Icing the Shooter

Basketball games are frequently won or lost at the free throw line. By one estimate, approximately 20% of all points are scored at the free-throw line. Additionally, for both winning and losing teams, free-throws comprise a higher percentage of total points in the last 5 minutes of a game than they do in the early part of a contest. Perhaps not surprisingly, winners score more points at the free-throw line than losers. The success of penalty shots in the late stages of a contest then, is often decisive in determining the outcome.

One of the options available to a coach is to call a timeout. Over the years a very popular tactic has been to bring a stoppage in play just before an opposing player attempts a free throw (by one estimate, approximately 94% of Division II coaches use this tactic). The same tactic is also used in football. With time running out, coaches often call a timeout just as the opposing team lines up to attempt a game-winning field goal.

Sometimes referred to as icing, the practice assumes that the player's performance will somehow cool down, he will lose his concentration or become increasingly anxious over the prospect of missing the upcoming shot in a critical game situation. Coaches have assumed that with time to reflect on the consequences of failure, the added stress on the shooter increases the likelihood of a miss. Certainly, we know that extremely high levels of arousal or anxiety are generally associated with poorer performance. But is that actually happening at the free throw line?

An examination of NCAA Division I men's basketball records produced a surprising result. The records in question were those of eight teams competing in the Southwest, Western Athletic and Big Sky conferences from 1977 to 1989. In all, 1,237 games were analyzed. Of free-throw attempts that were not preceded by a timeout, 68.7% were successful. However, of all free-throws attempted after a timeout was called, 73.4% were successful. The difference is in just the opposite direction to the reasoning underlying coaches' justification for using the tactic.

Just a word about the difference between 68.7% and 73.4%. While it is impressive, the difference falls just short of being statistically significant and as a consequence must be regarded as due to chance. However, what can be said about the tactic of calling timeouts prior to free throws is that to this point the practice is not supported by the available evidence. At the same time it is reasonable to also question the wisdom of icing the field goal kicker in football. By way of explanation, it has been suggested that any increase in the shooter's anxiety is more than offset by the rest and opportunity to gain composure that is provided by the timeout. It would appear at this point that the tactic of calling timeouts is overdue for a major re-think.

About Sport Science Secrets | Table of Contents | Sample Chapters