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

[Kernewek]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

[jpotter33]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

I mean, using the greatest shooter in NBA history to prove a point about three point volume isn’t all that convincing haha

I think a lot of the qualms about our extreme three point shooting philosophy wouldn’t exist if we employed two top five all-time shooters like Steph and Klay. We currently lead the league in three point rate by over two threes a game, including shooting three more threes per game than Steph’s Warriors.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2024-02-14

(All that said, it does at least anecdotally feel like we’ve been slightly better about this recently, though I don’t have the stats on hand  to prove that.)

[Kernewek]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

I mean, using the greatest shooter in NBA history to prove a point about three point volume isn’t all that convincing haha

I think a lot of the qualms about our extreme three point shooting philosophy wouldn’t exist if we employed two top five all-time shooters like Steph and Klay. We currently lead the league in three point rate by over two threes a game, including shooting three more threes per game than Steph’s Warriors.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2024-02-14

(All that said, it does at least anecdotally feel like we’ve been slightly better about this recently, though I don’t have the stats on hand  to prove that.)

Right - but there's nothing particularly magical about shooting 37 threes vs 38 or 39 or 12 or 50. As an isolated metric, it doesn't say much.

If we want to treat it as shorthand, we could assume, for example, that the underlying point is gesturing toward an idea about the percentage of threes against total shots taken ... except 44% of the total shots being three-pointers isn't far off the games where we shoot 'too many' threes, judging by the comments in this thread and others.

Ok, maybe it's a comment about being able to score in several different ways when the threes aren't falling... but it was falling last night - we shot 40.5% from deep.

Perhaps 37 threes just 'feels' right. Fair enough, but not only is that not grounded in anything, it also means (in the context of the last game) that we're shooting just under half of our non-foul shots from deep, which feels like it would be a lot of threes if you think the team is playing suboptimally when they shoot 'a lot' (or 'too many') of threes.

--
As of now we're looking at the most effective offense in NBA history in terms of points per possession. It's not the prettiest - I'm sure we'd all like to see one or two fewer Tatum stepbacks and one or two better drives from Brown, if we're speaking in generalities - but it clearly works.

[Roy H.]

--
As of now we're looking at the most effective offense in NBA history in terms of points per possession. It's not the prettiest - I'm sure we'd all like to see one or two fewer Tatum stepbacks and one or two better drives from Brown, if we're speaking in generalities - but it clearly works.

As an aside, 10 of the top 11 best team offensive ratings have occurred this season.  The one outlier is last year's Kings.  It really is amazing how rapidly offense is outpacing defense.

[ozgod]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

I mean, using the greatest shooter in NBA history to prove a point about three point volume isn’t all that convincing haha

I think a lot of the qualms about our extreme three point shooting philosophy wouldn’t exist if we employed two top five all-time shooters like Steph and Klay. We currently lead the league in three point rate by over two threes a game, including shooting three more threes per game than Steph’s Warriors.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2024-02-14

(All that said, it does at least anecdotally feel like we’ve been slightly better about this recently, though I don’t have the stats on hand  to prove that.)

Right - but there's nothing particularly magical about shooting 37 threes vs 38 or 39 or 12 or 50. As an isolated metric, it doesn't say much.

If we want to treat it as shorthand, we could assume, for example, that the underlying point is gesturing toward an idea about the percentage of threes against total shots taken ... except 44% of the total shots being three-pointers isn't far off the games where we shoot 'too many' threes, judging by the comments in this thread and others.

Ok, maybe it's a comment about being able to score in several different ways when the threes aren't falling... but it was falling last night - we shot 40.5% from deep.

Perhaps 37 threes just 'feels' right. Fair enough, but not only is that not grounded in anything, it also means (in the context of the last game) that we're shooting just under half of our non-foul shots from deep, which feels like it would be a lot of threes if you think the team is playing suboptimally when they shoot 'a lot' (or 'too many') of threes.

--
As of now we're looking at the most effective offense in NBA history in terms of points per possession. It's not the prettiest - I'm sure we'd all like to see one or two fewer Tatum stepbacks and one or two better drives from Brown, if we're speaking in generalities - but it clearly works.

