What is up with De'Aaron Fox?
- Thread starter Singhisking
- Start date
Seems to me it's more like bad refereeing / bad math.
The shot clock starts at 24. When the 1st second passes, it goes to 23, 2nd second passes = 22, 3rd = 21, 4th = 20, 5th = 19, 6th = 18, 7th = 17, 8th = 16.
So, eight seconds have passed at the exact moment that the shot clock turns to 16. The whistle should be blown right then. But, the refs are either counting themselves or wait til the 16 goes away because it's easier. Heck, sometimes they don't call it until even later![/QUOTE]
The shot clock starts at 24. When the 1st second passes, it goes to 23, 2nd second passes = 22, 3rd = 21, 4th = 20, 5th = 19, 6th = 18, 7th = 17, 8th = 16.
So, eight seconds have passed at the exact moment that the shot clock turns to 16. The whistle should be blown right then. But, the refs are either counting themselves or wait til the 16 goes away because it's easier. Heck, sometimes they don't call it until even later![/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of him being able to. He has all the tools in the world to do so.
The Ringer and Amick articles essentially question whether he's mature enough (hoops wise) to take that next step. I have always thought he was 3 to 4 years away from wanting to play more like Chris Paul rather than Russ. Where impacting the game = controlling the pace rather than setting the pace. Maybe his lost speed will accelerate that timeline. Or maybe not. Regardless, I don't think the Kings will give him those 3 to 4 years to figure it out. He'll be gone by then.
Especially since they already have Hali, who is already elite at controlling the pace.
The Ringer and Amick articles essentially question whether he's mature enough (hoops wise) to take that next step. I have always thought he was 3 to 4 years away from wanting to play more like Chris Paul rather than Russ. Where impacting the game = controlling the pace rather than setting the pace. Maybe his lost speed will accelerate that timeline. Or maybe not. Regardless, I don't think the Kings will give him those 3 to 4 years to figure it out. He'll be gone by then.
Especially since they already have Hali, who is already elite at controlling the pace.
Just because some dipcrap writer says this, doesn't make this true. This makes no sense. He has this backwards (thinking at 16 that means it could be 16.9 seconds left). So, according to his logic, when the clock displays a full "24" then that could be as high as 24.9?? Also, I know for a FACT that in collegiate and high school basketball they have a 10-second count and when the clock hits 25 (for a 35 second shot clock) it's a violation.
Just think about it (like Jose said):
the clock starts at 24.....when it clicks to 23 that means exactly 1.0 seconds has run off. While it's stuck at 23, before turning to 22, it means 1.0 to 1.9 seconds has run off, but as soon as it hits 22 that means 2.0 seconds has run off.
So....
23.....we are at 1.0 seconds
22.....we are at 2.0 seconds
21.....we are at 3.0 seconds
20.....we are at 4.0 seconds
19.....we are at 5.0 seconds
18.....we are at 6.0 seconds
17.....we are at 7.0 seconds
16.....we are at 8.0 seconds
While it is displaying "16" we would be anywhere between 8.0 and 8.9 seconds, which is a violation. Why is this so difficult to understand?
So, unless they have a different way of interpreting this rule that we don't know about, it should be a violation when the clock hits 16.
Just think about it (like Jose said):
the clock starts at 24.....when it clicks to 23 that means exactly 1.0 seconds has run off. While it's stuck at 23, before turning to 22, it means 1.0 to 1.9 seconds has run off, but as soon as it hits 22 that means 2.0 seconds has run off.
So....
23.....we are at 1.0 seconds
22.....we are at 2.0 seconds
21.....we are at 3.0 seconds
20.....we are at 4.0 seconds
19.....we are at 5.0 seconds
18.....we are at 6.0 seconds
17.....we are at 7.0 seconds
16.....we are at 8.0 seconds
While it is displaying "16" we would be anywhere between 8.0 and 8.9 seconds, which is a violation. Why is this so difficult to understand?
So, unless they have a different way of interpreting this rule that we don't know about, it should be a violation when the clock hits 16.
