Joe Mazz's approach to timeouts - agree or disagree

[Vermont Green]

I think time outs are overrated in general.  I have not been screaming at the TV over this at all.  Calling a time out just to call a time out can slow down momentum a little, sometimes (not always), but you have to make an adjustment if you really want to see some difference.  And you don't always have to call a time out to make an adjustment.

I am not worried about this in the least.

[sgrogan]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

Actually it's not. There is not one numerical data point that proves that timeouts work to stop momentum or big swings of points. Not one data point. Not one study. Nothing.

And most intelligent coaches from high school through to the pros will tell you that.

Forsberg said the same:

If you’re a fan of the Boston Celtics, you’ve probably spent at least some portion of the past 10 days screaming at your television set for a timeout that didn’t come quick enough for your liking.

Most of you don’t need this reminder but, given the events of this week, it feels mildly important to reaffirm: Joe Mazzulla deserves the benefit of time.

Every first-year coach is thrust under a harsh microscope and we overanalyze everything from their after-timeout plays to their timeout cadence to, in the case of Mazzulla, his vigorous gum chewing.

Mazzulla simply has to find his voice. Much of his demeanor and coaching style seems culled from Brad Stevens, the man who brought him aboard as an assistant in 2019. Mazzulla isn’t going to be Brad. He isn’t going to be Ime. He has to figure out what works best for him, what allows him to get the best out of this group.

It might just take time to figure that out. And he might never call that timeout that most of us are screaming for.

It’s on the players to be a little bit more locked in to help Mazzulla in the early part of his head coaching voyage. There’s only so much a coach can do when the intensity and focus of his players fluctuates. It’s not Mazzulla missing open shots in key spots.

We do think these Celtics sometimes need a shorter leash and that timeouts can be helpful to reel them back in when those lapses occur. But 75 years of NBA basketball suggests that there’s no firm rule for timeout usage.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/why-celtics-interim-head-coach-joe-mazzulla-deserves-benefit-time

Yup. If you're doing everything right. If you're making the extra passes, taking the proper open shots, driving when you should be driving, in the proper spots on defense, playing tight defense, boxing out properly but you're just missing your shots, the rebounds are bouncing away from you and you're getting a bad whistle or three, no timeout is going to fix something that's not broken.

And, that happens to every team in every game at least a couple times per game which is why basketball is a game of runs and swings. You can play great, just the way a coach drew it up and give up a 10-12 point run. It happens. It happens every game. To every team. A timeout isn't proven to cause the shots to start going down for you, for them to stop going down for your opponent, for the ball to bounce your way or for the refs to start calling things in your favor.

Now if the players aren't playing the way the coach wants, if they've abandoned the game plan on either side of the ball, if a matchup is not working and you need to sub in different personnel more quickly than waiting for a stoppage in play, the coaches need to call that TO. But otherwise, you just gotta let the players play through it. No matter how many idiots in the stands or in message board game threads are screaming for timeouts and calling the coach a moron.

I think this is the nuance missing from the discussion. 

personally at home, I'm frustrated with a lack of a TO when the team has either gotten away from doing what works and/or the other team has figured out how to counteract what was working for the C's and thus the C's give up a serious run. 

This is also what I see in the game threads for the most part --> sure there's one or two individuals calling for a TO after a 6 point run by the other team when the C's are still doing what they're supposed to be doing not when things start going sideways.  But, getting away from passing the ball on offense and into ISO mode and/or chucking a barrage of bricked 3's early in the shot clock is when a TO likely needs to be called.  that as well as the team getting lazy on D and/or the defensive boards. 

a TO isn't so much used for momentum killing of the other team but to correct issues with the C's that cannot just be left to the players to figure out because if they could do that, we wouldn't be watching the other team put up a point swing in the double digits.

I think Nick sums it up perfectly.
Your example is probably the grey area in between.
It's a common scenario, not unique to the Celtics.
The C's miss some shots, the other team makes some shots.
The C's press on offense, bad early shots/too much iso.
The other team gets out on the break a bit.
The C's start not getting back on D.

You could call a timeout. But if it's just Mazz telling the players they need to move the ball and get back on D even if their shots aren't falling?
They've heard it a thousand times before. Heck, there's an article on Celticsblog today with Smart talking about it.  At some point its the players.

Now if the players are getting winded from the fast breaks and coach wants to draw up a play to ensure a good shot, sure.

I do agree with Celts2021 though. Less timeouts helps the flow of the game from a viewers point of view.

[droopdog7]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

I say where?

