Please only read this if you believe in data and have an open mind. If you want to go to the grave that what your high school coach and Mike Rice have told you must be true, this read isn't for you. "The commonly held belief expressed by coaches, fans, and the media that timeouts are necessary to halt positive momentum is not supported by the data in this study. Under this belief, if a timeout is not called when an opposing team possesses positive momentum, the momentum will allow the opposing team to continue to have heightened success. Using 6-0 runs as an indicator of instances where momentum would be a factor, teams were successful at “reversing” momentum even without the timeout as a mediator, as demonstrated by scoring ratios above 0.5 for short-term periods following 6-0 runs. Even if we interpret the presence of momentum as a legitimate force before a timeout is called, the fact that teams are capable of bouncing back without having taken a timeout does not demonstrate that timeouts are important for halting momentum. This is the counterfactual that was missing from the Mace et. al. and Roane et al. studies, which led them to prematurely conclude that timeouts were effective in stopping momentum." https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/6918/2011PermuttS_thesis.pdf?sequence=2#:~:text=Since one of the main,timeout for momentum-stopping purposes. Reading these overreactions about the calling timeouts too soon or not soon enough are way overblown.
Oh sure, bring statistics into it. These fly right in the face with my emotional belief that we are constantly screwing this up, and I for one don't appreciate it.
Agreed. If your team is panicked and lost you call a time out. Middle school girls basketball teams get that way a few times per season. High schoolers might once per season. College probably not. NBA players don't have that problem. They've seen it. A timeout isn't going to help unless it's for a tactical change.
Exactly. If you read the paper, it does point out that the initial possession after the timeout is more likely to be successful than a standard play. So calling a timeout at the end of the game might still be of benefit. However, these people freaking out that we should call a timeout to change the momentum of the game in the 2nd quarter just isn't backed up by any data. It's the easy arm-chair coaching move to make, but it's wrong.
It's not just about stopping momentum though. Sometimes it's about also changing the lineup, or making sure your team runs a good play out of the timeout.
Intersting. A big change the NBA that I have noticed in the last few years is that whereas with a minute to go or so and a team gets possession, they would almost always call a timeout. But that is very rarely the case anymore. I think Phil Jackson changed this, trying to teach the Lakers to be confident at those times. It really seems to have caught on. But sometimes, dammit, I just wish Stotts would call a time out at a critical moment.
Great point on the changes you're seeing late in games and how Phil Jackson would let his team ride. I think your last point is something made by fans of every team. We have the benefit of handsight. We have the ability to say something is dumb when it happens, but then when the outcome turns out ok, we just say "well, it worked out despite the dumb move." Lets say you flipped a coin and it was heads 4 times in a row. Now I might come to the conlusion, the 5th time will be tails. When you pick heads and you're wrong, my conclusion that you were an idiot for guessing heads again would be backed up by the outcome, but the data would say your guess was no worse than mine.
This study would account for all those things. It mentions that you're more likely to have success the first possession out of the timeout, and yet that first possession success doesn't have any significant impact on the overall trend, it's just a one possession spike. Since it can be assumed coaches do change lineups during timeouts, rest for star players, etc. would also have been baked into the results.
Our offense looked much better after that 3rd quarter timeout than before it. The OP implies that coaches can't have positive impacts on their team in a timeout, which is absolutely ridiculous.
I don't think it implies that at all. Just that after 1 play, the difference can go one way or the other, about as often. Perhaps certain coaches do get more out of their players after a timeout. But it doesn't appear to be common.
Actually, if you read the paper, that’s not what is implied at all. The paper states that they’re more likely to receive a “short term boost” coming out of a timeout. “The existing research on the effectiveness of timeouts on short-term performance in basketball (Mace et. al.; Roane et. al.) supported the idea that timeouts can be highly effective at aiding short-term performance. The findings from this paper support this idea that timeouts can be effective at enhancing performance, but at a smaller magnitude. Regardless of whether a team was home or away, the short-term scoring ratio for teams that called timeout following six consecutive points being scored against them was higher than the short-term scoring ratio for teams that did not call a timeout following six consecutive points being scored against them.”
Your first statement is true, but again, a single event vs a massive data set are two different things. I don't believe you read the paper because it does not imply that coaches can't have a positive impact, that is not what is even being tested in this paper. It does show that the likelihood of a longer term run continuing, stopping, or reversing is not impacted by a timeout.
Well out boils down to: Do we need to adjust? Bl during the 15-0 run, our offense was in shambles, we were stagnant, and couldn't get anything going. After that timeout, we were farrrrr better on that end. Productive timeout from Stotts, just should've come sooner, regardless of some different, contradicting papers.
I believe that this is the case to disciplined teams. As Path wrote, TO can help more to high school teams than Miami Heat with Butler on court. Problem is Blazers seem to behave like high school team with hs coach at times and they would need like 48 TO in game with Utah.
