2022-2023 General Celtics thread

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,092
where I was last at
There is almost no other reason to have PP on this team other than to bring some energy off the bench and his ability to hit multiple 3s.

And they needed both last night.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,068
The OKC game was not a B2B, and no one seemed particularly upset that Mazzulla salvaged a win by giving Pritchard some late 3rd/early 4th minutes.

I don't feel super-strongly about this one way or the other, but I think it's fair to criticize Mazzulla's thought process around PP as being a bit inconsistent.
Pritchard was part of the rotation that night as someone was out (Brogdon or White).


There is almost no other reason to have PP on this team other than to bring some energy off the bench and his ability to hit multiple 3s.

And they needed both last night.
C’mon you’re better than “no other reason to have him on the team.” It’s not like he’s Tacko who had zero role. He’s deep bench depth for nights when we aren’t at full strength and a capable emergency rotation guy in spots. Last night wasn’t one of those nights….neither were other nights when people complain he doesn’t play while in the same breath ask for more White minutes.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,092
where I was last at
Last night was a perfect time to play the iced PP. No one could hit a 3 ball and it was obvious the team was flat and they could use a jolt of something. He was a possible answer to both needs, yet he was iced, again. From both an on and off-court (read as trade value) usage, icing the guy seems counterprodictive to me. I see litle down side in giving him bench minutes particularly in a game when the Cs are down 15+ points, and when options A and B aren't working.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,311
Melrose, MA
I disagree that players wouldn’t object to losing their minutes to a non-rotation player on a non-B2B. This is results-oriented stuff……the far better players didn’t get the job done so the coach should have played the inferior player. That’s not a real-time process in a non-B2B.
I legit don’t understand where this is coming from. No player plays the entirety of the second half. If Pritchard came in late in the third or started the 4th which guy who likely would have been sitting anyway would have objected?

A couple of weeks ago, a listless Celtic team was on its way to losing to Sacramento, Mazzulla put in Pritchard (and Kornet), the crowd went wild, and the Celtics went on something like 39-4 run. Do you really think this caused some dissension on the team?
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,301
Then I won’t but I will say that if you want to lose guy like White or Brogdon or Smart that is certainly the way to help a guy lose confidence, be pissed off at you, lose him, etc etc. It’s short sighted.

No, a key player shouldn’t be benched in a regular season game bc he’s having a bad night unless other factors are in play…..B2B where the player expects shorter minutes, injury, illness….those would qualify.
I think we have different definitions of "benched." I'm talking about cutting White and Brogdon back from 26 and 30 minutes, which they played last nite, respectively, to something like 22 and 25 to see if Pritchard might provide a spark. If he's firing blanks like the rest of the team, he can always be returned to the bench ASAP.

Go back and watch the final quarter. On Brogdon's final 3-point attempt, he clearly shot it with no confidence but let it fly because he was wide open at the top of the key. These guys are mature enough to know that sometimes they just don't have it, and there's always another game.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,011
Last nights game was gross, but I'm choosing to look at it like a fan of a bad NFL team with a recent high draft pick QB. The only thing that matters is how the QB plays, not the outcome of the game.

The only thing last night that really mattered was Rob and I thought athletically he looked good. Running hard up and down the court, good lift, moving well. Obviously some rust and its still WAY to early to declare his knee issues in the past, but glad he looked healthy.

The rest of the game.....blech. But just one game Mid December.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,114
Then I won’t but I will say that if you want to lose guy like White or Brogdon or Smart that is certainly the way to help a guy lose confidence, be pissed off at you, lose him, etc etc. It’s short sighted.

No, a key player shouldn’t be benched in a regular season game bc he’s having a bad night unless other factors are in play…..B2B where the player expects shorter minutes, injury, illness….those would qualify.
"Lose" White Smart or Brogdon? Over a sub in 1 game where nothings' falling? That's just not a credible fear, IMO.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,500
I don't believe playing Pritchard for 5-10 minutes late 3rd/early 4th would have caused Smart, White, or Brogdon to check out on the coach. But it does appear that Mazzulla is a believer in letting the players play through their bad shooting nights, and I'm not going to argue against that. Study after study does show that most hot or cold shooting nights are likely statistical noise, and I can see why JM wants his players to believe that he has confidence in them even when the shots bounce out of the rim.

