Joe Mazzulla officially named head coach

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
On a side note, no game until Tuesday is rough. Even worse, people don't work on the weekend. so no outside distractions from the Celtics. Gonna have to poast hard until then.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
6,291
Lynn
Yeah, I guess my question was "when would they realistically have adjusted faster?"

They whomped Cleveland in Game 1, Cleveland came up with some stuff in Game 2 to counter, and by Game 3 the Cs had the gameplan that finished the whomping of Cleveland. Both teams were in strategic equilibrium at that point: there wasn't anything big left to change. If Cleveland had variance'd their way into a Game 4 or 5 win, that probably just delays the inevitable.

My other point was that "Tatum PnR" is a huge category that isn't really an adjustment. The adjustments led to things that are tracked as Tatum PnR, but "more Tatum PnR" wasn't really implementable mid-Game-2.
Wirh the PnR/scheme stuff, I agree. But an adjustment like “get your best player the ball more” is an adjustment they could flip at any point. That’s where I think he was slow to adjust, and I get that things were working, but they had to get Tatum in rhythm if they’re going to win anything. And I think that him getting the ball much more the last 3 games was a step towards that.

You’re right though, this is mostly time filler debates lol.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,320
Pittsburgh, PA
On a side note, no game until Tuesday is rough. Even worse, people don't work on the weekend. so no outside distractions from the Celtics. Gonna have to poast hard until then.
I'm trying to make up for all the work I didn't do last week while I was posting and watching ball too hard. Not get an advance on the work I won't do this coming week, of course, but at least try not to let the arrears reach embarrassing levels.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
I'm trying to make up for all the work I didn't do last week while I was posting and watching ball too hard. Not get an advance on the work I won't do this coming week, of course, but at least try not to let the arrears reach embarrassing levels.
Thank you for your service.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
10,387
San Francisco
Does synergy still do the thing where they only classify the actions if they resulted in a shot? Like a hockey assist out of pnr gets counted as a “catch and shoot” rather than a pnr? I recall that being a thing and it seems to really limit the usefulness without a lot more parsing of what those categorizations imply.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,922
Melrose, MA
I thought Joe's coahcing was basically fine in game 1, or at least nothing to obviously complain about, but there were a few decisions in the final minute of OT that I wasn't sure whether they made sense or not. Here they are:

With 42 seconds left, Celtics up 1, Jayson Tatum drills the three that puts the Celtics up by 4. Indiana calls time. They inbound the ball and Brown steals it with 37 seconds to go. The Celtics bring the ball across halfcourt and, with 31 seconds left in the game and 17 on the shot clock, Joe calls time out.

Does the time out make sense there? If they just run time off and shoot, the worst case scenario is Indy gets the ball back down 4 and with ~15 seconds. By calling time, they need to inbound the ball, which gives Indy a chance to steal it - if they do, maye they score on the break and cut the lead to 1 or 2.

As it turns out, Indy's defense on the inbound pass was very good, and all the Celtics could do was throw it off an Indy player out of bounds. That led to another inbounds attempt, which worked out fine for the Celtics - in to Holiday who feeds White for a quick layup and a 6 point lead. (This was a point where Boston chose to score instead of run time off, which oviously worked out for them).

Later, Boston up by 5 and 12 seconds to go, TJ McConnell misses a free throw and Tatum is called for a loose ball foul. With Obie Toppin set to go to the line where he can cut the lead to 3, Mazzulla uses his final time out to challenge the call, and he loses the challenge. The replay shows that Jayson Tatum did indeed foul Toppin, but also Toppin fouled Tatum and on the other side of the lane another Pacer fouled Horford. The refs let the call stand, which was 1) predictable, and 2) meant that Mazzulla gave away the option of calling time to advance the ball in the event that Toppin hit both (as he did, cutting the lead to three). Also if Toppin missed the second they could have called time after rebounding, although that would have been with a 4 point lead and the smart move would have been to just let Indy foul. But still, The Celtics might have wanted that time out i(or challenge) f Indy had made another play or two. Did Joe think he could win that? Was he trying to send a message to the refs ("Don't fuck us on another FT rebound when everyone is fouling everyone.")

