Are we sure?

[Excalibur]

yes that’s an insane coaching philosophy, hope it works out. Coach has to manage the game. If Hurley’s philosophy, is let the kids play it out he is going to lose more games than he is going to win.

I would say a majority of coaches play that one out. K for one rarely calls timeout unless it's already an inbounds play. Yes, we could have called time out on the rebound, but coaches can't call it during a live ball.

 

[intlzncster]

The play and the shot were just fine. It just didn’t drop

It was a good look and he missed. A timeout wouldn't have given him (or anyone) a better look.

These points are irrelevant to the question at hand tho. You can't judge the quality of a decision based on the result. This is classic Outcome Bias.

With this particular team, I'd call a timeout every time. I get that you don't want the defense to set up, settle, or whatever. But our kids are low BBIQ players. There's a low amount of trust to them. And we've seen endless end of clock scenarios where Gilbert/Vital dribble out the clock and jack a bad shot.

Would have made more sense to call it in the grand scheme imo

 

[Excalibur]

The data says calling a timeout is the correct decision. . .

"Data"

Source? I'll wait.

 

[intlzncster]

Gilbert has been in that position so many times he should have better execution but he rarely does. The ball should be in Bouk's hand in end of clock situations.

That's why calling a timeout is usually the better decision for this club. If you have Kemba or Bazz running the show, then a TO might be a net negative. But not this group

 

[Excalibur]

And we've seen endless end of clock scenarios where Gilbert/Vital dribble out the clock and jack a bad shot.

Funny that many of those scenarios were out of timeouts . . .

And the irony of citing outcome bias is not lost on me

 

[intlzncster]

Funny that many of those scenarios were out of timeouts . . .

How many vs how many not? And some of those could be due to bad plays/calls by Hurley.

And the irony of citing outcome bias is not lost on me

What? The more data points you get, the less outcome bias you have. That's the entire point of data analysis and removal of bias lol Yeah, it's observational, but that's all you can do in this situation

What ya'll are saying is that putting the ball in Gilbert's hands on the fly is better than setting things up more in a more structurally rigid fashion. I'd disagree with that, having watched him play all year. It's a weird take tbh

 

[polycom]

"Data"

Source? I'll wait.

Late Game Timeouts Part II: What Happens When Trailing

By John Ezekowitz Two weeks ago, I published the first part of my late game timeout study from the 2009-2010 season. I found that when the score was tied, not calling a timeout was more effective t…

harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com

Hope I didn’t make you wait too long. Also the author presents at the Sloan Sports Conference so he is legit.

 

[ZenConn]

I don't think we call a timeout in that situation. We got a good look.

Problem is that we don't have good shooters. Calling a timeout in that situation will let the defense setup to deny CV the ball - our best and only 3 point shooter in that situation.

 

[Excalibur]

Late Game Timeouts Part II: What Happens When Trailing

By John Ezekowitz Two weeks ago, I published the first part of my late game timeout study from the 2009-2010 season. I found that when the score was tied, not calling a timeout was more effective t…

harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com

Hope I didn’t make you wait too long. Also the author presents at the Sloan Sports Conference so he is legit.

You might want to read the conclusion.

 

[polycom]

You might want to read the conclusion.

You might want to read the conclusion.

So what you’re saying is you thinking highly enough of the basketball IQ of our team. That in a situation where we should have gotten two shots and we got 1 you’re happy about it. Well we can agree to disagree then.

 

[intlzncster]

So what you’re saying is you thinking highly enough of the basketball IQ of our team. That in a situation where we should have gotten two shots and we got 1 you’re happy about it. Well we can agree to disagree then.

This was actually my biggest problem with it See if you can get two. If you're tied, you want to be sure to leave no time left so they don't have a shot to win it. If you're behind, you need to give yourself as many opportunities as possible. Can't worry about the other team at that point.

 

[Excalibur]

So what you’re saying is you thinking highly enough of the basketball IQ of our team. That in a situation where we should have gotten two shots and we got 1 you’re happy about it. Well we can agree to disagree then.

Move the ball a bit there? The offensive rebound is an entirely different scenario and much more complex.

 

[Excalibur]

This was actually my biggest problem with it See if you can get two. If you're tied, you want to be sure to leave no time left so they don't have a shot to win it. If you're behind, you need to give yourself as many opportunities as possible. Can't worry about the other team at that point.

We are just as likely to lose time after inbounding the ball as we are by just letting it run.

 

[polycom]

Move the ball a bit there? The offensive rebound is an entirely different scenario and much more complex.

More complex that maybe a coach could explain during a timeout...instead we got a rebound and did nothing with it.

 

[intlzncster]

We are just as likely to lose time after inbounding the ball as we are by just letting it run.

Based on what data?

Even after that rebound, a TO would have been useful. You gonna trust Carlton to get us a 3pt shot there?

 

[Excalibur]

Based on what data?

There's not enough of a sample size for us, but having watched us try to run plays in late game situations, we're pretty good at screwing them up regardless of the timeout.

 

[intlzncster]

There's not enough of a sample size for us, but having watched us try to run plays in late game situations, we're pretty good at screwing them up regardless of the timeout.

I think a lot of that has to do with Gilbert/Vital deciding to free lance. At least that's what Danny's reaction implies. Unless he's just drawing up horrible plays that are basically let gilbert go to the rim and get stuffed. idk obv as I wasn't in the huddle

 

[businesslawyer]

If we can’t trust our coach to draw up a play with 8 seconds, what’s the point? It’s okay to critique Hurley, he does some head scratching stuff. The shot we got was fine but we got an offensive rebound with a second left...

Boy, talk about not knowing when to quit due to the reaction.

