Fire Joe! ... or critique Joe ... or defend Joe... or worry about Joe's coaching

[Roy H.]

According to Washburn, not a single one of Wade's three-pointers was contested.

A question for Joe's defenders: when a guy is white hot like that, does it make sense to cover him?  Or is the "no adjustments" strategy the best one?

I think they just executed bad… Poor rotations, not communicating on defense and leaving him open during transition which is where he made most of his threes. I think it was because they had switched off with 10 minutes ago. They were up by 20 they thought they were gonna coast to victory, And that it’s hard to switch back on when the other team applies pressure and you’re thinking about the nice hot shower you’re going to have in 10 mins 

This result is humiliating and should sting a lot… and if they’re going to take the plaudits for winning by 50 they deserve all the criticism that’s going to come their way over the next couple of days. That a guy like Wade out, scored the entire Celtics lineup, including our starters in the fourth quarter. The only explanation for it is that they had mailed it in before that thinking they were gonna win. Disrespected the game and they got what they deserved.

While it's obviously true that the Celtics were coasting, does the coach have no obligations?  Isn't his job to identify what is going wrong on the floor, and to help his team respond to it? If not, why is he there at all?

Wonder If Warriors fans were asking the same of Steve Kerr after that loss the other night. Guess he didn’t call enough timeouts.

When a team loses by 50, it usually doesn't come down to coaching. That's why Joe really hasn't gotten a lot of criticism when we've been blown out this year, or even after the Lakers game, when the team clearly didn't show up to play. 

That said, yes, Kerr was in fact criticized after their loss to the Celtics. They experimented with sagging off of Jaylen, and it turned out to be a bad call. People acknowledged that, rather than pretending that Kerr was infallible. That's something that Joe's super fans would never consider.

I'm not sure if he has super fans. Just people that call out nonsensical claims like he's a bottom 5 coach, he can't improve, and he's not competent. I don't think he deserves coach of the year and don't think he's incredible. I think he's a league average coach, which isn't bad for Year 2.

I didn't see last night's game, but it looked like a tough loss. If the regular season doesn't count, why are we drawing conclusions about Joe from a regular season game?

And yet, here you are, after a game you didn't watch, defending Joe or "calling out" his critics.  That sounds remarkably like trolling.

I can only speak for myself, but haven't seen people embrace Joe nearly as much as Ime generated fans. I think Joe's ok, and think the criticism has been rash and unreasonable, especially during a great regular season. I'm wondering why we can't make judgements after wins because only the playoffs matter, but can do so after losses? I wish I caught the game- sounded like it was good except for the end.

You can make judgments, arguments or observations.  You can't "call out" or troll other posters.

With all due respect, Roy, isn't that also the case with a comment like "That's something that Joe's super fans would never consider."

Neither comment meaningfully adds to the discussion (nor treats the "other side" as rational).

Eh.  It's probably not best practice, but when people are intentionally oversimplifying coaching critiques to "maybe Kerr should have called a timeout", they're not being rational or adding anything positive.  50% of this thread is Joe's fans making strawman arguments that deflect from specific critiques people are making.  Collectively, they lower the level of conversation.

[Vermont Green]

I think like many have said, the problem wasn't the last possession, it was even letting it get to that point.  After a loss like that, both the players and the coaches should take some blame.

But I bet if they held the vote today, Mazzulla would still end up in the top 5 or so for coach of the year, like he did last season (he was 3rd).  Mazzulla is currently 3rd on the betting sites at +350, behind Mark Daigneault -200 and Chris Finch +300.  These 3 are way ahead of the rest of the field.

It is funny that Erik Spoelstra +15000 is 10th in the current favorites ranking based on betting odds.  The expectation of bettors is that the panel of sportswriters who vote for CotY will think that Mazzulla did a much better job of coaching the Celtics than Spoelstra did coaching the Heat.  Not sure how much the Cavs game is going to change these odds, but Mazzulla is probably going to be top 5 in voting and Spoelstra maybe not even top 10.  Spoelstra got fewer vote points last season (0) than Doc Rivers (1).

[Roy H.]

I think like many have said, the problem wasn't the last possession, it was even letting it get to that point.  After a loss like that, both the players and the coaches should take some blame.

