Suboptimal Coaching Decisions
Lineups and timeouts are the primary way for coaches to impact the game after tipoff.
I am a player-centered coach and strongly believe players decide games, not coaches. A coach’s greatest impact is in practice and preparation, not game management, but we evaluate coaches primarily through their game coaching. There are situations in which coaches can steal marginal advantages, but many coaches who focus heavily on game-planning and scouting still forfeit these potential gains.
The two primary ways to affect the game after tipoff are distributing playing time and timeouts. The coach chooses the starters and substitutes based on a variety of reasons. The coach also calls timeouts for a variety of reasons. Coaches can call plays, yell at players to slow down or speed up, switch defenses, and more, but these instructions are based primarily on performing as the team practiced or adjusting to the score. Substitutions and timeouts are the coach’s most significant involvement.
Many coaches start their perceived most-talented players, not their best lineups. They prefer talent to fit. I rarely played my best (arguable) five players together last season, as my interest was optimizing our lineups. We had two guards who were exceptional cutters, whereas everyone else tended to stand around the three-point line. I always had one cutter in the game. Two guards were better three-point shooters than the others, and I staggered their minutes to keep one in the game. Three guards were ball-dominant, dribble-heavy guards, and I avoided playing them together because they did not play well together, as the ball did not move and our pace slowed. I also balanced size. Balancing these various strengths and weaknesses affected playing time, and some outside the team criticized the choices because their favorites played less because of fit and style of play.
Coaches often argue they know who should play because they are at practice. The fans, parents, administrators, and others are less informed, and their opinions do not matter. Only the coach knows what is best. There is some truth. The coach should know best. The coach is hired to make these decisions and should be empowered to coach without interference, but this does not mean the coach is objectively correct or knows best. Coaches are not infallible.
Coaches have many goals and may preach different messages, but most coach to win. How much should practice performance affect lineup choices when winning is the goal? Practice performance provides a starting point initially, but how much should practices contribute to playing time and lineup formation once more information on game performances is available?
I watch coaches make suboptimal choices throughout games. I may not be at practice, but playing lineups with no offensive threats or four strongly negative defenders are suboptimal decisions. Choosing to play behind a bigger offensive post player with a guard rather than play the backup center is a suboptimal decision, whether the defensive strategy or the personnel decision. Playing small is a choice and can create advantages, but the advantages must outweigh the disadvantages. Playing the same defensive style with a big and small lineup sets up the team for failure in most cases (some smaller players play bigger, like Draymond Green — there are no absolutes).
Choosing to bench players with two fouls for the remainder of the half regardless of the player or situation is inflexible coaching. There are some situations for which substituting is appropriate and others where coaches cost their teams the game. We lost a game in my first season as a head coach because I took out our best player when she got her fourth foul toward the beginning of the fourth quarter. I intended to keep her on the bench as long as we held our lead or the three-minute mark. With just under four minutes left, we led by two. They made a three-pointer. I did not get the timeout called fast enough. FIBA referees were stricter then. We did not score, and they made a second three-pointer. I called timeout to get her back into the game, but we trailed by four. We never led again, and she did not foul out.
Some players can play with foul trouble; some cannot. Some cannot change their aggressive nature and quickly commit another foul, and others overreact to foul trouble and stop playing defense altogether. Neither is playable. Others are smart and adjust as necessary, maintaining a high level with less risk. Playing players with foul trouble early in the season can help players learn to cope with foul problems or demonstrate their inability, alerting the coach to substitute. Otherwise, teams reach a pivotal game in the playoffs and are uncertain whether to play the player although they know they cannot afford not to play the star and remain competitive. They wasted previously learning opportunities with automatic substitutions.
Similarly, making no effort to substitute for offense and defense based on foul trouble, personnel, out of timeouts, or end of quarter situations is suboptimal. Sitting out a long period because of fouls is difficult. Playing a few possessions of offense is a way to keep players engaged and ready. Similarly, why not substitute an offensive lineup when recovering possession with under 24 or 30 seconds in the quarter or half through a dead ball? Why is a player in foul trouble on the court when you intend to foul immediately? These are suboptimal decisions. The coach is not maximizing their marginal impact on the game.
There are reasons, especially developmental. Some coaches, occasionally, have other goals beyond the immediate game. Playing with foul trouble, playing without the best player, and executing at the end of quarters with different lineups are learning experiences. However, these decisions appear much less like learning experiences and much more like suboptimal decisions when every other action suggests the coach is coaching to win, not developing players or preparing for later in the season. One does not need to be at practice to see this.
