PDA

View Full Version : Something I did not know about the shot clock...

Anthem
04-21-2008, 07:43 PM
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2008/04/21/an-nba-fun-fact/

Thought about putting it in the playoffs thread, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's given up on trying to keep up with that monster.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 07:53 PM
I understand that he should know better than me, but I seriously believe he's mistaken.

As I understand it, the shot clock represents the displayed number of seconds left at X.0 .

Meaning 24 = 24.0 seconds, and when it changes to display "23", that happens not at 23.9 or 23.8, 23.7, 23.6, ..., 23.1, but at exactly 23.0.

That's why the shot block buzzer sounds IMMEDIATELY upon displaying "0" because it doesn't show "0" until it's actually 0.0 seconds left. It only changes to "1" at 1.0 seconds.

Kstat
04-21-2008, 07:58 PM
I understand that he should know better than me, but I seriously believe he's mistaken.

As I understand it, the shot clock represents the displayed number of seconds left at X.0 .

Meaning 24 = 24.0 seconds, and when it changes to display "23", that happens not at 23.9 or 23.8, 23.7, 23.6, ..., 23.1, but at exactly 23.0.

That's why the shot block buzzer sounds IMMEDIATELY upon displaying "0" because it doesn't show "0" until it's actually 0.0 seconds left. It only changes to "1" at 1.0 seconds.

Oh, I know that rule very clearly, Mal....

The infamous Jermaine O'Neal buzzer beater 5 years ago that took the refs 18 minutes to make the wrong call is still fresh in my memory.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 08:07 PM
Oh, I know that rule very clearly, Mal....

The infamous Jermaine O'Neal buzzer beater 5 years ago that took the refs 18 minutes to make the wrong call is still fresh in my memory.

Do I have it right, or does Cuban have it right?

Surely a 24 second shot clock isn't actually closer to 25 seconds? Besides, his explanation doesn't fit because when the shot clock hit's 0 the buzzer immediately sounds, yet he suggests when it hits 0 it's at 0.9.

Anthem
04-21-2008, 08:07 PM
Seeing this thread title reminded me of UncleBuck's most famous typo ever.

Anybody got a link? Searching doesn't show much.

Kstat
04-21-2008, 08:10 PM
Do I have it right, or does Cuban have it right?

Surely a 24 second shot clock isn't actually closer to 25 seconds? Besides, his explanation doesn't fit because when the shot clock hit's 0 the buzzer immediately sounds, yet he suggests when it hits 0 it's at 0.9.

No, you have it right.

Anthem
04-21-2008, 08:13 PM
Surely a 24 second shot clock isn't actually closer to 25 seconds?
That's not what Cuban is saying.

grace
04-21-2008, 08:17 PM
Surely a 24 second shot clock isn't actually closer to 25 seconds?

Does it really matter if all the clocks are the same?

rexnom
04-21-2008, 08:32 PM
Oh, I know that rule very clearly, Mal....

The infamous Jermaine O'Neal buzzer beater 5 years ago that took the refs 18 minutes to make the wrong call is still fresh in my memory.
Jesus, I forgot about that game. Man...I miss our rivalry...I can't believe that was five years ago.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 08:35 PM
Does it really matter if all the clocks are the same?

That wouldn't be what would bother me. If you're going to have 24.9 seconds, go ahead and round it to 25 and be done with it.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 08:35 PM
That's not what Cuban is saying.

He did say it starts at 24.9, correct? 24.9 is closer to 25.0 than 24.0.

Roaming Gnome
04-21-2008, 09:01 PM
Until I hear otherwise, I'm just going to say that Cuban is wrong on top of other things.

That's why it is a 24 second shot clock.

Kstat, your right....it did take that official's crew 18 mins to blow that call. The only thing that holds that to memory is that being J.O.'s only game winner that I can remember. If I'm missing one, let me know.

Kstat
04-21-2008, 09:25 PM
Kstat, your right....it did take that official's crew 18 mins to blow that call. The only thing that holds that to memory is that being J.O.'s only game winner that I can remember. If I'm missing one, let me know.

