He, as a coach, isn't known for his offensive coaching abilities. How will he handle reorganizing his "slow and low" style of play to get shots off in time?
How will Dixon deal with the 30 second clock?
- Thread starter KeatonsCorner
- Start date
Go look at last season or any past season and see how many times Pitt shot later than 30 seconds. You will be surprised to discover it was fairly rare statistically. Doubt it will affect anything, really, despite the urban legend-like perception out there.
While true, quick shots don't exactly equal good shots.
Dixon's offense is very systematic and pointed towards patience and getting an optimal, singular attempt........... will he adjust?
Dixon's offense is very systematic and pointed towards patience and getting an optimal, singular attempt........... will he adjust?
Not much will change. Dixon, like a whole lot of other coaches, will just slowly encourage their teams to shoot a little tiny bit quicker. Instead of waiting for the absolute perfect shot, maybe they'll just take the first really good shot.
Dixon has always encouraged taking the first really good shot (meaning a high percentage shot). This doesn't include, of course, the taking of a wide open 3-pt shot by a poor outside shooter. Some folks don't understand what a really good shot is. For some players who don't shoot jumpers well it is only a dunk or layup. For a consistent 35-40% long jump shooter it is that first completely open 3-point shot. It is not, however, the first completely open look from any location by any player on the court.
Depending on how many guys on Dixon's roster are capable of creating their own offense in any given season, that first really good shot may come earlier or later in the shot clock. Nothing much will change. The only time that first really good shot might be passed on is late in a game with a good lead when the primary object is to burn clock.
FWIW--IMHO, the shortening of the shot clock across all of college basketball will not change the game as some hope. Scoring will not go up noticeably nor will the numbers of possessions or overall pace because most teams already take nearly all their shots prior to 30 seconds anyway. The change will prove illusory and little or no added offensive excitement will ensue. Some fans (RAGO fans) are going to be in for a major disappointment.
I am not sure the change in clock makes a big difference for Pitt, or other teams for that matter. I think. More possessions per game is a given, but the state of the game across the nation suggests to me shooting percentages will be lower, and scoring will be about the same. I am hoping I am wrong in Pitt's case, but not convinced. Pitt's improvements defensively - addition of a better moving guard, and bigs that can rebound well and protect the rim a little bit - may pay some dividends with a shorter clock (rushed shots, bad shots that get altered).
The state of the game nationally seems to be one of two things - hit it from deep (like you are the next Stef Curry) or take it to the rack. If you can get an open look or beat someone off the dribble, you are trying to do that regardless of the time on the clock. Dixon likes his system (which to be kind has received mixed views from alumni and fans) and it favors trying to get the best possible shot in time. Can't see him changing much outside of reminding guys "work through your sets, but you've got to shoot it earlier when you get a good look". I think Pitt will see more full-court presses employed against them as opponents try to drain time away from their sets (which makes Newkirk's recovery from surgery and rebuild of confidence all the more important).
I know the OOC schedule is frequently criticized - and some of the opponents justify some criticism (until you lose to Wagner and Long Beach state at home) - but Dixon's early season will be critical to a) get the team to gel and players to understand their roles on the floor, and b) get the team to execute better with less time to do it. I think the shorter clock really helps an ACC team like Louisville who thrives on disruption with their press. Conceivably, against the Cardinals you could start your offensive possessions with 21 seconds to work through a set. Doesn't seem like a big deal (5 seconds), but when you are entering with many questions like Pitt it does pose some interesting problems.
The state of the game nationally seems to be one of two things - hit it from deep (like you are the next Stef Curry) or take it to the rack. If you can get an open look or beat someone off the dribble, you are trying to do that regardless of the time on the clock. Dixon likes his system (which to be kind has received mixed views from alumni and fans) and it favors trying to get the best possible shot in time. Can't see him changing much outside of reminding guys "work through your sets, but you've got to shoot it earlier when you get a good look". I think Pitt will see more full-court presses employed against them as opponents try to drain time away from their sets (which makes Newkirk's recovery from surgery and rebuild of confidence all the more important).
