Joe Mazzulla officially named head coach

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Who are these folks?
Read this thread or the other one. I just mentioned a poster who explained in detail the logic of not using the TO there. These are posters who watch the sport day in and day out, including other teams. They are also Celtics fans who wanted the team to win the game today.

The fact is the Cs could have used a TO on the last possession. They did not. Whether that would have impacted the outcome is anyone's guess. I couldn't even begin to put a win probability delta to that but I bet all NBA teams have a decent idea.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,430
Read this thread or the other one. I just mentioned a poster who explained in detail the logic of not using the TO there. These are posters who watch the sport day in and day out, including other teams. They are also Celtics fans who wanted the team to win the game today.
Pretty sure that’s HRB who is the one speaking truth
No one watches more NBA than him
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,272
yeah, either call is perfectly defensible. Not taking a timeout isn't some big fuckup, they got what they wanted, they just didn't execute, the real arguments some people should be making is the one up-thread, which is not really about timeouts, but that they should have played it safe and tried to score quick and give the ball back.

There was really only one egregiously bad decision late in this game (well 2 if you count Tatum throwing the pass too late) and that was leaving Harden, that play is far more of an egregious screwup that shouldn't happen than choosing to go for a win or lose play without a timeout.
Well, the timeout and playing fast go hand in hand since a decent number of posters, including myself, were saying that they should have called a timeout specifically because they were going so slow.

If we want to make this completely about process, then the failure in process was Tatum and Smart thinking that it was critical to not allow Philly to get the ball back. You’re down by 1, the most important thing is getting a bucket. If we want to add on to the “Ivy League Basketball IQ” (hat tip Doris and Mark Jones); the Sixers didn’t have a timeout themselves, which makes it even more dumb to care so much about getting the last shot
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
I get why people are combining the two plays, but the Tatum to Smart 3 at the end of regulation is completely different from the Tatum to Smart 3 and the end of OT. It was a tie game in regulation (so running the clock down for the last shot is the right move), and they actually moved with some urgency (which is why Smart got the shot off with plenty of time). I don't hate the play call, the Sixers were always going to double off Smart and he'll hit that open shot 35% of the time, give or take (which isn't bad for end of game situations), I hate that Mazzulla pissed away a chance for the Celtics to get two shots instead of one in overtime, and I hate that the players acted like they had the entire 24 second clock to get it up.
+1.
There should be a difference between the approach during a 1pt deficit (OT) and a tie (regulation). Yet the Celtic's approach & outcome were basically the same in both. That's a red flag.

Clock usage, shot type, # of shots, off rebounds, FTs, off/def player situation, and play calling have many more variables (upside options) than the Melton for Maxey (downside option). Especially since the Celtics owned 2 TOs (Sixers owned none), which gives the optionality of extending the game/being time-efficient, which is what you want when down.

Lumping them together shows how far the bar has come down for Joe.

Over the regular season & playoffs, this team has underperformed in OT/late-tight. We'll win some and lose some late, but on the whole, I'd expect underperformance to continue. Hopefully, we'll get some positive regression over the next few weeks since there is some randomness in these outcomes.
 
Last edited:

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,879
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Brad was an ATO expert, similar to Pop. He has clearly let Mazzulla be his own man this year but bah gawd, I would have liked to see a set play from half court after using a TO to advance the ball rather than Smart milking the clock down to .05 before beginning the play. I get that there is some small benefit to keeping Melton off the floor but if it were me, I’d’ve called a TO at the end of regulation and at the end of OT to set up a play.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
In reality, they're all close calls. I don't think he's an idiot for not calling timeout, because I think he wanted the Tatum/Maxey matchup. I don't think you, or anyone else who wanted to call a timeout, are idiots for wanting him to call a timeout.
This is where I'm at. Watching it live, I thought:
- We got good looks, so letting it ride was clearly something the team was prepared for and were running a play
- Tatum idling too long in OT was what ultimately got us (in retrospect, but also at the time: as the tension built for that last possession, I'm sure me and everyone else was screaming "DO SOMETHING", at least in their heads)

I didn't have a big problem with Mazzulla not calling TO there, maybe a little problem at most. We rallied back from 16 down to 5 up in a playoff game in a little more than a quarter, our guys (especially Horford) generally played their asses off, it went from a blowout to a coin flip, and you lose some coin flips. But that journey was a positive overall. Our later-game adjustments there worked, and/or our better conditioning again yielded an advantage late in the game, and either way it's auspicious for the rest of the series.

