Going into the playoffs, anybody willing to stake a claim on what they'd consider a good or bad coaching job?
My preconceived take, first thinking about the Eastern Conference half of the playoffs (and of course assuming no major health issues pop up):
If the Celtics go 12-3 or better, Joe probably deserves a lot of credit.
If the Celtics have 12 wins, but between 4-6 losses, it can be really gray, the "Fire/Defend Joe" debate is still wide open.
Anything less than 12 wins or 7 or more losses, Joe probably deserves a lot of blame/criticism.
Then for the Finals piece, a lot muddier here, but I think I'd generally go:
4-2 or better, great job Joe.
4-3 or 3-4, gray area.
2-4 or worse, Joe probably deserves a lot of blame/criticism.
Of course these are just guidelines before we see any product on the floor. And still plenty of room for no clear take (what if Celtics go 12-0 for the first 3 rounds but then 0-4 in the Finals against the Lakers missing both LeBron and AD, or Celtics go 12-9 but then 4-0 against a healthy Nuggets winning every game by double digits, or what if they lose in 1st round to Sixers in 7 but then Sixers go on to sweep everybody else with Embiid putting up prime Wilt numbers on the way to a championship...)
Somewhat recent historical context from some champs/contenders:
23 Nuggets: 12-3 then 4-1 for 16-4 total
22 Warriors: 12-4 then 4-2 for 16-6 total
21 Bucks: 12-5 then 4-2 for 16-7 total
19 Raptors: 12-6 then 4-2 for 16-8 total
19 Warriors: 12-4 then 2-4 for 14-8 total
18 Warriors: 12-5 then 4-0 for 16-5 total
17 Warriors: 12-0 then 4-1 for 16-1 total
16 Warriors: 12-5 then 3-4 for 15-9 total
15 Warriors: 12-3 then 4-2 for 16-5 total
14 Spurs: 12-6 then 4-1 for 16-7 total
14 Heat: 12-3 then 1-4 for 13-7 total
13 Spurs: 12-2 then 3-4 for 15-6 total
13 Heat: 12-4 then 4-3 for 16-7 total
12 Heat: 12-6 then 4-1 for 16-7 total
11 Heat: 12-3 then 2-4 for 14-7 total
11 Mavs: 12-3 then 4-2 for 16-5 total
This post illustrates why it is impossible to rate a coach based on record, playoffs or otherwise. The Celtics are a good enough team that Mazzulla could coach badly, or be perceived to be coaching badly, but still win. And if the team doesn't win or win as much as you expect, it is impossible to say to what degree coaching contributed to that.
Last season, MIA shot 43.4% from 3 in the ECF, BOS shot 30.3%. For the season, MIA was 34.4%, BOS was 37.7%. Yet this series went 7 games and BOS very likely could have won the series had Tatum not blown out his ankle right at the start of game 7.
So if the team shoots 30% from 3 in a series, yet the team gets to a game 7 in that series, is that good coaching or bad coaching? Is 30% from 3 bad coaching or bad shooting? BOS took 267 3s in the series, making 81. Had they made even 10 more 3s, they would still be well below their season average, but they probably win the series.
The opinions have ranged from "Mazzulla was totally out coached", to "this is on the players, not the coach". Good luck proving either position. And further, even if the Celtics go 16-0 this playoff run, there will be posts that say they won in spite of Mazzulla.
My prediction and expectation is that the Celtics make the finals. If they don't, many will blame the coach, it is natural, comes with the territory. But I don't expect coaching to hold this team back. Shooting 30% from 3 in a series could though.