Thought I’d post this topic as I’m interested in what SOSHers more knowledgeable than me might think about this.
It seems pretty clear to me that Udoka (and other NBA coaches) overvalue the end-of-game use of coaching challenges. Obviously a foul is a foul and a point is a point regardless of if the bad call that leads to it is in the 1st or 4th quarter. So why do so many coaches, and Udoka in particular, save those challenges until the end of the game? Making it even worse is the fact that the big risk of a failed challenge (a lost timeout) is clearly a bigger risk in the very quarter that NBA coaches preserve their challenges for: the 4th quarter.
I wasn’t able to find much online about this but I’m sure there is stuff out there for people who are better at finding such things. With all the close games that these Cs have lost, can they really afford to be giving up potential points because of Udoka’s preference for keeping his challenge until the end of the game?
It seems pretty clear to me that Udoka (and other NBA coaches) overvalue the end-of-game use of coaching challenges. Obviously a foul is a foul and a point is a point regardless of if the bad call that leads to it is in the 1st or 4th quarter. So why do so many coaches, and Udoka in particular, save those challenges until the end of the game? Making it even worse is the fact that the big risk of a failed challenge (a lost timeout) is clearly a bigger risk in the very quarter that NBA coaches preserve their challenges for: the 4th quarter.
I wasn’t able to find much online about this but I’m sure there is stuff out there for people who are better at finding such things. With all the close games that these Cs have lost, can they really afford to be giving up potential points because of Udoka’s preference for keeping his challenge until the end of the game?
Attachments
-
261.4 KB Views: 25
Last edited: