[Goose]

The bottom line is that the wasted time outs are worth a lot more than I thought they were, and that the risk from trying to get the “right” play in is much higher than calling a generic run up the middle if time is running low.  There is such a thing as decision paralysis and overthinking things.


That being said, the article notes that Sean McVey was one of the worst offenders of “operational time outs”, and the guy is only the youngest coach to ever win a Super Bowl.



BC

It's a model. Is it a useful model? I don't know, what is the evidence that it is? The model of timeout value compares the performance of teams that had N timeouts at a given time in the game to those that had N - 1 timeouts at the same point. They attempted to control for time remaining in the game etc. However, the elephant they ignore is that the number of "operational" time outs a team takes may be correlated but not causative to it's performance. If your team is playing poorly that day, making lots of mental mistakes, or the coaching staff is having an "off" day, or the opposing defense has you figured out, you may need those "operational" time outs. There is no way to control for that effect. If you don't need them, you don't take them, and if you do need them, you already have a problem compared to the teams that don't. The goal is to not need them. The control would be a team that needs them but doesn't take them. How do you create that control, since taking a time out isn't a random variable? Note that you still may be winning the game, because you are overall a better team than your opponent despite having an "off day" calling plays.

It is IMHO probable that this model simply reflects the fact that teams that call a lot of "operational" time outs have a problem already, not that calling the time out was a mistake. You have already made one more "significant" mistake than your opponent and have chosen to call an "operational" time out to remediate it. It isn't calling the time out that is the problem. It is the mistake. Some teams compensate better than others from needing the time out. There is no way to evaluate how many operational time outs SHOULD have been called (would have contributed to win probability) but were not.

The "value" of taking time out because the play-clock is running down instead of running a "bad" play clearly depends on the situation. If it is a critical third down in "no man's land" needed to keep a drive alive, it is probably a "good" call. If it is first and ten on your own 35, perhaps it is not. It undoubtedly also depends on how bad the call is against the current defense, and how probable a turnover is if your team appears confused. The alternative choice always available is a DOG. Is that universally better according to the model?

The "optimal" solution is to not require any "operational" time outs. On that, all can agree. However, in certain formations a run up the middle is impossible unless the QB carries the ball. Ideally the QB can compensate for the play being slow coming in, but bad personnel he cannot. Lots of "operational" time outs due to slow thinking and/or inadequate foresight are for sure something coaching staffs need to minimize. I am not so sure that time outs called due to "gotcha" situations where clearly the defense has the play defended and therefore an advantage are a bad thing. The QB needs to audible, but he isn't/didn't. If that happens a lot, there is a "tell" involved somewhere.

[Goose]

The bottom line is that the wasted time outs are worth a lot more than I thought they were, and that the risk from trying to get the “right” play in is much higher than calling a generic run up the middle if time is running low.  There is such a thing as decision paralysis and overthinking things.


That being said, the article notes that Sean McVey was one of the worst offenders of “operational time outs”, and the guy is only the youngest coach to ever win a Super Bowl.



BC

It's a model. Is it a useful model? I don't know, what is the evidence that it is? The model of timeout value compares the performance of teams that had N timeouts at a given time in the game to those that had N - 1 timeouts at the same point. They attempted to control for time remaining in the game etc. However, the elephant they ignore is that the number of "operational" time outs a team takes may be correlated but not causative to it's performance. If your team is playing poorly that day, making lots of mental mistakes, or the coaching staff is having an "off" day, or the opposing defense has you figured out, you may need those "operational" time outs. There is no way to control for that effect. If you don't need them, you don't take them, and if you do need them, you already have a problem compared to the teams that don't. The goal is to not need them. The control would be a team that needs them but doesn't take them. How do you create that control, since taking a time out isn't a random variable? Note that you still may be winning the game, because you are overall a better team than your opponent despite having an "off day" calling plays.

It is IMHO probable that this model simply reflects the fact that teams that call a lot of "operational" time outs have a problem already, not that calling the time out was a mistake. You have already made one more "significant" mistake than your opponent and have chosen to call an "operational" time out to remediate it. It isn't calling the time out that is the problem. It is the mistake. Some teams compensate better than others from needing the time out. There is no way to evaluate how many operational time outs SHOULD have been called (would have contributed to win probability) but were not.

The "value" of taking time out because the play-clock is running down instead of running a "bad" play clearly depends on the situation. If it is a critical third down in "no man's land" needed to keep a drive alive, it is probably a "good" call. If it is first and ten on your own 35, perhaps it is not. It undoubtedly also depends on how bad the call is against the current defense, and how probable a turnover is if your team appears confused. The alternative choice always available is a DOG. Is that universally better according to the model?

The "optimal" solution is to not require any "operational" time outs. On that, all can agree. However, in certain formations a run up the middle is impossible unless the QB carries the ball. Ideally the QB can compensate for the play being slow coming in, but bad personnel he cannot. Lots of "operational" time outs due to slow thinking and/or inadequate foresight are for sure something coaching staffs need to minimize. I am not so sure that time outs called due to "gotcha" situations where clearly the defense has the play defended and therefore an advantage are a bad thing. The QB needs to audible, but he isn't/didn't. If that happens a lot, there is a "tell" involved somewhere.