The scenario played out thus:

The Pacers got a rebound with and called timeout with 24.1 seconds left.

JO's game winning shot left his fingertips with 0.3 seconds left, but the shot clock clearly showed "00."

Instead of just looking at the stupid shot clock, the officials reasoned that if the shot clock started at 24.1, their eyes were obviously playing tricks on them and it wasn't a violation.

What they didn't take into account, as Mal stated, was that the shot clock was not a FULL 24 seconds on the inbound pass. Since it takes a minimum of 0.3 seconds to take posession and call timeout, there was ACTUALLY 23.7 seconds on the shot clock, even though the clock read "24."

Of course, nobody with a brain was paying attention that night, and after 18 minutes they made the wrong damn call.

pacerwaala
04-21-2008, 09:36 PM
I understand that he should know better than me, but I seriously believe he's mistaken.

As I understand it, the shot clock represents the displayed number of seconds left at X.0 .

Meaning 24 = 24.0 seconds, and when it changes to display "23", that happens not at 23.9 or 23.8, 23.7, 23.6, ..., 23.1, but at exactly 23.0.

That's why the shot block buzzer sounds IMMEDIATELY upon displaying "0" because it doesn't show "0" until it's actually 0.0 seconds left. It only changes to "1" at 1.0 seconds.

Mal

I think, internally,the shot clock counts from 24.9 to 0.9. The alternative to this would be to put tenths of seconds on the shot clock. But what we see is round numbers on the shot clock (24,23,22,....09,08,0,....02,01).

Regards

Pacerwaala

Kstat
04-21-2008, 09:49 PM
Mal

I think, internally,the shot clock counts from 24.9 to 0.9. The alternative to this would be to put tenths of seconds on the shot clock. But what we see is round numbers on the shot clock (24,23,22,....09,08,0,....02,01).

Regards

Pacerwaala

If that were true you'd be hearing the buzzer go off 0.9 seconds after the shot clock hits 00, which anybody that's been to an NBA game will tell you is totally untrue.

RamBo_Lamar
04-21-2008, 10:58 PM
I see what he (Cuban) is saying, and it does make perfect sense.

It is that way so the shot clock can display counting down 24 seconds and
have the shot clock buzzer sound at the moment the shot clock turns to 0,
rather than have 0 displayed for .9 seconds before the shot clock buzzer
sounds.

The game clock takes precedence anyway, so it's nothing to really split hairs
over.

pacerwaala
04-21-2008, 11:21 PM
If that were true you'd be hearing the buzzer go off 0.9 seconds after the shot clock hits 00, which anybody that's been to an NBA game will tell you is totally untrue.

When the shot clock hits 00 (changes from 01 to 00), 24 seconds have transpired (from 24.9 to 0.9). So the buzzer sounds as soon as 24 seconds have transpired.

Kstat
04-21-2008, 11:27 PM
When the shot clock hits 00 (changes from 01 to 00), 24 seconds have transpired (from 24.9 to 0.9). So the buzzer sounds as soon as 24 seconds have transpired.

OK, you're splitting the thinnest hair in the history of the universe.

saying the clock goes from 24.9 to 0.9 is not at all different than saying the clock goes from 24.0 to 0.0. It's the same damn thing.

Anthem
04-21-2008, 11:31 PM
The only thing that holds that to memory is that being J.O.'s only game winner that I can remember. If I'm missing one, let me know.
Define "game-winner." If you mean "shot that wins the game as time expires" then Mike Jordan only had 8.

http://www.nba.com/jordan/game_winners.html

82games says Jermaine has 2 (although they use a different definition), as of Feb 2006:

http://www.82games.com/random12.htm

Anthem
04-21-2008, 11:33 PM
saying the clock goes from 24.9 to 0.9 is not at all different than saying the clock goes from 24.0 to 0.0. It's the same damn thing.
I think that's the point.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 11:48 PM
It's the same difference, but it makes no sense to have it "secretly" run from 24.9 to 0.9. There's no point in doing that when you can simply have it run from 24.0 to 0.0.

To use some hyperbole, it'd be like running the clock for each quarter of basketball from 21:00.0 to 09:00.0 and stopping there. Technically it's still 12 minutes, but it's wacky and unnecessary to do it that way.

