From beyond the arc
 

Opinions please: Are we at the point now where a 3 ptr is actually in some ways an easier shot to make than a hard, semi contested drive to the hoop, or even a short pull up midrange in traffic? I know the shot is from farther away, but honestly some of the games I see the kids can get it up there effortlessly, yet struggle with a lot of closer shots. Maybe they just practice the three more now, but it sure explains most of the drive and kick strategy now, especially in non shot clock games, where patient and deliberate teams can wait until a wide open three is there for them. Don't get me wrong, I love the addition of the arc to the game those many years ago, and maybe that's my point. It's been around awhile now and it's common and fairly easy to make...perhaps we will see in the coming years NFHS move the line back and/or adopt the shot clock.

You'll see the line moved back before the shot clock gets added.

That's both my hope and my prediction.

Gender Bender ???
 

For both genders?

Of course; isn't that what Title IX is for?

Good point, Billy. It's possible they could allow a state adoption to move the line for boys. It might be the first gender distinction NFHS has made, though.

If it's going to remain a part of the game I'd like to see the line moved back, and when I say back I mean a substantial distance. And while we're at it, take it out of the game completely at the youth level. I worked with an official who moved to our area from NY and he mentioned that some of their youth leagues only allow the three in the last four minutes of the game.

Basketball size?

I don't understand the resistance to a shot clock. In WA we have a shot clock for both boys and girls and I don't see the "woe is me, the world is ending" level of problems that many in this forum profess will occur if a shot clock is implemented.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

Yes we do have the odd hiccup from a shot clock operator - mostly at the lower levels where kids are running the clocks. But very rarely at the varsity level. I will take what we have over slow action-less basketball every day!<O:p</O:p

I knew I was forgetting something.

I just don't see a need.

I think it has to do with money. Maybe they don't think all schools can afford the shot clock. I think that is not the case, but maybe the Fed does. Also not all states are using 3 man mechanics. I don't know, but maybe they don't want the shot clock with only 2 man mechanics.

Agree. Very few games would be improved by it and it cost a lot of money to address an issue that infrequently exists.

Most games would be improved by 3-personwhereas only 1 out of a 100 (maybe 1000) might be improved with a shot clock.

No shot clock here. And no slow action basketball here either.

I will give you the "money" argument and even the "we don't need it" argument, but I don't buy the "it will cause too many problems" argument. I just don't see it.

I don't think it will cause any problems either. My point is how many states only use 2 man mechanics? Here the largest schools are the only with 3 man. What I am saying is, they may not want to implement shot clock with only 2 man mechanics. Maybe they only want shot clock in games with 3 man mechanics. I don't know why that would matter, but just a thought.

The rarity of shot clock issues is exceeded by the rarity of games where it's needed.

IOW, it may not create many headaches, but it would solve even fewer.

It's like using napalm to kill a spider in the back yard.

Scoring averages go down yearly, in my opinion largely due to increasing demand of the player going to the bucket, or in the post to play through contact.

Making the three-ball longer, or shortening possessions with a clock will only serve to launch even worse shots, and even less scoring.

Agreed. NY uses it at its top BV level (AA) which I think makes sense. More of those kids are going to play at the next level so it doesn't hurt to let them get used to it. That being said it's not as though those kids would stand around playing stall ball if we didn't use it.

The headache comes with finding people to run the thing. In NYC I'd say 98% of the table crews are students. It's tough enough finding kids who can keep a proper scorebook in some places let alone finding someone who can do the shot clock correctly. I've had games where there's an extra 10-15 minutes added on in real time just to deal with mistakes.

The Land That Time Forgot ...
 

What? There are states other than Connecticut that don't work three person games? Get outta here.

Closer To Becoming An Esteemed Forum Member ???
 

Oh. My. God. Eight years as a Forum member and this has never happened to me before. How do I get Adam's post bronzed? Should I thank all the little people for making this happen?

Disclaimer: admittedly small sample size

Data from Missouri Class 5 (largest class) championship teams (4 girls teams, 4 boys teams) - Season averages:
Girls shot .347
Boys shot .342

That's a lot of bricks:eek:

Not great. 3-10.

I'm a FIBA guy so there is obviously some difference since shot clock is the norm. Are there problems with the shot clock you bet but its just part of what you deal with. The better the game the less problems. Dealing with this since it is a rule has more of a perception of being more of game management rather then an inconvenience.