I know minutes get called out sometime, so a quick scan of the per game minutes played by the rotational players compared to last season:

Tatum: +1.1
Brown: +2.1
Smart: +1.0
Horford: +1.8
White: -2.0
Grant: +4.2
Brogdon: -9.9

White's minutes going down makes sense given the presence of Brogdon. Al's minutes have gone up with TL's absence, so hopefully that will trend downward soon. Grant is starting more games with TL out. Smart did have Schroeder taking minutes last season, and those and Richardson's minutes seem dutifully split up between White, Brogdon, and Grant. Coach does seem to play the New Big 3 more, but their overall usage is not out of line with starters on other teams either.

Finally, I have to believe the Celtics will adjust to Orlando for Sunday, and that Horford will not get ejected this time. No need to lose both at home.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,760
All I know now is that people calling for Pritchard need to cite something other than energy and selling his value here is kind of wasted - the dude is ok but he isn't a dynamic scorer or anything.

More to the point, we've seen a decline in usage of the player across two different head coaching regimes. Some of that is a function of the upgrade to the roster but not all of it. They don't like him in certain matchups and I bet they have data to support the decision.

Maybe using Pritchard does win that game but we have little evidence to date that he does anything other than provide some light scoring and ball handling on O while giving back his production on D.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,092
where I was last at
You're not going to use PP for defense, but in a game where you're down 15 in the 3rd and other options are not working well there seems to be little downside to giving him some minutes, unless you assume a 20 point loss is far worse than a 15 point loss. I don't.

And if he's not destined for the rafters and PBS is working on a deal, I'd try to build up his trade value, rather than bury the guy.

YMMV.

Or you can keep him on ice and use him for holiday parties to chill shrimp.

You can never have enough ice except in a driveway.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,068
In a league where double digit 2H comebacks are the norm I don’t understand why people want to see an inferior player try and lead the comeback over better players who have a history of being good. PP has also been pretty bad on most of his opportunities this year. It doesn’t make sense to me and screams of panic in screwing with your rotations on a regular basis. I remember the main board all over Francona in 2004 during the reg season for similar. It’s 82 games plus the playoffs.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,311
Melrose, MA
The example here is the Sacramento game. Celtics down late in third, Pritchard checks in and the crowd immediately gets back into the game. And the Celtics win.

In Boston, if the coach wants to get the crowd back into a game, all he has to do is put Pritchard in.

I agree witheveryone who says there are no guarantees here but if it doesn ‘t work there is a simple obvious move for the coach to make: take him back out.

At home, it is worth a shot in certain types of games.

Edit: Mazzulla has made all sorts of changes to his rotations over the year that are less substantial than the one I am asking for.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,899
Santa Monica
The Celtics have the best record in the NBA, so their problems in play, shooting, rotations, coaching, TOs etc are pretty minimal. We're really looking for progression/improvement/minor adjustments as the regular season moves along. At this point, win or lose, experimentation by CJM should be encouraged. They should examine the losses, look for similarities, & make adjustments. All of this is SSS since we are 1/3 into the season, so understand any pushback there.

