Not too many bigs will go 15-20 in 20 possessions, even if not doubled. There will be some turnovers inside, along with some missed shots. And, then you can still mix it up defensively where you sometimes double, sometimes don't, making it harder for the offense to get in a groove. It's not like Quinn is getting dunks everytime he isn't doubled. He has still needed to make some not so easy shots.
Wichita isn’t Lawrence - Wichita State Game Thread - Wed 7:30 ESPN +
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
well I was talking about Neal last night (9-12).
but for the season, Neal's shooting 66.2% from 2. so yeah, we should get him all the shots he can get at that rate.
a team would have to shoot 44% from 3 on the same number of possessions to keep up.
WSU shot about 99% in the 2nd half.
I am glad about that late timeout down 14, was well used.
Have said it before, will say it again: you can't look at runs and timeouts in a vacuum. Sorry spiderman. The feel of a game dictates that sometimes you need a timeout because something has changed, or you need to change something, even if it is just to yell and wake the players up. Sometimes the game has changed permanently, even if a team momentarily stops the bleeding. The other team has build confidence and now believes fully in themselves. I truly believe this is what everyone here wants.
Moon chooses to let them play. Or to change personnel. It works 55% of the time. (4-3 is 57%, right on track so far.)
Anyway, porous defense was the gigantic issue last night. Freaking dunkfest.
I am glad about that late timeout down 14, was well used.
Have said it before, will say it again: you can't look at runs and timeouts in a vacuum. Sorry spiderman. The feel of a game dictates that sometimes you need a timeout because something has changed, or you need to change something, even if it is just to yell and wake the players up. Sometimes the game has changed permanently, even if a team momentarily stops the bleeding. The other team has build confidence and now believes fully in themselves. I truly believe this is what everyone here wants.
Moon chooses to let them play. Or to change personnel. It works 55% of the time. (4-3 is 57%, right on track so far.)
Anyway, porous defense was the gigantic issue last night. Freaking dunkfest.
I disagree. I dont care if this WSU coach called a TO in fist half or not but maybe if he had they would have stopped the UR run and been up by 8 at half. It kind of goes against your point.
There is a reason hoops announcers often holler at the screen, “coach needs a TO”. Or Dickie V, “call a TO baby!! Its time for a TO”, when teams are making big runs or rumning away with the game. And at most those times, the coach affected does call a TO.
Believe what you like but over the years CM’s poor understanding of when to call a TO and not calling a TO when it is needed has hurt UR teams often. I think many here will agree.
Last edited:
If teams called timeouts everytime some of you guys wanted them to (6-0 runs, 8-3 runs, or whatever) they would be out of timeouts in the 1st half. College basketball is full of runs by both teams. Plenty of coaches choose to call timeouts during these runs, plenty don't, but there is no evidence that will support it is best to call a timeout because it will immediately change momentum. There are just as many cases of timeouts doing nothing to change things as there are to maybe help.
You would think after we went on a quick 6-0 run following their 7-0 run to start the 2nd half (where neither team called a timeout) would stop this silly timeout talk we hear after every game, but nope, what do we hear on here? We hear Mooney was still stupid to not call timeout at 40-31, even though we made it 40-37 a couple possessions after that. Beyond laughable.
I'm not saying never call a timeout. but usually, if you've done your job and prepared your team, you can make necessary changes from the sideline during play.
you might even not want to call timeouts despite a team making a few baskets in a row if, for example, the other team isn't deep and a timeout would give them a break.
if there's something specific you need a timeout to say or to change personnel, of course take a time out. if your freshman PG is panicking under pressure, definitely call a timeout. but this belief that simply calling timeouts magically changes the flow of the game has been proven false as many times as it's been proven true.
a team might make a couple shots in a row while we miss a couple in a row. doesn't necessarily mean we're doing something wrong. runs happens.
for VT - what you mention is the vacuum I'm discussing. Sure we got 6 points back in that microcosm of 3 possessions, but then immediately gave up a slew more points and never were really a threat to win after that because the big picture was that the game had changed. I don't want timeouts just because a team scores 7, I want them when there is fundamental change happening in a game that needs to be corrected. Via adjustments, motivation, whatever. If you wear blinders, they score 7, we got 6, no biggie. But in the zoom out, they were denying King, they were getting everything they wanted on offense and UR was settling for the same types of shots that dug them the whole to start the game. It felt like the game had changed to me because of how easily they were scoring. I wanted a timeout to address that.