RamBo_Lamar
04-22-2008, 12:58 AM
It's the same difference, but it makes no sense to have it "secretly" run from 24.9 to 0.9. There's no point in doing that when you can simply have it run from 24.0 to 0.0.

To use some hyperbole, it'd be like running the clock for each quarter of basketball from 21:00.0 to 09:00.0 and stopping there. Technically it's still 12 minutes, but it's wacky and unnecessary to do it that way.

Mal, I see what you are saying.

But since the actual shot clock display does not show the 1/10s (0.x) of
seconds, then as it ran out it would be sitting on 0.x for 1 second before
the buzzer sounds if it was how you describe.

The intent is for the buzzer to sound at the moment the timer display changes
from 1 to 0, rather than displaying 0 for a second before buzzing.

The player who glances up at the shot clock isn't going to have time to process
tenths of seconds ticking off anyway - all he knows is that he must get the shot
off before zero is displayed. And it's probably to make things simpler for the Refs
too.

The Toxic Avenger
04-22-2008, 07:11 AM
If the Shot clock started off at 24 (aka 23.9999999999999999999999) then we would never see the 24. The display would start on 23. I'm with Cuban (and RamBo Lamar) on the 24.9. And like Cuban said, the buzzer sounds at .9 just when the display clicks to zero. That leaves a total of 24 seconds. It may seem silly but it gets the 24 seconds across.

Unclebuck
04-22-2008, 08:05 AM
Oh, I know that rule very clearly, Mal....

The infamous Jermaine O'Neal buzzer beater 5 years ago that took the refs 18 minutes to make the wrong call is still fresh in my memory.

I still remember being at that game and telling all the pacers fans around me that JO's shot should not count - it was the wrong call. Who knew that one bad call that went in the pacers favor would be the last break the Pacers ever got

RamBo_Lamar
04-22-2008, 08:15 AM
Actually, it wouldn't be the exactly the same moment the clock switched from
1 to 0 that the buzzer would sound - the 0 would be displayed for .1 second
before the buzzer sounded.

But for the sake of conveying the concept, "at the same moment" is close
enough.

Unclebuck
04-22-2008, 08:32 AM
When the shot clock (I'm having a flashback, I learned to generally avoid typing that word) shows 1 second left, that means there is at most 1 second left on the shot clock, but there also could be only .1 of a second left.

The refs will often check with the scorers table on out of bounds plays when the shot clock reads 1 - so they know exactly how much time is really on the shot clock - and that is why they will often wave off a shot, because they know there may only be .3 seconds left

Hicks
04-22-2008, 11:06 AM
I think it goes like this. On the left is the actual time, on the right is what the shot clock displays:

24.0 24
23.9 24
23.8 24
23.7 24
23.6 24
23.5 24
23.4 24
23.3 24
23.2 24
23.1 24
23.0 23 <---
22.9 22
22.8 22
...
2.0 02 <---
1.9 02
1.8 02
1.7 02
1.6 02
1.5 02
1.4 02
1.3 02
1.2 02
1.1 02
1.0 01 <---
0.9 01
0.8 01
0.7 01
0.6 01
0.5 01
0.4 01
0.3 01
0.2 01
0.1 01
0.0 00 <--- (HORN SOUNDS)

Naptown_Seth
04-22-2008, 12:02 PM
Cuban is right. To use his example:

The shot clock was showing 24 secs while the game clock was at 23.6 seconds and counting down.

He implies that the shot clock is not yet turned off. How can that be with less than 24 full seconds left on the game clock?

Simple. The 24 you see isn't the FULL amount left, it's the rounded up amount (and not a .5 or greater, but a "ceiling" style rounding that even .1 will push up). So the shot clock SHOWS 24, but this means perhaps only 23.3 seconds left. That 4 is about to become a 3 in just .3 seconds while the game clock is .6 seconds away from changing seconds.

The shot clock will sound with .3 left on the game clock, as it should. But at some point it will LOOK like a "full" 1 is left when the game clock is sub 1.0, implying to viewers that the shot clock should be off and deferring to the game clock.