Early season takeaways:
1. Def Rebounding issues/2nd Chance points happen too much in losses. Making the entire "team rebound" also leads to fewer JAY transition points since they ALL need to rebound. Which leads to...
2. Size matters (that's what she said). Chicago/Cleve/Orlando, with large centers/frontcourts, seem to create issues/mismatches. CJM has said several times when an opponent has size he will answer with a "smaller" lineup. He believes the opponent should "adjust to the CELTICS". So when facing bigger lineups he has mostly gone with Derrick White starter and when facing smaller lineups he has used Grant as the starter. CJM should opt for the C's matching size for size & letting their skill dictate advantages. The idea shouldn't be to "play smaller" but to play "more skilled".
3. TL/Al back. TL/Al should return to the starting lineup, ending all the size mismatches and creating an advantage on many nights. This will lead to 1 IN/4 OUT, which is collectively the best version of these Celtics. Horford should spend most of his minutes as a sWing, & play the 5 when they want to go small. Please no more Grant at the 5, he's perfectly capable of playing as a wing.
4. Blake vs Luke. The rejuvenation of Blake is nice, who doesn't love a redemption story? BUT Luke should be the 3rd string Center. Kornet needs 10-12mpg to develop chemistry with the 2nd unit. Blake should be waving a towel from the bench, used in back-to-backs & when TL/AL need a night off.
5. Payton Pritchard played in 25/25 playoff games over the last 2 seasons. Now its 13 DNP-CD games + ~5 games of strictly garbage time. This isn't a CJM decision, this is coming from the front office. PBS added Brogdon, signed 3pt sniper Hauser long-term, drafted JDD, and has 2 PGs developing in Europe. I wouldn't get too attached to Payton. PP will eventually be used in a trade package this year or next summer. They are going with Smart, Brogdon, White as the primary ball handlers.
6. Schedule nuance. Last night was predictable, comments were made on the Silver Dollar thread yesterday. @HomeRunBaker bet it. So not really shocked. Long road trip, first home game against a hot, sizeable Magic team (4 straight wins).
I brought this up after the GSW game but it seems like the Celtics have been out of rhythm after multiple days off. They are 0-5 over their last 5 games after more than 1-day off and have shot 33% from 3 in those games.
7. Timeout use. CJM is letting them "play through" opposing team momentum. Funny enough the best HC's use them all the time to stop other team runs, change lineups/players, & make in-game adjustments. If CJM wants to let the players figure it out, then he can just put away the gumball machine and go into genius coma arms-folded mode. We'll have to get used to it but that doesn't mean we have to like it. How many "challenges" + TOs has Joe saved up for the end of the season? :rolleyes:
8. JAYs/Smart MPG. This team is playing for a deep playoff run, CJM will probably cull their minutes as the season drags on and load manage these guys. IME did that last year. Smart opened the season injured + the addition of Brogdon, should lead to less aggressiveness on MS minutes. Not more regular season minutes. This is NOT a call to trade Marcus, simply be careful with his minutes since we'll need him healthy come playoff time. This would also lead to more PP for those looking for that...
9. Fake Trades. I love fake trade ideas, as more of an exercise than a prediction device. But I wouldn't expect anything major like adding Bojan Bogdanovic, which has been suggested a few times. The cost would be a White, Brogdan, or Smart. They are all better than a 1-dimensional offensive wing which doesn't really fill a role on this team. Boston has plenty of offense/shooting from the wing. PBS will be opportunistic in the buyout market, if they do a trade I'd expect it to be in the $10Mish range. Gallo + PP + JJ would get you that match (& also potentially lets them roll a TPE). This has nothing to do with Wyc's wallet but the ability to match salary, which this team would have to do when acquiring a $20M/yr player (or anything more than their TPEs)
10. Bol Bol, aka Wembyama 2.0, what on unearth is Brad doing letting him go, that was our 15th man!!!!! We could have used their starting Center Moe Wagner, who Danny cut. Damn it! Needed to get my weekly 15th man vent out there for @wade boggs chicken dinner ;)

Joking aside, PBS roster construction/contract strategy is damn near perfect.