Sometimes players can't see what coaches can see from the sidelines. They need to be shown/told and given [insert Moon .gif here] "coaching."
Sometimes players can't see what coaches can see from the sidelines. They need to be shown/told and given [insert Moon .gif here] "coaching."
Tough loss but statistically close to an even game. Only difference being 17-3 to WST ad with FTA. And without Tyler, who on this team do we expect/qualified will/can get those FTA?
Again not a Mooney-man but despite loss IMO team has outperformed year to date. Only kenpom n TeamR but looking at numbers looks like a real crapshoot on who finishes where in A10?
Kenny has Dayton at 61 and 6 schools between 79 n 110 (UR 89). TR projects Spiders to finish second at 11.4 wins for second place.
This the season where Mooney tells me this is “as good as it gets” in the quality of coach that higher-ups can get leading the Spiders or continue with feeling we need a change. Mooney's final exam.
Again not a Mooney-man but despite loss IMO team has outperformed year to date. Only kenpom n TeamR but looking at numbers looks like a real crapshoot on who finishes where in A10?
Kenny has Dayton at 61 and 6 schools between 79 n 110 (UR 89). TR projects Spiders to finish second at 11.4 wins for second place.
This the season where Mooney tells me this is “as good as it gets” in the quality of coach that higher-ups can get leading the Spiders or continue with feeling we need a change. Mooney's final exam.
I was listening to the radio call from Bob at the start of the game and he literally kept saying the Spiders need a dead ball time out to regroup and then he practically cheered when we finally fouled one of their players to get the dead ball TO. Like it doesn't even enter the lexicon anymore that we can actually use one of our timeouts to give us a pause.
Much like Mooney benches players with fouls to save them for the end of game (which is often out of reach), he also saves his timeouts for end game situations, many times which don't even come to fruition because the game wasn't managed appropriately to get us close so that we can use them effectively at the end of the game.
We've seen this happen so many times during the Mooney tenure, it literally blows my mind that he never changes up his strategy on either.
So, we aren't allowed to address that in the five 2nd half timeouts? Has to be only when you feel we should have called one? We were only down 6, not 20, at the 1st 2nd half media timeout. We can't come up with this sure thing, automatically change the game, we do great, they don't strategy many of you assume will happen after a timeout here? You act like there are no media timeouts. They scored 47 2nd half points, many before 2nd half timeouts and many after 2nd half timeouts. We had trouble stopping them...a 6th ot 7th 2nd half timeout wasn't going to change that.
Why assume a timeout will change things? Do you have stats to back this up? If a coach feels he needs to address some things immediately, sure, take a timeout. But, if they go over everything at halftime and Wichita comes out and hits a couple shots, and Quinn and King miss for us, why call a timeout there? To tell King and Quinn not to shoot? Did you want a timeout if they missed one or we made one? If we call timeout, does Wichita go to their bench and say, shoot, they called timeout, we can't score for awhile. And, again, we scored 6 straight after NOT calling timeout.
And, you guys got your timeout with just under 13 minutes left. Right out if the timeout, there was a turnover by Dji and 2 more points for them....my goodness, how could that happen? I thought timeouts were 100% guaranteed to favor the team who called them? So, there you go...2 examples of us going on a 6-0 run after a non timeout and them getting a steal and layup after our timeout. Yet, the theme on here continues to be how stupid Mooney is for not calling more timeouts. Forget facts, right?
