Official Quin Snyder coach’s challenge watch

[infection]

I think there needs to be some legit analytics run on this. To a much smaller scale, this is probably like the three pointer. How long did it take for basketball culture to allow everyone to acknowledge what they already knew, that the three pointer was worth more than the two? At some point we'll realize that these are free possessions, and people will realize that it's pointless to leave Dunder Mifflin without redeeming your Schrute Bucks.

 

[Gameface]

Jokes on you since I don’t recall capitalizing it

****, if this is how it works... I want all my infractions reversed since I don't remember writing the posts I got fracted for.

 

[campaignist]

I'd like to see how many times he ends a game with at least one timeout left, since that's the penalty for losing a challenge.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

****, if this is how it works... I want all my infractions reversed since I don't remember writing the posts I got fracted for.

Seems fair to me.

 

[fishonjazz]

I was trying to find out if there was any data on how often coach's challenges were used. I haven't found that yet, but I did find an interesting article here. It's a bit out-dated as this is from January, but there were some interesting things in there, in addition to quotes from Quin:

NBA Coach’s Challenge Data Yields Surprising Results

Through the first half of the NBA season, challenge calls are being overturned at a higher than expected rate, though not everyone is pleased with the league's new rule.

www.forbes.com

At least as of January, about 45% of challenges ended up in overturning the call.

Here's the part about Snyder:



Then there's this contrasting opinion:



So Quin is basically taking the DL "keep the powder dry" approach. I think it's good to be prepared for using a challenge late in the game, but I think it's also foolish if so many of these are going unused, especially as there can be some pretty drastic impacts on the game with momentum swings and, particularly, foul trouble. If your guy gets blown for his 3rd or 4th foul and he plays 5 less minutes, does that not have an even larger impact than the hypothetical "crucial call"? Having your guy sit on the bench is probably much more likely to lead to you being in a situation where you need a crucial call to go your way. In this way, you can apply the analogy of an ounce of prevention being worth more than a pound of the cure.

An example happened last night, though when I mentioned it in the game thread someone had quoted me saying it wasn't a challengeable call. I'd have to look more into the rules, and maybe they changed this year, but this article references the overturning of out-of-bounds calls, so I'd assume this call last night was challengeable. The great thing about out-of-bounds challenges is that, as of January, the call was overturned 76% of the time. Last night I believe it was with around 5 minutes left or so, we had a chance for an offensive rebound and the ball was called off us, which it wasn't. Rudy and Clarkson were adamant, as well. They came down on the other end of the floor and hit a three. That could cost the game right there. Last season there were numerous occasions where players signaled to Quin to challenge a call and he would waive them off and even say he couldn't. But then he never uses the challenges.

Treat these like extra possessions. It's cool if you want to wait for a more opportune time to use it, but if that ends up being almost never, then you're completely wasting a resource. You're surrendering the free space on the bingo card for "nah, let's wait and see!"

ANYTIME you think you have a good chance to win the challenge, use the challenge. It's that ****ing simple.
Even if it's the first play of the game.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[infection]

ANYTIME you think you have a good chance to win the challenge, use the challenge. It's that ****ing simple.
Even if it's the first play of the game.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[KqWIN]

Coaches challenge is not a big deal. Even if you succeed, you lose a timeout. The nature of coaches challenges is that it must be a call that is made. If the ref sees a fingernail touch someone, it is enough to justify their initial call. That’s why they have a low success rate.

IIRC, the average team only challenged about 12-14 times a season. Really, I don’t see what the fuss is about. I hate this rule and the league should not stoke the fires of people complaining about calls 24/7.

 

[infection]

Coaches challenge is not a big deal. Even if you succeed, you lose a timeout. The nature of coaches challenges is that it must be a call that is made. If the ref sees a fingernail touch someone, it is enough to justify their initial call. That’s why they have a low success rate.

IIRC, the average team only challenged about 12-14 times a season. Really, I don’t see what the fuss is about. I hate this rule and the league should not stoke the fires of people complaining about calls 24/7.

You don’t lose a timeout. You only lose a timeout if the challenge fails. And even with all that said, it’s still successful 46% of the time in the composite (at least as of January), and an out-of-bounds challenge was overturned 76% of the time, like last night’s. They came down on the other end and hit a three. We won by 1. Could have easily lost. And it’s be hard to say not challenging that call is “not a big deal.” And, as mentioned, I think this is like the three point shot but just on a much smaller scale. People consistently said the three point shot was no big deal, and even derided it as being a childish novelty for those who didn’t understand/appreciate the game.

 

[KqWIN]

You don’t lose a timeout. You only lose a timeout if the challenge fails. And even with all that said, it’s still successful 46% of the time in the composite (at least as of January), and an out-of-bounds challenge was overturned 76% of the time, like last night’s. They came down on the other end and hit a three. We won by 1. Could have easily lost. And it’s be hard to say not challenging that call is “not a big deal.” And, as mentioned, I think this is like the three point shot but just on a much smaller scale. People consistently said the three point shot was no big deal, and even derided it as being a childish novelty for those who didn’t understand/appreciate the game.

