When you take the sample size into account, he'd actually be No. 1. His sample size is 66 close games, and the four guys ahead of him have sample sizes of eight, four, nine and seven games.
I'm not sure I buy the premise of either article, though. So a coach holds onto his timeouts until the final five minutes. Who's to say he shouldn't have called one sooner, to change a play call or avoid a personnel mismatch? You don't want to waste one just to make a decision or because you didn't get a play called in time, but you might be better off calling a timeout that prevents a bad play than holding onto it in case you need it later. Using a timeout at the right time can change a game and prevent you from even needing your timeouts late in the game.
And the time management article says teams should start using as much time as possible whenever they're ahead, even 3-0 early in the game, and play hurry-up anytime they're behind. That completely disregards the fact that some teams play better in a particular rhythm, or that some teams make more mistakes when they're trying to hurry up. If you play hurry-up when you're ahead and can put up 40 points, isn't that better than taking your time, giving the defense time to substitute or make adjustments, and putting up 10 points? It's silly to think that the pace of the game affects only the clock.
