[BostonCard]

Brook Lopez with the “Brink”, which kept the game tied and allowed the Bucks to win and go to the NBA finals.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mismatchsports/status/1406453157757128704?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Brook Lopez with the “Brink”, which kept the game tied and allowed the Bucks to win and go to the NBA finals.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mismatchsports/status/1406453157757128704?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[JustAnotherFan]

Brook Lopez with the “Brink”, which kept the game tied and allowed the Bucks to win and go to the NBA finals.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mismatchsports/status/1406453157757128704?s=21[/tweet]

BC

Brook also scored the first three points of the game with a three-pointer, and he scored the final two points of the game with two free throws. His play really helped make up for a really poor shooting night for the team minus Giannis.

[JustAnotherFan]

Brook Lopez with the “Brink”, which kept the game tied and allowed the Bucks to win and go to the NBA finals.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/mismatchsports/status/1406453157757128704?s=21[/tweet]

BC

Brook also scored the first three points of the game with a three-pointer, and he scored the final two points of the game with two free throws. His play really helped make up for a really poor shooting night for the team minus Giannis.

[OutsiderFan]

Oh, now there is a post about the NBA playoffs. I thought NBA discussion was prohibited on this board.

[OutsiderFan]

Oh, now there is a post about the NBA playoffs. I thought NBA discussion was prohibited on this board.

[terry]

Oh, now there is a post about the NBA playoffs. I thought NBA discussion was prohibited on this board.

Brook Lopez is a Stanford alum, so I think this is on-topic.

[terry]

Oh, now there is a post about the NBA playoffs. I thought NBA discussion was prohibited on this board.

Brook Lopez is a Stanford alum, so I think this is on-topic.

[BostonCard]

Fixed the subject.  Happy?

BC

[BostonCard]

Fixed the subject.  Happy?

BC

[magnus]

Brook was almost the goat (lower case).

2 seconds left in regulation. Gets the ball in the corner and passes the ball as time expired.  Granted,  KD was on him but still,  can't score if there's no shot.

[magnus]

Brook was almost the goat (lower case).

2 seconds left in regulation. Gets the ball in the corner and passes the ball as time expired.  Granted,  KD was on him but still,  can't score if there's no shot.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordMBB/status/1406458351840497675?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordMBB/status/1406458351840497675?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[PVTree]

Will always remember Brook's clutch shot vs. Marquette to get us to the S16. I had a photo of that shot on my work desk for 2+ years.

[PVTree]

Will always remember Brook's clutch shot vs. Marquette to get us to the S16. I had a photo of that shot on my work desk for 2+ years.

[BobK]

The photo is on my wall. But no clue how to post

[BobK]

The photo is on my wall. But no clue how to post

[Farm93]

Brook was almost the goat (lower case).

2 seconds left in regulation. Gets the ball in the corner and passes the ball as time expired.  Granted,  KD was on him but still,  can't score if there's no shot.

He was almost the goat, but it was not quite that clear as noted here.

The situation was 2 seconds on shot clock, and 8 seconds on game clock.  
In that scenario if Brook just heaves a shot up, the Nets could get the rebound then take a T.O. to advance the ball to midcourt.   So realistically the Nets could have had 4 seconds instead of 6 seconds to get a good shot.   The shot the Nets (KD) ultimately took was good and still left 1 second on the game clock.    So they could have easily run the same play with 4 seconds as the clock would have then expired with the shot in the air. 

However, there was no doubt that the Bucks were not entirely pleased with Brook's lack of any shot attempt since if he took AND made a prayer of a shot clock heave the game is essentially over.   His teammates clearly wanted him to at least take a shot, so best for Brook that the Bucks ultimately won.

At this point the Bucks have a decent chance to win the NBA title.   Maybe Brook will get a chance to show the nation that there are Stanford hoops players that can dance better than Madsen.

[Farm93]

Brook was almost the goat (lower case).

2 seconds left in regulation. Gets the ball in the corner and passes the ball as time expired.  Granted,  KD was on him but still,  can't score if there's no shot.

He was almost the goat, but it was not quite that clear as noted here.

