prevent defense in football, I think it really is a "safe" end-of-game strategy that isn't safe at all compared to the whole of game strategy that got the lead to begin with.
I understand why you or any other reasonable person would question it, but for me, the comfort with the strategy comes from watching many many games over the years where a team had a solid lead in the final 5 to 6 minutes, only to throw it away and lose the game by not managing the clock at all, jacking up shots early in the clock, etc. In many of those cases, especially when it is an underdog with the lead (but not always), I have gotten the sense that winning the game was not enough, they wanted to bury the other team. That mindset ended up costing them the game. I can name two specific Clemson @ Unc games where that exact thing happened, which is incredible if you think about it. Both teams had a chance to end the O for Forever and threw it away hot dogging and not running clock when they had a big lead with 5 to go and could have easily sealed the deal by running the clock down to less than 5 every single possession. Unc had little to no chance of winning either game until Clemson got stupid.

Plus like someone else mentioned, we lost the lead in the first half even though we did not slow it down at all and were trying to score.

I just think there are several little and big things that are staples of K's program, that maybe we as fans take for granted, or maybe question, when it fact it helps lead to wins when all is said and done.

A few key items that come to mind:
1. Stall Ball- If you did a study, rare is the case we lose a game doing it, and we have won hundreds of games with it.
2. If the opponent scores with around 40-42 seconds or less remaining in the first half, the standing K rule is for our inbounder to delay the inbounds pass until the game clock has run down to 35 seconds. Insures we get the last shot
3. Similar to item 2. If we have the ball with 50-55 seconds remaining in the half, we take the first good shot available to insure we get a 2 for 1 situation and have the ball last before the half. (K is a big believer that the last possession prior to the half is hugely important and can give you great momentum heading into the 2nd half)
4. Always being aware of the shot clock. (Not talking about stall ball time. All points in the game prior to that). Rarely do you see a Duke team unaware of the shot clock such that it expires without them realizing they need to get a shot up. (This is mainly in road games as obviously the students help here by counting). How many times do you see other teams make this mistake?

I am sure there are countless others I am not remembering but those are 4 right off the top of my head. We are blessed!

[Newton_14]

Well, he turned the ball over with 4:30 to go, so he must have touched it then.

But putting that aside, soon after 5 minutes to go, UNC went into foul mode. Duke didn't take a shot in the last five minutes, only free throws. I can't tell (and don't remember) whether Jabari touched the ball during the 35 seconds preceding our second shot clock violation at 3:36, but unless he caught an inbounds pass that probably would have been more or less his only opportunity after his turnover at 4:30.

I made this same point texting with a guy today. A unc buddy had texted one our Duke buddies a tweet from our favorite guy (Bomani Jones) who was cracking that unc "held Duke without a FG for the last 6+ minutes" That is a total crock. Like you pointed out, a large percentage of those possessions ended up with Duke shooting free throws.

Plus and I don't know if this is good or bad but Duke is the ONLY program I know that does not explicitly go for showtime dunks after beating a desperation press with like less that 1;20 or so to go. We had numerous chances Saturday Night to do just that, and every time we pulled it back out and just let them foul us.

To be honest, while I did get nervous when we turned it over in the backcourt against the press, I never had the emotion that "OmG we are absolutely fixing to blow this game". Had the goal tend not happened and that 3 fell to cut it to I believe 6, I may have reached that emotion but if and buts and all that.

They never got closer than 8, so in my opinion we were never seriously threatened. Stall Ball did exactly what K wanted it to do. Got a win. We even covered the line.

[hustleplays]

I made this same point texting with a guy today. A unc buddy had texted one our Duke buddies a tweet from our favorite guy (Bomani Jones) who was cracking that unc "held Duke without a FG for the last 6+ minutes" That is a total crock. Like you pointed out, a large percentage of those possessions ended up with Duke shooting free throws.

Plus and I don't know if this is good or bad but Duke is the ONLY program I know that does not explicitly go for showtime dunks after beating a desperation press with like less that 1;20 or so to go. We had numerous chances Saturday Night to do just that, and every time we pulled it back out and just let them foul us.