Everyone has his or her own biases. Coaches often have a priming bias, relying too heavily on initial impressions and unable to change opinions. I worked as a strength and conditioning coach with a player returning from ACL surgery, and the coach never changed her opinion of the player. She returned to practice at about 10 months post-surgery and was not at 100%. She needed to improve her conditioning and game readiness, which is part of the late stages of rehab. A player is not game ready without actually scrimmaging and playing small-sided games and training in game environments. She needed confidence in her injured leg. These are normal deficiencies every injured player works through during their return. At around 13 months, as the team moved into conference play, she had developed confidence in her movement and improved her conditioning. She had improved and was a different player, but the coach’s opinion was colored by her initial impressions. She did not see the new player and never gave her a fair chance, which lowered the team’s ceiling, as she was more skilled than her counterpart who played ahead of her.
Coaches often have a confirmation bias, as they see information to support their initial decisions and ignore dissenting information. The head coach noticed every time the player was beaten on defense, but ignored when the other player gave up the same drives. Giving up a basket confirmed the coach’s belief she was out of shape and not quick enough, but the coach blamed the help defense when the other player gave up a basket because everyone gets beat occasionally; that is why we practice help defense. She saw what she wanted to see, which happens to most people at some point.
Many coaches also have an aesthetic bias: They favor players who look like they are playing hard. John Wooden famously warned, “Do not mistake activity with achievement”, but many coaches fall for this trap. Many coaches were grinders as players. They overachieved because of effort and will, not skill or talent. They identify with these players. They appreciate the players who take charges or dive on the floor for loose balls and often ignore the more talented and skilled players who make the game look easy. A part of skilled performance is performing with a “minimum outlay of time, energy or both” (Knapp, 1963): Making the game or skill look easy is a defining characteristic of skill, not something to punish because another player looks more effortful.
Wayne Gretzky said, “I skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been.” He arrived early and looked unhurried. Often, this is seen as not playing hard. Players who are late or out of position, but sprint to recover are seen as playing hard and valued. Making up for a mistake is a great quality, but avoiding the mistake in the first place is the better play. Coaches often appreciate players who make the game look hard and criticize those who make the game look easy with their superior anticipation, balance, control, and skill. Great players make incredibly difficult skills look easy: Picture Stephen Curry’s jump shot. Why punish players for being good because of an aesthetic bias for those who make things look hard?
Timeouts are the other primary way to influence the game. I generally avoid timeouts because depth is our strength. I do not want their players to rest or to enable substitutions. There are, however, many reasons for calling timeout. Often, coaches take timeouts because conventional wisdom suggests a timeout when the opponent goes on a six or eight-point run. Other timeouts are emotional: A coach is frustrated and calls timeout to yell at the team or the player.
Every coach is different, but timeouts have value. Wasting a timeout because of emotions is suboptimal coaching. Offering little more than “You gotta play harder” and “Rebound!” is not using the opportunity to change the game. Of course, there are situations when a team is getting outworked, not blocking out, or just missing shots. Sometimes a team needs to have their fuse lit. Something is wrong when that happens repeatedly.
Other times, players just need to relax. I have called timeout when players looked anxious because shots were not falling. It happens. I have had entire timeouts where we took long, deep breaths as a team, and my message was to trust each other and play the same way because our opponent will eventually miss, and we will start to make shots. Variance is real. Not every run requires a change. Every situation is different.
Most of the time, however, I use timeouts for a specific purpose. I see a weakness we are not exploiting against their defense or press or I see how they are exploiting our defense. Occasionally, I call a timeout to set up a two-for-one situation at the end of the quarter or to change defenses or set up a specific play. The timeout is strategic. It is my time to change the game for a possession or two.
Coaching is hard and specific team goals and objectives often are unknown on the outside, which makes evaluations difficult. However, most coaches in most situations coach to win the game, as evidenced by rotations, substitutions, strategies, and more. Playing to win is not wrong, but defending suboptimal coaching decisions by hiding behind another goal when clearly attempting to win is disingenuous. There is a difference between trying to win and making suboptimal decisions in this pursuit and coaching to develop players, prepare for the future, give everyone opportunities, and more.
Reference
Knapp, B. (1963). Skill in sport: The attainment of proficiency. Routledge.