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

[Roy H.]

What the heck is this argument about?  Joe has a title and Ime doesn't.  Game. Set. Match.

End of story.

And Paul Westhead is head and shoulders over Jerry Sloan, correct? 

[Kernewek]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

There's another wrinkle, though - the Miami series will only continue to be such a wild outlier in terms of how hot they were that I think it'll be less of an indictment of the current staff as time goes on (provided they continue to make deep runs). Similar to the way that no one blames the Rockets coaching staff for going 0-27 in that closeout game against Golden State.

[Big333223]

Coaching is such a difficult thing to judge in the NBA. Ime and Joe have been in such wildly different circumstances in their young coaching careers, I don't know how to definitively say which is better.

I think it's fair to say they're both very good basketball coaches and only time will tell which one is better.

[Roy H.]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

There's another wrinkle, though - the Miami series will only continue to be such a wild outlier in terms of how hot they were that I think it'll be less of an indictment of the current staff as time goes on (provided they continue to make deep runs). Similar to the way that no one blames the Rockets coaching staff for going 0-27 in that closeout game against Golden State.

At the same time, with a miracle putback, we would have lost that series in 6 games.  We surrendered double digit leads several times.  The players were going to Joe asking him to change the rotation, and the owner was screaming at the coach during the game.  The coach wasn't making adjustments.  Players were talking during the playoffs about the deemphasis on defense and accountability.

As time goes by, all of these things might be attributed to random chance, but that's not what the reality on the ground was. 

[droopdog7]

What the heck is this argument about?  Joe has a title and Ime doesn't.  Game. Set. Match.

End of story.

And Paul Westhead is head and shoulders over Jerry Sloan, correct?

Here is the thing; I don?t give a hoot about what a coach might or might not be in a vacuum.  They are judged on what they do with the change they get.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[mobilija]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

I guess that?s my 2nd point, I don?t think there is that big of a talent discrepancy Ime vs Joe yr1. It?s debatable which roster was better overall. Not enuff to make it the deciding factor in a comparison when there are other factors at play. Most notably, Ime broke the team that summer. Morale was a huge factor that year.

[mobilija]

Ya know where I?m leaning with all this Ime vs Joe stuff?.

Time will tell. They both have many years left with many different circumstances to better judge their aptitude.

Both are having success but if you forced me today, Joe was here as part of championship, Ime f*%#%d us. Easy choice.

[SHAQATTACK]

Ya know where I?m leaning with all this Ime vs Joe stuff?.

Time will tell. They both have many years left with many different circumstances to better judge their aptitude.

Both are having success but if you forced me today, Joe was here as part of championship, Ime f*%#%d us. Easy choice.

I was a big Ime fan , but the above post is pretty much where I?m at now .   Joe seems to connect to the team for now .

[tenn_smoothie]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

There's another wrinkle, though - the Miami series will only continue to be such a wild outlier in terms of how hot they were that I think it'll be less of an indictment of the current staff as time goes on (provided they continue to make deep runs). Similar to the way that no one blames the Rockets coaching staff for going 0-27 in that closeout game against Golden State.

At the same time, with a miracle putback, we would have lost that series in 6 games.  We surrendered double digit leads several times.  The players were going to Joe asking him to change the rotation, and the owner was screaming at the coach during the game.  The coach wasn't making adjustments. Players were talking during the playoffs about the deemphasis on defense and accountability.

As time goes by, all of these things might be attributed to random chance, but that's not what the reality on the ground was.

Wow !!

Not questioning your info Roy, just curious where this came from. That's a bad indictment of Mazzulla, though I'm not surprised.
After all that, how do they keep him on as coach ? Just because Brad was stupid enough to give him the permanent status ?

[Phantom255x]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

There's another wrinkle, though - the Miami series will only continue to be such a wild outlier in terms of how hot they were that I think it'll be less of an indictment of the current staff as time goes on (provided they continue to make deep runs). Similar to the way that no one blames the Rockets coaching staff for going 0-27 in that closeout game against Golden State.

