Fire Joe! ... or critique Joe ... or defend Joe... or worry about Joe's coaching

[Kernewek]

If timeouts reliably did something, the impact would be measurable. It isn't, because it doesn't.

Link?  What's your proof that timeouts have little to no effect?  It's your claim, so back it up.

As liam said:  sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  That's a lot different than a claim that it doesn't work at all.

Here's a link for you:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.11691

Since we're talking about claims, it's worth pointing out that my original question has still gone unanswered:

If the coach calling timeouts "at critical points" has a meaningful effect on the game, can you explain why none of Doc Rivers's timeouts in Game 7 appeared to slow down the Celtics?

As you responded to that with a somewhat unrelated question, I take it you don't have a good answer?

[Roy H.]

If timeouts reliably did something, the impact would be measurable. It isn't, because it doesn't.

Link?  What's your proof that timeouts have little to no effect?  It's your claim, so back it up.

As liam said:  sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  That's a lot different than a claim that it doesn't work at all.

Here's a link for you:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.11691

Since we're talking about claims, it's worth pointing out that my original question has still gone unanswered:

If the coach calling timeouts "at critical points" has a meaningful effect on the game, can you explain why none of Doc Rivers's timeouts in Game 7 appeared to slow down the Celtics?

As you responded to that with a somewhat unrelated question, I take it you don't have a good answer?

Nothing works 100% of the time, and I'm not sure that anybody has claimed that it does.  As I mentioned, sometimes calling timeouts works.  They break momentum, give players a rest and a chance to regain composure, allow coaches a chance to attempt to reset strategy and make substitutions, and give the coach a chance to practice performance art like throwing a clipboard.

As Brad Stevens has said:

"The start of the quarters, especially that third quarter, is really, really important," says Stevens. "If you see you're not quite as locked as you were at the end of the half, whatever the case may be, and you're gonna use one at seven anyways, using one at nine or 10 isn't the end of the world."

[Roy H.]

https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/6918/2011PermuttS_thesis.pdf?sequence=2

[Kernewek]

https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/6918/2011PermuttS_thesis.pdf?sequence=2

Thanks for the link - this also seems to be arguing for my point with regards to at least some "critical points" in a basketball game - with regards to significant runs & momentum:

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.

Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky argued that the “hot-hand” theory of streak shooting is a misinterpretation of a random sequence of events. Although this claim has been highly contested in other literature, the data from this study further supports the idea that a random sequence of events can be misinterpreted, in this case on the team level instead of the individual level. The misinterpretation of chance patterns happens not only in sports, but in other fields as well (Camerer, 1989). When a team goes on an extended scoring run, it can be interpreted as a psychological momentum phenomenon (similar to the hot-hand theory) or as a chance happening within a stationary process. The data provides more support for the idea that the belief in momentum in sports may be a perceptional bias as opposed to an accurate depiction of the inner workings of a sport.

There is one notable exception in the conclusion:

The implication is that although timeouts may not be effective for halting momentum, they still tend to benefit the performance of the teams who call them.
Specifically, performance in the single play immediately following a negative run may be significantly enhanced if a timeout is called.

Though timeouts may be overvalued, the data supports the calling of timeouts as useful. However, a shift in focus from calling timeouts to stop momentum to calling timeouts to design and focus on executing individual plays could be a beneficial strategy for coaches.

But when you read the study you can see that this single-possession lift most significantly applies to the home team, and only really applies within the first half of a game, for reasons that are speculated upon but not particularly explored.

[jpotter33]

https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/6918/2011PermuttS_thesis.pdf?sequence=2

Thanks for the link - this also seems to be arguing for my point with regards to at least some "critical points" in a basketball game - with regards to significant runs & momentum:

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.

Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky argued that the “hot-hand” theory of streak shooting is a misinterpretation of a random sequence of events. Although this claim has been highly contested in other literature, the data from this study further supports the idea that a random sequence of events can be misinterpreted, in this case on the team level instead of the individual level. The misinterpretation of chance patterns happens not only in sports, but in other fields as well (Camerer, 1989). When a team goes on an extended scoring run, it can be interpreted as a psychological momentum phenomenon (similar to the hot-hand theory) or as a chance happening within a stationary process. The data provides more support for the idea that the belief in momentum in sports may be a perceptional bias as opposed to an accurate depiction of the inner workings of a sport.

There is one notable exception in the conclusion:

The implication is that although timeouts may not be effective for halting momentum, they still tend to benefit the performance of the teams who call them.
Specifically, performance in the single play immediately following a negative run may be significantly enhanced if a timeout is called.

Though timeouts may be overvalued, the data supports the calling of timeouts as useful. However, a shift in focus from calling timeouts to stop momentum to calling timeouts to design and focus on executing individual plays could be a beneficial strategy for coaches.

But when you read the study you can see that this single-possession lift most significantly applies to the home team, and only really applies within the first half of a game, for reasons that are speculated upon but not particularly explored.

(This paper has been presented multiple times on this forum when we’ve been having this discussion over the years, so I’m familiar with it.)

This is a senior thesis that was completed 12 years ago, and quite a bit of research has come out since then involving the concept of “psychological momentum” in sports in one fashion or another. So there should be some skepticism about how well this is accepted currently.