To be honest, while I did get nervous when we turned it over in the backcourt against the press, I never had the emotion that "OmG we are absolutely fixing to blow this game". Had the goal tend not happened and that 3 fell to cut it to I believe 6, I may have reached that emotion but if and buts and all that.

They never got closer than 8, so in my opinion we were never seriously threatened. Stall Ball did exactly what K wanted it to do. Got a win. We even covered the line.

In my appropriately humble opinion, this has been a great thread on Stall Ball. I learned a lot. Thanks everyone!

My summary take:

1] Practice Stall Ball enough so that it becomes intuitive
2] Helps to have a really good PG and several very good ball handlers [duh, I know -- making a full list here]
3] Don't start it too early re the game clock [a function of extent of lead and possible remaining possessions]
4] Do it with good FT shooters
5] Execute it with a "want to win" mentality, not a "don't lose the lead" mentality
6] Have to remember to transition to high intensity defense -- different mindset each transition, not that easy to do
7] Against a good zone, start your final shot sequence earlier than 10"
8] Trust Coach K's infinite wisdom :-)
9] Now and then, maybe every third possession, or once or twice during the Stall Ball phase, attack on offense, to gain surprise and keep defenses wondering whether they will see Stall Ball or attack mode.
10] Care more about winning than athletic aesthetics [this is the one I have to become more mature about]

I can watch Stall Ball now with a more nuanced, less frustrated and desperate perspective. Thanks!

Go Duke!

[g-money]

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).

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.

I'm in agreement with BlueDevilBrowns here. I totally get the logic and math behind stall ball, and most years I would endorse it wholeheartedly. I just don't think it's a good idea with this year's team, because this year's team has struggled (and in some cases, failed) at the end of several games in which it had a lead.

IMO, if, with 5 minutes left in Saturday's game, Coach K had told the team, "I want you to put your foot on their throat and beat them by 30," and it actually succeeded, it would've built confidence among the players about execution at the end of games. Could it have blown up in our face? Yes, I'll admit that's possible as well. But at that juncture it's a gamble that I, in my infinite(simal) wisdom, would have taken. There's no better way to build confidence than to give your rival an 82-50 beat down as you head into the postseason.

Now that we're approaching the part of the season where a team starts walking on a high wire without a net, I am praying to the basketball gods that if we go down, it doesn't happen through the evaporation of a late lead. On a positive note, we've had at least a few games now where we've experienced success by executing late in the game (The MD win comes to mind); hopefully our guys can channel these positive results when we undoubtedly encounter a close game or two in the weeks ahead.

[hillsborodevil]

If your team is winning and playing well, why change your tempo to stall ball? If it is not broke, don't fix it. Very simple logic to winning - score more points than the other team.

As others have noted - this year's team experiences long scoring droughts. Playing stall ball is like playing Russian roulette.

I remember an epic Duke/UNC game back in the 70's with Bill Foster at the helm. UNC started the game with the Four Corners. Score was something like 9 - 7 Duke at halftime. I disliked the four corners as a kid then, and I dislike stall ball now (a modern and mini four corners version).

Watching Dean and his Four Corners was compared to watching a snail's race. The NCAA had to institute the shot clock. Maybe a topic for another thread – but I hope the NCAA changes the shot clock for the men's league to 24 seconds.

[MChambers]

For some reason I can't quote the message above, but no, the game was not 9-7 at half. It was 7-0, and UNC had not hit the backboard.

Hence Kedsy's reference to UNC going an entire half without attempting to score. Jim Sumner has a great article on the game, but I can't find the link right now.

[gus]

As others have noted - this year’s team experiences long scoring droughts.

This an argument *for* the stall, not against.

[gus]

This an argument *for* the stall, not against.

Let me expand on that.

Scoring droughts happen with or without the stall. Using your Russian roullette metaphor: if you're forced to play Russian Roullette, doesn't it make sense to limit the number of times you have to pull the trigger?

People make reference to the football "prevent d". Stall ball is an offensive strategy: a more direct football analogy is running the ball when you're leading and time is short. You're still trying to gain yards, but the primary goals are to not turn over the ball and to eat clock.

