I wouldn't call any of those good contests, IMO. Weren't as bad as I was remembering, but Kornet was a 1/2 step slow on all those
2023-24 Celtics
- Thread starter 128
- Start date
Yep, I was excited to see it get tight/late with ~4 mins left
I could care less about W/Ls, rotations, Dean Wade, or NBA Refs
BUT didn't love the execution from Tatum at the end
Of course teams can minimize mental lapses on defense - like switching versus not switching, losing guys in transition, simply ball-watching and losing guys. I mean if they couldn't, would Exasperated Guy have anything to talk about?
However, I'm with you that's it's much easier to do when the games have meaning and much harder to do when a team is down two its best players in a pretty much meaningless game in March.
Just to be clear, I was more pointing out context rather than complaining about the Cs' defense. CLE hit 8 3Ps in a row from 3 different players from all over the court. Even if it were practice in an empty gym without being guarded, that would be impressive. Hats off to them. On to DEN.
X was inactive. Probably because they thought they'd play 3 centers and that was enough. https://www.nba.com/game/0022300886/box-score
I posted this in the game thread but...
Mazzulla was definitely experimenting with a few line-ups. Last night proved what we all already kind of thought and I really hope that the Horford+Kornet duo is never used again.
The Nuggets weren’t playing bad as Phoenix built that lead. Grayson Allen hit 8 three’s and 4 within about a 3-4 min stretch of game time at end of 2Q and start of 3Q. They never wavered from their stuff and weathered the storm. This did not resemble the Warriors giveaway game on final game of their road trip at all.
Bingo. Until they win it all, it's a fun team for NBA fans to shit on. They're so good but they have that one clear hole (haven't won the big one)...until they hoist the trophy they're going to keep catching strays.
I still think this is the year (pretty confident) but I am human and these close end of game situations give me a little bit of PTSD
There is absolutely nothing to worry about with this team. Dean Wade caught a heater and the Celtics took their foot off the gas. These games happen. They’re still the best team in basketball by a wide margin.
Yes, and Mazulla took forever to adjust. Kornet was actually really effective early in the game but in the second half the Cavs made adjustments- and Mazulla was painfully slow in responding. I suppose some of Mazulla’s odd decisions may have been more about getting guys rest (like Jaylen missing most of the 4th quarter) but not switching out Kornet for Tillman cannot be explained so easily. And when the game began to spiral out of control in the 4th, Mazulla also fell back to his old habit of refusing to call a time out -with predictable results.
Not saying anyone should panic as this was mostly decided by fluky shooting and referees who refused to blow a whistle, but it was disheartening to see that as these things happened (and less foul calls should be expected come playoff time) Mazulla became the inflexible, slow-to-adjust coach that he appeared to be in last year’s playoff run. It was also disappointing to see how much Tatum wilted in the 4th (he was 1 for 10 in the quarter) as the defense become more physical.
Tillman wasn't active for the game. (Not listed among the DNPs)
Cavaliers 105-104 Celtics (Mar 5, 2024) Box Score - ESPN
The Celtics' 9th most used lineup (just 45 minutes FWIW) includes both: Kornet/Horford/Tatum/Holiday/Pritchard. It's the only one of their 10 most used lineups to have a negative net rating, and by a lot at -19.9/100.
Kornet+Horford just doesn't work great.
I'm not at all concerned that this reflects how Joe will coach in the playoffs, since we have too much evidence otherwise.
Also no reason to go double big against Cleveland who was playing Wade at the 4 for most of the 4th
Yup, but I just don't have the energy to debate March 5th coaching decisions in a game the team clearly wasn't optimizing for. Watch the film and move on.
The biggest concern for me last night was the reversion to Old Celtics iso ball to “bleed the clock out.” I don’t know that we’ve seen enough close games late for me to fully believe they won’t revert back to it when it matters. It sounds weird, but I simultaneously believe this team is different, but also won’t believe it’s different until I see it when it matters. Let’s get this regular season over with. Healthy. Please.
Also, Tatum needs to be more unselfish in these last possession situations, if the play calls for it. If you want to design an iso with Tatum in a favorable matchup, great. But if the D collapses on him with 3-4 seconds left, he needs to pass the ball. Put that Mamba Mentality to bed.
One of these days it would be nice to give Porzingis down low a chance, too. It’s literally the highest percentage shot in basketball.
One of these days it would be nice to give Porzingis down low a chance, too. It’s literally the highest percentage shot in basketball.