There's always going to be something subjective about 3s, because they go in at a lower rate than 2s. Plus people who grew up on the NBA of the 80s and 90s remember when even Larry Bird shot less than 3 3s a game. I feel that's why fans have an aversion to them - because they watch the games, and see 3s clang off the rim more often than 2s, and they feel that if the player had driven the ball and tried to score at the hoop, the ball would have gone in. And as you say, when ball goes in, we are happy, when ball doesn't go in, we are sad 

Personally I don't have a problem with how many 3s they shoot, as long as the shot is a good quality shot. Now determining shot quality can be subjective too, and NBA teams now have entire departments of stats nerds devoted to determining the quality of each shot their team makes, but I would imagine that as a starting point, if a 3 is open (defined in NBA.com as having the closest defender at least 4-6 feet away, wide open is 6+ feet away) and the player shooting it can shoot at least 30% from 3, I would consider that to be a good shot. Even if it misses, because if we're going to define good shots as ones that go in then we're going to end up including circus fluke shots and omitting wide open ones that someone just bricked.

If you look at NBA.com, the Cs are 5th in the league in 3FG% for open shots, and we take at least 17 of those a game and make 37% of them:



Then when you look at wide-open 3s, we take even more of those, at 19 a game, and make 40% of them:



If you look at the tight 3s (2-4 feet) we take 6 of those and make 31% of them.



Then the very tight (0-2 feet) we actually are bottom of the league in taking 0.2 of those.



It's an interesting question, and one I don't really have an answer to. What is the right number of 3s we should take? So if we average 42 a game, and if we stick to the open ones, then by logic 36 shots a game of open ones should be about right?

[jpotter33]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

I mean, using the greatest shooter in NBA history to prove a point about three point volume isn’t all that convincing haha

I think a lot of the qualms about our extreme three point shooting philosophy wouldn’t exist if we employed two top five all-time shooters like Steph and Klay. We currently lead the league in three point rate by over two threes a game, including shooting three more threes per game than Steph’s Warriors.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2024-02-14

(All that said, it does at least anecdotally feel like we’ve been slightly better about this recently, though I don’t have the stats on hand  to prove that.)

Right - but there's nothing particularly magical about shooting 37 threes vs 38 or 39 or 12 or 50. As an isolated metric, it doesn't say much.

If we want to treat it as shorthand, we could assume, for example, that the underlying point is gesturing toward an idea about the percentage of threes against total shots taken ... except 44% of the total shots being three-pointers isn't far off the games where we shoot 'too many' threes, judging by the comments in this thread and others.

Ok, maybe it's a comment about being able to score in several different ways when the threes aren't falling... but it was falling last night - we shot 40.5% from deep.

Perhaps 37 threes just 'feels' right. Fair enough, but not only is that not grounded in anything, it also means (in the context of the last game) that we're shooting just under half of our non-foul shots from deep, which feels like it would be a lot of threes if you think the team is playing suboptimally when they shoot 'a lot' (or 'too many') of threes.

--
As of now we're looking at the most effective offense in NBA history in terms of points per possession. It's not the prettiest - I'm sure we'd all like to see one or two fewer Tatum stepbacks and one or two better drives from Brown, if we're speaking in generalities - but it clearly works.

Ah, but that’s the philosophical chicken and the egg question - were they shooting the three well just because they were going in, or were they shooting the three well because of a more variable plan of attack that allowed them to first get in a rhythm and create more offensive spacing by hitting high percentage paint shots? My sense is the latter.

[ozgod]

So Joe managed to win his 100th game in 137 attempts. Dunno what's more impressive, the 73% win rate or the fact that he got to 100 without being cashiered out in disgrace 

[cman88]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

I mean, using the greatest shooter in NBA history to prove a point about three point volume isn’t all that convincing haha

I think a lot of the qualms about our extreme three point shooting philosophy wouldn’t exist if we employed two top five all-time shooters like Steph and Klay. We currently lead the league in three point rate by over two threes a game, including shooting three more threes per game than Steph’s Warriors.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2024-02-14

(All that said, it does at least anecdotally feel like we’ve been slightly better about this recently, though I don’t have the stats on hand  to prove that.)