That said, I do understand and agree with the perspective that taking the TO and drawing up ATO plays would've yielded more calm execution at the end there. And particularly in OT, we began with 16 seconds down 1, and we could've run one play, and if it didn't work, fouled and then advanced the ball and run another, given ourselves two chances there (as DBMH's quoted tweet observed). That makes sense, and (I'd agree) it's what most coaches would do. But I'm not going to lose my mind over it and say it was a 100% slam-dunk in either direction, not like this guy:

If Marcus Smart shooting a 3 there is a good result for Mazzulla , then he shouldn't be coaching an NBA team.
Like, some people don't seem to even understand the difference between "overall average 3-pt %" and "3-pt % on open and wide-open looks", but they are undiminished in vehemence or confidence of their analysis. If our scheme got Marcus Smart wide-open 3s for the win, which it did, that was a successful plan. What we were trying to do "worked". That it didn't go in (in time) is outcome-driven thinking rather than process-driven thinking. There IS a valid process-based critique here (see above), but outcome-driven reasoning is twitter-esque fan garbage, compounded by the over-the-top conclusion. It's a half step above saying that the guys "didn't want it badly enough" or some lowest-common-denominator BS. I think most of us here are better than that, whether we were fine with the no-timeout or would've strongly preferred a timeout.
 
Last edited:

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I am fine with an open Smart jumper in a win or OT scenario but I don’t think it is ideal in an any basket or foul or lose scenario. Obviously once the clock is about to go to zero you take what you can get.

A time out gives you so much. Time to regroup, save some seconds by moving up, remind fatigued players of the score and situation. There is a reason every team in that situation that has one calls one.

I don’t want to be guilty of confirmation bias, and I cannot possibly know if Joe saw advantages that outweighed the benefits. Well, clearly he did but obviously I have no idea if that was rational or not.

What I do know is that down 1 you do not take a buzzer beater unless that is all you can get. You run your best play and give yourself a second chance if you miss by fouling or by offensive rebound. The fact that the Celtics did not do that is what makes me think that a time out would have helped.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Down by 1, 18 seconds to go, 2 TO in your pocket. TO or No TO?

I don't know. I can see both arguments.

Smart had a good look, but the ball got to him 1/2 a second late.

We lose.

It happens 50/50.

I'm told its a make or miss league.

We missed.

I can live with that.

BUT, this team that plays around .700 ball should execute better in late and close, or be somewhere around 50/50.

Maybe its a small sample size, but (these # are approximate as I haven't looked/double checked in awhile) they are like 0-4 in 3 point or less games, and 3-8 in OT games, thats like 3-12, thats .200 winning %.

It doesn't figure for a team that good and deep and experienced to do that.

And factor in the big lead games blown in the 4th qtr.
(WAY TOO MANY)

And its hard to not maybe, perhaps, be prudent and entertain the possibility we got a problem in communicating and executing.

And that to me is on coaching.

I don't usually kill rookie players or rookie coaches, they make mistakes, and I know I'm repeating myself but I keep on coming back to the possibility CJM may not have the experience, gravitas, or depth or humility, that this veteran team needs.