The situation was 2 seconds on shot clock, and 8 seconds on game clock.  
In that scenario if Brook just heaves a shot up, the Nets could get the rebound then take a T.O. to advance the ball to midcourt.   So realistically the Nets could have had 4 seconds instead of 6 seconds to get a good shot.   The shot the Nets (KD) ultimately took was good and still left 1 second on the game clock.    So they could have easily run the same play with 4 seconds as the clock would have then expired with the shot in the air. 

However, there was no doubt that the Bucks were not entirely pleased with Brook's lack of any shot attempt since if he took AND made a prayer of a shot clock heave the game is essentially over.   His teammates clearly wanted him to at least take a shot, so best for Brook that the Bucks ultimately won.

At this point the Bucks have a decent chance to win the NBA title.   Maybe Brook will get a chance to show the nation that there are Stanford hoops players that can dance better than Madsen.

[FarmBoy]

I don't have enough interest to actually watch NBA playoff games, but I do check the stat lines consistently for Stanford alums. Every loss by the Bucks seemed like Brook had an off game, so it may be a matter of "as goes Brook, so goes the Bucks." Hopefully he can keep up the performance.

[FarmBoy]

I don't have enough interest to actually watch NBA playoff games, but I do check the stat lines consistently for Stanford alums. Every loss by the Bucks seemed like Brook had an off game, so it may be a matter of "as goes Brook, so goes the Bucks." Hopefully he can keep up the performance.

[CompSci87]

By chance this was the only playoff game I watched after the Warriors got eliminated. Quite a thriller!

[CompSci87]

By chance this was the only playoff game I watched after the Warriors got eliminated. Quite a thriller!

[teejers1]

Brook was almost the goat (lower case).

2 seconds left in regulation. Gets the ball in the corner and passes the ball as time expired.  Granted,  KD was on him but still,  can't score if there's no shot.

He was almost the goat, but it was not quite that clear as noted here.

The situation was 2 seconds on shot clock, and 8 seconds on game clock.  
In that scenario if Brook just heaves a shot up, the Nets could get the rebound then take a T.O. to advance the ball to midcourt.   So realistically the Nets could have had 4 seconds instead of 6 seconds to get a good shot.   The shot the Nets (KD) ultimately took was good and still left 1 second on the game clock.    So they could have easily run the same play with 4 seconds as the clock would have then expired with the shot in the air. 

However, there was no doubt that the Bucks were not entirely pleased with Brook's lack of any shot attempt since if he took AND made a prayer of a shot clock heave the game is essentially over.   His teammates clearly wanted him to at least take a shot, so best for Brook that the Bucks ultimately won.

At this point the Bucks have a decent chance to win the NBA title.   Maybe Brook will get a chance to show the nation that there are Stanford hoops players that can dance better than Madsen.

Hmm.  I'm not sure about that math.

Regardless, you omit the main reason why you have to get a shot off in that circumstance (aside from one in a hundred chance of making it):  the possibility of hitting the rim.  That keeps the clock moving . . . and who knows, maybe the Bucks get the (O-board).  Regardless, when you shoot, the refs cannot call shot clock violation, until the ball misses the rim (a second or two after the stoppage actually occurred). That may not be a big deal (certainly isn't to you), but the possibility of hitting the rim and a long rebound/scramble for board/Bucks rebound . . . well, that's where the time value lies in getting the shot off.   

Big mistake by Brook.

Glad it worked out.  

(And was pleasantly surprised by his D and rebounding very late).

[teejers1]

Brook was almost the goat (lower case).

2 seconds left in regulation. Gets the ball in the corner and passes the ball as time expired.  Granted,  KD was on him but still,  can't score if there's no shot.

He was almost the goat, but it was not quite that clear as noted here.

The situation was 2 seconds on shot clock, and 8 seconds on game clock.  
In that scenario if Brook just heaves a shot up, the Nets could get the rebound then take a T.O. to advance the ball to midcourt.   So realistically the Nets could have had 4 seconds instead of 6 seconds to get a good shot.   The shot the Nets (KD) ultimately took was good and still left 1 second on the game clock.    So they could have easily run the same play with 4 seconds as the clock would have then expired with the shot in the air. 

However, there was no doubt that the Bucks were not entirely pleased with Brook's lack of any shot attempt since if he took AND made a prayer of a shot clock heave the game is essentially over.   His teammates clearly wanted him to at least take a shot, so best for Brook that the Bucks ultimately won.