There are likely (ie definitely) people who look at better stats for this than I do, but per nba.com here are the Celtics Off-Ratings (& rankings) in "clutch" situations the last 3 years:
21/22 - 97.7 (26th) - 166 min total, record of 13-22
22/23 - 110.9 (11th) - 170 min total, record of 24-13
23/24 - 123.1 (4th) - 103 min total, record of 18-9
The net ratings look pretty similar but wanted to respond specifically to your iso ball offense. But also, I completely understand how lots of people are totally on board with your bolded statement!
I am curious about those sounding the warning signs about this team - are you seeing the things that concern you in all the games or just the losses? Is it possible that maybe correlation= causation for you?
Oh, interesting. Hadn’t realized that. That makes me feel better about his decision not too play him..lol
There were a couple possessions in the 4th quarter where they took a shot off of one ball screen. But, most of the time they had good looks and they did not fall.
This isn't a shot at you, just a generality. This team has been the best team in basketball for most of if not the whole season. They've won games in a variety of ways from close and late to absolute blowouts. I was concerned after the GS loss back in the winter, but they've shown that they've dealt with adversity(if you want to call it that) after losses.
They've lost 2 games in a row once all season and that was back in Games 6 and 7 of the season. They've lost 2 of 3 two times and not since early January. After the Warriors loss in late December, they ripped off 6 in a row. After the Bucks ass kicking they took, they won 6 of 7. They swept their supposed nemesis in the Heat. They're 9-3 against the 2-5 seeds in the East. Now, they are 3-4 against the top 5 teams in the West but they are facing Denver again tomorrow and OKC in April.
They are not letting a tough loss into their heads and affecting multiple games afterwards which is something they tended to do the past couple years.
This is my concern, dude...
The late and close numbers back the eye test- the offense is terrible in those situations. Mostly Tatum doing hero ball fadeaways.*
Aside from the coach reverting to innocent bystander, the 3 numbers in losses are worst in the league: 32% (40% in wins). Those are patterns we've seen for a while.
*
Last edited:
Completely aside from the issue for a moment, 1-11 on those sort of shots when the Celtics only have 13 total losses is insane.
Isn't 11 of *anything* in the NBA too small a sample size to draw any legitimate conclusions?
Every team in every sport has worse numbers for good things in games they lose.
Indeed. And I know that the the FG% goes way down on these shots, to the point where if the Celtics were 4-11 in these situations, they might actually be above average.
What is ESPN defining as "clutch time"? I thought Tatum was rated very well in the clutch by CTG etc?
@RorschachsMask can you weigh in here?
@RorschachsMask can you weigh in here?
He did post 3 seasons of Tatum's FG% & NBA rank in those clutch situations
or should we just not talk about such things?
This team is on the precipice of being one the 10 greatest teams (Net Rtg) of All-Time.
Literally, nobody has sounded any warning signs.
This is a discussion board & people are posting different data points.
The fact is this team is great in the clutch. Thank you @RorschachsMask
They are great until they (the JAYs) decide to go ISO and abandon Mazzulla-ball (hunt for a great shot)
Then they turn into a below-average offensive team.
The Good News is CJM has the horses, it's an easy fix, & every Tatum late failure
leads him to realize he should return to Mazzulla-ballHopefully, this Wagon just pulverizes teams, like they normally do, and Tatum can continue hunting pull-ups unfettered (especially from the left side of the court).
It's hard for me to get too worked up about Tatum taking fadeaways with ~no time on the clock. Those are shots he hits at 40%+, the other team doesn't get a chance to get a shot off, and there's no turnover.
He's just on a really bad run of shooting them this year. Tatum holding the ball for a fadeaway is about as good end-of-game offense as you can reliably dial up in the NBA.
It's nice to say you want MazzullaBall with 10 seconds left, but that takes away control of when the shot gets off. If the other team gets it back and advances the ball with 3 seconds left, they're getting something decent. If you pass too late, you don't get the shot off: exactly this happened against Philly in the playoffs last year with Smart shooting.
People are wildly overreacting to a low sample size. We have a large sample size that says Jayson Tatum is very good at mid-range fadeaways, particularly relative to what else you get end-of-game.
He's just on a really bad run of shooting them this year. Tatum holding the ball for a fadeaway is about as good end-of-game offense as you can reliably dial up in the NBA.
It's nice to say you want MazzullaBall with 10 seconds left, but that takes away control of when the shot gets off. If the other team gets it back and advances the ball with 3 seconds left, they're getting something decent. If you pass too late, you don't get the shot off: exactly this happened against Philly in the playoffs last year with Smart shooting.
People are wildly overreacting to a low sample size. We have a large sample size that says Jayson Tatum is very good at mid-range fadeaways, particularly relative to what else you get end-of-game.