I am going to have to agree with VT here (and I don't say that often 
). I dont have much problem with Moon's choice to let kids play through. Its a theory that many follow and there is absolutely no credible evidence either way that one way works better etc. And as VT and others say, there are a lot of runs in games and its very very hard (impossible) to know which 6-0 runs your team will recover from which ones will turn into 11-2 runs. Taking a timeout to take a timeout or to stop momentum is actually silly to me. If you are going to take one, you better have something really meaningful to say - - something concrete that will actually be the thing that changes momentum. So, for example, if my team is being pressed and its a variation of a press that we hadn't really prepared for and we aren't seeing the adjustment we need to make to beat it, I might take a TO to get it fixed (even if there hasn't been a run at all yet). On the other hand, if we are getting pressed by a team who is doing exactly what we expected and prepared for and we are turning it over too much but its more because we are simply getting "out physicaled" or intimidated etc., I am more inclined to let them play through. My timeout isnt going to make them tougher etc. and I can certainly challenge them to up their game from the sideline. I don't have much to offer there quite frankly - - so the timeout is more valuable for when I do have something to offer. I just don't believe in a momentum timeout and its not always possible to have something substantive enough to turn the game. And thats my rule - - do I have something to do or say during the timeout to contribute - - and that can't be communicated effectively without the timeout.
Now I see spots where I think Moon lets times go by when I would in fact call a timeout, but I am willing to concede that while I am no big Mooney guy, he certainly knows his team better than me!
). I dont have much problem with Moon's choice to let kids play through. Its a theory that many follow and there is absolutely no credible evidence either way that one way works better etc. And as VT and others say, there are a lot of runs in games and its very very hard (impossible) to know which 6-0 runs your team will recover from which ones will turn into 11-2 runs. Taking a timeout to take a timeout or to stop momentum is actually silly to me. If you are going to take one, you better have something really meaningful to say - - something concrete that will actually be the thing that changes momentum. So, for example, if my team is being pressed and its a variation of a press that we hadn't really prepared for and we aren't seeing the adjustment we need to make to beat it, I might take a TO to get it fixed (even if there hasn't been a run at all yet). On the other hand, if we are getting pressed by a team who is doing exactly what we expected and prepared for and we are turning it over too much but its more because we are simply getting "out physicaled" or intimidated etc., I am more inclined to let them play through. My timeout isnt going to make them tougher etc. and I can certainly challenge them to up their game from the sideline. I don't have much to offer there quite frankly - - so the timeout is more valuable for when I do have something to offer. I just don't believe in a momentum timeout and its not always possible to have something substantive enough to turn the game. And thats my rule - - do I have something to do or say during the timeout to contribute - - and that can't be communicated effectively without the timeout.Now I see spots where I think Moon lets times go by when I would in fact call a timeout, but I am willing to concede that while I am no big Mooney guy, he certainly knows his team better than me!
Well over 18+ years the consistency of this, largely contrarian, approach has yielded 55% positive results. Certainly not the only reason, but submit a contributing factor.
CM's use of TOs is highly suspect based on all relevant data. He needlessly hoards them, wastes them, rather than using them judiciously. No?
My coaching is limited to youth league, but Philly you express my thoughts well. I believe I posted earlier, only call a TO when you have something to say. You can communicate from the bench especially when you and the team know one another well. You can give specific instructions to 2-3 subs, with instructions they huddle with the others. TO's can be very valuable at the end of a close game. It's a cr... shoot.
Agree to disagree.
Seems as though you’d never take a timeout bc there are 4-5 per half so never a need.
I said if a coach needs to address things immediately, sure, take a timeout. There are other times I might take a timeout as well, but, no, I'm not taking one if a team makes a couple shots and I miss a couple.
Fair. I think the majority of folks on here (me included) think that there are a number of times when we think something needs to be addressed immediately, and he doesn't do it.
You mean timeouts don't carry over to the next game?