Nobody is calling for CJM's head. BUT he is a rookie HC and ALL rookies will make mistakes/learn on the job. It's fair for him to receive some criticism as the regular season moves along.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,311
Melrose, MA
Seems like we're only about 20 minutes away from the "Just letting Pritchard sit on the bench with the team hurts the team's chances to win" level of hyperbolic takes.
Pritchard is the new Zappe apparently.
Pritchard would get swallowed alive by the Magic’s size.
No, not even remotely. The point here is:
  • he does play hard (sometimes his teammates have lapses in that area)
  • the fans love him,
  • if Mazzulla puts him in at home, it will get the crowd going
  • he's decent at basketball - this is someone who played regular rotation mintues on a team that advanced to the finals and he contributed positively in some of those playoff games, yet somehow he's supposed to be unplayable against sub .500 teams in December
The Kings were kicking the Celtics' asses a few weeks ago, guys were in foul trouble, so Mazzulla (apparently reluctantly) put Pritchard into the game late in the third quarter (he did not play in the first half). The crowd went wild and the Celtics went on like a 39-4 run or something to easily come back from behind and dispatch the Kings.

Obviously, it was not Pritchard's greatness that led to the turnaround, but rather a beneficial impact on the team.

But that kind of situation had come up a couple of times since and Mazzulla has not even tried putting Pritchard in, which I think is dumb.
 
Last edited:

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
8,078
Hauser has been bad offensively the last four games, going 3-15 from three. He 8 for his last 33 from three in the past nine games, after hitting 47% of his threes his first 21 games.

Derrick White is 6 for his last 26 from deep his last seven games, after going 44 for 98 his first 23 games, 44.9%.

Hopefully they will find the range from three in the Magic rematch.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,352
7. Timeout use. CJM is letting them "play through" opposing team momentum. Funny enough the best HC's use them all the time to stop other team runs, change lineups/players, & make in-game adjustments. If CJM wants to let the players figure it out, then he can just put away the gumball machine and go into genius coma arms-folded mode. We'll have to get used to it but that doesn't mean we have to like it. How many "challenges" + TOs has Joe saved up for the end of the season? :rolleyes:
I can see two main rationales for not using timeouts as often as the best coaches do. One seems bad, and the other seems good/defensible.

1. (bad) "We are going to re-invent NBA basketball and get good at playing without timeouts so that we evolve beyond needing them." This seems unlikely to work.

2. (better) "We didn't face any adversity last year in the 2nd half of the season, and then it felt like a splash of cold water in the face when it hit us against the Bucks/Heat/Warriors. Let's try to play through bad stretches more this year as a way of manufacturing some extra experience handling adversity."

I don't know that I fully buy #2, but I could see a reasonable person thinking it, and also could see him being right.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,802
Hingham, MA
At some point don’t they have to learn how to use timeouts effectively too? Like I get playing through tough stretches at times, but is that a switch that can just be flipped come playoff time?
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,629
I found this paper from 2011 that seems to find that “momentum stopping timeouts” are indeed effective:

https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/6918/2011PermuttS_thesis.pdf?sequence=2

Anyone else have data on this? The above comes to this conclusion:

The existing research on the effectiveness of timeouts on short-term performance in basketball (Mace et. al.; Roane et. al.) supported the idea that timeouts can be highly effective at aiding short-term performance. The findings from this paper support this idea that timeouts can be effective at enhancing performance, but at a smaller magnitude. Regardless of whether a team was home or away, the short-term scoring ratio for teams that called timeout following six consecutive points being scored against them was higher than the short-term scoring ratio for teams that did not call a timeout following six consecutive points being scored against them. The most significant of these results, the home-team with the first-half restriction, shows a .21 increase in average ratio for the next ten points, meaning that calling a timeout predicts that the home-team will score 5.47 out of the next ten points as opposed to 5.26 points when a timeout is not called. This result is small, but supports the idea that timeouts can be a marginally effective tool for coaches to use to help their teams win
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,899
Santa Monica
I can see two main rationales for not using timeouts as often as the best coaches do. One seems bad, and the other seems good/defensible.

1. (bad) "We are going to re-invent NBA basketball and get good at playing without timeouts so that we evolve beyond needing them." This seems unlikely to work.

2. (better) "We didn't face any adversity last year in the 2nd half of the season, and then it felt like a splash of cold water in the face when it hit us against the Bucks/Heat/Warriors. Let's try to play through bad stretches more this year as a way of manufacturing some extra experience handling adversity."