The first quote is a strawman argument that is a logical rather than empirical argument. Nobody argues that timeouts are “necessary” to curb runs, as it is self-evidently true that runs can and do sometimes get stopped on their own by the team. Our argument is an empirical one that the best way to curb a run like that is via a timeout and ATO play. But thats different than a “necessary” claim, and not even logically possible to always use due to limited timeouts per game. And it doesn’t make it foolproof and always successful, but certainly more successful than doing nothing about the run and hoping it resolves itself before too much damage is done.

The second quote suggests bias and is largely based off a study that many economists now criticize. It is not consistent with most recent evidence that has largely come out in favor of the existence and utility of “psychological momentum” as a legitimate phenomenon that impacts performance in sports. Most of the stuff I’ve seen has been around “hot hand theory” and individually focused, and I’m not sure if more recent studies have come out about timeouts and runs. But it would stand to reason that this kind of momentum would apply just as much to the team as a whole as to the individual.

(Even anecdotally speaking, anyone who has ever played competitive sports and was at least moderately skilled - particularly in basketball - can testify for the “hot hand phenomenon” and the existence of “psychological momentum”. My humble thesis is that it has to do with better access to muscle memory; it’s the same way that you can intuitively “feel” and “know” when a shot is going in just by how it feels when you shoot it.)

The third quote is the crux of the argument we’re making. The timeout is NOT about directly stopping the other team’s momentum; rather, it’s about calming your team down and setting up a good look to try and break the run. This is because runs in basketball are predicated not only on a hot streak of the opponent, but also the futility of your team, whether that be through missed shots or turning the ball over. So the timeout allows your team to catch their breath and set up a play to get a good look, with the hope that scoring and ending the run will indirectly impact the psychological momentum of the other team. So while there may be indirect effects on the other team, the primary purpose of the timeout is directly related to your team and setting up a good look, which is supported by this evidence.

[Kernewek]

No disagreement from me that there are problems with that paper - I'm just pointing out that, since it was presented for discussion, it doesn't seem to advocate for the calling timeouts at 'critical points' argument.  And while you may not be arguing that timeouts 'directly stop the other team's momentum', the posters I was directly responding are directly and indirectly making that claim:

As I mentioned, sometimes calling timeouts works.  They break momentum, give players a rest and a chance to regain composure, allow coaches a chance to attempt to reset strategy and make substitutions, and give the coach a chance to practice performance art like throwing a clipboard.

The study I linked above ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.11691 )  is both more recent and a better study (let alone citation) in a lot of ways, but perhaps you're not commenting on it because you haven't had time to read it? Worth noting, though, that it does what it says on the tin, namely that it's not lying when it says that "[w]e conclude from our analysis that while comebacks frequently occur after a run, it is slightly disadvantageous to call a timeout during a run by the opposing team and further demonstrate that the magnitude of this effect varies by franchise."


Now, beyond momentum,  the fact that timeouts allow coaches to make substitutions  and draw up a play is, yes, a function of the rules of basketball. Ultimately, both papers show some interesting data - but that's about it, there's nothing conclusive.

Since we're talking about the burden of proof, though, care to provide any proof for this one:

Our argument is an empirical one that the best way to curb a run like that is via a timeout and ATO play. But thats different than a “necessary” claim, and not even logically possible to always use due to limited timeouts per game. And it doesn’t make it foolproof and always successful, but certainly more successful than doing nothing about the run and hoping it resolves itself before too much damage is done.

Because this is only supported by the study that we've both identified should be treated with skepticism, and not supported by the new study, so I'm at a loss as to how you've come to this conclusion.

[green_bballers13]

Win: crickets
Lose: Fire Joe

The message is old. The Celtics aren't going to fire Joe until the offseason. Wanting to fire a coach in the middle of the ECF is crazy.

[Phantom255x]

If they lose this series (very likely) and Mazzulla is still here next season, then I think that's telling about how unserious this organization is. And I'll probably stop paying much attention to them next season as a result. Guy is hot garbage. We can blame the players too but this guy has no clue either.

[SHAQATTACK]

Fire Joe

[Celtic_Pride777]

We were down 6, why didn't Joe call a TO? Get a quick three and foul, they miss free throws and you have a shot. He lets JB dribble out and take a shot as clock expired. That's inexcusable.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

We 👏🏾 used👏🏾 to👏🏾 be 👏🏾clutch👏🏾 when👏🏾 Brad👏🏾 Stevens👏🏾 was👏🏾 head 👏🏾coach! Look up the numbers

[TheReaLPuba]

We were down 6, why didn't Joe call a TO? Get a quick three and foul, they miss free throws and you have a shot.

Team totally choked this game away.

Once they lost the lead they gave up mentally. 

[greg683x]

We were down 6, why didn't Joe call a TO? Get a quick three and foul, they miss free throws and you have a shot.

Needed to advance the ball too to preserve time with only 8 seconds left.  He gave up.

[SHAQATTACK]

I knew Joe was going to LET the team down , NO leadership , no experience ,  he panics like the players …..just goes brain dead ……like a college coach would thrown into this situation.

Thanks Brad …you dummy ….!

[angryguy77]

Al, Smart and brown killed us tonight......guess who coach trusted to take the team home?

For now on, I'll just assume anyone who defends this 🤡 is either related or a burner account of his.