Why the timeout bugaboo? Have sports pundits never played basketball before?

The Nachoman is getting more and more weary of basketball observers demanding that coaches call timeouts.

The trend started innocently enough (or not, depending on your point of view) with Dick Vitale shouting “get a TO, baby!” whenever a team made a 10-15 point run. Dicky, a former coach, was usually on the money with his pronouncements. Often, an extended run can be indicative of an underlying issue that the coach can correct by stopping play. Perhaps his team is gassed and needs a break. Perhaps he needs to sub back in his best player. Perhaps he had underestimated a player on the opposing team, and a brief discussion of how to adjust the defensive or offensive scheme might stop the bleeding. In any case, Dicky V knew what he was screaming about.

Now, though, I hear broadcasters call for timeouts in every conceivable situation, especially near the end of games. Then, if the coach chooses NOT to call the timeout, I hear criticism, as if the coach were derelict in his duty. I even saw written criticism of Roy Williams, of all people, for failing to use timeouts. Forget the probability that Mr. Williams knows a wee bit more about basketball than a deadspin editor; his proven competence and his national championship should earn him some benefit of the doubt when it comes to subtle points of his game management. I argue that a good coach should NOT be calling timeout much, even at the end of games.

Critical commentators seem to misunderstand the purpose of the basketball timeout. I see two types of timeouts: the tactical, and the strategic. By “tactical,” I mean spur-of-the-moment timeouts based on the immediate game situation: for example, a timeout to avoid a 5-second call, or to preserve possession as a player falls out of bounds. A “strategic” timeout, on the other hand, is usually called by the coach as a calculate move to affect the progress of the game. The Dicky V timeouts described above are all strategic timeouts.

I propose that virtually all tactical timeouts are worthwhile. Is it worth a timeout to maintain possession, and possibly to prevent an opponent’s fast break at the same time? Certainly – that could be a two to five point swing! I’d spend a timeout to gain that many points any day.

Are strategic timeouts useful? They must be measured against the 2-5 point value of a tactical timeout. The Dicky V midgame timeouts, if they stop an opponent’s run, certainly meet the standard. But, what about the timeouts proposed by pundits?

Near the end of the game, a good strategic timeout might be called after a made basket to set up a press, or to make defense/offense substitutions. That’s pretty much it.

Pundits, though, usually give other, ridiculous purposes for a timeout. Usually they expect the coach to “set up” a shot, or to prepare the team to run a set play.[1] What, you didn’t ever practice the shot or the play you want? Why not? What the heck have you been doing in practice, then? If the coach is diagramming a play the team has never seen before, most likely the coach hasn’t been using his practice time wisely.

I especially laugh with scorn at the idea that a coach can magically create a basket on the possession immediately following a timeout. Commentators imply that by listening to a coach’s wisdom for 30-6o seconds, the offensive team has become more likely to score, presumably because the coach “set up” the offense. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the defensive coach likewise had a chance to “set up” the defense?

I’ve witnessed the extremes of the “setting up a last-second shot” silliness, and I’ve never heard an announcer take the coach to task for his mismanagemement.[2] In the last year, I’ve seen:

* With three seconds left, a player starts a reasonably open drive to the basket for the winning shot… but the coach calls timeout to “set up” what becomes a contested fallaway 3 pointer.

* With a few seconds left, down by 1, a player quickly inbounds after a missed basket, catching the opponents off guard, and connects with a streaking teammate for the winning layup… except the coach called timeout to “set up” a play from 94 feet away.

* With 20 seconds left, a coach calls timeout to set up the last shot… which consists of four players backing up until they’re practically out of bounds, while the fifth guy dribbles into a double team and throws up a prayer.[3]

In the same timeframe, I’ve not seen a single last-second shot set up during a timeout that worked. Yeah, there was that Laettner-esque Minnesota craziness in last year’s big 10 tournament, when Tubby Smith seemed to have designed a full-court game winning play. But it turned out that the actual play went nothing like Tubby had drawn it up.

What started the Nachoman on this rant? Deadspin’s Rick Chandler interviewed Keith Smart, the Indiana player whose 15-foot jumper beat Syracuse back in 1987. (Brent Musburger’s excellent call: “Smart… takes the shot…”)

Chandler: “The thing I remember most about it was that Knight didn't call a time out before the play. Not that that was unusual

Smart: People say, well you guys didn't call a time out. But that was Knight. We knew what to do in different situations; that all came out in practice. As a coach now I see that sometimes when you call a time out and draw up a play, the player only sees what you show him and doesn't take what the defense is giving. That shot came out of the motion offense, and that's an offense where you learn to take what the defense gives you. Playing at Indiana and playing for coach Knight has given me a tremendous base for basketball.

On the other end of the famous NCAA non-timeouts, I wonder how many timeouts Michigan coach Steve Fisher wasted in the 1993 title game, leading to Chris Webber being charged with a technical for calling an excess timeout. No one has ever asked that question that I know of. Is it possible that, if Mr. Fisher had a more Knight- or Williams- like attitude toward timeouts, Webber might have called a useful tactical timeout, and the team might have scored to win?

NM

[1] Or, they want the coach to “ice the shooter.” Do we have any evidence that icing the shooter even works?

[2] Have you EVER heard an announcer correctly criticize a coach for blatant game mismanagement? For example, if a player gets a technical, his selfishness has hurt his team; if a coach gets a technical, he’s calculating that he can inspire his team to better play. No one else sees a ridiculous double standard?

[3] … and then bitches to the ref that he was fouled. I call this the NBA offense.