[Matches]

It was Nolan Smith that made it work primarily. He was often the guy holding the ball and making the play (often penetration to layup or kickout) during the last few seconds of a possession. It was beautiful stall ball, because often we'd ADD to the lead while eating clock.

Nolan Smith was absolute gold in stall ball. Watching him dribble away 25-30 seconds off the clock, then score right as it approached zero, was just a dagger in the heart of the opposition. Duhon was, as someone noted upthread, really good at it too. Scheyer was good. Nolan was just an assassin, though.

Shame we never really got to see Kyrie in that role for a full season - he would've killed at it too.

[TampaDuke]

I've come to begrudgingly accept stall ball. That said, here's a few more thoughts on why I'm not a huge fan:


It allows the officials back into the game.
It makes it easier for the other team to trap since they know we will pass up nearly any shot other than a wide open dunk. There's a reason we always seem to end up in the corner or just over the half court line.
Relatedly, nearly every other team knows exactly how to play defense against a stalling team to maximize turnovers, FTs from the wrong guy, etc. My sense is its easier to become an excellent defender of the stall than it is to become an excellent executor of the stall.
In my sense, the stall mentality seems to impact our defensive mentality. I would love to see a statistical analysis comparing opponents' offensive efficiency while we are in a stall versus their offensive efficiency while we are not in a stall.
It emphasizes the pressure/choke factor to a greater degree. You can almost see it on the players' faces, in their demeanor and with the body language, when the lead starts to slip away. Some might call it momentum, but I think it has a lot to do with the players becoming tighter as they realize they just let a large lead slip away. Compounding it is the demeanor of the opponent who just minutes before looked demoralized but now seems to have renewed vigor and a sense of purpose.

Anyways, just my two cents.

[BigWayne]

I don't like stall ball, but not just because it sometimes loses a game or makes it a lot closer than it should be.
I don't like watching it. If all I cared about was that Duke wins the game, then I can just tune it to Sportscenter
or read the morning paper the next day and see if they won. I watch Duke basketball games because I want to
see our guys playing basketball well and hopefully better than the other team. Watching a guy stand there
dribbling around for 30 seconds and then chucking up a bad shot is not what I tuned in to watch.

[Kedsy]

I would love to see a statistical analysis comparing opponents' offensive efficiency while we are in a stall versus their offensive efficiency while we are not in a stall.

I'm not sure this would be a fair comparison. If we're in the stall, the players have also presumably been instructed not to foul on defense and simply to try and make the other team take some time before they score. It's a lot harder to play D if you're not allowed to foul, and really the point of the stall is take the opponent's offensive efficiency out of the equation.

[Steven43]

Carolina had to change their defensive strategy: they began the desperate act of fouling to shorten Duke's possessions.
Yeah, well that deliberate act of fouling got the lead down dramatically in a very short span of time. If UNC had just hit a couple more shots and Duke had missed a few more free throws (we haven't shot free throws that well in a long time) this would have been a real nail-biter. It very easily could have happened. And if they had somehow managed to get it to overtime Duke would have likely lost since we had completely gotten out of our offensive flow. In my opinion stall ball is unnecessary, boring, and potentially self-defeating. For me it took the shine off a brilliantly-executed, exuberant, passionate performance.

[gus]

I don't like stall ball, but not just because it sometimes loses a game or makes it a lot closer than it should be.
I don't like watching it. If all I cared about was that Duke wins the game, then I can just tune it to Sportscenter
or read the morning paper the next day and see if they won. I watch Duke basketball games because I want to
see our guys playing basketball well and hopefully better than the other team. Watching a guy stand there
dribbling around for 30 seconds and then chucking up a bad shot is not what I tuned in to watch.

I don't disagree, but the guy making decisions is ultimately judged on wins and championships, not on how exciting individual games are. He'll choose the strategy that makes winning the most likely outcome.

[jv001]

Yeah, well that deliberate act of fouling got the lead down dramatically in a very short span of time. If UNC had just hit a couple more shots and Duke had missed a few more free throws (we haven't shot free throws that well in a long time) this would have been a real nail-biter. It very easily could have happened. And if they had somehow managed to get it to overtime Duke would have likely lost since we had completely gotten out of our offensive flow. In my opinion stall ball is unnecessary, boring, and potentially self-defeating. For me it took the shine off a brilliantly-executed, exuberant, passionate performance.

