Post Timeout Performance
There's been strong interest this season from several quarters for developing "coach ratings" and we made a few steps in that direction with Stats for Mr. Simmons and Stats for Mr. Simmons, part II (both of which will be updated soon with full season numbers).
Still an obvious statistical area to look at where a coach might be believed to have strong influence is in the possessions following a timeout. With time to draw up a play (or draw up the defense) and substitute in and out the desired players for maximum effect, the ‘first possession’ following the timeout can be viewed as a mini-test of the coach’s in game strategies.
Looking at the regular season games we can compile a hefty sample size if we use all post-timeout action, which may include a fair amount of moments at less than crucial times, and especially in the early stages of games a timeout may be called less for the purposes of setting up the next play and more for discussing the way the game is going and what, ahem, might need to be changed (the proverbial ‘yelling at the players’ stoppage). Still, these numbers should provide a decent read on how a coach’s play-scripting panned out.
Offensive performance immediately following a timeout
|
The following numbers represent the immediate first possession after a timeout when the team was on offense and inbounding the ball.
2005-06 Regular Season
| Rank |
Team |
FGM |
FGA |
FG% |
FTM |
FTA |
T/O |
Pts/Poss* |
| 1 |
Seattle |
185 |
413 |
.448 |
234 |
293 |
76 |
118.6 |
| 2 |
Boston |
167 |
344 |
.485 |
263 |
336 |
71 |
117.9 |
| 3 |
Phoenix |
135 |
299 |
.452 |
152 |
190 |
48 |
116.2 |
| 4 |
Utah |
116 |
271 |
.428 |
249 |
323 |
53 |
115.5 |
| 5 |
Denver |
135 |
321 |
.421 |
232 |
315 |
57 |
113.9 |
| 6 |
Dallas |
172 |
407 |
.423 |
248 |
329 |
78 |
113.3 |
| 7 |
Sacramento |
147 |
348 |
.422 |
268 |
348 |
68 |
113.2 |
| 8 |
Golden State |
145 |
367 |
.395 |
247 |
324 |
50 |
112.8 |
| 9 |
Orlando |
191 |
411 |
.465 |
238 |
317 |
82 |
112.8 |
| 10 |
Washington |
173 |
417 |
.415 |
243 |
309 |
59 |
112.8 |
| 11 |
Toronto |
182 |
431 |
.422 |
220 |
277 |
62 |
112.2 |
| 12 |
New Orleans/Okla |
133 |
314 |
.424 |
225 |
295 |
57 |
111.3 |
| 13 |
Detroit |
176 |
417 |
.422 |
171 |
232 |
54 |
111.1 |
| 14 |
Memphis |
169 |
414 |
.408 |
204 |
269 |
75 |
110.6 |
| 15 |
L.A. Clippers |
128 |
305 |
.420 |
235 |
301 |
68 |
110.0 |
| 16 |
New Jersey |
184 |
457 |
.403 |
249 |
316 |
73 |
109.7 |
| 17 |
Miami |
171 |
395 |
.433 |
189 |
268 |
69 |
109.4 |
| 18 |
L.A. Lakers |
152 |
379 |
.401 |
201 |
271 |
55 |
109.2 |
| 19 |
Indiana |
194 |
434 |
.447 |
215 |
285 |
80 |
108.6 |
| 20 |
New York |
190 |
412 |
.461 |
219 |
312 |
83 |
108.4 |
| 21 |
Milwaukee |
146 |
386 |
.378 |
239 |
320 |
52 |
108.3 |
| 22 |
Cleveland |
149 |
380 |
.392 |
253 |
363 |
57 |
107.9 |
| 23 |
Charlotte |
212 |
484 |
.438 |
204 |
279 |
78 |
106.4 |
| 24 |
Chicago |
176 |
414 |
.425 |
156 |
210 |
76 |
106.3 |
| 25 |
Philadelphia |
216 |
480 |
.450 |
216 |
297 |
85 |
106.2 |
| 26 |
Atlanta |
194 |
442 |
.439 |
222 |
297 |
86 |
105.9 |
| 27 |
Houston |
177 |
436 |
.406 |
215 |
282 |
93 |
105.1 |
| 28 |
San Antonio |
168 |
382 |
.440 |
167 |
248 |
67 |
104.9 |
| 29 |
Portland |
179 |
444 |
.403 |
221 |
311 |
86 |
103.4 |
| 30 |
Minnesota |
141 |
371 |
.380 |
176 |
245 |
67 |
98.5 |
*Pts/Poss = Points per 100 possessions, accounting for offensive rebounds
The makeup of a roster probably has a lot to say with how a team can go about designing and executing plays, so it's a little unfair to label these things "coach ratings" as a result. Along with that, by using a full season we're dealing with varying levels of intensity and degree of difficulty (a play post timeout in garbage time versus a last second shot with only one second to inbound and shoot).