I hope I'm wrong.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
A time out gives you so much. Time to regroup, save some seconds by moving up, remind fatigued players of the score and situation. There is a reason every team in that situation that has one calls one.
I don’t think this is anywhere accurate. We see teams not calling timeouts all the time in these situations. Sometimes it works out and the coach is a genius for letting his guys go. Sometimes it doesn’t work out and the coach is an idiot.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
I don’t think this is anywhere accurate. We see teams not calling timeouts all the time in these situations. Sometimes it works out and the coach is a genius for letting his guys go. Sometimes it doesn’t work out and the coach is an idiot.
Feels pretty rare to me in a last possession situation tie or under 3. Definitely you see it with a minute left or where the shock clock is still on. I can think of a couple of situations where teams didn't do it, but really not too many. Not an easy way to check, and relying on what you think you know from watching games is hazardous, but I think calling the time out in that situation is way more likely than not.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,862
St. Louis, MO
I don’t think this is anywhere accurate. We see teams not calling timeouts all the time in these situations. Sometimes it works out and the coach is a genius for letting his guys go. Sometimes it doesn’t work out and the coach is an idiot.
This is true, however the Celtics have had a tough year close and late and also make quite a few mental mistakes for an elite team. This team in particular needs a thorough plan that a timeout will facilitate.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
7,927
Monument, CO
What I do know is that down 1 you do not take a buzzer beater unless that is all you can get. You run your best play and give yourself a second chance if you miss by fouling or by offensive rebound. The fact that the Celtics did not do that is what makes me think that a time out would have helped.
This is the part that surprised me. I think you call timeout, advance the ball, and try and score relatively quickly to give yourself a second chance in case you miss.

Once they decided to go for the win I was fine not calling the timeout if they liked the matchup. At that point it is on Tatum for not going with more time left on the clock.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
There simply is no evidence that a timeout there flips the Cs win probability in their favor. Its entirely possible that it might have and that taking one was the right call.

Again, these are all opinions so people hand waving the other side with "yeah but we all know a TO would(/would not) have helped there" is simply saying one subjective view is better than another.

We - all of us including those who have a pretty strong view on what should have transpired - just do not have any way of determining who is right or even more right.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I am fine with an open Smart jumper in a win or OT scenario but I don’t think it is ideal in an any basket or foul or lose scenario. Obviously once the clock is about to go to zero you take what you can get.

A time out gives you so much. Time to regroup, save some seconds by moving up, remind fatigued players of the score and situation. There is a reason every team in that situation that has one calls one.

I don’t want to be guilty of confirmation bias, and I cannot possibly know if Joe saw advantages that outweighed the benefits. Well, clearly he did but obviously I have no idea if that was rational or not.

What I do know is that down 1 you do not take a buzzer beater unless that is all you can get. You run your best play and give yourself a second chance if you miss by fouling or by offensive rebound. The fact that the Celtics did not do that is what makes me think that a time out would have helped.
One thing I'm not hearing anyone mention is the awesome job that Philly did defensively in cutting off the path to the basket while forcing Tatum to the baseline beneath the basket. To do this without their optimal lineup and without a designed set out of a time out is really really impressive by Doc's group. The shot wasn't designed to be a buzzer beater it was the swarming defense that created it.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
If we’re going to get into win probabilities, I will take the Celtics’ brain trust over any of us — and I think we have a pretty high standard of discussion here. There’s absolutely no way Mazzula sets his strategy without input from the FO.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
If we’re going to get into win probabilities, I will take the Celtics’ brain trust over any of us — and I think we have a pretty high standard of discussion here. There’s absolutely no way Mazzula sets his strategy without input from the FO.
No doubt. It was mentioned in the last before as well how Mazzulla was the lone holdover from Brad's staff that was a part of the Ime deal. They have always seemingly had a great working relationship that one would think came from similar ideas of how to succeed.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,895
Portland, Maine
  1. I can recall many a game thread where people were like "That's the ATO play???" after they lose. Mostly under Ime and some under Mazzula. A TO, as others have mentioned, probably doesn't help.
  2. Running the offense for the final shot is incredibly difficult, as are most things with a running clock. Try setting a timer and typing a sentence where you have to do it as the clock expires. I have played in pickup leagues with a clock and it's crazy hard. Tatum ran it a bit too long and they lost. Yes they have practiced this over and over, but still.
As others have indicated, Mazzula has to do something about the rest of the game. It's one thing to duke it out in a legendary game where no team leads by more than 5 points and it goes down to the wire, then you lose like this. That's fine, you tip your cap. It's another when you shoot like ass and the offense is a mess and you are in a 16 point hole, then climb out of it once you sober up, then lose because you shouldn't have let that happen. Or don't play defense for quarters+ and don't get enough of a cushion.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
One thing I'm not hearing anyone mention is the awesome job that Philly did defensively in cutting off the path to the basket while forcing Tatum to the baseline beneath the basket. To do this without their optimal lineup and without a designed set out of a time out is really really impressive by Doc's group. The shot wasn't designed to be a buzzer beater it was the swarming defense that created it.
Yep, the defensive uptick from Maxey to Melton for one possession, when you double/triple team Tatum, is worth next to nothing.