I also think personally (as I've shared here before) that the shot clock is better for promotion/development of more basketball players. If you are a kid is it more likely you will play/want to get better/ shoot more on your own if your teams puts up 60-80 shots pergame and everyone is expected to be able to take and make one. Or if your team puts up 30-50 shots and there are only specific conditions in which someone other than 2-3 three players in specific spots/roles will shoot. Are games more fun when they are player controlled or coach controlled? Shot clock puts more possesions and control in players hands and decision making ability.

That is my mini soap box.

In terms of how often it happens. The all out stall does not happen all that often in Maine which is on our border but the game does change in the 4th guarter once someone has a lead almost everytime, and often in games once a team gets up the offensive/coach control goes into overdrive. In gaems where there is any dispartiy in teams at all almots invariably at one point a team will try to stall to either end/balance out the game.

Behind the arc. In terms of shooting theory. You make more shots when you are on balance and your arm and body movement create singular positive energy on the ball. The more often you take contested shots or try to shoot over/around or through contact/defense the more often you are taking shots that don't meet that criteria. From a strictly bio-mecahnic perspective taking uncontested jump shots should be a better percentage then highly contested interior finishes. That being said because of coaching most kids are much more adept from early ages on and being able to finish in close regardless of the situation then just make open jumpshots. That is IMO one of the key differences between the North American game and International game over seas. The best kids in North America are trained to become proficient 1 on 1 players who can score a variety of ways vs individual defense. The best kids in other international coutnries are trained to be great shooters and to find ways to get themselves or other players open shots.

Not sure I entirely agree with that.

Even with perfect form, distance degrades accuracy. The farther from the basket a player is, there is a smaller and smaller set of trajectories x forces that will even have a chance of going in. Inside, the successful trajectories and forces are more plentiful. You have two independent factors diminishing the probability of a make....distances and defensive pressure. Those curves will certainly cross at some point where the pressure exceeds the effect of distance but I don't think it is always true that and open shot (at any distance) is better than an interior shot, even if highly contested.

Now, if you were referring to an uncontested 12-15' jump shot, I might agree, but not necessarily at 20' or 25'.

I Took Physics In High School, They Made Me Regular ...
 

Will this be on the test?

I disagree somewhat with your statement Cam that a longer shot has a lower chance of going in than one of a shorter distance. I think the 3 point range, lets say 20-23', has become so practiced and the necessary arc, as you say, has been perfected my many, that it IS a more makeable shot. A player that is highly proficient at this distance might struggle with the release and arc necessary for a 10' from the short corner, for instance. Of course if this player practiced this shorter range as much as the 20 footer he might feel more comfortable, but where does he spend most of his practice time at? Beyond the arc, and why not...it's worth 1/3 more

I shake my head at BM's comments about math, then I see this. ;)

Um... no. The degree to which someone must be accurate increases with the square of the distance from the basket. Your statement is not even close to correct. What do you think the percentage success rate on dunks and layups are? Significantly higher than midrange or longrange shots, despite the fact that they are more highly contested.

Ah yes, the new 2.6666666 point shot.

Yes, I'm trying to help Billy with his physics:D

...and Camron with geometry

Repeating Decimal Rational Number ???
 

Is this a 2013-14 change? I thought that the rule changes didn't come out until April?

Inverse Square Law ???
 

I'm certain that this will be on the test.

My fault assuming you can shoot the distance of open jump shot without changing to faulty mechanics to gain power and sacrifice accuracy. This is the real issue. Because we can't shoot accurately with strength at range until years into players development for success, strategy and quality practice the number of reps (hours of practice/game situations) in finishing on the interior is just so much greater then long shots people get better at them. The same way I'm better at eating cereal then I am playing the piano. Could I be as good or better yes. Once I had the capability I would have to spend a ridiculous amount of time on playing piano though. Got my mastery of eating early ;)

We're talking the mechanics of shooting, not what distance a specific player has practiced at the most.

And it is 1/2 more, not 1/3 more. ;)

Still, no matter how much a player practices at any given distance, the laws of physics will still always say that the ability to make a shot will go down in relation to the distance....even if the player is sufficiently strong and maintains perfect form at any distance. The effective target gets smaller and smaller the farther away it gets and, as a result, gets more difficult to hit.

Yes if that were the only determining factor I would agree. Someone with the actual science would have to confirm, but anecdotally having to adjust/practice to compensate for loss of results for 1 factor (distance) seems more repeatable to me. Having to adjust body, tragectory, release point, counterbalance fighting biomechanics and energy producers to keep the ball on line and on lift vs 1 or defensive players and potential contact seems like its more difficult to repeat in a uncontrolled environment. Now we are back to practice though.

Gold Medal Winner If It Were An Olympic Sport ...
 

I'm what you call an expert.