At this point the Bucks have a decent chance to win the NBA title.   Maybe Brook will get a chance to show the nation that there are Stanford hoops players that can dance better than Madsen.

Hmm.  I'm not sure about that math.

Regardless, you omit the main reason why you have to get a shot off in that circumstance (aside from one in a hundred chance of making it):  the possibility of hitting the rim.  That keeps the clock moving . . . and who knows, maybe the Bucks get the (O-board).  Regardless, when you shoot, the refs cannot call shot clock violation, until the ball misses the rim (a second or two after the stoppage actually occurred). That may not be a big deal (certainly isn't to you), but the possibility of hitting the rim and a long rebound/scramble for board/Bucks rebound . . . well, that's where the time value lies in getting the shot off.   

Big mistake by Brook.

Glad it worked out.  

(And was pleasantly surprised by his D and rebounding very late).

[BostonCard]

Does anyone know the rule for when the game clock stops?  Is it at the time the shot clock expires, or does the ref blow it dead as soon as it misses the rim?

Teejers is right, of course, that the second best outcome for a desperation heave (the best, of course, is getting two points) is that it hits the rim, and either the Bucks get the offensive rebound, or that the ensuing scramble ticks precious seconds off the clock so that the Nets wouldn't have a chance to attempt a score.

I don't know that it was a big mistake by Brook (especially if the game clock stops when the shot clock expires, which I think is the case, though I can't find a reference to it), but it was poor situational awareness.

BC

[BostonCard]

Does anyone know the rule for when the game clock stops?  Is it at the time the shot clock expires, or does the ref blow it dead as soon as it misses the rim?

Teejers is right, of course, that the second best outcome for a desperation heave (the best, of course, is getting two points) is that it hits the rim, and either the Bucks get the offensive rebound, or that the ensuing scramble ticks precious seconds off the clock so that the Nets wouldn't have a chance to attempt a score.

I don't know that it was a big mistake by Brook (especially if the game clock stops when the shot clock expires, which I think is the case, though I can't find a reference to it), but it was poor situational awareness.

BC

[magnus]

I don't know the rule, but empirically, the game clock stopped immediately when the shot clock hit 0. (though they later adjusted it down 0.1 seconds, but I assumed that was just a syncing issue as opposed to a ref recognition issue)

[magnus]

I don't know the rule, but empirically, the game clock stopped immediately when the shot clock hit 0. (though they later adjusted it down 0.1 seconds, but I assumed that was just a syncing issue as opposed to a ref recognition issue)

[teejers1]

Does anyone know the rule for when the game clock stops?  Is it at the time the shot clock expires, or does the ref blow it dead as soon as it misses the rim?

Teejers is right, of course, that the second best outcome for a desperation heave (the best, of course, is getting two points) is that it hits the rim, and either the Bucks get the offensive rebound, or that the ensuing scramble ticks precious seconds off the clock so that the Nets wouldn't have a chance to attempt a score.

I don't know that it was a big mistake by Brook (especially if the game clock stops when the shot clock expires, which I think is the case, though I can't find a reference to it), but it was poor situational awareness.

BC

You think the official scorer stops the clock on shot clock expiration as ball is heading toward the rim?  Or do you think they "put time back on the clock" when a shot is found to not hit the rim?  Maybe the latter is the rule, but I've never seen it happen.  My gut (and common sense) tells me the game clock runs the entire time.  The reason why the game clock stopped at time of shot clock expiration is because Brook failed to take a shot.

[teejers1]

Does anyone know the rule for when the game clock stops?  Is it at the time the shot clock expires, or does the ref blow it dead as soon as it misses the rim?

Teejers is right, of course, that the second best outcome for a desperation heave (the best, of course, is getting two points) is that it hits the rim, and either the Bucks get the offensive rebound, or that the ensuing scramble ticks precious seconds off the clock so that the Nets wouldn't have a chance to attempt a score.

I don't know that it was a big mistake by Brook (especially if the game clock stops when the shot clock expires, which I think is the case, though I can't find a reference to it), but it was poor situational awareness.