Getting Marcus Smart to shoot 3s in a tie or 1-pt game is exactly what Doc would want to give up. The fact they got Boston to not shoot early, attack the boards or play the foul game while the Celtics didn't even get a shot off is a complete home run for the 76ers.

End-of-game execution continues to be a problem for Boston no matter who the C's are playing this season.

Doc absolutely wins the chess match
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
There simply is no evidence that a timeout there flips the Cs win probability in their favor. Its entirely possible that it might have and that taking one was the right call.

Again, these are all opinions so people hand waving the other side with "yeah but we all know a TO would(/would not) have helped there" is simply saying one subjective view is better than another.

We - all of us including those who have a pretty strong view on what should have transpired - just do not have any way of determining who is right or even more right.
Maybe they have the evidence.

Sounds like Joe met with the brain trust and they have concluded that calling a timeout at end of OT to get a 2-for-1 or getting a couple more possessions with 14 seconds left, down 1, & getting as many chances as you can is a decent concept

The good news is Joe has taken note: "So, definitely learn from that."
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Maybe they have the evidence.

Sounds like Joe met with the brain trust and they have concluded that calling a timeout at end of OT to get a 2-for-1 or getting a couple more possessions with 14 seconds left, down 1, & getting as many chances as you can is a decent concept

The good news is Joe has taken note: "So, definitely learn from that."
NBA teams may have this data (for example they will know roughly how much Melton vs Maxey is worth in terms of defensive delta) and how 2-1 impacts win probability etc. I don't believe this sort of information is publicly available.

That said, no evidence exists that a timeout would have definitely positively impacted the Celtics win probability there. It might have and it might not. I am willing to admit I am wrong if someone can produce it.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
NBA teams may have this data (for example they will know roughly how much Melton vs Maxey is worth in terms of defensive delta) and how 2-1 impacts win probability etc. I don't believe this sort of information is publicly available.

That said, no evidence exists that a timeout would have definitely positively impacted the Celtics win probability there. It might have and it might not. I am willing to admit I am wrong if someone can produce it.
Thats cool. It doesn't much matter if we learn when to use TOs around here.

It's much more important that Joe is learning.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
NBA teams may have this data (for example they will know roughly how much Melton vs Maxey is worth in terms of defensive delta) and how 2-1 impacts win probability etc. I don't believe this sort of information is publicly available.

That said, no evidence exists that a timeout would have definitely positively impacted the Celtics win probability there. It might have and it might not. I am willing to admit I am wrong if someone can produce it.
View: https://twitter.com/ChrisForsberg_/status/1655631421904412675
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Fair enough.

What does the data say vs the 76ers specifically and how does the probabilities look with Melton in and the 76ers able to set their defense? Also, I wonder if TOs in the playoffs might carry different weight (more or less) than during the regular season.

The point is, this Tweet is suggestive thar a TO might have helped - a view I am inclined towards - but it doesn't say it absolutely would have made a difference. Its just not as definitive as some here seem to be arguing.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,272
Thats cool. It doesn't much matter if we learn when to use TOs around here.

It's much more important that Joe is learning.
It seems like Joe himself is saying it’s important to call a timeout there?
I can’t believe this needs to be said but Joe is never going to come out and go “Well, we have a proprietary system, CPOT, that we looked closer at and the win probability goes up by 7%, which we think is a non-zero number and actually matters so that’s on us”. The level of proof that some people need to admit that they might be wrong is comical
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Lets stick with facts.

The Cs did not use a timeout during their last possession and failed to execute.

The argument for a TO there is to set up your action and also potentially get a 2-1 etc

The argument against is that you allow the 76ers to make substitutions to set their D etc.

There are people here that are pretty clearly of the mind that a TO would have won the game and others who are uncertain. I am in the latter camp and think its an entirely reasonable position.

Nobody has proven anything definitive here but apparently there is only one right opinion.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,712
Fair enough.