Nonetheless these are the stats yet since only five of the top ten most efficienct clubs are even playoff qualifiers, while four of the bottom ten made the postseason, it might be deemed a non-essential area! Just as important for a coach presumably is to set the defense coming back from a timeout -- being able to predict his opponent’s moves and ready the countering answer:
Defensive performance immediately following a timeout
|
...and the defensive equivalents
2005-06 Regular Season
| Rank |
Team |
FGM |
FGA |
FG% |
FTM |
FTA |
T/O |
Pts/Poss* |
| 1 |
Miami |
149 |
388 |
.384 |
213 |
298 |
64 |
101.1 |
| 2 |
Dallas |
147 |
383 |
.384 |
210 |
287 |
67 |
102.9 |
| 3 |
Detroit |
200 |
461 |
.434 |
168 |
233 |
88 |
103.4 |
| 4 |
Philadelphia |
152 |
377 |
.403 |
187 |
245 |
69 |
104.3 |
| 5 |
San Antonio |
153 |
385 |
.397 |
198 |
253 |
78 |
104.4 |
| 6 |
Indiana |
159 |
382 |
.416 |
173 |
240 |
67 |
104.5 |
| 7 |
Chicago |
156 |
402 |
.388 |
210 |
268 |
64 |
104.6 |
| 8 |
Denver |
170 |
404 |
.421 |
219 |
304 |
91 |
105.2 |
| 9 |
New Jersey |
141 |
349 |
.404 |
209 |
271 |
71 |
105.5 |
| 10 |
Orlando |
145 |
363 |
.399 |
215 |
303 |
60 |
106.6 |
| 11 |
L.A. Lakers |
168 |
398 |
.422 |
213 |
293 |
52 |
107.3 |
| 12 |
Charlotte |
162 |
384 |
.422 |
211 |
291 |
92 |
107.4 |
| 13 |
New Orleans/Okla |
152 |
400 |
.380 |
230 |
306 |
61 |
107.6 |
| 14 |
Utah |
132 |
354 |
.373 |
294 |
395 |
62 |
108.2 |
| 15 |
Memphis |
168 |
398 |
.422 |
199 |
261 |
79 |
108.7 |
| 16 |
Houston |
145 |
346 |
.419 |
197 |
263 |
64 |
108.7 |
| 17 |
Sacramento |
162 |
402 |
.403 |
209 |
268 |
58 |
110.0 |
| 18 |
Phoenix |
203 |
476 |
.426 |
227 |
311 |
86 |
110.4 |
| 19 |
Milwaukee |
185 |
425 |
.435 |
233 |
322 |
60 |
110.5 |
| 20 |
New York |
153 |
332 |
.461 |
235 |
312 |
68 |
112.2 |
| 21 |
Washington |
167 |
387 |
.432 |
210 |
283 |
69 |
112.3 |
| 22 |
Golden State |
178 |
398 |
.447 |
233 |
307 |
78 |
112.5 |
| 23 |
Minnesota |
172 |
383 |
.449 |
241 |
319 |
62 |
115.3 |
| 24 |
Boston |
193 |
430 |
.449 |
245 |
317 |
74 |
115.3 |
| 25 |
Portland |
156 |
348 |
.448 |
207 |
271 |
58 |
115.5 |
| 26 |
Atlanta |
184 |
405 |
.454 |
242 |
319 |
58 |
116.0 |
| 27 |
L.A. Clippers |
187 |
416 |
.450 |
267 |
353 |
67 |
117.3 |
| 28 |
Toronto |
183 |
403 |
.454 |
232 |
294 |
62 |
117.6 |
| 29 |
Seattle |
181 |
384 |
.471 |
242 |
307 |
81 |
118.5 |
| 30 |
Cleveland |
200 |
412 |
.485 |
202 |
268 |
55 |
119.7 |
Now we're getting somewhere as the top two teams in each conference rank in the top five for defense immediately after a timeout where the other team has the ball. Eight of the top ten made the playoffs, with only three of the bottom ten in the postseason.
One more wrinkle to consider though is that teams during a timeout may not only plan what happens on the inbounds play but on the subsequent possession going the other way. We've also compiled stats for "offense 2" and "defense 2" where it is the second game possession following a timeout (the team on defense at the inbounds going back on offense and vice versa).
Rather than show the full stats though, we'll list each team with its rank in the various segments.
