And fortunately, the facts are on my side for the stuff we disagree about.I said defensively the were better last year, and it seems that at least we agree on that.
And fortunately, the facts are on my side for the stuff we disagree about.I said defensively the were better last year, and it seems that at least we agree on that.
Except that you are responding to something I never said. (Hint: I never said or meant that start players never slump.) But whatever. Enjoy your high horse.And fortunately, the facts are on my side for the stuff we disagree about.
I was going to quote Eddie’s question about why Blake was used but Pritchard fits my point as well.Pritchard must really be in the doghouse, I thought last night was the perfect game to get him some minutes as a spark/disrupter to change the way things were going. One of the few instances where PP seems to be a better fit than Hauser.
This broad argument only works to a point. Surely, the gameplan for tonight was not to lose by 15 or to start out hitting 2 of their first 17 from three. At some point, when things are not working, there should be a plan B or C. Saying "Pritchard [or anyone else] is not in the game plan" is one thing, saying "Pritchard won't get a look even if the game plan is a spectacular failure" is something else.I was going to quote Eddie’s question about why Blake was used but Pritchard fits my point as well.
Growing up I was taught that if something doesn’t make sense all you have to do is follow the money to find the answer. This exercise really allowed me to think outside the box in figuring things out. In basketball, NBA in particular, I learned myself that if a coaches substitution patterns don’t make sense you follow the defensive matchups/rotations and will likely find the answer.
The Pritchard one is easy. Much of our defensive strategy was to not allow Randle the iso mismatches via switches which is his bread and butter. Having one of Smart and Brogdon on the floor at all times negated the Knicks go-to set late in the shot clock. Once Thibs realized that this was not going to work he was forced to use secondary options. There wasn’t really a spot for Pritchard in this game plan.
The strategy DID work on Randle so there really wasn’t a need for a Plan B. Are you the same person screaming for more Derrick White minutes every night? More Brogdon minutes? Of course there is Smart…..so who loses their minutes last night so the Knicks can create the Randle iso mismatches that we gameplanned against effectively for the purpose of having an inferior offensive player on the floor?This broad argument only works to a point. Surely, the gameplan for tonight was not to lose by 15 or to start out hitting 2 of their first 17 from three. At some point, when things are not working, there should be a plan B or C. Saying "Pritchard [or anyone else] is not in the game plan" is one thing, saying "Pritchard won't get a look even if the game plan is a spectacular failure" is something else.
Mazzulla often seems unwilling or unable to adjust on the fly.
The minutes for Pritchard would have come from Hauser, who was not getting looks for 3's (not exactly his fault, team was having a problem) and was also getting beaten off the dribble (also was a teamwide problem last night). Hauser is great when he can hit 3's and just stay in front of his man. When that's not working for his 15 mins, why not stick Pritchard in there? Things he can do better than Hauser: dog his man relentlessly, run/finish in transition, get some rebounds. Hauser looked overwhelmed last night, Pritchard tends to look less so. Pritchard is not going to win the game but he might upset the Knicks' flow, stop Brunson or Hart a little, or spark a transition basket or two.I was going to quote Eddie’s question about why Blake was used but Pritchard fits my point as well.
Growing up I was taught that if something doesn’t make sense all you have to do is follow the money to find the answer. This exercise really allowed me to think outside the box in figuring things out. In basketball, NBA in particular, I learned myself that if a coaches substitution patterns don’t make sense you follow the defensive matchups/rotations and will likely find the answer.
The Pritchard one is easy. Much of our defensive strategy was to not allow Randle the iso mismatches via switches which is his bread and butter. Having one of Smart and Brogdon on the floor at all times negated the Knicks go-to set late in the shot clock. Once Thibs realized that this was not going to work he was forced to use secondary options. There wasn’t really a spot for Pritchard in this game plan.
What I'm advocating is for that the objective should be to win, and the game plan should be a means to that end. And if that means is not getting you there, something else should be tried. Mazzulla more or less rode his plan to a 15 point loss.The strategy DID work on Randle so there really wasn’t a need for a Plan B. Are you the same person screaming for more Derrick White minutes every night? More Brogdon minutes? Of course there is Smart…..so who loses their minutes last night so the Knicks can create the Randle iso mismatches that we gameplanned against effectively for the purpose of having an inferior offensive player on the floor?
So every time we are down 15 the coach should go into panic mode and run up worse lineups to reduce the lead? C’mon man. You still didn’t answer which gets benched for their rotation out of that group.What I'm advocating is for that the objective should be to win, and the game plan should be a means to that end. And if that means is not getting you there, something else should be tried. Mazzulla more or less rode his plan to a 15 point loss.
Perhaps the more pertinent question - how many games have the Cs lost when they played well? I can't think of any off the top of my head. When they play well, they win. That's a good trait to have.We've all seen them have bad nights and win, even a few terrible nights against bad teams and win. How many 20-point holes have they pulled themselves out of? It's part of what makes the team so fun for me, honestly, is how scrappy they can play when it's just not their night. Very mentally tough team, imo.