What does the data say vs the 76ers specifically and how does the probabilities look with Melton in and the 76ers able to set their defense? Also, I wonder if TOs in the playoffs might carry different weight (more or less) than during the regular season.

The point is, this Tweet is suggestive thar a TO might have helped - a view I am inclined towards - but it doesn't say it absolutely would have made a difference. Its just not as definitive as some here seem to be arguing.
They're 1 for 1 calling TOs with less than 10 seconds left and Melton getting subbed in.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK3OQoBYNcc
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,607
South Dartmouth, MA
Lets stick with facts.

The Cs did not use a timeout during their last possession and failed to execute.

The argument for a TO there is to set up your action and also potentially get a 2-1 etc

The argument against is that you allow the 76ers to make substitutions to set their D etc.

There are people here that are pretty clearly of the mind that a TO would have won the game and others who are uncertain. I am in the latter camp and think its an entirely reasonable position.

Nobody has proven anything definitive here but apparently there is only one right opinion.
Is anyone actually stating then bolded? Or is it more, "would have given them a better chance to win the game..." That's the way Im reading these posts, and what I personally believe (and somewhat backed up by the stats from the Forsberg tweet). And it's quite a different statement than "would have won the game."
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
There are people here that are pretty clearly of the mind that a TO would have won the game and others who are uncertain. I am in the latter camp and think its an entirely reasonable position.

Nobody has proven anything definitive here but apparently there is only one right opinion.
What "people" are saying a TIMEOUT = WIN?

It seems like Joe himself is saying it’s important to call a timeout there?

The level of proof that some people need to admit that they might be wrong is comical
The goalposts moving with semantics are hilarious...
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Is anyone actually stating then bolded? Or is it more, "would have given them a better chance to win the game..." That's the way Im reading these posts, and what I personally believe (and somewhat backed up by the stats from the Forsberg tweet). And it's quite a different statement than "would have won the game."
I will accept your language. There is still no proof that it would have *improved* their chances. It may well have but nobody here can say for sure, yet folks feel pretty sure of their view.

Forgive me if I am open to the argument that the best chance there is against a scrambling defense and lesser personnel. I am not saying its correct but its a strategy NBA teams use regularly.

Again, I would have called a timeout there but I am not confident at all that it would have improved the team's shot at winning.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,607
South Dartmouth, MA
I will accept your language. There is still no proof that it would have *improved* their chances. It may well have but nobody here can say for sure, yet folks feel pretty sure of their view.

Forgive me if I am open to the argument that the best chance there is against a scrambling defense and lesser personnel. I am not saying its correct but its a strategy NBA teams use regularly.

Again, I would have called a timeout there but I am not confident at all that it would have improved the team's shot at winning.
Yeah it's a huge grey area, and the lesser personnel/scrambling D argument has a ton of merit. For me, based on all of our concerns about some mental eff ups and execution issues down the stretch, coupled with the stats from the Forsberg tweet (sss alert however), I think it would've improved their chances...but we will never no. And since I plan on the Celtics winning the remaining 10 necessary playoff games in blowout fashion, we won't have anything to compare it to either :)
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
The only thing you can really say is that a timeout would have made is more likely they try to get multiple attempts.

Forsberg's stats are generally pointless, as the context of down 3 or less and under 30 seconds is way too broad... how many timeouts did they have, how much time... 4 seconds with no timeout available is wildly different than 29 seconds with multiple timeouts...
I would generally expect that overall sample to have worse outcomes for no timeout, because it's going to include the worst situations (limited time with no timeouts). Overall it's likely too small a sample to matter anyway, but, yeah it's not tailored enough to tell you anything other than that Joe usually calls timeout when he can
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I will accept your language. There is still no proof that it would have *improved* their chances. It may well have but nobody here can say for sure, yet folks feel pretty sure of their view.

Forgive me if I am open to the argument that the best chance there is against a scrambling defense and lesser personnel. I am not saying its correct but its a strategy NBA teams use regularly.