I know the OOC schedule is frequently criticized - and some of the opponents justify some criticism (until you lose to Wagner and Long Beach state at home) - but Dixon's early season will be critical to a) get the team to gel and players to understand their roles on the floor, and b) get the team to execute better with less time to do it. I think the shorter clock really helps an ACC team like Louisville who thrives on disruption with their press. Conceivably, against the Cardinals you could start your offensive possessions with 21 seconds to work through a set. Doesn't seem like a big deal (5 seconds), but when you are entering with many questions like Pitt it does pose some interesting problems.
I think based on last year's data, it resulted in something like an extra 1-2 possessions per team per game.
I think the addition of the 2 GS transfer bigs will have benefits on offense as well as defense If overall rebounding improves by even 4 boards per game that should translate to an additional 8 points per game in scoring margin. Considering offensive va defensive board ratios that could mean allowing 2-3 fewer points per game and scoring 5-6 more. At 8 points better per game how many more games get won?
Based on last year's final scores alone it is 4 more and then add those games where it was close until the opponent stretched the final margin at the FT line and you can probably add another 2-3 wins. That would changes last year to 23-11 (vs 19-15) at a minimum.
Based on last year's final scores alone it is 4 more and then add those games where it was close until the opponent stretched the final margin at the FT line and you can probably add another 2-3 wins. That would changes last year to 23-11 (vs 19-15) at a minimum.
I think for a team like Pitt that (at its best) has made a lot of hay on offensive rebounding, a "good shot" definition for us should be extended to take into account giving our bigs the best opp to be in position on the boards.
Yea, I know, and when I said "perfect," I was being sarcastic. However, good shot selection is one of the foundations, one of the hallmarks of Dixon basketball. Its so ingrained in the heads of the players that often, they'll pass up "really good shots" earlier in the clock to get a similar "really good shot" later in the clock because it is drilled into the heads of the players that if they keep passing the ball, a better shot will present itself and sometimes it does. Think about it, how many times over the years have you said to yourself, "shoot it." My point is, the 30 second shot clock should prompt Pitt into passing up less good shots. There should be no more split second thinking of "this is a good shot but its so early in the shot clock, I think I'll pass it so we get a better one in 12 more seconds." Just shoot it.
The proponents of the shorter clock believe that eventually when the mindsets of players and coaches change, this will result in significantly more possessions, a faster game, and more scoring. The opponents say you're not going to change the mindsets or the way coaches coach (defense first, overcoaching) so you're going to see teams struggle to get off a good shot in 30 seconds and scoring will go down. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. Personally, I dont feel you'll see much difference at all next year. You probably need to give it 5 years to see if players and coaches have adjusted.
IMHO, coaches who coach more than a streetball style are not going to change in 5 years or ever. Controlled efficient offensive styles give the best chance to win the most games. A coach would be nuts to do otherwise because you lose the opportunity to win games against teams with more talented players.
The only way you will ever get more scoring us to shoot more free throws by making every foul from the start of the game a shooting foul.
The only way you will ever get more scoring us to shoot more free throws by making every foul from the start of the game a shooting foul.
I'm not saying that coaches will change their mindset to play street ball. I mean that in time, the thought is that coaches will develop their offenses, and coach and encourage players to shoot just a little bit quicker. This might be as simple as not yelling at a player for taking a questionable shot early in the shot clock. I don't know if there is a stat out there that tracks how long it takes for a team to take their first shot at the basket but my guess is over time, a few seconds will be shaved off of that.......whether that results in more points, I dont know.
It's 5 seconds. I think we will see almost minimal change.......for any team. In fact, in some cases, for good defensive teams, it is 5 less seconds to have to play good defense, making them less likely to be broken down.
I'd spin it slightly.... it's 5 less seconds for BAD defensive teams to try to play good defense. If favors bad defensive teams, rather than good offensive teams.
Owt and Souf -- I agree with both of you. This will not help help improve offensive basketball regardless of the direction it's spun.
The pro game can do a 24 second clock because extraordinarily talented players can fire up 26 footers and make them, almost at will.
So few of these players exist in college. Like Owt said ... I expect few changes except perhaps for even lower FG%s.
Souf, I don't disagree with you. But my point is, even good defensive teams lose a moment in concentration, or loses their man, and this is 5 less seconds that they have to concentrate on defense and the offensive team starts getting more desperate and it forces them into a bad shot. So...it can help both, but again, I don't think it will have much of an impact at all.