At the end of the year maybe a +35 will be factored into the at large bid equation.
There's really no way to prove either philosophy here. If we don't take a timeout and the opponent goes on a big run, we can't prove that taking one would have ended it. If we take one after they score 4 points and we come out and score a bucket, we can't prove that we stopped a potential 14-0 run.
Basketball is a game of runs, and if the other team is hot and in rhythm, I think it's logical to assume that calling a timeout might disrupt that momentum. It's like a batter stepping out on a pitcher who has thrown 8 or 9 strikes in a row. Do whatever you need to do to stop the momentum.
Basketball is a game of runs, and if the other team is hot and in rhythm, I think it's logical to assume that calling a timeout might disrupt that momentum. It's like a batter stepping out on a pitcher who has thrown 8 or 9 strikes in a row. Do whatever you need to do to stop the momentum.
It's been a while since I've posted on here but good lord... people are actually doing linguistic gymnastics to pretend they are not arguing against the value of using a time out to stop momentum, reset the team, subdue the crowd or any of the other reasons successful coaches will burn them. Sometimes conventional wisdom is simply wisdom. There is value to utilizing timeouts.
I'm all for teaching kids to play through adversity but take the BC game. Multiple spots we should have burned a time out and didn't. We simply can't afford to teach kids to play through adversity when we have a shot to get a resume boosting win. Kentuckys, and North Carolinas can do that (most years) but Richmond has to make the most of every road opportunity we get.
There's not a need to teach a hard lesson (btw we are a veteran laden team this is something we should know by now) to prepare for the future when we need to win now. And we are ignoring the obvious. What's the real value of that lesson? Its to prepare us for when we are in a tournament game AND we don't have timeouts to burn. Why do we need that lesson? BECAUSE TIMEOUTS TAKEN TO COOL OFF MOMENTUM HELP (...this is not hard).
We have to take a risk of burning a timeout we might need later if Mooney can reset the team, cool off the opponent, and, you know, put our guys in a huddle and actually coach. Many an epic college basketball story centers on what a coach said in a timeout, conversely many a Richmond game recap on my friends text threads centers on our coach not using a timeout.
I'm all for teaching kids to play through adversity but take the BC game. Multiple spots we should have burned a time out and didn't. We simply can't afford to teach kids to play through adversity when we have a shot to get a resume boosting win. Kentuckys, and North Carolinas can do that (most years) but Richmond has to make the most of every road opportunity we get.
There's not a need to teach a hard lesson (btw we are a veteran laden team this is something we should know by now) to prepare for the future when we need to win now. And we are ignoring the obvious. What's the real value of that lesson? Its to prepare us for when we are in a tournament game AND we don't have timeouts to burn. Why do we need that lesson? BECAUSE TIMEOUTS TAKEN TO COOL OFF MOMENTUM HELP (...this is not hard).
We have to take a risk of burning a timeout we might need later if Mooney can reset the team, cool off the opponent, and, you know, put our guys in a huddle and actually coach. Many an epic college basketball story centers on what a coach said in a timeout, conversely many a Richmond game recap on my friends text threads centers on our coach not using a timeout.
Vault, well said. In addition to this debate, I see the "preparing for the end of the season" argument other places too. We have a very experience team - other than Mikkel forced into big minutes (and he seems to have an advanced understanding of the game for his exp level). It just all goes in line that we are constantly in a developmental stage and planning for the elusive future. We lose our top two offensive players next season (Quinn and King), we should be playing to win every game, not prep for the future. This team has shown much better urgency against the bad teams - and against UNLV - which I hope is a decent team. But we have also been in the BC and Wichita games, and agree we should have been using timeouts to at least try to change the direction of the game. So they don't work, well doing nothing doesn't work too.
For the people who say calling a timeout, doesn't stop a run, I can 100% prove that it does.
I dare you to show me any game where an opponent continued to score DURING a timeout called by your team...
I dare you to show me any game where an opponent continued to score DURING a timeout called by your team...