Again, I would have called a timeout there but I am not confident at all that it would have improved the team's shot at winning.
I think it’s fair to be pretty sure that calling a TO was the better option when the coach himself is saying it was a better option and he screwed up by not calling one.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,370
You've got the Celtics playing a 2 man game through Smart and Tatum - Philly seems able to run their offense late through their two best players. I know one of them is a point guard but ultimately I just can't see how a well coached team lets James Harden get that shot off yesterday because JB decides to leave his assignment, not go 2 for 1, not get a shot off end of game, not have one of the two best players in the league taking the shot at end of game.

I get that Ime got fired late and this was the best we could do given the timing but this team is going to be the weaker team in the coaching column in each series it plays to the finish line, and every time the coaching is a problem, we are watching a coach get on the job training and telling the media how he's got to keep learning from mistakes.

This board watched the 2003 Red Sox managed by an idiot, praying that the fatal flaw of the organization wouldn't reveal itself. And like normally in life, that flaw shows up at the absolute worst time. They've played 3 games in the playoffs so far inside of two possessions and are 0-3. I think it's open to question whether the right person is running things.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
You've got the Celtics playing a 2 man game through Smart and Tatum - Philly seems able to run their offense late through their two best players. I know one of them is a point guard but ultimately I just can't see how a well coached team lets James Harden get that shot off yesterday because JB decides to leave his assignment, not go 2 for 1, not get a shot off end of game, not have one of the two best players in the league taking the shot at end of game.

I get that Ime got fired late and this was the best we could do given the timing but this team is going to be the weaker team in the coaching column in each series it plays to the finish line, and every time the coaching is a problem, we are watching a coach get on the job training and telling the media how he's got to keep learning from mistakes.

This board watched the 2003 Red Sox managed by an idiot, praying that the fatal flaw of the organization wouldn't reveal itself. And like normally in life, that flaw shows up at the absolute worst time. They've played 3 games in the playoffs so far inside of two possessions and are 0-3. I think it's open to question whether the right person is running things.
I mean, Joe would have to be a hell of a coach to fly Jokic cross country to take a shot for a team he doesn't play for.

Like I get it, blaming the coach is easy... he may have even made a mistake here.... but...

half the stuff on that list is player's screwing up. Jaylen has been in the league for 7 years, he's had 3 coaches at least one of whom we have ample evidence is a good coach... none of them could get him to consistently make good decisions on defense.

Not going 2 for 1... maybe a mistake?

As to why we don't run more Jaylen/Jayson PnR late... it's because Jaylen isn't that great at screening and his handle is not very trustworthy (and he doesn't really see the floor as well as the other options if he has to make the decision)....
I think anybody complaining about the actual action on the final play is crazy... we got an ideal setup.. Jayson Tatum rolling to the rim with a bad defender on him, the 76ers had to leave Smart and White wide open, and Horford was open too when Embiid had to come over. That was a great action... Tatum just didn't make the shoot/pass decision quick enough. He had time to go for a floater before Embiid comes over, or make the pass to an open White or Smart, just waited too long.

The Jokic joke aside, they ran the final play for their best player, he could have taken the shot if he wanted to, PHI tried very hard to prevent it.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,607
South Dartmouth, MA
I mean, Joe would have to be a hell of a coach to fly Jokic cross country to take a shot for a team he doesn't play for.

Like I get it, blaming the coach is easy... he may have even made a mistake here.... but...

half the stuff on that list is player's screwing up. Jaylen has been in the league for 7 years, he's had 3 coaches at least one of whom we have ample evidence is a good coach... none of them could get him to consistently make good decisions on defense.

Not going 2 for 1... maybe a mistake?

As to why we don't run more Jaylen/Jayson PnR late... it's because Jaylen isn't that great at screening and his handle is not very trustworthy (and he doesn't really see the floor as well as the other options if he has to make the decision)....
I think anybody complaining about the actual action on the final play is crazy... we got an ideal setup.. Jayson Tatum rolling to the rim with a bad defender on him, the 76ers had to leave Smart and White wide open, and Horford was open too when Embiid had to come over. That was a great action... Tatum just didn't make the shoot/pass decision quick enough. He had time to go for a floater before Embiid comes over, or make the pass to an open White or Smart, just waited too long.