We got a good shot off. If you call timeout there, you would have settled for getting that shot again, and that's even if they don't foul you and prevent you from having a chance. There is literally zero basis to be complaining about that decision except that Christian happened to miss.

 

[businesslawyer]

More complex that maybe a coach could explain during a timeout...instead we got a rebound and did nothing with it.

God, stop whining. Carlton got the rebound with maybe a second left. He looked to throw it outside the three point line, didn't see anyone immediately open and then froze wondering if laying it up did any good at that point.

We played hard. We didn't play well enough. There were numerous decisions that could have been made better, plays that could have been made better and calls that could have been made better that just didn't come together. But twice we needed 3s to tie to force OTs and twice we got off good looks. You're not going to make them all. Our problem is we played from behind for about 48 minutes, and if you do that eventually you don't make a play and game over.

 

[JustbrewitMan]

Late Game Timeouts Part II: What Happens When Trailing

By John Ezekowitz Two weeks ago, I published the first part of my late game timeout study from the 2009-2010 season. I found that when the score was tied, not calling a timeout was more effective t…

harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com

Hope I didn’t make you wait too long. Also the author presents at the Sloan Sports Conference so he is legit.

Unfortunately, that article that you linked to--while interesting--is not relevant to the situation that's being discussed. It addressed TOs when down 2 pts (not 3pts). He teases at posting a final article being about TOs when down 3pts, but I couldnt find where he actually published the post addressing that (and since the article you cited was from 2010, I assume he forgot to ever publish it, LOL teaser)

Interestingly, scanning that article and googling led me to a KenPom blog post where he did a larger sample-size analysis of results when up by three and you foul (or don't foul). Which was the decision Marshall & WSU had to make at the end there. Essentially no significant (and no numerically meaningful) difference:

Yet another study about fouling when up 3 | The kenpom.com blog

W L OT Win% Cases
Foul 122 5 11 92.0 138
Defend 598 2 76 93.5 676

A big factor in the "defend" strategy working better than potentially expected is that 3pt % goes down significantly for most shooters in this situation vs. overall 3pt %. KP states:

"In the 814 cases studied, teams made 98 out of 608 three-point shots (16.1%) during the possession in question. Basically, assume a player is about half as effective as normal in hitting threes when his team is down three facing a limited clock. He might even be worse since it’s possible these shots were skewed towards more effective shooters. "

 

[intlzncster]

We got a good shot off. If you call timeout there, you would have settled for getting that shot again, and that's even if they don't foul you and prevent you from having a chance.

You're well aware that this is an outcome biased argument. If we didn't get a good shot off, the entire board would be apoplectic.

The argument is about which option is ideal to maximize outcome over the long haul.

There is literally zero basis to be complaining about that decision except that Christian happened to miss.

Of course there is. Multiple actually. One of which being that you could have devised a scenario to get two shots off, which when you're down, gives more potential chances to tie.

 

[businesslawyer]

You're well aware that this is an outcome biased argument. If we didn't get a good shot off, the entire board would be apoplectic.

The argument is about which option is ideal to maximize outcome over the long haul.



Of course there is. Multiple actually. One of which being that you could have devised a scenario to get two shots off, which when you're down, gives more potential chances to tie.

Your first point is fair. I should have said that the decision to try to get a shot off without calling a TO and letting the defense set up was perfectly rational, as was evidenced by the fact that if we thought we could draw up a play for that good a shot, we would have taken it.

I have no clue what your second point is. The odds that, in the 10 seconds we had, we should have not been focused on getting off a good shot but leaving time for getting off a shot, grabbing an offensive rebound and then having left us time to throw out to a shooter who was spotted up and free and gotten a second off is absurd. That is such a low percentage event that you don't decrease the odds of your first and primary 3 going in.

 

[intlzncster]

I have no clue what your second point is. The odds that, in the 10 seconds we had, we should have not been focused on getting off a good shot but leaving time for getting off a shot, grabbing an offensive rebound and then having left us time to throw out to a shooter who was spotted up and free and gotten a second off is absurd. That is such a low percentage event that you don't decrease the odds of your first and primary 3 going in.

It's not that hard to design a play for a quick three (double screen), say within 5 seconds. Then you make guys aware they are going for a tip out or secure a rebound with a TO. It makes sense to at least try this, given our shooting woes (sans Polley).

 

[superjohn]

It's not that hard to design a play for a quick three (double screen), say within 5 seconds. Then you make guys aware they are going for a tip out or secure a rebound with a TO. It makes sense to at least try this, given our shooting woes (sans Polley).

What?

 

[intlzncster]

What?

How hard is that to understand? Run a double screen (or whatever you want) on the inbounds for a relatively quick three. If he makes it, play D. If he misses, try for the tap out on the rebound. Call TO if we inadvertently rebound.

 

[Caronimo]

You have 8 seconds and the ball and one time out. You have option A - call time out draw a play up for the best shooter or option b let your team do whatever they want and hope your best shooter gets a look.

There is one right answer, draw up a play.

If we had a pure shooter I would comment on this. Going to pass tho.

 

[superjohn]

How hard is that to understand? Run a double screen (or whatever you want) on the inbounds for a relatively quick three. If he makes it, play D. If he misses, try for the tap out on the rebound. Call TO if we inadvertently rebound.

Businesslawyer had no idea what you're talking about either.

 

[UCSouth]

Sure thing super Welch. Most college coaches are terrible so I’m not sure what that point means. The data says calling a timeout is the correct decision, but of course you know everything super welch. I agree with not calling a to in the nba because they have much higher bb IQ you’d expect them to make a good choice.

How can you blast superjohn for his opinion, isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black. He has a valid point that doesn't align with yours.....good to know who is the all knowing recliner coach.