I’ll take this hyperbolic avoidance as a tacit acknowledgement that, regardless one’s opinion about challenges, Quin’s excessive inaction isn’t defensible.
Official Quin Snyder coach’s challenge watch
- Thread starter infection
- Start date
“It doesn’t matter what the players want. The players are probably wrong.”
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I remember that play. It was actually a double dribble. Those are definitely the type of plays that should be challenged as they are not subjective (also things like out of bounds and whatnot)
I understand not challenging fouls cause the refs could call or not call a foul on basically any play so even if they call a foul that shouldn't have been called and you challenge they can still point to some reason that it was a foul almost every time.
I thought Quin should have challenged the double dribble call that clarkson was asking him to challenge...... Though admittedly on the stream i was watching they never showed a replay.
I mean, if he challenge 5 times and cost his team 5 teams he would be 5-0. If failure is considered a win, what is the point of keeping score? If that's what you prefer, I guess I can claim victory every time a challenge is not used because the effect on winning does not matter at this point.
Saving your challenge to hold for later it is stupid. Quin is dumb for having that logic. Challenging it because your player is whining and you want to "support him" is also stupid. What's most stupid is challenging for the sake of challenging. I don't disagree that Quin should probably be better at his challenges, but when you disregard the actual effect on winning there's really no point.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
The clippers announcers said that on a favors dunk attempt that was "blocked" the clippers defender came to through the hoop and should have been a goal tend
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
I don’t know, but I get a feeling this thread may get more and more uncomfortable.
Well, to go back to the Joe Ingles three pointer analogy, if Joe shot the ball every time he was open and missed 5 times, then yes, I'd call that a win. It's about engaging in the correct decision rather than judging the quality of the decisions based on the outcome. Striking out on a good pitch vs. home run on a bad pitch. Obviously I'd rather have the home run, but if we're talking about what would better account for future success, it's swinging at the right pitches. (I suppose you could cue "there are no good pitches to swing at.")
I'm not suggesting he challenge just to challenge. I'm suggesting that, at this point, if he challenged at all, it would show some kind of life. If Donovan were to stand in the backcourt and get an 8-second violation without being anywhere close to half court and Quin decided to challenge it, I'd be pretty happy. If Rudy grabbed the guy with the ball by the shoulders and tossed him into the stands and Quin wanted to challenge the call, I'd be relieved. Not because I think he can win these. Not because those are the kind of ways I would want the challenge implemented, but because my threshold of expectation here is so small. Him showing any signs of life in this regard would be wonderful.
I think he's the kind of person where if you had a player score but get called for a charge with 3 seconds left that would have put you up 1, but it was clearly a blocking foul, his first thought in using the challenge would be, "but what if I need it in overtime?"
416Klawzz
Well-Known Member
I can agree with that but sometimes you need to use them in the midst of that very moment
Also, people focus on losing a timeout (which you don't technically lose, it's just that it gets used then) as a cost of doing a challenge. The other side of that coin doesn't get mentioned that is that, if successful, not only did the call get overturned, but you just earned yourself an extra timeout, as well.
416Klawzz
Well-Known Member
Exactly ... Quin is too conservative with it I think
The Joe Ingles analogy is a terrible one. Quite frankly, a lot of your analogies are bad lol. You're not advocating for him to challenge correctly, you're advocating for him to challenge for the sake of challenging. What you're saying is that Joe Ingles should jack up 15 3's for the sake of shooting 15 regardless of if it's good for the team or not. It is not the equivalent of wanting Joe to shoot open 3's.
I know you said the opposite, but then you listed two direct examples of challenging for the sake of challenging that you'd be happy with him doing. I'm all in favor of making smart challenges, and I do agree that Quin probably misses out on some opportunities. But the idea that the challenge should be used every single game no matter is ridiculous.
There's really no point to further discussion. If you truly believe that Quin should challenge even though it hurts us, I can't agree with that. If you think he should be smarter about...yeah I can maybe agree with that, but it's really not a huge deal.
Where did I say he should challenge for the sake of challenging? The only comments I've made regarding that were hyperbolic ones where we at least know he's awake.
My argument has always been smart challenges. You've come out against this because I've been railing against the fact that not only is he not doing smart challenges, he's doing no challenges. And he misses those opportunities (as you've said above). I also haven't advocated using a challenge every single game. But I have advocated using them at any point in the game where there's a call, because as is patently obvious at this point, 'saving them for later' is a pointless reason to not do a challenge because there never is a 'later' where we decide to use them.
I'm not certain where I've said he should do things that hurt us unless you're reading me strictly literally. I think there's an element of risk, sure, but I also think we should be putting in to context exactly what "hurting us" means. It means you use your timeout then instead of later, and you have to then budget the rest of your timeouts around it. That's it. If we're defining "hurting us" to mean that then we don't have a challenge to use later, well, then... that's kind of an odd circular argument.
There is the concept of the meta-game that applies here.
In the board gaming community, meta-game considerations are often considered at best something you don't really discuss, and at worst in very poor taste. If I make a deal with player A, they are not supposed to ask for considerations outside the game. They might or might not consider my previous history of honoring my deals, but it would be very rude for Player C to pipe in with comments on my trustworthiness or lack thereof.
Coaches that challenge too frequently will strain the meta-game aspect. It's going to annoy referees.
If we have data on coaching challenges from previous seasons, and we see Snyder challenges less/the same as/more than other coaches, that's an interesting discussion. Simply tracking game-by-game, not so much.
In the board gaming community, meta-game considerations are often considered at best something you don't really discuss, and at worst in very poor taste. If I make a deal with player A, they are not supposed to ask for considerations outside the game. They might or might not consider my previous history of honoring my deals, but it would be very rude for Player C to pipe in with comments on my trustworthiness or lack thereof.
Coaches that challenge too frequently will strain the meta-game aspect. It's going to annoy referees.
If we have data on coaching challenges from previous seasons, and we see Snyder challenges less/the same as/more than other coaches, that's an interesting discussion. Simply tracking game-by-game, not so much.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
All I know is in the last game, and in the clippers game, there were 2 or 3 times his players were frustrated and looked to the bench for a challenge and got... Nothing. If he made his challenge now and then in those moments it could accomplish 3 things, and would guaranteed accomplish 2.
1, he would show his team he has their back and listens to them.
2, it would give him a chance to calm things down, talk to the players, reset and refocus. That is often needed when the team is in that situation.
3, which is not guaranteed, is it might overturn the call.
I don't see any negatives here, I just don't. Yes be smart about it. If Gobert whacked the guy obviously and was just frustrated by the call then don't use it. But many of those times the call is truly questionable and also fairly often ends up being a turning point. If he can keep control at 45% of those with successful challenges, that is a huge win. Huge. Way bigger than what he has been getting, which is nothing at all.
1, he would show his team he has their back and listens to them.
2, it would give him a chance to calm things down, talk to the players, reset and refocus. That is often needed when the team is in that situation.
3, which is not guaranteed, is it might overturn the call.
I don't see any negatives here, I just don't. Yes be smart about it. If Gobert whacked the guy obviously and was just frustrated by the call then don't use it. But many of those times the call is truly questionable and also fairly often ends up being a turning point. If he can keep control at 45% of those with successful challenges, that is a huge win. Huge. Way bigger than what he has been getting, which is nothing at all.
Handlogten's Heros
Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
2025 Prediction Contest Winner
The goal tend opportunity was a good one to use it on... was early in the game so I know those two points are only two points and in the fourth quarter 2 points are worth 17.5 points.