The Jokic joke aside, they ran the final play for their best player, he could have taken the shot if he wanted to, PHI tried very hard to prevent it.
Quick aside, wanted to give you a pat on the back for that final phrase. The thing that frustrates me about so much message boarding/twitter/sports radio takes is that we can be super myopic about it, and I try as though I may I often fall into the same trap. Friday night Tatum outscored the entire Philly team by himself over the last few minutes, yesterday they tried to make sure that didn't happen again...I mean after all there are some reasons the sixers had the most wins in the nba after December 1.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Maybe they have the evidence.

Sounds like Joe met with the brain trust and they have concluded that calling a timeout at end of OT to get a 2-for-1 or getting a couple more possessions with 14 seconds left, down 1, & getting as many chances as you can is a decent concept

The good news is Joe has taken note: "So, definitely learn from that."
I don't buy the coach-speak as not allowing the defense to set and substitute w time to prepare has been a staple of his style. He's getting real good at this coach-speak stuff but I doubt anyone is buying the "multiple attempts" line. Good lord, yeah let's plan for the game winning shot with the expectation to miss.
 

GeorgeCostanza

tiger king
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
7,286
Found in central mass
I don't buy the coach-speak as not allowing the defense to set and substitute w time to prepare has been a staple of his style. He's getting real good at this coach-speak stuff but I doubt anyone is buying the "multiple attempts" line. Good lord, yeah let's plan for the game winning shot with the expectation to miss.
Does it ever get exhausting?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,459
I don't buy the coach-speak as not allowing the defense to set and substitute w time to prepare has been a staple of his style. He's getting real good at this coach-speak stuff but I doubt anyone is buying the "multiple attempts" line. Good lord, yeah let's plan for the game winning shot with the expectation to miss.
I'm not sure I'd say it's a staple, it's something he does sometimes, like most coaches. From the Forsberg tweet earlier, looks like 60% of the time we take a timeout, and I'm pretty sure that includes possessions where we can't take a timeout, so it's probably more like 70+ timeouts.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
I don't buy the coach-speak as not allowing the defense to set and substitute w time to prepare has been a staple of his style. He's getting real good at this coach-speak stuff but I doubt anyone is buying the "multiple attempts" line. Good lord, yeah let's plan for the game winning shot with the expectation to miss.
Why not take multiple game-winning FGAs?

As soon as Joe saw Smart burning clock (14 secs left) he should have called a TO, but whatever, we've beaten this horse to death. Hope Game 5 is blow out and we return to CJM mic drops at the end of pressers.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJwtcwQj8c
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Why not take multiple game-winning FGAs?

As soon as Joe saw Smart burning clock (14 secs left) he should have called a TO, but whatever, we've beaten this horse to death. Hope Game 5 is blow out and we return to CJM mic drops at the end of pressers.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZJwtcwQj8c
The early one wouldn't be a game winner. Philly would have time to take the game winner. Now the fact that the Sixers didn't have a timeout is all the more reason he would never mean this. Going early gives them a chance to score even without a TO. Scoring with :02-:03 gives them little chance and of course Mazzulla knows this which is precisely why he didn't go early. The play was never designed to get a shot off at the buzzer.....it was with a couple seconds for a follow chance but not enough for Philly to get down the floor on a make.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
The early one wouldn't be a game winner. Philly would have time to take the game winner. Now the fact that the Sixers didn't have a timeout is all the more reason he would never mean this. Going early gives them a chance to score even without a TO. Scoring with :02-:03 gives them little chance and of course Mazzulla knows this which is precisely why he didn't go early. The play was never designed to get a shot off at the buzzer.....it was with a couple seconds for a follow chance but not enough for Philly to get down the floor on a make.
I'll just take what CJM said today for face value...
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,087
Fair enough. Tatum did push off on the stepback 3. Would Doc acknowledge that his point guard creates contact and pushes off on close to 50% of his shots?
Or that his center gets like 170% more calls than anyone else?
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,963
Boston, MA
[QUOTE="BigSoxFan, post: 5543885, member: 33031"
Or that his center gets like 170% more calls than anyone else?
[/QUOTE]
I'm ok with the MVP of the league, who is probably fouled more often than not, getting those calls. But the aging superstar NEEDS to push off more than 50% of the time to get separation, and not calling him for it is bullshit.