Why would you call a person "dipcrap" when all he tried to do is explain to people like you this exact thing that many didnt know/didnt understand?
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ng-the-nbas-2011-12-season-points-of-emphasis
Its exactly like the dipcrap writer said. When the clock changes to 16 its actually 16,9 and so on.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ng-the-nbas-2011-12-season-points-of-emphasis
Its exactly like the dipcrap writer said. When the clock changes to 16 its actually 16,9 and so on.
Ok, with all the logic (or illogic) stated above, consider what happens when the clock hits "0". Lights and buzzers start going off right as the "0" appears. It is not 0.9 seconds left when the "0" appears. Otherwise there would be a slight delay when the the alarms sound.
Just look at the replays at the end of quarters when the refs try to determine if a made shot is good or not. The slo-mo shows it clearly.
Just look at the replays at the end of quarters when the refs try to determine if a made shot is good or not. The slo-mo shows it clearly.
https://nesn.com/2013/05/nbas-seemi...d-violation-rule-really-not-that-complicated/
So when the clock hits 5 (actually 5,9) it goes for a second and continues at 4,9 after that. An example at 1:17
So when the clock hits 5 (actually 5,9) it goes for a second and continues at 4,9 after that. An example at 1:17
IMO, the reason behind Fox's surly interview is that he got the max contract, which comes with max expectations, which he resents. In other words, he can't handle the pressure. He's obviously not within a light year in performing at a reasonable basketball fan would expect of a max player. He knows it, everyone knows it, and he doesn't even want to talk about it. Leave him alone. The surly prickliness is just deflection: Don't ask him tough, direct questions, don't address directly his failings or the expectations that come with being a max player. It's implied: It's not his fault. It's the coach, the organization, whomever, but just don't bother him. He's going to do his thing, get his max $$$, and to hell with it.
Im sure there must be more, but I can only remember one fox dunk this season. This is just not the same player athletically that he was the first couple of years. He’s turned from a gazelle slithering through defenders to a bulldog charging into the paint. If his speed and athleticism are really already on the downward swing at his age, he’s got some major issues if he can’t get his shot going.
What is he, 25? No way he’s on the decline physically. He may have gotten too buff, which is funny to say because he still looks lanky out there.
What’s more likely is that he just hit that “wall of hopelessness” that comes along with being a longtime King and checked out.
If we trade him he’ll probably go right back to being a 25+ppg scorer.
Maybe he’ll snap out of it now that Luke is gone. We shall see.
What’s more likely is that he just hit that “wall of hopelessness” that comes along with being a longtime King and checked out.
If we trade him he’ll probably go right back to being a 25+ppg scorer.
Maybe he’ll snap out of it now that Luke is gone. We shall see.
24 next month.
I think he has a future but we should do what selling clubs do. Maybe accept the reality that other non-American sports leagues do and offload their young stars before they become sunk cost depreciating assets. Then if we ever get the right mix of talent at the right time we can do what Leicester did and shock the world.
I think he has a future but we should do what selling clubs do. Maybe accept the reality that other non-American sports leagues do and offload their young stars before they become sunk cost depreciating assets. Then if we ever get the right mix of talent at the right time we can do what Leicester did and shock the world.
This so-called "wall of hopelessness" is BS: Woe is me; I'm the victim, it's the environment, it's the organization, it's the building, it's the fans, it's the city, it's climate change, whatever. Fox wants to recede into the background, not take command of the ship. If anything, the pressure is greater on Fox now than before Walton got hired. Now the Walton excuse is no longer there. It's not getting easier from Fox from here on forward. He's got to man-up. He's not a kid anymore.
You quoted a 10 year old article to support your failed position. Here is a quote right out of that article:
"Referees have long known that a typical 24-second basketball shot clock begins at 24.9 seconds (displayed as 24 seconds), with a buzzer sounding once the clock reaches 0.9 seconds remaining (displayed as 0 seconds)."