Anyway, the decisions I wondered about:

1. Joe's timeout with 31 seconds left, 17 on shot clock, up by 4, Celtics holding the ball inthe frontcourt.
2. After that time out, the Celtics decision to score quickly (25 seconds left, up 11 on shot clock) to put them up by 6.
3. Joe's challenge/timeout on the loose ball foul called againsrt Tatum with 12 seconds left up by 5 and Toppin heading to the line.

I feel good about #2, taking the points that were there rather than messing around, but I'm not as sure about #1 and #3. Thoughts?
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,883
Imaginationland
I thought Joe's coahcing was basically fine in game 1, or at least nothing to obviously complain about, but there were a few decisions in the final minute of OT that I wasn't sure whether they made sense or not. Here they are:

With 42 seconds left, Celtics up 1, Jayson Tatum drills the three that puts the Celtics up by 4. Indiana calls time. They inbound the ball and Brown steals it with 37 seconds to go. The Celtics bring the ball across halfcourt and, with 31 seconds left in the game and 17 on the shot clock, Joe calls time out.

Does the time out make sense there? If they just run time off and shoot, the worst case scenario is Indy gets the ball back down 4 and with ~15 seconds. By calling time, they need to inbound the ball, which gives Indy a chance to steal it - if they do, maye they score on the break and cut the lead to 1 or 2.

As it turns out, Indy's defense on the inbound pass was very good, and all the Celtics could do was throw it off an Indy player out of bounds. That led to another inbounds attempt, which worked out fine for the Celtics - in to Holiday who feeds White for a quick layup and a 6 point lead. (This was a point where Boston chose to score instead of run time off, which oviously worked out for them).

Later, Boston up by 5 and 12 seconds to go, TJ McConnell misses a free throw and Tatum is called for a loose ball foul. With Obie Toppin set to go to the line where he can cut the lead to 3, Mazzulla uses his final time out to challenge the call, and he loses the challenge. The replay shows that Jayson Tatum did indeed foul Toppin, but also Toppin fouled Tatum and on the other side of the lane another Pacer fouled Horford. The refs let the call stand, which was 1) predictable, and 2) meant that Mazzulla gave away the option of calling time to advance the ball in the event that Toppin hit both (as he did, cutting the lead to three). Also if Toppin missed the second they could have called time after rebounding, although that would have been with a 4 point lead and the smart move would have been to just let Indy foul. But still, The Celtics might have wanted that time out i(or challenge) f Indy had made another play or two. Did Joe think he could win that? Was he trying to send a message to the refs ("Don't fuck us on another FT rebound when everyone is fouling everyone.")

Anyway, the decisions I wondered about:

1. Joe's timeout with 31 seconds left, 17 on shot clock, up by 4, Celtics holding the ball inthe frontcourt.
2. After that time out, the Celtics decision to score quickly (25 seconds left, up 11 on shot clock) to put them up by 6.
3. Joe's challenge/timeout on the loose ball foul called againsrt Tatum with 12 seconds left up by 5 and Toppin heading to the line.

I feel good about #2, taking the points that were there rather than messing around, but I'm not as sure about #1 and #3. Thoughts?
My sense on #3 was that he planned on calling a timeout to regroup at that point anyway, so it was a "use it or lose it" type of challenge. No downside, and I don't mind calling a timeout at that point.

*edit - Of no importance at all, but I'm going to say that the amount of time that passed between challenges (52 minutes and 13 seconds) in a single game is as unbreakable a record as there will be in modern sports.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,922
Melrose, MA
My sense on #3 was that he planned on calling a timeout to regroup at that point anyway, so it was a "use it or lose it" type of challenge. No downside, and I don't mind calling a timeout at that point.
In terms of downside, if he wants until Toppin hits the second FT, he can advance the ball. I’m not sure how important that is in that situation.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
In terms of downside, if he wants until Toppin hits the second FT, he can advance the ball. I’m not sure how important that is in that situation.
The Celtics generally execute inbounds + advancing quite well (lots of good ballhandlers/passers/decisionmakers), so probably that lowers the risk of the challenge in Joe's mind.

