Author Topic: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23  (Read 12650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #375 on: March 13, 2023, 11:59:26 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47892
  • Tommy Points: 2906
We shot 12-42 for a whopping 28.6% from three tonight, but I guarantee you if someone brings it up to Joe he'll point to the missed layup at the end as "proof" of his argument that there's no difference in layups and threes.

https://twitter.com/AdamHimmelsbach/status/1635476458238771200

Quote
Mazzulla on Celtics going 12 for 42 on threes on a night they had lots of success getting to the rim.

"The threes, people like to talk about those. Free throws, offensive rebounds, second-chance points and turnovers. That’s the game. That’s everything."

Called it.

It's almost like it's the same exact story every night but you're too stubborn and dogmatic to do anything about it. This guy is just too immature. He simply refuses to look at the evidence and let that impact his decision-making.

He's also not wrong tho. The team hit 12 threes, the rockets hit 11 and only shot 31% from three. The three ball was not really the deciding factor. The Celtics basically played the rockets even or little below even in every aspect of the game.

Threes: 12 on 42 vs 11 on 35 for Rockets.
FT's: Allow 27 vs taking 21 (made 19 vs 20 for rockets)
oREB: Gave up 15, got 10.
Assists: Had 13, rockets had 27!
Turnovers: Generated 10, gave up 13.

Its hard to say its threes that lost you this game when a 15 win team won all the hustle stats.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I'm saying the entire philosophy that is overreliant on three point shooting absolutely was a significant component of this loss, as well as most of our other losses. The entire offensive philosophy revolves around us hitting a large proportion of our threes, and when we don't hit those threes we don't adjust - we just continue to shoot threes hoping they go in.

We shot an abysmal 12 of 42 and were off on the three all night for a whopping 28.6%, and the threes constituted 48% of our total field goal attempts. On the contrary, we were 27 of 45 on two point field goals tonight for an efficient 60%, and they only constituted 52% of our total shots. The Rockets only took threes as 39% of their shots, and they benefitted from more free throws and better looks because of it.

A competent offensive philosophy doesn't just continue to jack up threes all night when you're not hitting them. A competent offensive philosophy finds other, more efficient and higher percentage ways to score when the three isn't working. All it took was a little less emphasis on the three and we win this game, and that's been an issue in virtually all of our losses.

No, it wasn't wholly the reason for the loss, as our abysmal rebounding and overall lack of energy and defensive urgency clearly played a role, too. It's never a singular reason. However, the bunk offensive philosophy that is so narrow-minded that we literally cannot win if we don't hit a decent clip of our threes is absolutely a constant contributing factor to our losses. Yet, Joe refuses to acknowledge this and work in contingency plans; rather, he just continues to preach the philosophy of there being "no such thing as a bad three".

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #376 on: March 14, 2023, 12:07:04 AM »

Offline hodgy03038

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3701
  • Tommy Points: 440
  • Marcus Smart #1 Fan
Cannot beat teams you are supposed to beat easily. 1st round exit. Joe seemed good for a while but he is over his head.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #377 on: March 14, 2023, 11:04:38 AM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29509
  • Tommy Points: 2923
  • On To Banner 18!
Our defense has become a joke. There's a lot of other problems too, yes, but it feels like we're back to every game now just having some average player from a team (even a bad one) going off for 28+ points regularly, and opposing teams are putting up 110+ on us often it seems.

I know the league is continuing to change and there's an emphasis on offense, but our identity is no longer defense. If we can't score, we don't win much anymore. Since starting the season 21-5, we're 26-17 since. That's solid, but not elite. Other teams are picking up the pace and finding a groove meanwhile which doesn't bode well for us
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #378 on: March 14, 2023, 11:26:40 AM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Tommy Points: 590
Our defense has become a joke. There's a lot of other problems too, yes, but it feels like we're back to every game now just having some average player from a team (even a bad one) going off for 28+ points regularly, and opposing teams are putting up 110+ on us often it seems.

I know the league is continuing to change and there's an emphasis on offense, but our identity is no longer defense. If we can't score, we don't win much anymore. Since starting the season 21-5, we're 26-17 since. That's solid, but not elite. Other teams are picking up the pace and finding a groove meanwhile which doesn't bode well for us

Missing 3's puts pressure on the defense. We're handing the other team fast breaks because "MaTh" dictates we should chuck 50 threes a game.
Still don't believe in Joe.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #379 on: March 14, 2023, 11:52:28 AM »

Online scaryjerry

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2898
  • Tommy Points: 175
Cannot beat teams you are supposed to beat easily. 1st round exit. Joe seemed good for a while but he is over his head.