In short - the shot clock shows you that SOME AMOUNT of that second is left, but probably not the full amount. It's ROUNDED UP. The game clock isn't. Thus the occassional odd situation. It's an aesthetics thing because fans might balk at seeing a shot count when 0 is on the shot clock, and they for whatever reasons don't want to get into the decimal spot with the shot clock.

BTW the refs should know that if the Shot Clock is on even though it looks like it shouldn't be that this is the case. Simple enough to connect the clocks and keep the shot clock off when it actually should be. Measuring to .1 isn't some challenge of course, other than the person pushing the button to start time/reset possession or shot clock status.

The Pacers got a rebound with and called timeout with 24.1 seconds left.

JO's game winning shot left his fingertips with 0.3 seconds left, but the shot clock clearly showed "00."

Instead of just looking at the stupid shot clock, the officials reasoned that if the shot clock started at 24.1, their eyes were obviously playing tricks on them and it wasn't a violation.

What they didn't take into account, as Mal stated, was that the shot clock was not a FULL 24 seconds on the inbound pass. Since it takes a minimum of 0.3 seconds to take posession and call timeout, there was ACTUALLY 23.7 seconds on the shot clock, even though the clock read "24."
You have to admit that it's a confusing and counter-intuitive situation. At least they took the time to try and reason it out. And in this case they were fooled because the 24.1 implied that the clock should be on still and threw them off the track on it being the situation discussed in this thread where you would expect the clock to be off.

Of course my engineer thinking would have wound tape to look at the GAME CLOCK when the SHOT CLOCK turned to 1 in slo-mo. Then you'd know for sure the difference even if you didn't quite believe the light/horn for some reason. At turning 1 they'd see 1.4 or 1.3 and know the shot clock had control of the situation, even if it did say 1 when the game clock said 0.8.

RamBo_Lamar
04-22-2008, 12:33 PM
The way I interpreted what Cuban was saying:

(Like Mal's example, actual clock time as it is being counted in the Left
column, and corresponding time being displayed in the Right column.)

24.9000 24
24.8 24
24.7 24
24.6 24
24.5 24
24.4 24
24.3 24
24.2 24
24.1 24
24.0 24
23.9999 23 <---
23.8 23
...
2.0 02
1.9999 01 <---
1.8 01
1.7 01
1.6 01
1.5 01
1.4 01
1.3 01
1.2 01
1.1 01
1.0 01
0.9999 00 <---
0.9000 00 <--- Shot Clock Violation Buzzer Sounds

From 0.9999 to 0.9000 (.1 seconds for all reasonable intents and purposes)
"00" will be displayed before the buzzer sounds.

Is this how it works?

Los Angeles
04-22-2008, 01:19 PM
I need a drink. :alcohol:

Anthem
04-22-2008, 01:33 PM
1.1 02
So even though there's only 1.1 seconds on the game clock, the shot clock will say "2." Which means there will, in the abstract, be more time on the shot clock than the game clock. Which is exactly what Cuban is saying.

SoupIsGood
04-22-2008, 01:52 PM
Cuban is right. To use his example:

He implies that the shot clock is not yet turned off. How can that be with less than 24 full seconds left on the game clock?

Simple. The 24 you see isn't the FULL amount left, it's the rounded up amount (and not a .5 or greater, but a "ceiling" style rounding that even .1 will push up). So the shot clock SHOWS 24, but this means perhaps only 23.3 seconds left. That 4 is about to become a 3 in just .3 seconds while the game clock is .6 seconds away from changing seconds.

Seth, that's not what Cubes is actually saying. When the clock shows 24 you're saying that it could be anywhere from 24.0-23.1, while Cubes is saying that the range would be from 24.9-24.0.

So even though there's only 1.1 seconds on the game clock, the shot clock will say "2." Which means there will, in the abstract, be more time on the shot clock than the game clock. Which is exactly what Cuban is saying.