We should also talk about the foul up 6: was a great call, and only botched by Tatum not executing the boxout, which is extremely rare for him.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,883
Imaginationland
In terms of downside, if he wants until Toppin hits the second FT, he can advance the ball. I’m not sure how important that is in that situation.
Advancing the ball is good, but if you take it out from under your own basket after a made free throw, the inbounder is allowed to run the baseline (I believe), which makes getting the ball in play to a teammate much, much easier. 6 of one, half dozen of the other for me.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,735
I thought Joe's coahcing was basically fine in game 1, or at least nothing to obviously complain about, but there were a few decisions in the final minute of OT that I wasn't sure whether they made sense or not. Here they are:

With 42 seconds left, Celtics up 1, Jayson Tatum drills the three that puts the Celtics up by 4. Indiana calls time. They inbound the ball and Brown steals it with 37 seconds to go. The Celtics bring the ball across halfcourt and, with 31 seconds left in the game and 17 on the shot clock, Joe calls time out.

Does the time out make sense there? If they just run time off and shoot, the worst case scenario is Indy gets the ball back down 4 and with ~15 seconds. By calling time, they need to inbound the ball, which gives Indy a chance to steal it - if they do, maye they score on the break and cut the lead to 1 or 2.

As it turns out, Indy's defense on the inbound pass was very good, and all the Celtics could do was throw it off an Indy player out of bounds. That led to another inbounds attempt, which worked out fine for the Celtics - in to Holiday who feeds White for a quick layup and a 6 point lead. (This was a point where Boston chose to score instead of run time off, which oviously worked out for them).

Later, Boston up by 5 and 12 seconds to go, TJ McConnell misses a free throw and Tatum is called for a loose ball foul. With Obie Toppin set to go to the line where he can cut the lead to 3, Mazzulla uses his final time out to challenge the call, and he loses the challenge. The replay shows that Jayson Tatum did indeed foul Toppin, but also Toppin fouled Tatum and on the other side of the lane another Pacer fouled Horford. The refs let the call stand, which was 1) predictable, and 2) meant that Mazzulla gave away the option of calling time to advance the ball in the event that Toppin hit both (as he did, cutting the lead to three). Also if Toppin missed the second they could have called time after rebounding, although that would have been with a 4 point lead and the smart move would have been to just let Indy foul. But still, The Celtics might have wanted that time out i(or challenge) f Indy had made another play or two. Did Joe think he could win that? Was he trying to send a message to the refs ("Don't fuck us on another FT rebound when everyone is fouling everyone.")

Anyway, the decisions I wondered about:

1. Joe's timeout with 31 seconds left, 17 on shot clock, up by 4, Celtics holding the ball inthe frontcourt.
2. After that time out, the Celtics decision to score quickly (25 seconds left, up 11 on shot clock) to put them up by 6.
3. Joe's challenge/timeout on the loose ball foul called againsrt Tatum with 12 seconds left up by 5 and Toppin heading to the line.

I feel good about #2, taking the points that were there rather than messing around, but I'm not as sure about #1 and #3. Thoughts?
For #3.... why not? If you win the game is over, and I don't think he has a lot of worry that his vet team will need a TO because they can't inbound.
For #1.... I thought it was a good timeout, once Brown didn't get the breakaway, he was actually kind of trapped with 2 defenders against the sideline.... maybe he can wait for his teammates, re-set run a play, but a lot of times throughout the night the Celtics had breakaways stop and got sloppy trying to make things happen. Timeout, set a good play, go up 6. You can't worry that you won't be able to execute a simple inbounds. Odds of a steal there are likely lower than letting Jaylen dribble through a trap.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,922
Melrose, MA
We should also talk about the foul up 6: was a great call, and only botched by Tatum not executing the boxout, which is extremely rare for him.
Yep.
For #3.... why not? If you win the game is over, and I don't think he has a lot of worry that his vet team will need a TO because they can't inbound.
So let's say Obie hits both, cutting lead to 3, and then Indy steals and hits a tying three. Then you'd badly want to have a TO, right? I agree that's improbable as outcomes go. Just thinking the benefit from challenging the loose ball foul call was similarly minuscule (Tatum clearly fouled).
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
One thing re the challenge: the NBA has been completely bonkers in overturning calls where there seemed to be clear contact, so the % of an overturn is way higher than it might first seem.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,883
Hartford, CT
Yep.