Sorry, I had the rule wrong. But you still lose the challenge.

This isn’t like the three point shot. Three point shot is basic, elementary mathematics. The challenge is different and comes with the risk of losing a timeout.

He’ll, maybe if the call last went to replay we would have lost. The fact that the players were animated about the call does not mean it was 100% or 76%. Coaches are very reluctant to challenge in the first place. 76% is not very high for something that they probably believe is close to a 100% proposition when challenging.

Perhaps there is room for coaches to get better at this, but there are much greater areas of improvement for Quin and coaches in general.

 

[infection]

Sorry, I had the rule wrong. But you still lose the challenge.

Why do you lose the challenge? 10:04 in the 4th quarter. Ball clearly gets tossed out of bounds by OKC player.

He’ll, maybe if the call last went to replay we would have lost.

Okay, but this is very bad logic. It’s like saying on that possession that had we made the shot instead of it going out of bounds on a rebound that it’s better to have not made that shot because we ended up winning.

Unless what you’re saying is maybe we could have lost the game if they replayed the last (no call) at the end of the game. If so, there was no call so it can’t be reviewed. Second, even if so, I’m not sure how that’s hurting my point.

Perhaps there is room for coaches to get better at this, but there are much greater areas of improvement for Quin and coaches in general.

This is true. But are any of those other things as easy and simple to fix as “just use the challenge”? Does Quin have to get up at 3:00 am, drink eggs, and run up the stairs of the capital and throw his arms in the air every day to be able to accomplish the mammoth feat? Hell, they could even hire an intern to remind Quin to use a challenge.

 

[KqWIN]

Why do you lose the challenge? 10:04 in the 4th quarter. Ball clearly gets tossed out of bounds by OKC player.


Okay, but this is very bad logic. It’s like saying on that possession that had we made the shot instead of it going out of bounds on a rebound that it’s better to have not made that shot because we ended up winning.

Unless what you’re saying is maybe we could have lost the game if they replayed the last (no call) at the end of the game. If so, there was no call so it can’t be reviewed. Second, even if so, I’m not sure how that’s hurting my point.


This is true. But are any of those other things as easy and simple to fix as “just use the challenge”? Does Quin have to get up at 3:00 am, drink eggs, and run up the stairs of the capital and throw his arms in the air every day to be able to accomplish the mammoth feat? Hell, they could even hire an intern to remind Quin to use a challenge.

Uhhh..don't know what you're taking about here. Maybe I was confusing you. If the out of bounds call that you complained about would not have been overturned, obviously that would have been bad for the Jazz. And we don't know if it would have. If we lost the challenge, we would have lost a timeout and maybe we don't get to advanced the ball later on.

Honestly, I'm a little biased here. I just wish the challenge never existed, because it further empowers fans to complain about calls. The only thing worse is people constantly calling for challenges even if they would not have gone our way. Nothing I hate more than biased parties trying to officiate.

But it isn't as simple as "just use the challenge". More often than not, teams hurt themselves by challenging. If teams challenged more often, ever game for example, the success rate would be even lower because coaches only challenge things they are certain of. If you lower the standard for what you challenge, you worsen the success rate.

 

[infection]

Uhhh..don't know what you're taking about here. Maybe I was confusing you. If the out of bounds call that you complained about would not have been overturned, obviously that would have been bad for the Jazz. And we don't know if it would have. If we lost the challenge, we would have lost a timeout and maybe we don't get to advanced the ball later on.

Honestly, I'm a little biased here. I just wish the challenge never existed, because it further empowers fans to complain about calls. The only thing worse is people constantly calling for challenges even if they would not have gone our way. Nothing I hate more than biased parties trying to officiate.

But it isn't as simple as "just use the challenge". More often than not, teams hurt themselves by challenging. If teams challenged more often, ever game for example, the success rate would be even lower because coaches only challenge things they are certain of. If you lower the standard for what you challenge, you worsen the success rate.

This isn’t much different than people’s beef with Joe:

“Shoot the ball if you’re open!”

Applying that logic we could say “well he could miss it and that would hurt us,” and follow that up with “Joe shoots higher percentages because he shoots shots he believes he can make,” then close with “if he shot more, his numbers would go down.”

 

[KqWIN]

This isn’t much different than people’s beef with Joe:

“Shoot the ball if you’re open!”

Applying that logic we could say “well he could miss it and that would hurt us,” and follow that up with “Joe shoots higher percentages because he shoots shots he believes he can make,” then close with “if he shot more, his numbers would go down.”