Great post Vault and welcome back. Sometimes conventional wisdom is simply wisdom is a great line. Will have to use that one going forward.
It appears Mooney does not buy into the argument that timeouts cool momentum, otherwise he would use them when other teams make these long runs on us and not use them in end of game situations after we make a big shot (which is equally as frustrating in my book).
At the end of the day, I think about 90% of coaches subscribe to the conventional wisdom (or simply wisdom as you put it), that you use timeouts to cool momentum during games. Now maybe, Mooney is on to something here but if here were, he would be winning at clip better than 55% and other coaches would take notice and say, you know that Chris Mooney is on to something, I'm going to change my timeout philosophy. Weird that doesn't seem to be happening after his 18 year same size of doing it this way.
He is is just stubborn to his beliefs and ways and no matter how much contrary information he gets, he is going to stick with what he does.
Thank you for adding some sanity and clarity to this ridiculous argument. Well written and explained. TO’s have been used to halt momentum, settle teams down, and re-focus players since the game has been played. Coach K would call a TO up 20 points if an opposing team went on an 8-0 run, and would certainly call one if it happened at the start of the second half.
Speaking of Tyne, how about those back to back 3s he hit after we DID NOT call timeout. Just think what he could have done if we would have called timeout. Shoot, they might have giving him 4 points for those 3s....how stupid of us to not call one, right?
LOL....I saw tons of times K let his players play through runs...and he always called one after a made basket between the 8 and 12 minute 2nd half media timeout. You know, the same thing Mooney often does that drives the board crazy.
If Mooney starts winning like Coach K did, I'm sure he will be cut some slack on his timeout utilization. As long as he is at 55% and we have to watch teams go on monster uninterrupted runs against us though, he probably is going to get some pushback on here..
This makes no sense, but is expected on here. So, one post says Mooney should do like Coach K with timeouts (even though K did not always call timeout when teams were on runs)......now this one says Mooney should get criticized even if he does something with a timeout like Coach K. LOL
A statistician might say calling a timeout to stop momentum is an example of the drill sargeant paradox.
So, even though plenty of coaches do not call timeouts during runs by the other team, you know way more them, right? You know their teams better than each of them, right? You are right and numerous college coaches are wrong??? Seriously?
I need a time-out to halt this time-out discussion momentum.
Well obviously 4700 has 100 refuted any thought on using a TO to stop a run. Hell, he is probably right, if Mooney had a chance to coach Tyne up he probably would have dribbled right off his foot instead of making the 3's. Good thing he didn't get that instruction.
Actually, I am perfectly fine with coaches using timeouts to stop runs. I am also okay if coaches don't want to. There is no right or wrong with this. Timeouts don't automatically stop runs, but coaches know their teams better than anyone. If they want to call one, fine, if they don't, also fine.
Last edited:
Yes, but Mooney may know his team, but he just does not appear that in game strategist is his strong point. He runs a clean program, good at retention, nice guy. But when things go wrong - they don't seem to get corrected in game. I'm sure you can come up with a few instances where we wiped out a lead, etc. But this is something I have seen year over year and I think this TO thing is just one tentacle of the lack of in game strength.
Coach K called timeouts just to yell at the refs.
So all you’re really doing here then is arguing for the sake of arguing. You’re a kid right? I get it then
This clip really shows what you have to do on the road to beat teams better than you. Keep the game close, let it never get too far away. Hit timely shots. Even when the Spiders got down in that Kansas game - it would be 7-8-9 points, they always seemed to get a key bucket. Also not present in the youtube clip are the free throws. Spiders went 17-20 from the line that game - Skrocki always found a way to get to the free throw line when needed. Something I think we miss at times under Mooney. We talk about timeouts to stop a run. Well - another method is a guy gets to the free throw line and makes the free throws. Acts like a timeout - clock stop, everyone catches breath, and made free throws stop the bleeding.
Similar threads