That basket interference call sure helped our cause. This team has had a hard time closing out games and I bet Coach K has scratched his head many times wondering whether to use the slow down game or not. GoDuke!

[gus]

Yeah, well that deliberate act of fouling got the lead down dramatically in a very short span of time. If UNC had just hit a couple more shots and Duke had missed a few more free throws (we haven't shot free throws that well in a long time) this would have been a real nail-biter. It very easily could have happened. And if they had somehow managed to get it to overtime Duke would have likely lost since we had completely gotten out of our offensive flow. In my opinion stall ball is unnecessary, boring, and potentially self-defeating. For me it took the shine off a brilliantly-executed, exuberant, passionate performance.

You're being melodramatic. Duke won by twelve. That's more than "a couple of more [made] shots" for carolina and a few more missed free throws for Duke. The closest they got was 8, after Paige's four point play. At that point there were 2:49 left. Without Carolina fouling there probably would have been 5 or 6 more possessions. I suppose there is a way they could have won, but you have to construct some pretty unlikely scenarios for that; mathematically possible, but very unlikely. And all of this is with Duke turning it over 6 times in the last 5 minutes!

I also dispute the notion that players forget how to play offense just because of stall ball. I think that's silly. You just don't see Duke have to come out of the stall very often... because the strategy works.

[Troublemaker]

One thing that could've helped in the last few minutes of the game was a double-team of Paige when he's coming off a down screen. That is, when's coming off a McAdoo pick for a catch-and-shoot, I'd like our big man to pop out and help challenge the shot, forcing Paige to dump the ball to a presumably rolling McAdoo. Paige moves too well off-the-ball for any of our guards to consistently chase him around picks. We already try to double-team him when he has the ball going into a ball screen. Might as well double him when he's running off picks for a catch-and-shoot as well.

Sorry, not a stallball post, but something I thought was relevant to how to protect a lead against a hot shooter down the stretch.

[Indoor66]

You're being melodramatic. Duke won by twelve. That's more than "a couple of more [made] shots" for carolina and a few more missed free throws for Duke. The closest they got was 8, after Paige's four point play. At that point there were 2:49 left. Without Carolina fouling there probably would have been 5 or 6 more possessions. I suppose there is a way they could have won, but you have to construct some pretty unlikely scenarios for that; mathematically possible, but very unlikely. And all of this is with Duke turning it over 6 times in the last 5 minutes!

I also dispute the notion that players forget how to play offense just because of stall ball. I think that's silly. You just don't see Duke have to come out of the stall very often... because the strategy works.

The fact is, the issue is how many and not how. Thus far, K has come out on the long end of the how many a lot more than on the short end. The strategy works.

[TampaDuke]

I'm not sure this would be a fair comparison. If we're in the stall, the players have also presumably been instructed not to foul on defense and simply to try and make the other team take some time before they score. It's a lot harder to play D if you're not allowed to foul, and really the point of the stall is take the opponent's offensive efficiency out of the equation.

No doubt they're not supposed to foul when we're protecting a large lead late in the game. No disagreement there. Not sure what you mean by "taking the opponent's offensive efficiency out of the equation"? I know we're trying to shorten the game by limiting possessions, but are you saying that it doesn't matter if they score more per possession? That seems counterintuitive to me, but I might be misunderstanding you.

In any event, my only point here is that if the use of the stall on offense nearly always coincides with the tactic of playing less intense defense to avoid fouls, then that factor (the loose defense) should surely be part of the calculus in deciding whether the stall is good strategy or not. Perhaps looking at an opponent's offensive efficiencies is not the best way to account for it, but it should be accounted for in some fashion.

The assumption that we can make the other team use 15 seconds of clock on average when we are in stall mode seems inaccurate to me, particularly when we are almost always also trying to avoid fouling on defense.

[Kedsy]

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.