BC

You think the official scorer stops the clock on shot clock expiration as ball is heading toward the rim?  Or do you think they "put time back on the clock" when a shot is found to not hit the rim?  Maybe the latter is the rule, but I've never seen it happen.  My gut (and common sense) tells me the game clock runs the entire time.  The reason why the game clock stopped at time of shot clock expiration is because Brook failed to take a shot.

[BostonCard]

This is the sort of thing Terry would know; it is surprisingly hard to find an answer on the internet.

The logical thing is that the shot clock violation occurs and the game clock is stopped when the shot clock hits 0, but the problem is that you don't know that the shot clock violation has occurred until the ball misses the rim.  99% of the time it doesn't matter, but when this happens late in a game, those fractions of a second when a game clock is stopped can be important.

BC

[BostonCard]

This is the sort of thing Terry would know; it is surprisingly hard to find an answer on the internet.

The logical thing is that the shot clock violation occurs and the game clock is stopped when the shot clock hits 0, but the problem is that you don't know that the shot clock violation has occurred until the ball misses the rim.  99% of the time it doesn't matter, but when this happens late in a game, those fractions of a second when a game clock is stopped can be important.

BC

[Goose]

This is the sort of thing Terry would know; it is surprisingly hard to find an answer on the internet.

The logical thing is that the shot clock violation occurs and the game clock is stopped when the shot clock hits 0, but the problem is that you don't know that the shot clock violation has occurred until the ball misses the rim.  99% of the time it doesn't matter, but when this happens late in a game, those fractions of a second when a game clock is stopped can be important.

BC

Interesting question. If Brook just threw the ball up in the air as hard as he could with 1 sec left on the shot clock, does the game clock run during the time (a couple of seconds at least, could be more) the ball is in the air and stop only when it hits some object other than the rim (a player, the ground)? If so, he should have done that. I would imagine you could waste 3 seconds that way.

[Goose]

This is the sort of thing Terry would know; it is surprisingly hard to find an answer on the internet.

The logical thing is that the shot clock violation occurs and the game clock is stopped when the shot clock hits 0, but the problem is that you don't know that the shot clock violation has occurred until the ball misses the rim.  99% of the time it doesn't matter, but when this happens late in a game, those fractions of a second when a game clock is stopped can be important.

BC

Interesting question. If Brook just threw the ball up in the air as hard as he could with 1 sec left on the shot clock, does the game clock run during the time (a couple of seconds at least, could be more) the ball is in the air and stop only when it hits some object other than the rim (a player, the ground)? If so, he should have done that. I would imagine you could waste 3 seconds that way.

[magnus]

Not an official answer but i found this on an officiating website. 

In the NBA/WNBA/D-League, the game clock will be reset to the time when the shot clock hit all zeros

https://forum.officiating.com/basketball...ation.html

[magnus]

Not an official answer but i found this on an officiating website. 

In the NBA/WNBA/D-League, the game clock will be reset to the time when the shot clock hit all zeros

https://forum.officiating.com/basketball...ation.html

[teejers1]

Not an official answer but i found this on an officiating website. 

In the NBA/WNBA/D-League, the game clock will be reset to the time when the shot clock hit all zeros

https://forum.officiating.com/basketball...ation.html

Interesting.  Thanks for the link.  I'm not sure it's definitive, but the point about NBA not allowing a team to waste more than 24 seconds on a shot clock violation at least makes it plausible that a game could be stopped and time added back.  I just don't think I've ever seen that happen - or perhaps it happens so subtly that you don't notice just watching the game.

BTW, that still doesn't excuse Brook's brain lock for not at least attempting to get a shot off . . .

[teejers1]

Not an official answer but i found this on an officiating website. 

In the NBA/WNBA/D-League, the game clock will be reset to the time when the shot clock hit all zeros

https://forum.officiating.com/basketball...ation.html

Interesting.  Thanks for the link.  I'm not sure it's definitive, but the point about NBA not allowing a team to waste more than 24 seconds on a shot clock violation at least makes it plausible that a game could be stopped and time added back.  I just don't think I've ever seen that happen - or perhaps it happens so subtly that you don't notice just watching the game.

BTW, that still doesn't excuse Brook's brain lock for not at least attempting to get a shot off . . .