This is exactly right.
I keep reading these kinds of stats this morning. The C's are terrible at shooting at the buzzer in close games. Hey Perk, if they hit all of those shots, they'd be 58-3.
The bottom line for those numbers is this: The Celtics either blow teams out, or they have a chance to win at the end. They've only had 3 fucking games all year in which that wasn't the result. THREE. And we're supposed to wring our hands and worry?
Fuck that.
If this team had a 22 point lead last night, and the Cavs cut it to 7, and then the C's closed them out and won by 15, nobody says a fucking word. Instead, the Cavs just couldn't miss, the C's couldn't put it in the ocean, and instead of finishing them off, the Cavs were able to keep the run going and win the game. So fucking what. If that game plays out 100 times, the C's finish them off 95 times. I have no doubt about that. Tatum missed a bunny jumper from about 6 feet, about 5 other shots during that run were halfway down and just didn't go, there were multiple instances of the c's getting hacked and not getting calls, and it still took Cleveland to go fucking supernova for almost 10 consecutive minutes to win the game in which they were losing with 20 seconds left.
The C's are fine, there is still nothing to worry about, besides health. This team is getting shit on for being bad in clutch situations, mostly because they don't put themselves into clutch fucking situations very often.
Sure. Talk away.
I dont think it's predictive of anything or indicative of something to be "fixed"? Obviously, "good" shots that he misses shouldn't be an issue. (Unless we think he's a "choker.")
Anyway, I think in general, good, non-ISO, offense leads to better shots when you have a bunch of good players. That's not rocket surgery. Neither is the idea that a great player surrounded by shitty ones may well be better off pounding the ball into the floor and trying to beat his man.
FWIW--
The 'Clutch Gene' Myth: An Analysis of Late-Game Shooting ...
Last-shot offense is very different from other times in the game, because the opponent can advance the ball on a timeout if you leave time left.
Trying to analyze it in the same way as the rest of the game leads inevitably to flawed conclusions. As @HomeRunBaker loves to point out, the tagline of this forum used to reflect the eternally recurring nature of this debate.
Trying to analyze it in the same way as the rest of the game leads inevitably to flawed conclusions. As @HomeRunBaker loves to point out, the tagline of this forum used to reflect the eternally recurring nature of this debate.
Do you want Tatum, as he did, to shoot with 2 seconds left?
or does it make sense to NOT burn time for a last-second shot?
Why not attack the rim or kick & shoot with time so the C's can
(a) get an offensive rebound if there is a miss
(b) play the foul game on a Celtic miss (esp with 2 timeouts)
(c) count on the defense if the Celtics' make
Celtics won’t admit it, but I think they were playing for the win, or the loss. I don’t think they had any interest in prolonging the game or going to OT.
I don't understand why they don't run PnR action with Porzingis with the game on the line, since it's, you know, the most efficient play in the NBA this season (KP in the post). But I'm quite sure— with all the investment into the coaching braintrust this season— that there is indeed some reason they're not running this close and late. Is it that the defense tends to collapse on KP... leading to open 3s... which is a great outcome generally in a basketball game, but less so when you're only down one point?
I’ll take that situation 10 out of 10. Down 1, last possession, ball in our best player’s hand.
Agree with this Forsberg take. 19 dribbles in 19 seconds to only net a fall away isn't good enough.
View: https://twitter.com/NBCSBoston/status/1765382984448827774
Nineteen dribbles. @chrisforsberg_ on where the Celtics need to improve after a collapse in Cleveland
View: https://twitter.com/NBCSBoston/status/1765382984448827774
Nineteen dribbles. @chrisforsberg_ on where the Celtics need to improve after a collapse in Cleveland
One loss isn't the end of the world but I don't feel confident with Tatum late and close. It's too slow and too hero ball.
I know you’re being glib here but Forsberg isn’t a hot take artist and he’s writing a review of the game, what do you expect him to say there?
Maybe add an asterisk that the ref didn’t call a blocking foul on Garland but otherwise he’s just relaying what happened
I guess I am saying choose your battles and this isn’t something to battle about
Iso is nearly always the preferred option of coaches bc you get to control the clock. Tatum did try to go a couple seconds sooner but was defended/blocked by Garland so in an ideal situation we’d have a chance at a follow tip without leaving any time on the clock for Cleveland to inbound from halfcourt.
tie game/end of the Quarter/half... of course, you want the last shot & ISO is fine there.
Down 1pt, you don't want to BURN clock, you want to GO.