So let's say Obie hits both, cutting lead to 3, and then Indy steals and hits a tying three. Then you'd badly want to have a TO, right? I agree that's improbable as outcomes go. Just thinking the benefit from challenging the loose ball foul call was similarly minuscule (Tatum clearly fouled).
Given the amount of time you have to make a challenge call (very little), I can understand going for it even if they couldn’t deliberate very long. I also think your scenario understates slightly the benefits of a baseline throw in (you can move as the passer) v a stationery side out from near mid court and the size/strength advantage the Celtics have, and it understates the risk that the Pacers may not get a three off even if they got possession (the Celtics could simply put them at the line with a take foul). I also think the idea it was so unlikely that the call would stand is questionable - they’ve overturned some calls the past few months I wouldn’t have anticipated, this isn’t really like how the NFL enforced the pass interference replay review a few years ago.

I get his thought process, the game is over if you succeed (and they had to move fast) and if not you haven’t materially shifted your chances to win.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,735
Yep.

So let's say Obie hits both, cutting lead to 3, and then Indy steals and hits a tying three. Then you'd badly want to have a TO, right? I agree that's improbable as outcomes go. Just thinking the benefit from challenging the loose ball foul call was similarly minuscule (Tatum clearly fouled).
That's a lot of hypothetical stuff that has to happen.

To me it's pretty simple.... the video guy says "yeah that might get overturned", if you're right the game is basically over, huge upside. (I also think it was not a slam dunk call, Toppin pins Tatum's arm, that's a 50/50 or 60/40 call)

If you lose... you're still up 5 with 2 FTs coming, you use the timeout to set up with your guys what they should do on a miss, what to do on a make, who is inbounding, who is where. I think that upside far outweighs the downside of... If you totally screw up, and they hit a 3, and they leave time..... you might need a TO.

You can't not take chances to massively increase your win probability out of fear that you will make a series of bad plays. (also if they steal the inbounds you immediately foul them and give them the 2 FTs).
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,922
Melrose, MA
To me it's pretty simple.... the video guy says "yeah that might get overturned", if you're right the game is basically over, huge upside. (I also think it was not a slam dunk call, Toppin pins Tatum's arm, that's a 50/50 or 60/40 call)

If you lose... you're still up 5 with 2 FTs coming, you use the timeout to set up with your guys what they should do on a miss, what to do on a make, who is inbounding, who is where. I think that upside far outweighs the downside of... If you totally screw up, and they hit a 3, and they leave time..... you might need a TO.

You can't not take chances to massively increase your win probability out of fear that you will make a series of bad plays. (also if they steal the inbounds you immediately foul them and give them the 2 FTs).
All good points.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,320
Pittsburgh, PA
I don't have a problem with Mazzulla challenging with 12 seconds left, there wasn't a lot of win equity he was swinging either way, it was use it or lose it as noted, etc. My very mild beef would be that I thought there were several challengeable opportunities earlier in the game that Joe could've opted for. He did, of course, opt for a big, screaming obvious challenge right at the start of the game, a 100% no-doubter that nevertheless half of the coaches in the league would have passed on because it's "too early to use your challenge". So points to him for not hesitating there. But as JJ noted on-air, that one involves 2 points coming off the board, whereas not every challenged call could do that. I think there was one out of bounds call where a challenge would've given us the ball instead of Indiana, but it involved no points being scored, so the value of that was lower (equal to the value of a possession, so like 1.2 points). Maybe he should've done it anyway, because you might never get another better chance to affect the game with a challenge.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
Anyway, the decisions I wondered about:

1. Joe's timeout with 31 seconds left, 17 on shot clock, up by 4, Celtics holding the ball inthe frontcourt.
2. After that time out, the Celtics decision to score quickly (25 seconds left, up 11 on shot clock) to put them up by 6.
3. Joe's challenge/timeout on the loose ball foul called againsrt Tatum with 12 seconds left up by 5 and Toppin heading to the line.