But I bet if they held the vote today, Mazzulla would still end up in the top 5 or so for coach of the year, like he did last season (he was 3rd).  Mazzulla is currently 3rd on the betting sites at +350, behind Mark Daigneault -200 and Chris Finch +300.  These 3 are way ahead of the rest of the field.

It is funny that Erik Spoelstra +15000 is 10th in the current favorites ranking based on betting odds.  The expectation of bettors is that the panel of sportswriters who vote for CotY will think that Mazzulla did a much better job of coaching the Celtics than Spoelstra did coaching the Heat.  Not sure how much the Cavs game is going to change these odds, but Mazzulla is probably going to be top 5 in voting and Spoelstra maybe not even top 10.  Spoelstra got fewer vote points last season (0) than Doc Rivers (1).

I don't think COTY voting is a particularly good way of determining who the best coaches in the NBA are.  Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson only won it three times.  Red Auerbach won once.  Kerr has won once, Spoelstra never has.  Meanwhile, Mike Brown and Tom Thibodeau have won twice.

[Vermont Green]

I think like many have said, the problem wasn't the last possession, it was even letting it get to that point.  After a loss like that, both the players and the coaches should take some blame.

But I bet if they held the vote today, Mazzulla would still end up in the top 5 or so for coach of the year, like he did last season (he was 3rd).  Mazzulla is currently 3rd on the betting sites at +350, behind Mark Daigneault -200 and Chris Finch +300.  These 3 are way ahead of the rest of the field.

It is funny that Erik Spoelstra +15000 is 10th in the current favorites ranking based on betting odds.  The expectation of bettors is that the panel of sportswriters who vote for CotY will think that Mazzulla did a much better job of coaching the Celtics than Spoelstra did coaching the Heat.  Not sure how much the Cavs game is going to change these odds, but Mazzulla is probably going to be top 5 in voting and Spoelstra maybe not even top 10.  Spoelstra got fewer vote points last season (0) than Doc Rivers (1).

I don't think COTY voting is a particularly good way of determining who the best coaches in the NBA are.  Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson only won it three times.  Red Auerbach won once.  Kerr has won once, Spoelstra never has.  Meanwhile, Mike Brown and Tom Thibodeau have won twice.

I agree.  It is not the end all measure of who is the better coach but it is an indication of how a coach's performance in a season is viewed by a group sports writers who do know something about the game.  I just offer it for perspective when you and others are debating how bad our coach is.  I don't think Mazzulla is going to win coach of the year, nor do I believe he is the best coach in the NBA this season.

Coach of the year seems to get measured kind of like most improved player or comeback player.  It is not necessarily the best coach but the one that does the most with the least or exceeds expectations the most.  That seems to be true in all sports.  But if you are getting into the top 3 of the voting, you are probably not a bad coach, at least in the view of the sports writers who vote.

[Atzar]

I think like many have said, the problem wasn't the last possession, it was even letting it get to that point.  After a loss like that, both the players and the coaches should take some blame.

But I bet if they held the vote today, Mazzulla would still end up in the top 5 or so for coach of the year, like he did last season (he was 3rd).  Mazzulla is currently 3rd on the betting sites at +350, behind Mark Daigneault -200 and Chris Finch +300.  These 3 are way ahead of the rest of the field.

It is funny that Erik Spoelstra +15000 is 10th in the current favorites ranking based on betting odds.  The expectation of bettors is that the panel of sportswriters who vote for CotY will think that Mazzulla did a much better job of coaching the Celtics than Spoelstra did coaching the Heat.  Not sure how much the Cavs game is going to change these odds, but Mazzulla is probably going to be top 5 in voting and Spoelstra maybe not even top 10.  Spoelstra got fewer vote points last season (0) than Doc Rivers (1).

I don't think COTY voting is a particularly good way of determining who the best coaches in the NBA are.  Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson only won it three times.  Red Auerbach won once.  Kerr has won once, Spoelstra never has.  Meanwhile, Mike Brown and Tom Thibodeau have won twice.

Also, Dwane Casey was literally fired right after winning and Monty Williams is widely regarded as a disaster two shorts years after winning it with Phoenix.

COTY awards include zero substantive analysis on why a particular coach deserves the award.  No film study, no explanation of how the coach maximizes his players, no highlighting intelligent or creative schemes.  It's an empty trophy driven entirely by narrative, the most common one being "this team outperformed preseason expectations". 