[droopdog7]

I always felt that coaches like Brad and Joe Mazz want players to take ownership of how they are playing and be accountable for their performances. I saw them using timeouts only if they thought the players had deviated from the game plan or were not playing the right way. If they were playing the right way but were just either executing poorly or missing shots and the other team was converting on the other end, they hold on to their timeouts and trust that the team will start executing if they are making the right plays, even if the other team is on a run. Ultimately they call for it if they think they need to talk to the players to get them to start playing the right way (because the players have become demoralized and their defense is starting to slack off, or they are letting poor offense affect defense) again, as opposed to using it to try and stop momentum.

But they are coaches who are younger and more data driven and haven't seen quantifiable evidence that timeouts stop runs. The old timers like Doc or D'Antoni or Pop tend to do it all by feel or because "it's the way it's always been done" and they see themselves more as active managers of the game as opposed to facilitating the players and supporting them. Just two different approaches.

This is exactly it; sometime teams do everything right and the shots just don't fall for a stretch.  Indeed, this is very common and usually part of most any run.

[ozgod]

Joe Mazz went more in depth on his philosophy on using timeouts to stop runs during the coach presser. He says he wants his team to experience that adversity of getting in a hole and having to dig out, because the experience is invaluable and it's the only way they will learn to dig out is experientially.

But on two occasions, Mazzulla allowed his team to wiggle their way out of jams. The Pelicans made a 15-2 push midway through the second period and Mazzulla waited until CJ McCollum hit a 3-pointer to slice the deficit to 5 to call a timeout. The Celtics responded with the next 7 points.

Late in the third quarter, White extended the Celtics’ lead to 19 with a 3-pointer with three minutes left. The Pelicans then came back with a 10-2 run to end the period, sparked by consecutive turnovers from Jaylen Brown. Mazzulla allowed the run to develop, refusing to stem the tide with a timeout.

And finally, the Pelicans went on a 7-0 run in a 1 minute, 40 second stretch of the fourth quarter and still, Mazzulla kept his hands in his pockets. The Celtics responded with a 7-2 run to restore some order.

“I absolutely love it,” was Mazzulla’s response when asked if he enjoyed watching his team maneuver their ways out of opposing runs. “I think you have to build an awareness for your team of what’s going on. And sometimes I like the fact that we have to execute through a run instead of calling a timeout.

“In order for us to be a great team, we have to handle those situations, we have to build an awareness and know how to execute. And quite honestly, I’ve watched a lot of timeouts where you call it and nothing good happens after the timeout.”

This is a personal preference for Mazzulla. He said it wasn’t a byproduct of what Ime Udoka didn’t do last season. He is attempting to build a resiliency in his team early, improve the ability to make plays under pressure, especially on the road. The New Orleans crowd was raucous, anticipating the home team would make a couple of more plays to even the game. The Pelicans never did.

White played for a coach in San Antonio in Gregg Popovich who would call timeouts after a 2-0 opposing run. He stopped the action the moment the momentum changed. This situation is different. Players aren’t looking to Mazzulla for relief. They have to save themselves.

“Pop probably called the fastest timeouts in the league,” White said. “I think a lot of it [with Mazzulla] is trust and I think he trusts us a lot to withstand those runs and make the right play. There’s a lot of trust both ways and you have to go out there and execute.”

Players are beyond the point where they’re looking to the sidelines, waiting for Mazzulla to stop the opposing surge. They are learning to trust themselves, a process that is making progress.

It may not be as extreme as Miyagi teaching Daniel how to wax cars or scrub floors, but the point is the same. Surviving runs now will train the Celtics never to relinquish their poise later.

“I think so at times it’s good,” Brown said of Mazzulla’s style. “It challenges us not only for the situation at hand but also it challenges us to be better down the line. I think that we’ve been in the NBA long enough to know how to get to our spots and how to correct some of our mistakes. We’ve got a poised team and that’s a lot of trust from our head coach that he instills in us to figure it out.

“To be honest, that’s what you want, you want that relationship with your head coach that he trusts you out there, that you’ll figure it out and for the most part we have this year. We’ve just got to keep it up and continue to set our bar at a higher standard.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/11/19/sports/with-trust-their-coach-celtics-finding-ways-win-their-own/

[RockinRyA]

Im only going to complain about the timeouts (or not calling them) if 1) the team is doing things wrong and playing bad 2) guys need a breather 3) need a good inbounds 4) opposing team is hot (to try and ice them) 5) you need to sub certain guys in and there ia no dead ball.

[cman88]

I guess I see his point. But when the opposing team goes on. 15-2 run. I feel like you can stop it at if they go on an 8-0 run.

Celtics were getting good shots but they just weren't falling. So implore then to go to the hoop. Either way it worked out.