I feel good about #2, taking the points that were there rather than messing around, but I'm not as sure about #1 and #3. Thoughts?
1. I hated this TO initially and from where I was watching I couldn’t rewind…..but, I suspect that Joe began calling for the TO while we were still in helter skelter mode and the ball was in the hands of (?) at midcourt prior to getting it over to Tatum as the whistle blew as soon as it touched Jayson’s hands. It’s obv that we don’t want the TO once Tatum has possession in the frontcourt without a defender nearby.

2. The play developed early and White had a layup which I think you always take there rather than killing 2-3 sec and have to earn the two at the line. I don’t think Joe designed a play for a quick basket as much as to inbound the ball and space the floor….the layup just happened to be there.

3. I know I keep repeating this but we don’t know the information that Joe was given by his replay assistant. With :12 to go that isn’t a bad challenge as it’s unlikely to have another opportunity.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
1. I hated this TO initially and from where I was watching I couldn’t rewind…..but, I suspect that Joe began calling for the TO while we were still in helter skelter mode and the ball was in the hands of (?) at midcourt prior to getting it over to Tatum as the whistle blew as soon as it touched Jayson’s hands. It’s obv that we don’t want the TO once Tatum has possession in the frontcourt without a defender nearby.
Looks like Mazzulla actually waited until after Tatum had possession of the ball and then threw it to Horford before calling the timeout. I don't have a problem with using one of the timeouts but the timing of it was weird. Could have called it when Brown was semi trapped just over half court, but waited until there was nobody within 10 feet of Horford
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
Looks like Mazzulla actually waited until after Tatum had possession of the ball and then threw it to Horford before calling the timeout. I don't have a problem with using one of the timeouts but the timing of it was weird. Could have called it when Brown was semi trapped just over half court, but waited until there was nobody within 10 feet of Horford
Thanks for clarifying as I never could get a replay of it. Yeah don’t like the TO then but I like it a whole lot better then Carlisle not choosing to advance the ball following Tatum’s foul in regulation prior to Jaylen’s steal.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
One thing re the challenge: the NBA has been completely bonkers in overturning calls where there seemed to be clear contact, so the % of an overturn is way higher than it might first seem.
Also, on the replay, you can see that the first foul was Toppin grabbing Tatum. The Tatum wrapped around and the foul was callled. But a separate challenge theory would be to hope they call the first foul, which I believe they could do as it’s one related sequence.

was never likely to occur but thought it was easier to understand after that replay
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
5,128
Saint Paul, MN
Also, on the replay, you can see that the first foul was Toppin grabbing Tatum. The Tatum wrapped around and the foul was callled. But a separate challenge theory would be to hope they call the first foul, which I believe they could do as it’s one related sequence.

was never likely to occur but thought it was easier to understand after that replay
Hilarious to watch this replay and see Siakam has Horford in a bear hug on the other side of the lane
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=737&GameID=0042300301&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Tatum L.B.FOUL (P4.PN) (T.Ford)
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
32,698
Agreed, we commented on that in the game thread and believe one of the commentators did live as well! It's almost a mirror-image...

It was a foul on Tatum, to be clear. But it was also a foul on Toppin and on Siakam and most importantly, none of those three are calls that should ever be made in the last two minutes of a game.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,735
Looks like Mazzulla actually waited until after Tatum had possession of the ball and then threw it to Horford before calling the timeout. I don't have a problem with using one of the timeouts but the timing of it was weird. Could have called it when Brown was semi trapped just over half court, but waited until there was nobody within 10 feet of Horford
I'm trying to find a shot where you can see where he calls it. Sadly nba play by play clips cut off too early (and there is no clip for the TO itself as a play)
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=716&GameID=0042300301&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Brown STEAL (3 STL)

So I found the full game replay. Mazzulla gets up when Brown is getting trapped and runs up toward the ref, ready to call, Jaylen gives it to Tatum, but he's got a guy on him, and the whole play is looking kind of panicky, White and Horford almost collide etc. This is where he calls it:

82998
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,330
I'm trying to find a shot where you can see where he calls it. Sadly nba play by play clips cut off too early (and there is no clip for the TO itself as a play)
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=716&GameID=0042300301&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Brown STEAL (3 STL)

So I found the full game replay. Mazzulla gets up when Brown is getting trapped and runs up toward the ref, ready to call, Jaylen gives it to Tatum, but he's got a guy on him, and the whole play is looking kind of panicky, White and Horford almost collide etc. This is where he calls it:

View attachment 82998
Yeah this is what I expected the SoSH sleuths to find. Calling a TO after we break the press and are unguarded with the clock running doesn’t make any sense. Good work!!
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
10,320
NOVA
Joe did another good job tonight. When Tatum got his fifth foul, Joe took him out on defense when Indiana was shooting FTs with over 3 and 1/2 minutes to go and having three timeouts. He wanted to steal one defensive possession and then would call TO to get Tatum back in. He sent out X to give a double big look to the Pacers for the first time in the game. It didn't work as the Pacers scored their last basket of the game, but I agreed with the move and knowing the third timeout was in your hand to get JT a couple minutes rest and one less defensive possession with those 5 fouls I thought was a good risk/reward decision.

To me, it's clear how much better he knows his players and their strengths and limitations and end of game situations. That takes a lot of time and experience.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
I have been very bullish on him since the 3-0 almost comeback, and this year has gone beyond my expectations. I don't think people realize in general how good a coach he is yet.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,556
Silver Spring, Maryland
Joe did another good job tonight. When Tatum got his fifth foul, Joe took him out on defense when Indiana was shooting FTs with over 3 and 1/2 minutes to go and having three timeouts. He wanted to steal one defensive possession and then would call TO to get Tatum back in. He sent out X to give a double big look to the Pacers for the first time in the game. It didn't work as the Pacers scored their last basket of the game, but I agreed with the move and knowing the third timeout was in your hand to get JT a couple minutes rest and one less defensive possession with those 5 fouls I thought was a good risk/reward decision.

To me, it's clear how much better he knows his players and their strengths and limitations and end of game situations. That takes a lot of time and experience.
I wonder if in the first year he was reluctant to tell his battle tested stars what to do, hence erred on the "let them figure it out" side.

Now he has gained their respect, and can call timeouts to engage in decision making.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
66,571
Joe did another good job tonight. When Tatum got his fifth foul, Joe took him out on defense when Indiana was shooting FTs with over 3 and 1/2 minutes to go and having three timeouts. He wanted to steal one defensive possession and then would call TO to get Tatum back in. He sent out X to give a double big look to the Pacers for the first time in the game. It didn't work as the Pacers scored their last basket of the game, but I agreed with the move and knowing the third timeout was in your hand to get JT a couple minutes rest and one less defensive possession with those 5 fouls I thought was a good risk/reward decision.

To me, it's clear how much better he knows his players and their strengths and limitations and end of game situations. That takes a lot of time and experience.
View: https://twitter.com/stephnoh/status/1795287922133909640
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,530
I have been very bullish on him since the 3-0 almost comeback, and this year has gone beyond my expectations. I don't think people realize in general how good a coach he is yet.
I see it slightly differently. I think it highlights what an impressive job he did last year despite the obstacles presented by practically walking into the job on opening night.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
8,198
Mazzulla outcoached two championship coaches so far in the playoffs, in Spoelstra and Carlisle.

I’m looking forward what he comes up with to defend Kyrie and Luka, assuming Dallas can close out that series. Dallas really gets it going when they convert lobs and hit threes, while the rest of their offense is stagnant when Kyrie and Luka fiddle and diddle. I’m guessing Joe will be ok with them dominating the ball. Take away the lob, defend the corner three, and play the “three is better than two” game, letting Kyrie and Luka go into their respective bags. Jones Jr, Kyrie, Jalen Hardy, and Kleber, are all hovering around 40% from three in the playoffs, with PJ Washington and Josh Green in the 37% range. Boston needs to make sure the Dallas role player don’t go 2023 Heat on them from three. Let Luka take his ten threes a game and miss seven of them.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,922
Melrose, MA
Mazzulla outcoached two championship coaches so far in the playoffs, in Spoelstra and Carlisle.