And maybe NYK has improved by adding Josh Hart. They have won every game Hart has played in for them (6-0).The Knicks are a tough team to run up against in a regular season game like that. They play hard, they're a good defensive team. They know where their shots are going to come from. When Randle shoots the ball like that, Brunson is doing his thing, and guys like Josh Hart get the C's to turn the ball over, it's going to be a tough night.
The Knicks’ offensive game plan revolves around Randall bumhunting. Pritchard can dog Gs. He can’t dog 6’8” 250 lb Fs. He would need to be shooting 100% from three to be an asset there.The minutes for Pritchard would have come from Hauser, who was not getting looks for 3's (not exactly his fault, team was having a problem) and was also getting beaten off the dribble (also was a teamwide problem last night). Hauser is great when he can hit 3's and just stay in front of his man. When that's not working for his 15 mins, why not stick Pritchard in there? Things he can do better than Hauser: dog his man relentlessly, run/finish in transition, get some rebounds. Hauser looked overwhelmed last night, Pritchard tends to look less so. Pritchard is not going to win the game but he might upset the Knicks' flow, stop Brunson or Hart a little, or spark a transition basket or two.
I think there is a wide gap between “panic mode” and “failure to adjust at all,” Mazzulla is at one extreme, and he should be more willing to adjust without going all the way to panic mode.So every time we are down 15 the coach should go into panic mode and run up worse lineups to reduce the lead? C’mon man. You still didn’t answer which gets benched for their rotation out of that group.
This is a point that has gone underappreciated in these threads, which is that a lot of teams have gotten better this season. Not just at the deadline, but those too. Not going to be an easy path for the Celtics although they have a more favorable health prognosis than an older team like the Suns.And maybe NYK has improved by adding Josh Hart. They have won every game Hart has played in for them (6-0).
I don't think Pritchard makes a bit of difference last night.The minutes for Pritchard would have come from Hauser, who was not getting looks for 3's (not exactly his fault, team was having a problem) and was also getting beaten off the dribble (also was a teamwide problem last night). Hauser is great when he can hit 3's and just stay in front of his man. When that's not working for his 15 mins, why not stick Pritchard in there? Things he can do better than Hauser: dog his man relentlessly, run/finish in transition, get some rebounds. Hauser looked overwhelmed last night, Pritchard tends to look less so. Pritchard is not going to win the game but he might upset the Knicks' flow, stop Brunson or Hart a little, or spark a transition basket or two.
Yep. The only nice stretch of the game was when they went five wides.I don't think Pritchard makes a bit of difference last night.
I will go to my grave saying that putting in Blake in the 1st quarter over Muscala was fucking strange as shit though. Those 6 minutes that Blake was on the court, resulted in a -11 (2nd worst on the team last night). When Joe finally went to Muscala, it opened everything up a bit resulting in a couple of different Celtic runs. Muscala in his 11 minutes was a +/- of 0 (only him and D White weren't negative, White was also a 0).
Griffin came in with 5:36 to go in the 1st, in a 10-9 game. He finished the quarter by committing an offensive foul, a defensive foul, missed 2 3's, and the Knicks went on a 17-6 run, and finished the quarter leading 27-15. The C's never recovered from that.
That was my biggest issue with the coaching decisions last night, and a whole bunch of folks noted it immediately in the game thread.
Very well put with the last line. The game was largely decided by the Celtics going 1-12 in the 1st quarter and 2/19 in the 1st half from deep. It seems strange to point to a lack of adjustments when they played the 2nd half even, and it stayed a competitive game until late despite such a disastrous start.Yeah, I think I have to object to the characterization that Tatum was just walking the ball up and hoisting threes and/or they weren't competitive last night. That wasn't my takeaway from watching at all.
Just looking at the shot chart:
- White missed at least three wide-open threes from the corner, including one at the buzzer of the first half, which would have been a nice boost going into the locker room.
- As noted by Scal, Houser missed a wiiiiide open three from the corner that would have cut it to seven in the fourth; he missed and it turned into a layup on the other end, down 12.
- Three of Tatum's 8 misses from 3 were in the first five minutes of the game; after that he was generally shooting off of ball screens, where he can be deadly.
- The corner 3 is the most efficient shot in the NBA - Knicks were 7-9 from there, Cs were 2-11, if that evens out just a little, it's a tight game
I think it's really hard to argue that 9-42 from 3 is just something you need to battle through. Sometimes the shots don't go down and it's something that's a known-known with the way Joe wants to play. It's not like the last five minutes of this one was garbage time.
Exactly.So every time we are down 15 the coach should go into panic mode and run up worse lineups to reduce the lead?
I did not like CJM's rotations last night.Pritchard must really be in the doghouse, I thought last night was the perfect game to get him some minutes as a spark/disrupter to change the way things were going. One of the few instances where PP seems to be a better fit than Hauser.
This feels like the heart of the matter. To be generous to CJM now is the time to figure out if the 2 big lineup is the one to roll with going into the post-season. This starting lineup simply doesn’t have a lot of minutes together this season and they have to figure it out because the rhythm and movement are not quite there.