Overall Post-Timeout ratings
|
Let's try and combine the different post timeout scenarios into one rating.
| Rank |
Team |
Off1 |
Off2 |
Def1 |
Def2 |
Score |
Wins |
| 1 |
Dallas |
6 |
13 |
2 |
21 |
7.3 |
60 |
| 2 |
Miami |
17 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
7.9 |
52 |
| 3 |
Utah |
4 |
11 |
14 |
4 |
8.6 |
41 |
| 4 |
Denver |
5 |
21 |
8 |
13 |
9.1 |
44 |
| 5 |
Detroit |
13 |
10 |
3 |
20 |
9.8 |
64 |
| 6 |
Orlando |
9 |
14 |
10 |
18 |
11.1 |
36 |
| 7 |
Memphis |
14 |
1 |
15 |
3 |
11.4 |
49 |
| 8 |
Boston |
2 |
16 |
24 |
5 |
12.4 |
33 |
| 9 |
New Jersey |
16 |
22 |
9 |
2 |
12.4 |
49 |
| 10 |
Sacramento |
7 |
27 |
17 |
12 |
13.9 |
44 |
| 11 |
Seattle |
1 |
3 |
29 |
19 |
14.0 |
35 |
| 12 |
Chicago |
24 |
5 |
7 |
15 |
14.1 |
41 |
| 13 |
Phoenix |
3 |
24 |
18 |
26 |
14.1 |
54 |
| 14 |
Indiana |
19 |
23 |
6 |
17 |
14.4 |
41 |
| 15 |
Washington |
10 |
7 |
21 |
16 |
14.5 |
42 |
| 16 |
L.A. Lakers |
18 |
9 |
11 |
22 |
14.8 |
45 |
| 17 |
San Antonio |
28 |
20 |
5 |
1 |
15.0 |
63 |
| 18 |
New Orleans/Okla |
12 |
17 |
13 |
28 |
15.0 |
38 |
| 19 |
Golden State |
8 |
12 |
22 |
24 |
15.8 |
34 |
| 20 |
Philadelphia |
25 |
18 |
4 |
25 |
16.3 |
38 |
| 21 |
New York |
20 |
8 |
20 |
14 |
17.8 |
23 |
| 22 |
Charlotte |
23 |
26 |
12 |
11 |
17.8 |
26 |
| 23 |
Milwaukee |
21 |
25 |
19 |
10 |
19.4 |
40 |
| 24 |
Toronto |
11 |
15 |
28 |
29 |
20.1 |
27 |
| 25 |
L.A. Clippers |
15 |
29 |
27 |
8 |
20.4 |
47 |
| 26 |
Cleveland |
22 |
6 |
30 |
9 |
21.4 |
50 |
| 27 |
Atlanta |
26 |
4 |
26 |
23 |
22.9 |
26 |
| 28 |
Houston |
27 |
28 |
16 |
30 |
23.4 |
34 |
| 29 |
Minnesota |
30 |
30 |
23 |
6 |
24.4 |
33 |
| 30 |
Portland |
29 |
19 |
25 |
27 |
26.0 |
21 |
Legend:
Off1 = 1st Offensive possession post timeout when team had ball from inbounds
Off2 = 1st Offensive production when team was on defense coming back from the timeout
Def1 = 1st Defensive possession when team was on defense after the timeout
Def2 = 1st Defensive production when team was on offense coming back from the timeout
Score = weighted ranks formula: [3*Off1)+(3*Def1)+Off2+Def2]/8
So when you use our little two second formula, the Dallas Mavericks come out on top as the best team in the NBA post timeout. Kudos to Avery Johnson? On the other hand, no one is going to claim Nate McMillan is a bad coach just because of what happened in Portland this year!
For correlation lovers, it looks like this: (ranks/Poss to Wins)
Off1 = .21
Off2 = .07
Def1 = .54
Def2 = .32
Score = .58
...it should be mentioned that with n=30 sample we're dealing with gigantic confidence intervals on all these!
Most of the top teams fare pretty well in the overall rankings, although San Antonio and Phoenix only rate as middle of the pack. However if we slice the data by looking only at post timeout events in the fourth quarter of close games (neither team ahead by more than five points) then San Antonio moves up to #7, while Phoenix drops to #19. So, you might think that the strange events of Lakers-Suns game four do hint at one weakness of the "Nashers" -- they're only average post timeout.
The Suns though weren't the lowest ranked playoff team in clutch post timeout plays -- Cleveland, Memphis and Milwaukee all rated worse...will any of them survive the first round?
Again though these numbers are really more of a "fun value" at this stage, but we may well look to publish a multi-year study in the offseason to see if indeed certain coaches have a knack for winning the ultimate head-to-head matchup: pen versus pen!
|
Postscript: after receiving a zillion emails saying the same thing -- compare the post timeout performance to overall full season stats -- we've gone ahead and created version 2: Alternative Post Timeout Ratings
|