[BitterJim]

I think like many have said, the problem wasn't the last possession, it was even letting it get to that point.  After a loss like that, both the players and the coaches should take some blame.

But I bet if they held the vote today, Mazzulla would still end up in the top 5 or so for coach of the year, like he did last season (he was 3rd).  Mazzulla is currently 3rd on the betting sites at +350, behind Mark Daigneault -200 and Chris Finch +300.  These 3 are way ahead of the rest of the field.

It is funny that Erik Spoelstra +15000 is 10th in the current favorites ranking based on betting odds.  The expectation of bettors is that the panel of sportswriters who vote for CotY will think that Mazzulla did a much better job of coaching the Celtics than Spoelstra did coaching the Heat.  Not sure how much the Cavs game is going to change these odds, but Mazzulla is probably going to be top 5 in voting and Spoelstra maybe not even top 10.  Spoelstra got fewer vote points last season (0) than Doc Rivers (1).

I don't think COTY voting is a particularly good way of determining who the best coaches in the NBA are.  Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson only won it three times.  Red Auerbach won once.  Kerr has won once, Spoelstra never has.  Meanwhile, Mike Brown and Tom Thibodeau have won twice.

I agree.  It is not the end all measure of who is the better coach but it is an indication of how a coach's performance in a season is viewed by a group sports writers who do know something about the game.  I just offer it for perspective when you and others are debating how bad our coach is.  I don't think Mazzulla is going to win coach of the year, nor do I believe he is the best coach in the NBA this season.

Coach of the year seems to get measured kind of like most improved player or comeback player.  It is not necessarily the best coach but the one that does the most with the least or exceeds expectations the most.  That seems to be true in all sports.  But if you are getting into the top 3 of the voting, you are probably not a bad coach, at least in the view of the sports writers who vote.

I've seen people say before that it's essentially the "Most Improved Team" award, and I tend to agree. 99% of the time it's not about the coach at all

[SparzWizard]

So Joe...13 of our 14 losses came against teams above .500.

10 of our 14 losses came against elite teams in the NBA.

Unacceptable for this .700 team. They need to beat elite teams, not lose to them. Or else, the C's will look like the Hawks of 2015...#1 seed and just get swept in the postseason. Don't wanna look overrated.

[jpotter33]

So Joe...13 of our 14 losses came against teams above .500.

10 of our 14 losses came against elite teams in the NBA.

Unacceptable for this .700 team. They need to beat elite teams, not lose to them. Or else, the C's will look like the Hawks of 2015...#1 seed and just get swept in the postseason. Don't wanna look overrated.

This is a bit overboard. Yes, 13 of our 14 losses have come against teams over .500 (because they're the better teams), yet we still have by far the best record against .500 teams in the NBA.

Regarding losses to elite teams, I believe we are 7-8 against the top 4 seeds of both conferences, yet 5 of those 8 losses were in OT or close 1 to 2 possession games to end the game. It's not great, but with that context (along with the injuries we had in some of these losses) it's much more understandable. Good teams are closer to .500 against other elite teams, so this isn't far off from what is expected.

[libermaniac]

So Joe...13 of our 14 losses came against teams above .500.

10 of our 14 losses came against elite teams in the NBA.

Unacceptable for this .700 team. They need to beat elite teams, not lose to them. Or else, the C's will look like the Hawks of 2015...#1 seed and just get swept in the postseason. Don't wanna look overrated.

So it would be better to lose to bad teams? 🤷🏼‍♂️

[jpotter33]

I will say that I don't think Joe played a significant role in this loss tonight, which I think was reflected in the lack of conversations about him in the game thread.

While he had some questionable decisions with the two big lineup with Jokic on the bench and not better staggering our better situated bigs with Jokic, this felt like a loss that was solely on the players - poor turnovers, missed free throws, poor energy and focus on both ends (JT) - and Denver just being the better, more consistent team tonight.

[86MaxwellSmart]

It's actually genius to let Brown score all he wants and stop the others....works every time.

[Kernewek]

It's actually genius to let Brown score all he wants and stop the others....works every time.

Aside from the game against the Warriors, of course.

[Surferdad]

I will say that I don't think Joe played a significant role in this loss tonight, which I think was reflected in the lack of conversations about him in the game thread.

