2/12 Morant, Memphis, Matinee

[SteveF]

If you are throwing away timeouts with 3 minutes left and not using your challenge given the number of incorrect calls during a game (many), I think it's fair to criticize the coach for not making optimal use of resources. But Mazzulla is hardly alone wrt poor use of challenges.

Further, it's probably possible to buy guys more rest with a strategically called timeout near the end of a quarter. Maybe even use the timeout to draw up a play. The Celtics have a better offensive rating after a timeout than they do in the half court overall.

Edit: To be clear, this is nitpicking. I don't really care whether Mazzulla does/doesn't call timeouts. I do care about how Celtics coaches throw away points nearly every game because they don't challenge effectively, but that criticism applies to nearly every NBA coach.

 

[joe dokes]

This isn't really in response to the Mazzulla question(s), but just parsing through the Celts schedule, I think their "best case season" would have 3 or 4 more wins than it does right now:

- They lost twice to Cleveland in a 5 day span. Cleveland is good. Both were OT games. But I'd expect a split there
- They lost 3 straight home games to Orlando (2) + Indiana (1). I'd expect at least 2 wins at home against those teams
- Home loss vs. Knicks in OT (which was after a 13 point loss at Orlando and a 3 point loss at Miami). Celts are 1-3 against Orlando

They're 41-16. So maybe 44-13, 45-12.

For the sake of argument, that's reasonable. 3 *seems* pretty low. Which is good. Also, by whatever the quick-and-dirty method to come up with those games, its probably important to come up with the "shoulda losts."

Every coach, like every player, has room for improvement. But its difficult to see where Mazzula's shortcomings, whatever they are, are costing this team this year.

Edit: To be clear, this is nitpicking. I don't really care whether Mazzulla does/doesn't call timeouts. I do care about how Celtics coaches throw away points nearly every game because they don't challenge effectively, but that criticism applies to nearly every NBA coach.

This is kind of the point. I doubt he's Red Auerbach or Red Holtzman, or even Red Klotz.

 

[bankshot1]

To me the onus needs to be on people complaining to demonstrate harm. Is that really unreasonable when addressing a complaint?

Again the proof is squishy if not impossible. If a 12 pt run turns into a 17-3 run and a lead lost with no TOs i think we can say definitively there was damage done. Now it may be overcome , but perhaps a TO after 12 points might have helped. To ask a fan to provide proof of a needed TO seems ridiculous. My guess is that if you had 100 NBA savvy observers (a large sample size, fans writers coaches) watch a game, a very large percentage would identify those moments in a game when a TO is needed and my guess is most of the time they would successfully predict the TO. Not because of brilliance, but rather we have all been conditioned by decades of watching coaches call TOs.

 

[tims4wins]

Do they get to keep the short-handed wins over Philly & Memphis, two supposed title contenders?

Fair. I ignored some other losses though. And I’m talking best case. Like they lost in Chicago twice. They stink.

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

Timeout usage definitely isn't worth pages of back and forth. There's no perfect way to use TOs. Letting it ride and having the players work through a rough patch makes sense. Trying to curb a run of negative play by calling a TO also makes sense. What doesn't make sense, IMO, is having a rigid philosophy that you rarely deviate from.

If Alex Cora never used a mound visit to talk to a pitcher would that make sense? Do mound visits unequivocably work every single time? Hell no.

 

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

Every guy with a positive +/-. Nice.

 

[chilidawg]

Again the proof is squishy if not impossible. If a 12 pt run turns into a 17-3 run and a lead lost with no TOs i think we can say definitively there was damage done. Now it may be overcome , but perhaps a TO after 12 points might have helped. To ask a fan to provide proof of a needed TO seems ridiculous. My guess is that if you had 100 NBA savvy observers (a large sample size, fans writers coaches) watch a game, a very large percentage would identify those moments in a game when a TO is needed and my guess is most of the time they would successfully predict the TO. Not because of brilliance, but rather we have all been conditioned by decades of watching coaches call TOs.

I think if you're looking at one game this is spot on. I like to think Joe is playing the long game, encouraging mental toughness.

I do seem to remember Phil Jackson being notorious for letting runs go unchecked. That worked out well for him. He did have some good players.

 

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

Timeout usage definitely isn't worth pages of back and forth. There's no perfect way to use TOs. Letting it ride and having the players work through a rough patch makes sense. Trying to curb a run of negative play by calling a TO also makes sense. What doesn't make sense, IMO, is having a rigid philosophy that you rarely deviate from.

I was talking about this with a non-Bos buddy of mine during the game today. I started getting pissy about Mazzulla doing what he does, not stopping the run. I reminded myself of the self-diagnose component of the theory, and it seems legit.

But is there anything lost by not having more huddles, more adjustments in-game (from the sideline)? Is it something that can be turned off and on situationally, for the playoffs? I guess I'm asking: is something being lost by not calling more time outs from a coach-player dynamic in-game?

The results speak for themselves, I reckon.

 

[The Raccoon]

White struggling today.

(I know this was posted early when he was like 0/4 or something, but...)
23 points and 10 assists plus great defense all around - I want more struggles like that!

 

[ifmanis5]

(I know this was posted early when he was like 0/4 or something, but...)
23 points and 10 assists plus great defense all around - I want more struggles like that!

Yup, he stuck with it and turned it around. Big ups to him. In the past he would get down on himself too much.

 

[chilidawg]

Yup, he stuck with it and turned it around. Big ups to him. In the past he would get down on himself too much.

Very impressed with Mr White these last 2 games. He's stepped up when they needed it.

 

[bankshot1]

I think if you're looking at one game this is spot on. I like to think Joe is playing the long game, encouraging mental toughness.

I do seem to remember Phil Jackson being notorious for letting runs go unchecked. That worked out well for him. He did have some good players.

The problem is Joe is a rookie coach with no real track record. I like the philosophy of letting players figure it out, but it has to be blended with the realization that players are busy playing and may not be able to gather and assess the info to figure it out and could use some help from the sidelines from time to time.

CJM has a championship calibre team with a shitload of smart veteran talent, I am confident they will all figure it out.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Tatum goes 3 for 16 and they still win handily. This team is deeper than Sartre multiplied by Kierkegaard.

as deed as an Agnostic, Extentialist, Buddhist.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

But is there anything lost by not having more huddles, more adjustments in-game (from the sideline)? Is it something that can be turned off and on situationally, for the playoffs? I guess I'm asking: is something being lost by not calling more time outs from a coach-player dynamic in-game?

The theory is to try to get the players to figure out how to get a bucket or a stop in the midst of the other team's run so that they can start figuring out what they need to execute (or how they need to execute) when adversity strikes. In other words, over the course of a game, the players need to learn what they can do and not do in the particular situation.

It's an admirable goal in theory.

 

[ObstructedView]

Part of what makes me somewhat agnostic about the timeout stuff is that it often seems to be wrapped up in the highly debatable concept of momentum in sports. I'm sure that some coaches use those TOs to make tactical adjustments, but a lot of what I hear from fans and commentators is more along the lines of "That was a great timeout - they were starting to get on a roll" or "I wish he would've called a timeout there since the other team was playing better and we needed to stop the bleeding." As others have noted, there are always runs in the NBA and there will always be ebbs and flows. I'm not smart enough to know whether there's any correlation between non-end-of-game timeouts and game outcomes, but it does seem like it's overblown at times and that Joe gets extra heat about it because he's new and bucking convention.