[celts55]

While I agree that sometimes it’s them getting decent shots, and they are not falling.
Last night there were a few times they weren’t getting back on defense, and taking some rather questionable shots. I thought a TO was in order, and after he did finally call one after a 15-2 run, they played much better.
Listen, they have the best record in the league. Best offense and defense has been much improved the last few games. They appear to be giving up less offense rebounds and except for a game like last night, have cut down on turnovers. So I guess whatever he’s doing is working. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

[trickybilly]

Love this. The only time to call a timeout during a run is if guys look gassed, or they literally slump from some bad luck.

Superstition is so 1945 basketball.

[Phantom255x]

It may be okay in a regular season game but idk how on earth anyone can really think it's still a good idea in a PLAYOFF game. Like imagine being up 18, then letting the other team just waltz to a 15-0 run without calling any timeout.

[SparzWizard]

It may be okay in a regular season game but idk how on earth anyone can really think it's still a good idea in a PLAYOFF game. Like imagine being up 18, then letting the other team just waltz to a 15-0 run without calling any timeout.

Lack of calling a timeout in a playoff game to stop a bleeding and losing the game (and series) is cause for concern and should result in disciplinary action, such as coach firing...is what I think.

You have a job and it's to coach- which includes calling timeouts when it matters. Like Bill Belichick's infamous slogan- Do your job!

[nickagneta]

It may be okay in a regular season game but idk how on earth anyone can really think it's still a good idea in a PLAYOFF game. Like imagine being up 18, then letting the other team just waltz to a 15-0 run without calling any timeout.

Mazzula has never even hunted that he won't use timeouts differently in the playoffs. It appears in his comments that he is purposely not calling timeouts now, during the early regular season, as a teaching tool for the players. He's using it to get the players to understand they must trust their ability to focus and turn things around without the coach having to stop play to tell them to do it.

If he uses timeouts this way now, the thinking has to be the team will learn to turn around subpar play on the court later making the need for timeouts less necessary and making the team better in the process.

All that doesn't mean that come playoff time Mazzula will continue to use timeouts in this manner. He could understand that in do or die playoff games, using the timeouts more often to get focus will be necessary and he will do it.

Coaching in the playoffs is very different than regular season coaching. Let's not assume that because Mazzula uses timeouts in the early regular season one way that he will use them the same way come playoff time.

[BudweiserCeltic]

It may be okay in a regular season game but idk how on earth anyone can really think it's still a good idea in a PLAYOFF game. Like imagine being up 18, then letting the other team just waltz to a 15-0 run without calling any timeout.

Mazzula has never even hunted that he won't use timeouts differently in the playoffs. It appears in his comments that he is purposely not calling timeouts now, during the early regular season, as a teaching tool for the players. He's using it to get the players to understand they must trust their ability to focus and turn things around without the coach having to stop play to tell them to do it.

If he uses timeouts this way now, the thinking has to be the team will learn to turn around subpar play on the court later making the need for timeouts less necessary and making the team better in the process.

All that doesn't mean that come playoff time Mazzula will continue to use timeouts in this manner. He could understand that in do or die playoff games, using the timeouts more often to get focus will be necessary and he will do it.

Coaching in the playoffs is very different than regular season coaching. Let's not assume that because Mazzula uses timeouts in the early regular season one way that he will use them the same way come playoff time.

Agreed.

[droopdog7]

Timeouts don't stop momentum; pretty much been proven. So, I don't care one iota whether he calls timeouts now or in the playoffs or in the finals.

What's funny is that some people sort of agree that timeouts don't stop timeouts but then spend time justifying why the coach should still call timeouts during a run.  They don't stop runs...end of story.

As for some of the other reasons, let me break them down.  Call a TO because our guys are tired?  Why would be we tired but not the other team?  Call a TO to tell them to go to the hole?  He can yell that out from the sideline, as if they didn't already know. Call a TO to call a play?  Okay, that's like, one play.  Call a TO to sub?  That's actually a decent reason, but not really going to be that relevant until the end of the game most of the time.

So I don't care, but I see it really makes some people uneasy.  The fact it, teams make runs and when teams are both good, one team's run will be followed by the other team's run, timeout or not.

[tenn_smoothie]

Seems to me that basketball coaching conventional wisdom forever has been to call a timeout to stop an opponent's scoring run and momentum. Sure, you see occasional exceptions. Supposedly Phil Jackson liked doing this, but he called plenty of timeouts in important games and playoffs. So now, supposedly Joe Mazzula has figured out this great new strategy to develop his team's ability to handle tough games ?

Sorry .......... no. Timeouts to stop scoring runs has worked for years and years.
Keep it simple Joe, don't screw up a team with this type of potential.
Don't lose games we need for the sake of playoff seeding with your timeout strategy experiment.