I just watched Joe's video, pretty much what he said
Yeah, I don't really get this. In a typical end-of-half scenario, taking a shot with time on the clock could result in a scenario where you miss + give up an opponent's basket and grade out at -2 or -3. But in the Celtics situation last night, anything between 0 and -3 results in the same outcome: they lose the game, so the scenario above doesn't matter. You need to score more than manage the clock. If the shot goes up with 2 seconds left, I have to think the likelihood of an offensive rebound and put back is nearly as high as the likelihood of scoring + opponent hitting a buzzer beater.
Forsberg is generating content to get the people hot about a road game in March at the end of an eleven game winning streak. Please point out - and I know you will be amongst the first - the next time Tatum loses a game dribbling too much.
Just because content is in a Xitter post does not make it official or anything less than a hot take. Frankly, some of the Xitter posts folks share here say more about how they get their post content than the actual topic itself. I can almost hear Simmons voice dictating some of these "this will come back to haunt the Celtics" posts here.
The last 19 seconds were not great lol, there was no sense of urgency from anyone. Tatum tried to go a few seconds earlier, but refs aren’t going to call a non shooting foul there, which is fine by me, unless it’s tackling a guy.
I just can’t care about that one possession, and it’s not where they lost the game. Big picture wise, I don’t think there’s anything to take from it, because we’ve seen them run a beautiful crunch time offense all season, and I’d expect that’s what we will see in games that matter.
I just can’t care about that one possession, and it’s not where they lost the game. Big picture wise, I don’t think there’s anything to take from it, because we’ve seen them run a beautiful crunch time offense all season, and I’d expect that’s what we will see in games that matter.
Quit it with the condescending bullshit. I could have gone way more towards what you did with my post but I chose not to.
This is all a word salad to just not answer the question that I asked. As I said, it’s a game review. He reviewed the game and commented on what Tatum did. It’s not a war against Tatum or his game or whatever you choose to believe any time anyone says word one bad about the Celtics or (especially) Mazzulla.
The team isn’t infallible no matter what you or the data you select believe (actually I guess I can be condescending like you!).
BTW, I completely agree with @RorschachsMask post. It’s not something predictive and it’s not something I particularly care about. I just don’t want to bury any reporter who reported on the actual game.
I also think Simmons is a clown.,
You responded to my stand alone post by questioning it - I didn't direct it to you or respond to you so don't tell me you are taking it easy on me. Go as hard at me as you feel is necessary here - I am not afraid.
To me, Forsberg is clearly playing into a the clutch, hero-ball and Cs late game execution woes narrative. You don't see it that way and I am sure Chris appreciates your air cover.
I stand by my post. This team has lost 13 times all season and each one feels like it exposes the fatal flaw that will upend the Cs season. This time we ticked all the boxes because Tatum, Mazzulla and the C's inability to win close and late all came up. Its a good thing too because after the last few weeks the C's astronomical net rating was getting a bit tired to discuss.
What is the perfect Celtics loss?
- A close loss to a playoff team?
- A not-so-close loss to a playoff team?
- A blowout loss to a playoff team?
- A close loss to a non-playoff team?
- A not-so-close loss to a non-playoff team?
- A blowout loss to a non-playoff team?
It's a sincere question to any poster or media member who's coming away from last night with questions about this team going forward. Teams are going to lose games in an 82 game season. They're going to lose in the playoffs, too. Would you feel better if it was any of the other five options instead of the first? Would we rather see them lose by 15 to Cleveland than be a single shot out of it? Or trail most of the game instead of losing the lead? They're not going to be perfect, so what is the acceptable tolerance for imperfection?
- A close loss to a playoff team?
- A not-so-close loss to a playoff team?
- A blowout loss to a playoff team?
- A close loss to a non-playoff team?
- A not-so-close loss to a non-playoff team?
- A blowout loss to a non-playoff team?
It's a sincere question to any poster or media member who's coming away from last night with questions about this team going forward. Teams are going to lose games in an 82 game season. They're going to lose in the playoffs, too. Would you feel better if it was any of the other five options instead of the first? Would we rather see them lose by 15 to Cleveland than be a single shot out of it? Or trail most of the game instead of losing the lead? They're not going to be perfect, so what is the acceptable tolerance for imperfection?
The semi-serious answer to a rhetorical question: It'd be best for the team to lose in a variety of different ways, to a variety of different teams, to avoid a pattern. However the Celtics are excellent, so nearly all of their losses are to teams that are at least decent (currently 22-1 to teams below .500), and nearly all of their losses are close (currently 28-4 in games decided by 10+ points). I don't have a problem at all with this, the most important thing is that the losses remain relatively uncommon.