I don't know that I fully buy #2, but I could see a reasonable person thinking it, and also could see him being right.
Agreed. I'd also guess that's what he's trying to do on #2. Although I think these players have gone through the gauntlet of the playoffs countless times, they're pretty hardened and know what to expect/how to react. Especially after the FINALS appearance.

The only place where this team lacks experience is with Head Coach. His approach, so far, is to do next to nothing in regard to TOs and to hold "challenges" to the very end. Joe has done a lot right with the offense and players. The PP situation is more of a team decision IMO. BUT I'm skeptical that CJM has developed some new "TO approach" mousetrap. Why haven't Steve Kerr, Pop, Spo adopted this approach?

I'd rather see Joe work on his "in-game coaching skills" by using TOs for numerous things like: making player substitutions, adjusting to the other team's plays, re-emphasizing off/def strategy, drawing up ATO plays, attempting to slow the other team's momentum, quiet fans, give players a blow, work refs, let players talk amongst themselves in a huddle, etc
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,899
Santa Monica
Timeouts, or lack thereof, have been a hot topic for the C's with Mazzulla at the helm. Usually, coaches will call a timeout when the opposing team goes on a run. Mazzulla has taken an unconventional approach.

The most recent example of Mazzulla's unique timeout strategy came during Tuesday's dramatic overtime win vs. the Los Angeles Lakers. He declined to call a timeout while the Lakers turned a 20-point deficit into a 13-point fourth-quarter lead.

So what's the reasoning behind Mazzulla's timeout usage? He discussed during 98.5 The Sports Hub's Zolak & Bertrand.

"I don't think there's actual real evidence that (calling timeouts during runs) works," Mazzulla said. "I think there's feel. And I think this is what people are used to seeing and how people have done it along the way. We were down 92-88 and I called one, we scored to go 92-90, and they went on another 6-0 run. So what did that timeout do besides get us down more than we were when I called it?
"So I think it's your team. I think it's knowing your team. I think it's us as a team being on the same page. I think it's building an awareness and a mindset to how the game is going and when it does get away from us, what are the things that we can do to get back? Because I think a lot of times when a team is on a run, it's mostly because of self-infliction. Our guys do a great job of growing and understanding what those issues are, and how we can quickly get back to it.

"But I'm not quite sure there's any real evidence that one way works and one way doesn't. I think it's more about what your team's comfortable with, and what you can get your guys to buy into and how well they respond."

Jayson Tatum and his Celtics teammates understand Mazzulla's mindset.

"Joe tells us all the time he’s not going to save us," Tatum said after Tuesday's win. "Especially in the course of the game when we’re not playing the way that we should be, a lot of times he tell us, ‘Figure it out.’ And he challenges us.

"That’s what he did tonight. Even before the game, how he talked to us to start -- myself, [Jaylen Brown], (Marcus) Smart -- he challenged us, just the way that we’ve been playing was not going to cut it."

As controversial as Mazzulla's timeout strategy might be, you can't argue with the results. Tatum and the C's certainly won't begrudge Mazzulla if they continue to add tallies in the win column.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/celtics-coach-joe-mazzulla-addresses-his-timeout-usage
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,311
Melrose, MA
I watched very little of this game, but what I did see was telling. In the game's final seconds, the Celtics had 2 in bounds plays. The first, down by 1, with a chance to win or tie. The second, down by 3, with a chance to tie.

They could not even get the ball in cleanly, either time.

The first was a bad pass turnover where the players involved didn't seem to know what they were supposed to be doing. The second, whatever they were trying to run wasn't there for them and they got the ball in so that (who inbounded the ball on both) was able to get it back and chuck up a ild airball.

Just incredibly bad late game situational play.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,068

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,728
Had to change my avatar due to last night's events.