At the same time, with a miracle putback, we would have lost that series in 6 games.  We surrendered double digit leads several times.  The players were going to Joe asking him to change the rotation, and the owner was screaming at the coach during the game.  The coach wasn't making adjustments. Players were talking during the playoffs about the deemphasis on defense and accountability.

As time goes by, all of these things might be attributed to random chance, but that's not what the reality on the ground was.

Wow !!

Not questioning your info Roy, just curious where this came from. That's a bad indictment of Mazzulla, though I'm not surprised.
After all that, how do they keep him on as coach ? Just because Brad was stupid enough to give him the permanent status ?

Yeah Smart at one point questioned Mazzulla's usage of Timelord and even said in an interview, "Joe is getting killed, and rightfully so" in terms of the criticism he was receiving from the fanbase and media as well.

But that said, I also think Smart that year was in over his head. Clearly dropped off defensively from his DPOY season in 2022 and didn't help on that end. Brogdon too, although idk if it was because he had injuries. Then Grant Williams was constantly running his mouth ("I'm gonna make both") and acting like a fool which he has honestly continued to prove. Even the great Mike Gorman basically hinted that G-Will was not a good locker room guy and at times was very "unserious" and goofing off a lot. Dallas likely dealt him for this same reason.

Yes, we added talent in KP and Jrue, but I also believe the locker room and all our roles improved and became more well-defined after Brad jettisoned these guys after 2023 (Smart, G-Will, Brogdon). I hated losing Timelord but he was even more injury prone than Porzingis.

I give Joe credit that he's clearly won over the locker room, has kept guys in check and for the most part has continued to keep them playing at a high level. Yeah, we obviously have more talent, but at times even Brad Stevens and Ime struggled with this. And say what you will, but for all the criticisms about timeout usage, 3-point philosophies, etc. I thought the team actually adjusted during the previous playoff run when they had to. They weren't always jacking up 50+ 3s a night nor did they slack off too much outside 1-2 games.

People forget that in the 2022 run, we lost Games 1 and 5 at home to MIL in a series that could have been over before Game 7, and same with the ECF where we blew Game 6 at home and nearly lost Game 7 on the road. That run was fun but a bit rocky, not like Ime was putting on a masterclass throughout. Then the Finals they got cooked by Curry and others and made no adjustments particularly on defense.

[SparzWizard]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

There's another wrinkle, though - the Miami series will only continue to be such a wild outlier in terms of how hot they were that I think it'll be less of an indictment of the current staff as time goes on (provided they continue to make deep runs). Similar to the way that no one blames the Rockets coaching staff for going 0-27 in that closeout game against Golden State.

At the same time, with a miracle putback, we would have lost that series in 6 games.  We surrendered double digit leads several times.  The players were going to Joe asking him to change the rotation, and the owner was screaming at the coach during the game.  The coach wasn't making adjustments. Players were talking during the playoffs about the deemphasis on defense and accountability.

As time goes by, all of these things might be attributed to random chance, but that's not what the reality on the ground was.

Wow !!

Not questioning your info Roy, just curious where this came from. That's a bad indictment of Mazzulla, though I'm not surprised.
After all that, how do they keep him on as coach ? Just because Brad was stupid enough to give him the permanent status ?

Tenn did you also remember? After the Celtics lost Game 3 of that ECF series, the Celtics were down 0-3. The media scrutiny was relentless. I recalled Smart was calling out his coach and stuff. Down 0-3, it was it. I was just hoping they swept the C's and somebody gets fired.

Needless to say, for a #2 seed to get beaten down so badly the first three games by a #8 seed is embarrassing. Esp losing the first two home games. The comeback to force Game 7 was fun, but it wasn't warranted. All the C's had to do was take care of business and put the Heat away.

[Kernewek]

All that being said, if you have to place so much emphasis on the roster to swing an argument about who a better coach is then maybe it?s the roster that matters and not the coaches at all.