No doubt they're not supposed to foul when we're protecting a large lead late in the game. No disagreement there. Not sure what you mean by "taking the opponent's offensive efficiency out of the equation"? I know we're trying to shorten the game by limiting possessions, but are you saying that it doesn't matter if they score more per possession? That seems counterintuitive to me, but I might be misunderstanding you.

In any event, my only point here is that if the use of the stall on offense nearly always coincides with the tactic of playing less intense defense to avoid fouls, then that factor (the loose defense) should surely be part of the calculus in deciding whether the stall is good strategy or not. Perhaps looking at an opponent's offensive efficiencies is not the best way to account for it, but it should be accounted for in some fashion.

The assumption that we can make the other team use 15 seconds of clock on average when we are in stall mode seems inaccurate to me, particularly when we are almost always also trying to avoid fouling on defense.

It is part of the calculus. If you look at the math as -jk outlined it (quoted above), you'll see that he's expecting the opponent to score almost 2 points per possession. Since in general the best offenses in the country score 1.2 ppp, and UNC, for example, scores on average 1.09 ppp, being OK with almost 2 points per possession assumes we're going to play porous defense. Our only goals on D presumably are to avoid fouling and make them run a few seconds of clock. So, no, it doesn't matter if they score more per possession, that's already assumed and added in. And that's what I mean about taking the opponent's offensive efficiency out of the equation.

[TampaDuke]

It is part of the calculus. If you look at the math as -jk outlined it (quoted above), you'll see that he's expecting the opponent to score almost 2 points per possession. Since in general the best offenses in the country score 1.2 ppp, and UNC, for example, scores on average 1.09 ppp, being OK with almost 2 points per possession assumes we're going to play porous defense. Our only goals on D presumably are to avoid fouling and make them run a few seconds of clock. So, no, it doesn't matter if they score more per possession, that's already assumed and added in. And that's what I mean about taking the opponent's offensive efficiency out of the equation.

Thanks for the clarification. I can see what you're saying. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but how does this calculus compare to the average non-stall/normal defense? What are the average possession times/efficiencies in a non-stall offense versus what you would see in the stall? If the tradeoff for running more clock is that we are less efficient on offense and at the same time the opponent is more efficient on offense, it seems the number of reduced possessions for the other team would need to be pretty high for us to start employing the stall above the 5-minute mark as we seem to do. I'd like to see how those numbers compare to the average game pace. Is the tradeoff worth it?

BTW, I'm not necessarily against the stall, but I do question going to it a little too early at times.

[rsvman]

I don't like stall ball, but not just because it sometimes loses a game or makes it a lot closer than it should be.
I don't like watching it. Watching Duke basketball, it turns out, is entirely voluntary.

If all I cared about was that Duke wins the game..... I can assure that that's all many people care about. Even in the worst-case scenario, Duke is only playing stall ball for 4 or 5 minutes of playing time, right? So you can be thoroughly entertained by watching the first 3/4 of the game. And, since stall ball usually works, and you don't like to watch it, you could then turn the game off and check the result on SportsCenter or in your morning paper. Best of both worlds.
For me personally, I'm much more entertained when the team not only plays well, but goes on to win the game. And I prefer to watch to the end, even if the game is played at a slower tempo. To each his own, I guess.

I watch Duke basketball games because I want to
see our guys playing basketball well and hopefully better than the other team. Watching a guy stand there
dribbling around for 30 seconds and then chucking up a bad shot is not what I tuned in to watch. So we've heard that it's not pretty. True. But a basketball game is not a painting on a museum wall or a symphony. It's a contest. The point of the contest is to win. If stall ball helps us to win, I'm good with it.
Now we are hearing that it's not entertaining enough. Well, OK, but a basketball game is not a movie or a play. It's a contest, and the point of the contest is to win.
If you all you want is entertainment, there are plenty of other options available.

[-jk]

Thanks for the clarification. I can see what you're saying. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but how does this calculus compare to the average non-stall/normal defense? What are the average possession times/efficiencies in a non-stall offense versus what you would see in the stall? If the tradeoff for running more clock is that we are less efficient on offense and at the same time the opponent is more efficient on offense, it seems the number of reduced possessions for the other team would need to be pretty high for us to start employing the stall above the 5-minute mark as we seem to do. I'd like to see how those numbers compare to the average game pace. Is the tradeoff worth it?

