What’s your philosophy on 2-for-1s?

[jpotter33]

I thought Joe was supposed to be good at analytics?

“I thought we’d want no better shot than Jayson Tatum shooting an off-the-dribble wide open 3. I’ll take that a hundred times a game,” Joe Mazzulla said of Boston’s penultimate shot against the Jazz. “Jayson Tatum shooting and off the dribble 3, uncontested, is a great shot.”

Except that it’s not, and he hasn’t been for a while. 

Tatum is shooting 30.8% on pull up 3-pointers since the All-Star break, and 29.1% this season. He shot 33.4% last season. The best of the best last year, like Klay Thompson, are in the mid-40% range. The good pull-up shooters are all around 40%. In the 20-21 season, Tatum shot 36%, and the year before that, 2019-20, was the last time he was actually good at that shot.

Our coach is a freaking moron.

Yeah, I read that earlier. Was banging my head against my desk when reading it.

[johnnygreen]

2 for 1's are great if you have the players that can execute. And part of that execution should be relying on your go-to-player having a reliable go-to-shot. For instance, Pierce had the elbow jumper. Even though everyone knew it was coming, the defender couldn't stop it. The defense shouldn't dictate the shot you take, if your a great player. Hell, Bird would tell defenders exactly what he was going to do, and they still couldn't stop him. Tatum should be finding a spot to take a mid-range shot. The odds of him making a mid-range shot have to be far greater than taking a 3.