This is an odd argument in the present context.

Of course, teams with better players should win more.  But if a coach fall short, despite having more talent, that says something about the coaching. And if the next coach improves the team despite a similar amount of talent, it also says something about the coaching.

What is meaningless is looking at a team that made huge talent upgrades that then goes farther, and arguing "this coach is better because he won a title".  That's not an intellectually honest argument.

There's another wrinkle, though - the Miami series will only continue to be such a wild outlier in terms of how hot they were that I think it'll be less of an indictment of the current staff as time goes on (provided they continue to make deep runs). Similar to the way that no one blames the Rockets coaching staff for going 0-27 in that closeout game against Golden State.

At the same time, with a miracle putback, we would have lost that series in 6 games. 
And if the ball bounces differently Kawhi Leonard and Joel Embiid have entirely different legacies, this is how it goes.

We surrendered double digit leads several times. 
More or less than the average double-digit lead change in a given playoff series?

The players were going to Joe asking him to change the rotation, and the owner was screaming at the coach during the game.
Wyc's temper tantrum about 'stop letting the other team score' is probably the least-impressive ownership move of the modern era, second only to Patrick Dumont saying they traded Luka because he wasn't committed to fitness & conditioning like 'a true great like Shaq'. 

The coach wasn't making adjustments.  Players were talking during the playoffs about the deemphasis on defense and accountability.
You're talking about the one Smart quote, I take it? That's not plural players.

As time goes by, all of these things might be attributed to random chance, but that's not what the reality on the ground was.

See itals - it's a pithy list but it's lacking.

You can cover the reality and reaction 'on the ground' in this thread. People overreact to illusory trends because people don't understand statistics. None of this is new.


----

But, I did some quick digging and I couldn't find anyone who'd collated a list of blown double-digit leads (and I don't trust LLMs to do it without double-checking, which I don't have time to do) and found this, which is kind of interesting (although a few years old):
https://www.nba.com/news/no-lead-is-safe-as-double-digit-scoring-runs-reach-record-high

(if anyone wants the Stathead data and has an account, this search should do it)

[green_bballers13]

What the heck is this argument about?  Joe has a title and Ime doesn't.  Game. Set. Match.

End of story.

And Paul Westhead is head and shoulders over Jerry Sloan, correct?

You're missing the point. This is Boston. It's different here. The  Celtics have more championships than any other team. Very few would be impressed by Jerry Sloan's tenure here. I imagine he's revered more in Utah.

I'm sure there's a genius coach somewhere that knows more about basketball than Joe and just led his church basketball team to an undefeated record. I don't think anyone is saying that Joe Mazz is the greatest basketball mind of all time.

The moment Joe won a ring, he stepped into a new tier.

In 2025, to say that Ime has done more for the Celtics franchise than Joe (with less) is ignoring any of the negative effects that Ime had on this franchise. It would be like reading the left half of the newspaper and ignoring the right.

[Roy H.]

In 2025, to say that Ime has done more for the Celtics franchise than Joe (with less) is ignoring any of the negative effects that Ime had on this franchise. It would be like reading the left half of the newspaper and ignoring the right.

One last time:  quit mischaracterizing people's arguments.

[green_bballers13]

What the heck is this argument about?  Joe has a title and Ime doesn't.  Game. Set. Match.

End of story.

I think its just one person. Roy is trying to make an argument that Ime did more with the Celtics than Joe, only judging by one year. He's engineering the argument to fit certain criteria that he deems to be acceptable. I just don't think it is a fair way to assess what has happened.

The problem is that many here are willing to judge Joe Mazzulla by more than his first year of coaching. That seems reasonable. I would hate to be judged forever based on one year of data.

Roy keeps evading questions about Ime messing the team up over his summer of romance creepiness. Why? Do you not think this set the Celtics back? Why exclude that from Ime's legacy in Boston?