Yes, it's just that Cubes is likely wrong in his assumption about how the clocks are "programmed." He is insisting that the clocks round down to the displayed whole number, instead of rounding up. There actually isn't a difference (at all) between the two in terms of time elapsed, but he's more than likely wrong in trying to make the distinction. There's not a whole lot of sense in counting from 24.9 - 0.9 when you could just count from 24.0 to 0.0.

The way I interpreted what Cuban was saying:

(Like Mal's example, actual clock time as it is being counted in the Left
column, and corresponding time being displayed in the Right column.)

24.9000 24
24.8 24
24.7 24
24.6 24
24.5 24
24.4 24
24.3 24
24.2 24
24.1 24
24.0 24
23.9999 23 <---
23.8 23
...
2.0 02
1.9999 01 <---
1.8 01
1.7 01
1.6 01
1.5 01
1.4 01
1.3 01
1.2 01
1.1 01
1.0 01
0.9999 00 <---
0.9000 00 <--- Shot Clock Violation Buzzer Sounds

From 0.9999 to 0.9000 (.1 seconds for all reasonable intents and purposes)
"00" will be displayed before the buzzer sounds.

Is this how it works?

You mapped this out wrong. Cuban describes the change from 24 to 23 as occurring when the clock turns to 23.9. That is, just as the 23.9-23.8 time interval begins. You've got this change occurring 0.001 seconds after the 24.0-23.9 time interval begins. If you look closely, you've actually shortchanged your first whole "second," as it is only 9.001 seconds in duration. This is where your confusion is coming from.

Twes
04-22-2008, 02:13 PM
Does it really matter if all the clocks are the same?

Amen!

JayRedd
04-22-2008, 02:32 PM
This is so meta.

rexnom
04-22-2008, 03:17 PM
I still remember being at that game and telling all the pacers fans around me that JO's shot should not count - it was the wrong call. Who knew that one bad call that went in the pacers favor would be the last break the Pacers ever got
<object height="295" width="510">

<embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Lg0eWBmmE4MGRZm8M-ozHA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="st=397&et=414" height="295" width="510"></object>

RamBo_Lamar
04-22-2008, 04:05 PM
Seth, that's not what Cubes is actually saying. When the clock shows 24 you're saying that it could be anywhere from 24.0-23.1, while Cubes is saying that the range would be from 24.9-24.0.

Yes, it's just that Cubes is likely wrong in his assumption about how the clocks are "programmed." He is insisting that the clocks round down to the displayed whole number, instead of rounding up. There actually isn't a difference (at all) between the two in terms of time elapsed, but he's more than likely wrong in trying to make the distinction. There's not a whole lot of sense in counting from 24.9 - 0.9 when you could just count from 24.0 to 0.0.

You mapped this out wrong. Cuban describes the change from 24 to 23 as occurring when the clock turns to 23.9. That is, just as the 23.9-23.8 time interval begins. You've got this change occurring 0.001 seconds after the 24.0-23.9 time interval begins. If you look closely, you've actually shortchanged your first whole "second," as it is only 9.001 seconds in duration. This is where your confusion is coming from.

Ok, I see what you are saying. Then it should be like this:

24.9 24
24.8 24
24.7 24
24.6 24
24.5 24
24.4 24
24.3 24
24.2 24
24.1 24
24.0 24
23.9 23 <---
23.8 23
...
2.0 02
1.9 01 <---
1.8 01
1.7 01
1.6 01
1.5 01
1.4 01
1.3 01
1.2 01
1.1 01
1.0 01
0.9 00 <--- Shot Clock Violation Buzzer Sounds

Thanks for pointing that out Soup.

So for what Cuban described to take place, there would need to be a
scenario such as the following to occur:

1.) 24.4 seconds left at the end of a quarter, and team gets ball with a fresh shot clock.

2.) The ball is inbounded, and a whistle is immediately blown after which .8
seconds have elapsed.

3.) While the game clock may now be showing 23.6 seconds, the shot clock
counted internally from 24.9 down to 24.1, thus not yet having toggled to
the next second down (23).

This would mean that if it came down to the very end of the quarter where
the game clock hit 0.0, the shot clock would still display 01 for .5 seconds
after the game clock expired.

Right? (not that it would matter at that point :-p)