Our star player missed a point blank layup at the end of the game as he usually does. The NBA is a players league, no matter how good or bad the coach may be they should’ve easily won that game. 100% on the players.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #380 on: March 14, 2023, 12:47:54 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Tommy Points: 590
Cannot beat teams you are supposed to beat easily. 1st round exit. Joe seemed good for a while but he is over his head.

Our star player missed a point blank layup at the end of the game as he usually does. The NBA is a players league, no matter how good or bad the coach may be they should’ve easily won that game. 100% on the players.

then Joe needs to hold them accountable. No one should be immune from sitting or being called out. He could call the whole team out if need be.

This is why he's a bad fit. These guys, and it's crazy at this age and level, are too immature to take initiative. This is why I believe separated Ime from Brad and Joe. He didn't put up with the BS and by Jan last year, they started listening to "dad."

I firmly believe they suffer from entitlement and just don't put the work in. They're acting like a vet team who has one a title or 2 and saving themselves for the playoffs.

There's only a couple guys who are beyond having their effort questioned, the rest just are just coasting. Joe has to start sending a message. IDC how good Tatum and the rest are, if they're going to no show, then sit them or do something that will get their attention. Right now they look like they have 0 fear of not trying. 
Still don't believe in Joe.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #381 on: March 14, 2023, 01:02:52 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47135
  • Tommy Points: 2401
Cannot beat teams you are supposed to beat easily. 1st round exit. Joe seemed good for a while but he is over his head.

Our star player missed a point blank layup at the end of the game as he usually does. The NBA is a players league, no matter how good or bad the coach may be they should’ve easily won that game. 100% on the players.

then Joe needs to hold them accountable. No one should be immune from sitting or being called out. He could call the whole team out if need be.

This is why he's a bad fit. These guys, and it's crazy at this age and level, are too immature to take initiative. This is why I believe separated Ime from Brad and Joe. He didn't put up with the BS and by Jan last year, they started listening to "dad."

I firmly believe they suffer from entitlement and just don't put the work in. They're acting like a vet team who has one a title or 2 and saving themselves for the playoffs.

There's only a couple guys who are beyond having their effort questioned, the rest just are just coasting. Joe has to start sending a message. IDC how good Tatum and the rest are, if they're going to no show, then sit them or do something that will get their attention. Right now they look like they have 0 fear of not trying.

Stuff like this always makes me think of Scott Skiles coming into training camp wearing a T-Shirt saying "There is no highway, only my way". Talk about setting a tone from day one.

Skiles was great for this stuff - for sitting starters who weren't giving enough effort. For riding bench players who had a hot hand. For dropping bench players and turning to 3rd stringers if they weren't giving effort. For playing 3rd stringers clutch minutes if they were the ones giving effort. Making effort and focus the baseline for how you get on the court and when you don't give it, you don't play.

I loved Skiles. I thought he was one of the league's top coaches 10-15 years ago. Don't think he adapted well to the offensive changes / style of play changes though, unfortunately.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #382 on: March 14, 2023, 01:19:33 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58537
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
We shot 12-42 for a whopping 28.6% from three tonight, but I guarantee you if someone brings it up to Joe he'll point to the missed layup at the end as "proof" of his argument that there's no difference in layups and threes.

https://twitter.com/AdamHimmelsbach/status/1635476458238771200

Quote
Mazzulla on Celtics going 12 for 42 on threes on a night they had lots of success getting to the rim.

"The threes, people like to talk about those. Free throws, offensive rebounds, second-chance points and turnovers. That’s the game. That’s everything."

Called it.

It's almost like it's the same exact story every night but you're too stubborn and dogmatic to do anything about it. This guy is just too immature. He simply refuses to look at the evidence and let that impact his decision-making.

He's also not wrong tho. The team hit 12 threes, the rockets hit 11 and only shot 31% from three. The three ball was not really the deciding factor. The Celtics basically played the rockets even or little below even in every aspect of the game.

Threes: 12 on 42 vs 11 on 35 for Rockets.
FT's: Allow 27 vs taking 21 (made 19 vs 20 for rockets)
oREB: Gave up 15, got 10.
Assists: Had 13, rockets had 27!
Turnovers: Generated 10, gave up 13.