BTW, I'm not necessarily against the stall, but I do question going to it a little too early at times.

From observation, I think the usual time to start the stall it is when we're more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game.

-jk

[Clay Feet POF]

In my appropriately humble opinion, this has been a great thread on Stall Ball. I learned a lot. Thanks everyone!

My summary take:

1] Practice Stall Ball enough so that it becomes intuitive
2] Helps to have a really good PG and several very good ball handlers [duh, I know -- making a full list here]
3] Don't start it too early re the game clock [a function of extent of lead and possible remaining possessions]
4] Do it with good FT shooters
5] Execute it with a "want to win" mentality, not a "don't lose the lead" mentality
6] Have to remember to transition to high intensity defense -- different mindset each transition, not that easy to do
7] Against a good zone, start your final shot sequence earlier than 10"
8] Trust Coach K's infinite wisdom :-)
9] Now and then, maybe every third possession, or once or twice during the Stall Ball phase, attack on offense, to gain surprise and keep defenses wondering whether they will see Stall Ball or attack mode.
10] Care more about winning than athletic aesthetics [this is the one I have to become more mature about]

I can watch Stall Ball now with a more nuanced, less frustrated and desperate perspective. Thanks!

Go Duke!

What a thoughtful post! Really nice to see

[Kedsy]

From observation, I think the usual time to start the stall it is when we're more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game.

-jk

Using very rough math that makes sense -- if there are two possessions a minute and the opponent scores 2 points per possession, that gives them 4 points per minute. If we can score 1 ppp, that gives us 2 ppm, and gives our opponent a net 2 points per minute. So if we're ahead by more than twice as many points as minutes left when we start the stall, we ought to be ahead at the end of the game.

While it's true we might not score 1 ppp, it's also true our combined possessions might add up to more than 30 seconds per exchange and thus create fewer than two possessions per minute. So hopefully that evens out. If it doesn't, then to win we'd have to do something like get a couple of stops to keep their ppp under 2. All in all, if you start at the point you suggest, it seems you should have a really good chance to win.

[TruBlu]

From observation, I think the usual time to start the stall it is when we're more than twice as many points as minutes left in the game.

-jk

If we play UNC again, here's hoping we start stall ball at halftime.

[tele]

The fact is, the issue is how many and not how. Thus far, K has come out on the long end of the how many a lot more than on the short end. The strategy works.

I agree. To me running this endgame stall is no different than playing for the last shot, repeatedly. Hard to see how this would hurt the team and might just be good practice for those cclose game on the line last shot situations. It is a little boring, I suppose.

The interesting part of it to me is seeing when opposing coaches decide they need to start fouling. I think most miscalculate this and the game is over before they know it. I have my own idea of how you determine this, but won't post it here where future opponents might see it. I will say that this miscalculation may be why the stall ball works more often than not, as much as what the players do or don't do on the court.

[Newton_14]

I hear all the folks saying it is bad for this team and understand where you are coming from but I will point out we have not lost a single game this year using Stall Ball.

There are valid points on both sides, but like I said earlier, I see teams lose by not employing it (when they should) a lot more times that I see Duke or anyone else lose by employing. K's winning percentage in games where he went to the strategy is incredibly high. If Duke lost often while employing it, the anti-stall ball argument would have much more reason. With the really high success rate I just cannot argue against using it.

[-jk]

Pitt tried to give it away. Could really have used up a little more clock a few times. Phew!

GTHC!

-jk

[Kedsy]

Pitt tried to give it away. Could really have used up a little more clock a few times. Phew!

GTHC!

-jk

I was thinking the same thing as I watched the game -- if only Pitt could have employed a decent stall. Of course as bad as they shot free throws, even the stall might not have helped them.

At least they managed to win in the end.

[rsvman]

I was thinking that they need to decide whether they want to run some clock or attack the basket. On several occasions they were caught in a sort of "in between" scenario and it didn't work very well for them at all.

[1 24 90]

Did anyone watch the Nebraska blown lead against OSU? I was wondering if stall ball came into play in that game.