Apologize in advance if JT throws the ball to the other team at the end of a tie game.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,025
around the way
Funny what a road trip and integrating a new big into the lineup can do. Has this ever happened to any other team?
While I share your sentiment that the sky is not falling, it's more than travel weariness. We watched the book get out on how to defend this team, and the team hasn't responded yet. I mean, we were talking about it here, even when the team was still winning those games. There needs to be an adjustment. I missed both Orlando games, but every one before that in this last stretch was the same--drop and hedge enough to take away most drives, force the Cs to make somewhat-contested 3s, don't allow the inside-out game that was killing the league. And it's working. We had a nice run with all of the ghost screens and baseline cuts, but now Joe has to dial up some more actions.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,621
While I share your sentiment that the sky is not falling, it's more than travel weariness. We watched the book get out on how to defend this team, and the team hasn't responded yet. I mean, we were talking about it here, even when the team was still winning those games. There needs to be an adjustment. I missed both Orlando games, but every one before that in this last stretch was the same--drop and hedge enough to take away most drives, force the Cs to make somewhat-contested 3s, don't allow the inside-out game that was killing the league. And it's working. We had a nice run with all of the ghost screens and baseline cuts, but now Joe has to dial up some more actions.
I'm way behind on my Cs watching but have parts of every game but the LAL. I know none of us really have these statistics but I'd be super interested in seeing what the Cs have as to whether the Cs are actually taking tougher shots.

I mean it could come down to this math: Cs take more than 40 3Ps a game (using 40 for easy math), which they were hitting as a team north of 40% while they were a "historic offense". That's 16 3Ps a game or 48 points.

In their non-historic run, they are hitting south of 30%. 30% is 12 3Ps a game or 36 points. Losing 12 ppg just on shooting 3Ps could (but maybe doesn't) explain the decline.

I don't know if they are taking tougher 3Ps. Even from the little I've seen, White has missed a ton of open 3Ps but he's also taking some contested 3Ps as well. From my eyes, Hauser looks to be shooting more contested 3Ps but he's also had some wide open 3Ps that he's missed. Smart is always up and down. We all know that JT can go long stretches where I think his mechanics get off. Brogdon - I looked at his 1-7 from 3P against ORL first game and they looked pretty much like the ones he had been hitting at 49% up to that game.

Even though they have a ton of good shooters, the Cs weren't going to shoot 40% from 3P as a team. They are not going to shoot 30% either. But at the end of the day, I suspect they are going to have to shoot closer to 40% than 35% to win it all. Hopefully they can do that.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,068
While I share your sentiment that the sky is not falling, it's more than travel weariness. We watched the book get out on how to defend this team, and the team hasn't responded yet. I mean, we were talking about it here, even when the team was still winning those games. There needs to be an adjustment. I missed both Orlando games, but every one before that in this last stretch was the same--drop and hedge enough to take away most drives, force the Cs to make somewhat-contested 3s, don't allow the inside-out game that was killing the league. And it's working. We had a nice run with all of the ghost screens and baseline cuts, but now Joe has to dial up some more actions.
Travel weariness, incorporating TL, teams seeing tape and adjusting. I’m sure to a degree it’s some combination of all but even prior to this recent stretch a reasonable fan would expect the natural ebb and flow of the season to regress in this direction. We’ll have worse losses along the way than these I’m pretty sure of that.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,025
around the way
Travel weariness, incorporating TL, teams seeing tape and adjusting. I’m sure to a degree it’s some combination of all but even prior to this recent stretch a reasonable fan would expect the natural ebb and flow of the season to regress in this direction. We’ll have worse losses along the way than these I’m pretty sure of that.
Yeah you and wbcd are correct that some regression in shooting alone was to be anticipated, and I have no issue with the travel theory. Probably nothing to panic over. But I am concerned that the book is out and that, hence, this regression is permanent absent more Joe wizardry. Which is fine when you're regressing from "best offense evah", but it does mean that they'll have to play both ends better now.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,025
around the way
I think the Celtics have a lazy side that just wants to live or die by shooting the first open three available.
FWIW, I think that's unfair. It's a bad habit, perhaps a nervous tic. They go hero ball and/or ICBM mode when the defense really challenges what they had planned. I don't think of it as laziness as much as a lack of a plan B or the confidence to stick with the plan A. Guys are playing through contact and selling out their bodies at both ends. Lazy doesn't seem like the right word.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,311
Melrose, MA
FWIW, I think that's unfair. It's a bad habit, perhaps a nervous tic. They go hero ball and/or ICBM mode when the defense really challenges what they had planned. I don't think of it as laziness as much as a lack of a plan B or the confidence to stick with the plan A. Guys are playing through contact and selling out their bodies at both ends. Lazy doesn't seem like the right word.
Well, whatever you want to call it, they have shown themselves capable of working to create good looks, and they really don't work to create good looks when they are struggling.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,899
Santa Monica
The 3 previous losses all had plausible excuses (road weariness/1st night back). The Sunday loss is the worst one. Their defense showed up and Jaylen/Malcolm should be able to dominate. The role players have struggled recently, even energy Payton was next to useless in his short minutes