- The two big line up currently stinks on both ends.
- Rob is not bringing that disruptive energy. He's not making the energy defensive plays, rim running, or forcing second chances like he can.
Horford/TimeLord playing together, using Adv Off/Def RtgThis feels like the heart of the matter. To be generous to CJM now is the time to figure out if the 2 big lineup is the one to roll with going into the post-season. This starting lineup simply doesn’t have a lot of minutes together this season and they have to figure it out because the rhythm and movement are not quite there.
White hopping back into the lineup absent Jaylen didn’t help.
Rob is not the same player as last year and that’s a glaring red flag. Maybe that’s just a function of gelling with this lineup again. It’s probably more important to figure that out now and live with the downside of the bumps along the way.
Pritchard grabs 4.2 rebounds per 36. Hauser 5.9Things he can do better than Hauser: dog his man relentlessly, run/finish in transition, get some rebounds.
Derrick White has missed his last 7 three-point attempts……just sayinDo we now move on from Tatum and worry about Jaylen?
Just trying to keep track..
Dude, what if he never hits another one again?Derrick White has missed his last 7 three-point attempts……just sayin
Only in this sense: his injury timing sucked because he was playing the best basketball of his life right up until Tatum broke his face. I don't think there's reason to worry about him getting back to that form, but he does need to get there by June.Do we now move on from Tatum and worry about Jaylen?
But wasn’t he pretty much there the two games following the ASB?Only in this sense: his injury timing sucked because he was playing the best basketball of his life right up until Tatum broke his face. I don't think there's reason to worry about him getting back to that form, but he does need to get there by June.
Yeah, he was their best player against Philly a lot of the game. Kept them in it early, and led the unit that built the 4Q lead. Indy was also solid.But wasn’t he pretty much there the two games following the ASB?
21/45 combined including 5/9 from 3 and going for 30 vs Indy and 26 vs Philly. I didn’t get a chance to watch much of those games so I am legit asking the question since I’m primarily using the box scores as evidence.
The full episode (1 of 2) can be found here. It’s definitely worth the watch, Mazzulla has a great talk with them as well.Just good wholesome Cs content with Brad hanging with KG and Pierce. And also Brad dragging Scal.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpVUTtDDYsF/?igshid=NTdlMDg3MTY=
He finally hit against CLE . . . .Derrick White has missed his last 7 three-point attempts……just sayin
Made me wonder with all of the White talk (which is awesome), how the rotation guys compare for Assist%, Turnover% and ratio between:I've got no problem with what Jaylen has given them since he came back from getting his face busted up. My problem with Jaylen has been and will remain the turnovers. He's good for a handful of head scratchingly bad possessions every game and they seem to be concentrated during periods when the C's are struggling to get going and he's forcing it.
Just the opposite. Joe recognized early on that the focus wasn't there, but the team just didn't respond. Tatum, Brown and Smart have to be better and lead this team.Feels like that loss was on CJM. Had them up 28 and then lost by double digits. Just... where was the coaching there? I get that guys had to make plays, that shots weren't falling, but you should never, ever, EVER lose like that.
They're the only team that's top 5 in both O/D Rtg.I'm still trying to figure out how the team goes from #1 on defense last year to dogshit D this year.
Dogshit? We’ve been among the best defensive teams across the board all season. One unfocused trap game in February doesn’t change that.I'm still trying to figure out how the team goes from #1 on defense last year to dogshit D this year.
I guess we just don't know. It feels like a very well coached team wouldn't blow a 28 point lead and then lose by double digits.Just the opposite. Joe recognized early on that the focus wasn't there, but the team just didn't respond. Tatum, Brown and Smart have to be better and lead this team.
I'm not sure it had to do with coaching. To me, the Cs went up big early and then loss focus, and then BRK spread out the Cs and attacked mismatches. The Cs turned the ball over and couldn't really stop Bridges or Dinwiddie consistently.I guess we just don't know. It feels like a very well coached team wouldn't blow a 28 point lead and then lose by double digits.
Yes, Tatum, Brown, and Smart have to lead better but this was... whew.
Just the opposite. When did CJM have this epiphany, was it when the Celts were up 28 and running a fucking clinic that Red Auerbach would appreciate? Did he forsee an epic collapse? Very doubtful. IMO it more probable he did not have the tools to refocus a team that melted in the 2nd and 3rd qtrs. There was time to address the issues. IMO2 there is enough shared irresponsibility for both players and their coach tonight. No one gets a free pass.Just the opposite. Joe recognized early on that the focus wasn't there, but the team just didn't respond. Tatum, Brown and Smart have to be better and lead this team.
Feels like that loss was on CJM. Had them up 28 and then lost by double digits. Just... where was the coaching there? I get that guys had to make plays, that shots weren't falling, but you should never, ever, EVER lose like that.
I think there is something wrong with the team, whether that be coaching or something else I have no idea.Just the opposite. Joe recognized early on that the focus wasn't there, but the team just didn't respond. Tatum, Brown and Smart have to be better and lead this team.