Howland's Use of Timeouts; Thoughts?

by jjreicher on Jan 20, 2008 12:40 PM PST

Ben Howland is one of the premiere coaches in college basketball, and is a star representative of our beloved UCLA. His players work hard, are humble and well-spoken in interviews, and don't get in trouble off the court. He prepares his team well, and he's a great in-game coach. More importantly, he has made visible improvement during his time here.

There's always room for more.

Now I realize that this comes after a depressing loss, and it's always easy to point out flaws in poorly played games. But the following has been consistent throughout Howland's time here, and I'd like to open it up for discussion.

When UCLA is ahead, UCLA's timeout strategy is pretty standard: save them if possible, use them to stop opponent team runs.

When UCLA is behind, Howland uses his timeouts as quickly as possible. Often they are gone with 5 or more minutes left. I am not at all sure that this is a poor strategy--UCLA has had some quality comebacks (eg. Gonzaga) with this method. Great coaches do sometimes use rather unorthodox timeout strategies. Consider Phil Jackson's concept of letting his team play through opponent runs in order to gain experience and confidence. Very unorthodox, but apparently very successful.

At worst it's a topic of discussion.

I personally think an effort to save 1-2 timeouts by design in close games could prove valuable. Obviously there is no reasonable way to determine the efficacy of this strategy, but it seemed to me that having 1 timeout at the end of each of our losses this year would have given us a greater opportunities to win. Maybe not. Maybe it would not have been close (we were down big in both) if we had not used our timeouts to slow things down. I don't know. But again, I would like to see a few timeouts left at the end of close games. Obviously Howland's use of rapid succession timeouts is by design, and maybe it's the right way to go.

This will certainly come up again before this season is through, probably on multiple occasions. Hopefully, whatever strategy is utilized, we come out on top from here on in.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

We had to burn timeouts

twice because of injuries to our players yesterday. It's still a decent topic but keep that in mind.

by Tydides on Jan 20, 2008 12:56 PM PST reply actions

Good call

but again, I'm referring more to the overall strategy, rather than just yesterday's game.

by jjreicher on Jan 20, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions

Howland

He's used this strategy for years. It's counterintuitive, and I don't know why he does it. But he does it, and he wins, and for whatever reason, he thinks it's the right way to manage a game. He obviously feels that taking them (usually) after made baskets starting around 10 minutes to go is more valuable than saving them until the end. I'm not going to question his strategy.

Though I do wish someone would ask him about it someday.

by LA Seitz on Jan 20, 2008 3:21 PM PST reply actions

He wins so...

...I can't question the guy. Has anyone ever heard him give an explanation as to why he takes his timeouts when he does? I'd be curious to hear his rationale, because sometimes he seems to do it as UCLA has momentum and the crowd going.

by McNown to Farmer on Jan 20, 2008 6:14 PM PST reply actions

I think

Its a valid topic of discussion. However, personally I have no objection to the way he manages his TOs. Yes, I would prefer him to have a time out or two for crunch time. But then again the way he has used works for him overwhelming majority of the time.

Yesterday he called the TOs early to set his defense and also to give his players some breathers as he was managing a short rotation w/o Luc and Lo.

And he also generally uses them to set his defense which again works for him majority of the time. Perhaps it would be good to have a TO in the last min to set a play. But then again Howland probably feels he prepares the team so well all year and leading up to games that it should be drilled into his player's minds what they need to do.

It just didn't work yesterday. The good news is we played a very UnBruin, unBen Ball game yesterday. When we get back to play like we have been last 3-4 years, we will be ok.

Still this is a valid topic for discussion.

by Nestor on Jan 20, 2008 7:17 PM PST reply actions

I remember when

Lavin used to burn timeouts between free throw shots for our players. He used to ice his own players from the line. Multiple times it was hit the first shot, timeout, miss the second. I have no complaint on Howland. He knows what hes doing and isnt a complete doofus like Lavin. Had it not been for the injuries, I doubt this topic would have ever surfaced. We were unlucky that the timeouts weren't there at the end, but the shooting percentage, and 29 3 point shots attempted in the game were the reason that we lost.

by joeb @ Bruins Nation on Jan 21, 2008 1:04 AM PST reply actions

Ben has a strategy

and that is good enough for me. I would worry if he was burning timeouts on a whim or if he used his last timeout and didn't realize he was all out. But we all know that there isn't a coach more prepared or aware of what's going on. This is his strategy and he has had more than enough success to earn my trust.

I have also believed that TO's are over valued, especially by inferior coaches. They are afraid of being second guessed. So they hold on to TO's like they will never have another one. Coaches like Howland and Phil Jackson are supremely confident in their own abilites and job security. So they use TO's (or don't, in Phil's case) as tools at their disposal. When its needed, use it. You don't have to wait for the situation that the avg. fan expects a timeout to be used. And at the end of the game I've seen plenty of times where even Phil's championship Laker teams would draw up a play and still not get a shot. It happens.

I hope I'm remembering this correctly but when I think back to last years Oregon game we drew up a play and got a desperation three from Shipp. Then against SC without using a timeout (again, hope I remember correctly) AA took over and got a great look from 17'.

Howlands main strategy seems to be "don't be behind in the final minutes of a game." He uses his TO's to accomplish that. If you are behind, then execution, not timeouts, will have to save you. Sounds good to me.

"Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny" - Boss

by TCbruin32 on Jan 21, 2008 8:07 AM PST reply actions

My own observation

Is that he likes to use a timeout close to the 12 minute mark and sub out a tired player or two. His players gets to rest during that timeout, sit out a possession or two, and then the next dead ball is the under 12 minute TV timeout. Then he subs the rested players back in who have been able to sit for close to 10 minutes of actual time while only missing maybe a minute or two of game time. Personally, I really like that strategy.

He also has a tendency to use a TO if a Bruins guard hits a three down by the baseline and is therefore out of position for the ensuing defensive possession. That usage seems a little too liberal for my liking, but Howland has a bit more coaching experience than me, so I'll defer to him.

by insomniacslounge on Jan 21, 2008 10:42 PM PST reply actions