Yesterday's loss was a combo of things but mostly having no Tatum in a revenge game was by far the biggest issue. Indy comes into town in a few days. They have no problem playing at 110% level with no quit. Expect another tough one.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
31,621
I think the Celtics have a lazy side that just wants to live or die by shooting the first open three available.
Not sure why you have to ascribe negative motives to everything that you don't agree with, but whatever.

BTW, Mazzulla has been asking the players to take early shot clock 3Ps if they are open. From this article: https://www.celticsblog.com/2022/11/29/23477861/boston-celtics-built-a-crazy-offense-thats-statistically-the-greatest-ever-nba-history-jaysom-tatum

A wrinkle Mike Brown and Mazzulla agree on is the concept of taking the open shot quickly when you find it into the half court. Brown implemented that emphasis, in part, to counter the impact Robert Williams had on the Warriors’ offense during The Finals over the summer.
He saw opportunities to catch the Celtics retreating and detached from assignments, allowing offensive rebounds even if those quick shot missed. Mazzulla saw passing up open looks leading to Celtics turnovers and wanted to cut those out.

So it's not laziness, it's actually coaching. You can disagree with the strategy - I'm sure most other coaches don't teach this - but the hardest thing for a NBA team to do is to generate a good look with the shot clock winding down - much less score.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,025
around the way
I'm not speaking for Ed, but the bad 3s that this team falls back into aren't the secondary transition ones. Everyone agrees that those are good shots. It's when we have a bunch of possessions in a row where the ball isn't moving, not enough cutting/screening etc. This team has always lapsed back into that (most do) when challenged. It's a bad habit.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,899
Santa Monica
I'm not speaking for Ed, but the bad 3s that this team falls back into aren't the secondary transition ones. Everyone agrees that those are good shots. It's when we have a bunch of possessions in a row where the ball isn't moving, not enough cutting/screening etc. This team has always lapsed back into that (most do) when challenged. It's a bad habit.
Paint touch 3s, kick-out/step-in 3s, wide-open 3s, and corner 3s are what they hunt for. Obviously getting "a great shot over a good shot" is appealing.

They seem to be taking off-the-dribble 3s, moving sideway 3s, passing around the perimeter 3s, and above-the-break 3s at a greater rate recently.

ALSO when Marcus (or MB/DW) dribble drives/bullies smaller PGs, scores at the rim or kicks out to JAYs/others for a 3 the C's are at their best. Making Smart/Brogdon/White spot up Wings and letting the JAYs initiate at the top leads to some old "bad habits" IMO. This isn't a Tatum or Brown slight but just seems easier for them to get downhill while letting the ball handlers do their work from the top.