Right - but there's nothing particularly magical about shooting 37 threes vs 38 or 39 or 12 or 50. As an isolated metric, it doesn't say much.

If we want to treat it as shorthand, we could assume, for example, that the underlying point is gesturing toward an idea about the percentage of threes against total shots taken ... except 44% of the total shots being three-pointers isn't far off the games where we shoot 'too many' threes, judging by the comments in this thread and others.

Ok, maybe it's a comment about being able to score in several different ways when the threes aren't falling... but it was falling last night - we shot 40.5% from deep.

Perhaps 37 threes just 'feels' right. Fair enough, but not only is that not grounded in anything, it also means (in the context of the last game) that we're shooting just under half of our non-foul shots from deep, which feels like it would be a lot of threes if you think the team is playing suboptimally when they shoot 'a lot' (or 'too many') of threes.

--
As of now we're looking at the most effective offense in NBA history in terms of points per possession. It's not the prettiest - I'm sure we'd all like to see one or two fewer Tatum stepbacks and one or two better drives from Brown, if we're speaking in generalities - but it clearly works.

Ah, but that’s the philosophical chicken and the egg question - were they shooting the three well just because they were going in, or were they shooting the three well because of a more variable plan of attack that allowed them to first get in a rhythm and create more offensive spacing by hitting high percentage paint shots? My sense is the latter.

I think once the celtics play inside out their offense is much better than starting outside. going right away to the post-ups and dominating there is what opened up the 3 ball. i'd like to continue to see them do that.

[Kernewek]

Only 37 shot attempts from deep… Something’s Fishy..

These are the types of games that win you a championship.

Someone tell Steph Curry.

I mean, using the greatest shooter in NBA history to prove a point about three point volume isn’t all that convincing haha

I think a lot of the qualms about our extreme three point shooting philosophy wouldn’t exist if we employed two top five all-time shooters like Steph and Klay. We currently lead the league in three point rate by over two threes a game, including shooting three more threes per game than Steph’s Warriors.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-pointers-attempted-per-game?date=2024-02-14

(All that said, it does at least anecdotally feel like we’ve been slightly better about this recently, though I don’t have the stats on hand  to prove that.)

Right - but there's nothing particularly magical about shooting 37 threes vs 38 or 39 or 12 or 50. As an isolated metric, it doesn't say much.

If we want to treat it as shorthand, we could assume, for example, that the underlying point is gesturing toward an idea about the percentage of threes against total shots taken ... except 44% of the total shots being three-pointers isn't far off the games where we shoot 'too many' threes, judging by the comments in this thread and others.

Ok, maybe it's a comment about being able to score in several different ways when the threes aren't falling... but it was falling last night - we shot 40.5% from deep.

Perhaps 37 threes just 'feels' right. Fair enough, but not only is that not grounded in anything, it also means (in the context of the last game) that we're shooting just under half of our non-foul shots from deep, which feels like it would be a lot of threes if you think the team is playing suboptimally when they shoot 'a lot' (or 'too many') of threes.

--
As of now we're looking at the most effective offense in NBA history in terms of points per possession. It's not the prettiest - I'm sure we'd all like to see one or two fewer Tatum stepbacks and one or two better drives from Brown, if we're speaking in generalities - but it clearly works.

Ah, but that’s the philosophical chicken and the egg question - were they shooting the three well just because they were going in, or were they shooting the three well because of a more variable plan of attack that allowed them to first get in a rhythm and create more offensive spacing by hitting high percentage paint shots? My sense is the latter.

To some degree, you're right, but to some degree, it's because the Celtics shoot the 'good not great' threes well enough that the other team has to put in a ton of effort to defend incredibly well at the line.

There was a very good reddit post (I know, rare as hen's teeth) on this topic a few days ago, and I think point 2 is really good at describing the disconnect between what we might think of as a good shot and what the offensive plan determines is a good shot, so I'll quote it here (unfortunately I can't smoothly get the video to embed), but essentially the long and short of it appears to be:

So the threes the Celtics take are usually good shots compared to an average halfcourt possession, and the threat of the super-aggressive three is the fundamental element that enables everything else in the most efficient offensive system ever.