It's not close to being the same. An open Joe 3 is a guaranteed, high EV proposition. So it is the opposite of telling Joe to shoot the ball if you're open. It would be the telling Joe to chuck up low percentage 3's for the sake of putting up more 3s.

It stands to reason that coaches only challenge the calls they are most certain of. If you want them to challenge more, they are challenging calls they are more iffy on. It's questionable if coaches are already challenging too much. At 44% success, is it worth it to lose a timeout for a possession? Especially on a foul where the success rate is very low. If they challenge more, the success rate would be much lower on the additional challenges.

 

[infection]

It's not close to being the same. An open Joe 3 is a guaranteed, high EV proposition. So it is the opposite of telling Joe to shoot the ball if you're open. It would be the telling Joe to chuck up low percentage 3's for the sake of putting up more 3s.

It stands to reason that coaches only challenge the calls they are most certain of. If you want them to challenge more, they are challenging calls they are more iffy on. It's questionable if coaches are already challenging too much. At 44% success, is it worth it to lose a timeout for a possession? Especially on a foul where the success rate is very low. If they challenge more, the success rate would be much lower on the additional challenges.

Quin’s own words state that he saves them for when you need them down the stretch. Meaning he may be overriding his “certainty” to have that arrow in his quiver later. As I mentioned, there were multiple times when he waived off his players calling for challenges last year. When he’s not challenging things like his best players picking up their third foul in the 2nd or 4th foul in the 3rd on dubious calls, well, I’d say that even a 1/3 overturn rate is going to be a hell of a lot more valuable than a theoretical timeout when the cost of not challenging is parking your star player’s *** on the bench for a majority of the game to “protect” him.

But there are different strategies. And people like saving up everything for some big battle at the end, rather than trying to prevent the need for there to be a battle at the end. It’s like the Power Rangers. They start out with hand-to-hand combat, then summon the zords, then eventually combine. They should know after doing it a few times that maybe it’s easier to not **** to begin with, and go straight to the mega zord at the very beginning.

 

[KqWIN]

Quin’s own words state that he saves them for when you need them down the stretch. Meaning he may be overriding his “certainty” to have that arrow in his quiver later. As I mentioned, there were multiple times when he waived off his players calling for challenges last year. When he’s not challenging things like his best players picking up their third foul in the 2nd or 4th foul in the 3rd on dubious calls, well, I’d say that even a 1/3 overturn rate is going to be a hell of a lot more valuable than a theoretical timeout when the cost of not challenging is parking your star player’s *** on the bench for a majority of the game to “protect” him.

But there are different strategies. And people like saving up everything for some big battle at the end, rather than trying to prevent the need for there to be a battle at the end. It’s like the Power Rangers. They start out with hand-to-hand combat, then summon the zords, then eventually combine. They should know after doing it a few times that maybe it’s easier to not **** to begin with, and go straight to the mega zord at the very beginning.

I agree that it's dumb to not use a challenge to save it...but it is also very dumb to challenge just because your player wants you to challenge it. In any case, it's not clear that challenging more would actually help. Could do more harm. Coaches probably already challenge too much on fouls. To call every night that it isn't used a failure just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If it's costing us two or three timeouts to get one call go our way, it's probably not worth it. Also helps my eyes not bleed watching replay reviews.

 

[infection]

Didn’t catch the game tomight, but based on game thread discussion I’m assuming no challenge? It does sound like Phoenix used a challenge? I think I will also add the record of our opponents using challenges. I know Portland did, and now Phoenix. Can’t remember Minnesota or OKC.

Also, for those against the challenge or thinking it has potential to hurt us, another thing to remember is that if you’re successful, you just got a free timeout. And even if not successful, it’s like using that timeout then, which you may need for a momentum breaker anyway. And it’s not like you magically don’t have a timeout at the end of the game — you just budget them differently. It’s not like this is some curse-card wizardry.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Bought lost my damn mind when Rudy got his 4th on a questionable call and Quin saves his challenge for whatever the hell it is he does with them.

 

[infection]

Another night Quin fails to use challenge. Gobert picks up bogus #4 to take him out of the game, asks Quin for a challenge but is denied.

For all those making the arguments of challenges possibly hurting you, how about the positive effect of just communicating to your player — through action! — that you have his back?

And the other teams used a challenge. I’m keeping track of those tallies in the OP, too. So far Quin is 0-5 with opposing coaches being 3-2. But I honestly don’t remember the OKC and Minnesota game. Did either team use a challenge? I’ve got those counted as no, so It may be worse.

 

[infection]

This is the second game with Rudy foul trouble that could have warranted a challenge to attempt to protect him. You’re in battle and your buddy won’t provide cover fire for you because he wants to ration ammo. You later find out that he’s got more ammo than anyone, more than enough.

 

[KqWIN]

Quin should just challenge everything because he get's an automatic W in this thread whether it was successful or not. That's all that matters.