While he had some questionable decisions with the two big lineup with Jokic on the bench and not better staggering our better situated bigs with Jokic, this felt like a loss that was solely on the players - poor turnovers, missed free throws, poor energy and focus on both ends (JT) - and Denver just being the better, more consistent team tonight.

TP, exactly my take as the buzzer sounded.

[Vermont Green]

So Joe...13 of our 14 losses came against teams above .500.

10 of our 14 losses came against elite teams in the NBA.

Unacceptable for this .700 team. They need to beat elite teams, not lose to them. Or else, the C's will look like the Hawks of 2015...#1 seed and just get swept in the postseason. Don't wanna look overrated.

This is a bit overboard. Yes, 13 of our 14 losses have come against teams over .500 (because they're the better teams), yet we still have by far the best record against .500 teams in the NBA.

Regarding losses to elite teams, I believe we are 7-8 against the top 4 seeds of both conferences, yet 5 of those 8 losses were in OT or close 1 to 2 possession games to end the game. It's not great, but with that context (along with the injuries we had in some of these losses) it's much more understandable. Good teams are closer to .500 against other elite teams, so this isn't far off from what is expected.

So we are 7-8 against the top 4 seeds in both conferences.  I am not sure how that is a bad reflection on Mazzulla.  There are other really good teams in the league, not just the Celtics.  You don't expect to win on the road vs. DEN on a Thursday night.  Of course, if we want to win the title, we need to do better than 7-8 vs. these teams.  If we were to go 8-7, that is two series wins.

I am not sure what fans "expect" of this team.  Are the Celtics "expected" to win the title?  They are still the betting favorite but not that much different odds than DEN or LAC.  Or is the expectation that they will compete for a title?  They have the best record, but I feel the teams in the West may have a tougher schedule.  This doesn't reflect in strength of schedule but teams like LAL, GSW, and even PHX are tougher wins (at least on many nights) than teams with comparable records in the East.

I will say that for me, I "expect" the Celtics to make the finals.  They should win the East.  The team will have to underperform and play below what I feel is the level that they should be expected to play, for them to not win the East.  But I don't feel like I can "expect" them to beat DEN (for example) in the finals.  I see two very evenly matched teams where if both teams play to their potential, it could go either way.  The entire series could come down to a couple of shots or foul calls.

[Roy H.]

So Joe...13 of our 14 losses came against teams above .500.

10 of our 14 losses came against elite teams in the NBA.

Unacceptable for this .700 team. They need to beat elite teams, not lose to them. Or else, the C's will look like the Hawks of 2015...#1 seed and just get swept in the postseason. Don't wanna look overrated.

This is a bit overboard. Yes, 13 of our 14 losses have come against teams over .500 (because they're the better teams), yet we still have by far the best record against .500 teams in the NBA.

Regarding losses to elite teams, I believe we are 7-8 against the top 4 seeds of both conferences, yet 5 of those 8 losses were in OT or close 1 to 2 possession games to end the game. It's not great, but with that context (along with the injuries we had in some of these losses) it's much more understandable. Good teams are closer to .500 against other elite teams, so this isn't far off from what is expected.

So we are 7-8 against the top 4 seeds in both conferences.  I am not sure how that is a bad reflection on Mazzulla.  There are other really good teams in the league, not just the Celtics.  You don't expect to win on the road vs. DEN on a Thursday night.  Of course, if we want to win the title, we need to do better than 7-8 vs. these teams.  If we were to go 8-7, that is two series wins.

I am not sure what fans "expect" of this team.  Are the Celtics "expected" to win the title?  They are still the betting favorite but not that much different odds than DEN or LAC.  Or is the expectation that they will compete for a title?  They have the best record, but I feel the teams in the West may have a tougher schedule.  This doesn't reflect in strength of schedule but teams like LAL, GSW, and even PHX are tougher wins (at least on many nights) than teams with comparable records in the East.

I will say that for me, I "expect" the Celtics to make the finals.  They should win the East.  The team will have to underperform and play below what I feel is the level that they should be expected to play, for them to not win the East.  But I don't feel like I can "expect" them to beat DEN (for example) in the finals.  I see two very evenly matched teams where if both teams play to their potential, it could go either way.  The entire series could come down to a couple of shots or foul calls.

The bolded sentences are the issue, right?  The most frustrating losses are when we blow leads, or play down to the level of our competition.  The most concerning losses are those we drop to teams on our talent tier, or just below.