The longer context is here:

When people say the Celtics shoot too many threes, they're usually talking about tendencies in the halfcourt. Nobody minds the wide open spot-ups, but I see people question some okay threes that the Celtics take, like this one, where Derrick white sees his defender go under a screen and instantly pulls up, even though a pass to Horford probably would have been open if he waited a beat:

Video of White coming up short on a three against Denver with an offensive rebound collected by Tatum

This was a good shot. Average halfcourt ORTG in the NBA is about 1.0, so a decent look like this (probably worth around 1.1 points per shot, plus the potential for an OREB), is a well above average outcome in the halfcourt, even if a pass would have been better.

In general, these are the types of threes that the Celtics take which allow them to have so many attempts per game. They shoot a lot of okay looks. Even the Tatum step backs, which I think he should cut down on, usually come against switches or in late clock situations. The vast majority of threes they take are well above average halfcourt shots. That's a huge part of why they're so hard to guard.

There's a lot more context (and play footage) in this post, which I'd say is worth investigating (although I don't rate the bit at the end about binomial distribution, I think it weakens the argument by account of being a tangent).
https://www.reddit.com/r/bostonceltics/comments/1anra0n/the_celtics_dont_shoot_too_many_threes/

[Vermont Green]

It is a good question to ask, what is the right or best number of 3s to take on average.  I don't know the answer but from what I see, it is at least a few less than their current average of 42.7 per game.  To me, there are two categories of "bad" 3s, 3s that are too early and 3s where a better shot is passed up (aka "settling").

I think they have been playing more inside out lately.  But their 3P% has not changed all that much.  It has been around 38%.  Their average the last 5 games is 40.8 3PA so down a little from the season average.

Implementing change to an offensive scheme is not simple or immediate.  It takes some time.  Better shots come from off ball movement, it is about a lot more than just what the guy with the ball does.

[Kernewek]

Speaking, as we used to, of time outs, Mazza, and Ime:

Here is how all 30 teams look on a points per possession basis in after timeout situations (all this data is as of February 26, 2024):
As of February 26th, it looks like the Boston Celtics (Joe Mazzulla), Dallas Mavericks (Jason Kidd), Los Angeles Clippers (Tyronn Lue), Milwaukee Bucks (Adrian Griffin/Doc Rivers – man, the irony), and Utah Jazz (Will Hardy) are the leaders in this category.

---------
[W]hen we look at just raw ATO data, we are biasing toward coaches who lead teams with better offensive personnel. After all, it is more likely a coach’s play will succeed when they have great offensive players running it.

If you look closely, you’ll notice that three of the top-five teams in ATO points per possession are also in the top-five in overall offensive rating (the Celtics, Clippers, and Bucks). And three of the bottom-five teams in ATO points per possession are also in the bottom-five in overall offensive rating (the Hornets, Trail Blazers, and Spurs).

So, in order to add more nuance to our analysis, we are going to look at each team’s ATO points per possession relative to their overall offensive rating.

Now, our new top-five in ATO wizardry is the Mavericks (Kidd), Houston Rockets (Ime Udoka), Clippers (Lue), Bucks (Griffin/Rivers – still so funny), and Celtics (Mazzulla).

https://www.basketballinsiders.com/news/nba-study-which-nba-coach-is-the-best-at-calling-plays/

Tried to add the tables directly but HTML tables are always a drag: the C's are at 1.28 Points per ATO Possession
and +0.07 Points Per ATO Possession Relative to Offensive Rating.

[Yuckabuck33]

I think Joe has won many of us doubters. Whaddaya say?

[Surferdad]

I think Joe has won many of us doubters. Whaddaya say?

You can’t argue with success.   

[SHAQATTACK]

Come on Joe , throw a few chairs ….you worthless dead corpse of a coach

[Roy H.]

I think Joe has won many of us doubters. Whaddaya say?

Gotta wait for the playoffs.