Just note their defense seems to be sprouting some green shoots on Sunday with the return of TimeLord, so not all is lost. Glass half full. Looking forward to the double BIGz defensive return
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,640
Not to get too far into the fallacy of the predetermined outcome but rather get a sense of the scope of the problem… if the Celtics had shot either league average (35%) or team season average (38%) from 3, they still would have lost the two games in California but won both games against Orlando.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,358
Cultural hub of the universe
Both Joe and GW said after the last game that they were pretty happy with the way they played. They felt the ball movement was good, they just shot like crap. Joe certainly doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would gloss over things to paint a rosy picture.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,166
Saskatoon Canada
I think the Celtics have a lazy side that just wants to live or die by shooting the first open three available.
I fight this at all levels. You want the team that bombs threes. If you are confident and nailing shots you are almost unbeatable. But, it is thought o live with the randomness of it at times. I disagree with a coach that lets everyone shoot the open three, saying the flow and confidence it creates is worth the misses you get from weaker guys casting away. I like my guys to find the better shooter if possible. He has won more games than me, and gone on to higher levels, so as far as NBA goes I am sure he is correct that letting guys shoot, in today's game is the answer.

Make or miss league!!!!!
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,358
Cultural hub of the universe
I fight this at all levels. You want the team that bombs threes. If you are confident and nailing shots you are almost unbeatable. But, it is thought o live with the randomness of it at times. I disagree with a coach that lets everyone shoot the open three, saying the flow and confidence it creates is worth the misses you get from weaker guys casting away. I like my guys to find the better shooter if possible. He has won more games than me, and gone on to higher levels, so as far as NBA goes I am sure he is correct that letting guys shoot, in today's game is the answer.

Make or miss league!!!!!
I like this.

They're still getting good looks. As Joe says nothing good comes from passing up open looks.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,311
Melrose, MA
The Celtics took the first half off, sleepwalking though the game until they found themselves down 71-43.

They made a nice run of a comeback for a while, but their defense could not get key stops.

The last time the Celtics dropped 5 of 6, Brad Stevens was the coach.

They haven't dropped 6 of 7 since Marcus Smart's rookie year - can they avoid that by winning their next game?
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,629
I just don’t understand what’s going on. After the Suns game, I thought this team would never lose again.

I get shooting regression. I get other teams making it harder to drive and kick. But getting down 30 in the first half to a team that has Nesmith in the closing lineup? WTF?
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,866
Honolulu HI
The Celts were absolutely unwatchable in the first half but hopefully the angry energy that propelled them towards a near comeback in the 2nd half can be channeled towards the next game. Tatum’s leadership throughout that surge was just what this team needs from him going forward.
Fuck, if not for Mark friggin Davis (does he think his job is to ruin the game?) they very well could have still won it ( he blew off a 4-point play by Tatum on the Cs last possession and non-called a brutal flagrant in the 3rd). Both of those calls victimized Tatum, the same guy he T’ed up in Chicago (in their brutal loss in Chicago in October) for making a hand gesture that he later let slide when it was mimicked by Vucevic ( which led to a quick complaint and an even quicker ejection of Joe Mazzulla). At this point it’s hard not to wonder if he’s entirely unbiased against Boston generally -and Tatum in particular.
But obviously the Cs lose this game because they couldn’t play defense in the first half and, except Tatum, were ice cold from 3 (13-41) all night.
Gotta love that on the very night Mike Gorman brings up Jaylen’s league-leading streak of 21 straight games scoring 20 or more he breaks it (he scored 19)..
 
Last edited:

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,937
The Celts were absolutely unwatchable in the first half
I watched the first half. I can confirm this.

On defense, they weren't paying attention and missed cutters to the basket. Or they were a step behind Pacers who drove in for layups. On offense, it was like watching a grade school team, where even the easy shots are bouncing out. Meanwhile, the Pacers were executing like NBA champs, and hitting threes. At some point, I just started laughing and stopped letting it get to me. It was just that bad.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
9,018
I just don’t understand what’s going on. After the Suns game, I thought this team would never lose again.

I get shooting regression. I get other teams making it harder to drive and kick. But getting down 30 in the first half to a team that has Nesmith in the closing lineup? WTF?
They appear to be, from my casual observation, bad at, or prone to, playing long stretches of abysmal defense. The otherworldly offense they played over the first 20-25 games covered up for this deficiency.