So, your source, is trying to say that the 24-second shot clock is actually 24.9 seconds. Do you fail to see how inaccurate that is???
"Referees have long known that a typical 24-second basketball shot clock begins at 24.9 seconds (displayed as 24 seconds), with a buzzer sounding once the clock reaches 0.9 seconds remaining (displayed as 0 seconds)."
So, your source, is trying to say that the 24-second shot clock is actually 24.9 seconds. Do you fail to see how inaccurate that is???
If you read carefully, you would see two things. First - that this (older) by-convention understanding of the shot clock runs from "24.9" to "0.9" seconds, which is 24 seconds. The buzzer went off at "0.9", as it says in your quoted material. Second - this older convention has been eliminated and replaced with a new convention.
The current way the shot clock works is actually quite simple to understand. The shot clock is measured in tenths of a second, thus it starts at 24.0 and expires at 0.0, exactly 24 seconds. However, until the end of the shot clock (under 5 seconds) the decimal portion of the shot clock is simply not displayed. Thus, the shot clock starts at 24[.0] seconds, and one tenth of a second after the ball is inbounded changes to 23[.9] seconds. The next time you watch an NBA game, please watch the shot clock upon inbounding. You should see that the shot clock turns to "23" one tenth of a second after inbounding, not one full second after inbounding.
Because of this, when the shot clock turns to 16, the actual time on the shot clock is 16[.9] seconds, and the time elapsed from 24[.0] seconds is 7.1 seconds - an 8-second violation has not yet occurred. The 8-second violation occurs when the shot clock turns to 15[.9] and 8.1 seconds have elapsed.
Although it is tempting to believe that when the shot clock reads "16", the second that is encompassed there is [16.0 - 15.1], and that WAS the case before the NBA added tenths under 5 seconds (see the article above), this is no longer true. When the shot clock reads "16", the second that is encompassed is [16.9 - 16.0].
The current way the shot clock works is actually quite simple to understand. The shot clock is measured in tenths of a second, thus it starts at 24.0 and expires at 0.0, exactly 24 seconds. However, until the end of the shot clock (under 5 seconds) the decimal portion of the shot clock is simply not displayed. Thus, the shot clock starts at 24[.0] seconds, and one tenth of a second after the ball is inbounded changes to 23[.9] seconds. The next time you watch an NBA game, please watch the shot clock upon inbounding. You should see that the shot clock turns to "23" one tenth of a second after inbounding, not one full second after inbounding.
Because of this, when the shot clock turns to 16, the actual time on the shot clock is 16[.9] seconds, and the time elapsed from 24[.0] seconds is 7.1 seconds - an 8-second violation has not yet occurred. The 8-second violation occurs when the shot clock turns to 15[.9] and 8.1 seconds have elapsed.
Although it is tempting to believe that when the shot clock reads "16", the second that is encompassed there is [16.0 - 15.1], and that WAS the case before the NBA added tenths under 5 seconds (see the article above), this is no longer true. When the shot clock reads "16", the second that is encompassed is [16.9 - 16.0].
I’m morseo saying it’s a phenomenon than making an excuse for Fox, because I agree with you.
He’s getting paid the big bucks, and he has the talent (debatable lately, but I’m still a believer) to push this team out of the Kangz-zone.
But I don’t think we should just discount how frustration could turn into apathy. This franchise is a dumpster fire, and that’s not debatable. But it is on Fox to fight through that and bring it every night.
He’s getting paid the big bucks, and he has the talent (debatable lately, but I’m still a believer) to push this team out of the Kangz-zone.
But I don’t think we should just discount how frustration could turn into apathy. This franchise is a dumpster fire, and that’s not debatable. But it is on Fox to fight through that and bring it every night.
Honestly, HB and Tyrese are the two who most often try to push it in transition, including off the other team's makes. (How often do we see Tyrese trying to grab the ball from the ref after, say, can offensive foul by the other side?) And therein lies part of the problem: as much as these guys seems to like each other personally, they too often play as if they're not *quite* on the same page.