I’m looking forward what he comes up with to defend Kyrie and Luka, assuming Dallas can close out that series. Dallas really gets it going when they convert lobs and hit threes, while the rest of their offense is stagnant when Kyrie and Luka fiddle and diddle. I’m guessing Joe will be ok with them dominating the ball. Take away the lob, defend the corner three, and play the “three is better than two” game, letting Kyrie and Luka go into their respective bags. Jones Jr, Kyrie, Jalen Hardy, and Kleber, are all hovering around 40% from three in the playoffs, with PJ Washington and Josh Green in the 37% range. Boston needs to make sure the Dallas role player don’t go 2023 Heat on them from three. Let Luka take his ten threes a game and miss seven of them.
I give a little more weight to the Indy outcoaching, because the Heat were so injury riddled. (And because even though Indy lost Halliburton, they didn't seem to miss a beat with Nembhard.)
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
23,320
Pittsburgh, PA
Joe's eyes aren't like everyone else's.
Lord if that isn't true. Second craziest eyes in the league behind Bobby Portis. If those eyes show up to a first date, I'll know right away I'll have to change my number once it's all over.

edit: may I recommend to the port cellar, that a google image search of "Bobby Portis eyes" is very rewarding.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
32,048
Really like what CJM said here: https://www.celticsblog.com/2024/5/31/24168942/boston-celtics-nba-finals-dallas-mavericks-simplifying-joe-mazzulla-al-horford-jrue-holiday-practice
“What goes into winning a playoff game is no different than a regular season game,” Joe Mazzulla said after practice on Friday. “So, you just have to have a heightened awareness to the details, to the effort, to the execution, amongst all the things that are at stake.”
* * * *
“Once you get rid of the fact that you’re playing in the Finals and playing for a chance to win, it comes down to rebounding, transition defense, offensive execution, knowing your personnel, situational basketball, and the team that’s playing the hardest, the team that gets the most offensive rebounds,” said Mazzulla. “Like, it’s very, very simple.
“[But] just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s not really hard to do. And so, I think it is, not necessarily [that] the game plan isn’t simple, but the things that go into winning at this level are very, very simple. You just have to do them with a high level of physicality and discipline.”

I have to think internally the Cs are pretty confident - but not overconfident.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,530
Lord if that isn't true. Second craziest eyes in the league behind Bobby Portis. If those eyes show up to a first date, I'll know right away I'll have to change my number once it's all over.
Beats out Larranaga in Celtics' coaching eye-lore.
83573
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,566
Really like what CJM said here: https://www.celticsblog.com/2024/5/31/24168942/boston-celtics-nba-finals-dallas-mavericks-simplifying-joe-mazzulla-al-horford-jrue-holiday-practice
“What goes into winning a playoff game is no different than a regular season game,” Joe Mazzulla said after practice on Friday. “So, you just have to have a heightened awareness to the details, to the effort, to the execution, amongst all the things that are at stake.”
* * * *
“Once you get rid of the fact that you’re playing in the Finals and playing for a chance to win, it comes down to rebounding, transition defense, offensive execution, knowing your personnel, situational basketball, and the team that’s playing the hardest, the team that gets the most offensive rebounds,” said Mazzulla. “Like, it’s very, very simple.
“[But] just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s not really hard to do. And so, I think it is, not necessarily [that] the game plan isn’t simple, but the things that go into winning at this level are very, very simple. You just have to do them with a high level of physicality and discipline.”

I have to think internally the Cs are pretty confident - but not overconfident.
They have spent all year preparing specifically for playoff basketball, and it has shown to this point.

They have a lot of experience now in adjusting their offense/defense to challenges that the other team is presenting. Shapeshifting the team in response to those challenges is the current Celtics' superpower, to the degree they have one.

This is what makes me the most confident about their offense going up against a good Dallas D.