Its hard to say its threes that lost you this game when a 15 win team won all the hustle stats.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I'm saying the entire philosophy that is overreliant on three point shooting absolutely was a significant component of this loss, as well as most of our other losses. The entire offensive philosophy revolves around us hitting a large proportion of our threes, and when we don't hit those threes we don't adjust - we just continue to shoot threes hoping they go in.

We shot an abysmal 12 of 42 and were off on the three all night for a whopping 28.6%, and the threes constituted 48% of our total field goal attempts. On the contrary, we were 27 of 45 on two point field goals tonight for an efficient 60%, and they only constituted 52% of our total shots. The Rockets only took threes as 39% of their shots, and they benefitted from more free throws and better looks because of it.

A competent offensive philosophy doesn't just continue to jack up threes all night when you're not hitting them. A competent offensive philosophy finds other, more efficient and higher percentage ways to score when the three isn't working. All it took was a little less emphasis on the three and we win this game, and that's been an issue in virtually all of our losses.

No, it wasn't wholly the reason for the loss, as our abysmal rebounding and overall lack of energy and defensive urgency clearly played a role, too. It's never a singular reason. However, the bunk offensive philosophy that is so narrow-minded that we literally cannot win if we don't hit a decent clip of our threes is absolutely a constant contributing factor to our losses. Yet, Joe refuses to acknowledge this and work in contingency plans; rather, he just continues to preach the philosophy of there being "no such thing as a bad three".

Yeah, just bomb away from 3PT, no adjustments.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #383 on: March 14, 2023, 01:59:41 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5515
  • Tommy Points: 549
We shot 12-42 for a whopping 28.6% from three tonight, but I guarantee you if someone brings it up to Joe he'll point to the missed layup at the end as "proof" of his argument that there's no difference in layups and threes.

https://twitter.com/AdamHimmelsbach/status/1635476458238771200

Quote
Mazzulla on Celtics going 12 for 42 on threes on a night they had lots of success getting to the rim.

"The threes, people like to talk about those. Free throws, offensive rebounds, second-chance points and turnovers. That’s the game. That’s everything."

Called it.

It's almost like it's the same exact story every night but you're too stubborn and dogmatic to do anything about it. This guy is just too immature. He simply refuses to look at the evidence and let that impact his decision-making.

He's also not wrong tho. The team hit 12 threes, the rockets hit 11 and only shot 31% from three. The three ball was not really the deciding factor. The Celtics basically played the rockets even or little below even in every aspect of the game.

Threes: 12 on 42 vs 11 on 35 for Rockets.
FT's: Allow 27 vs taking 21 (made 19 vs 20 for rockets)
oREB: Gave up 15, got 10.
Assists: Had 13, rockets had 27!
Turnovers: Generated 10, gave up 13.

Its hard to say its threes that lost you this game when a 15 win team won all the hustle stats.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I'm saying the entire philosophy that is overreliant on three point shooting absolutely was a significant component of this loss, as well as most of our other losses. The entire offensive philosophy revolves around us hitting a large proportion of our threes, and when we don't hit those threes we don't adjust - we just continue to shoot threes hoping they go in.

We shot an abysmal 12 of 42 and were off on the three all night for a whopping 28.6%, and the threes constituted 48% of our total field goal attempts. On the contrary, we were 27 of 45 on two point field goals tonight for an efficient 60%, and they only constituted 52% of our total shots. The Rockets only took threes as 39% of their shots, and they benefitted from more free throws and better looks because of it.

A competent offensive philosophy doesn't just continue to jack up threes all night when you're not hitting them. A competent offensive philosophy finds other, more efficient and higher percentage ways to score when the three isn't working. All it took was a little less emphasis on the three and we win this game, and that's been an issue in virtually all of our losses.

No, it wasn't wholly the reason for the loss, as our abysmal rebounding and overall lack of energy and defensive urgency clearly played a role, too. It's never a singular reason. However, the bunk offensive philosophy that is so narrow-minded that we literally cannot win if we don't hit a decent clip of our threes is absolutely a constant contributing factor to our losses. Yet, Joe refuses to acknowledge this and work in contingency plans; rather, he just continues to preach the philosophy of there being "no such thing as a bad three".

I get what you're saying. I just sort of think Joe is right.

Look, high rates of three-point shooting will lead to outcomes that naturally rely more on three-point shooting than lower rates. The Celtics this year are:

26-0 when shooting at least 40% from three.
15-8 when shooting when shooting greater than 32%, but less than 40%.
5-14 when shooting 32% or less.

That means in games when the C's shoot at least 32% they are 41-8. Thats a 68.5 win pace. And its more than 2/3's of their games. The c's don't need to shoot amazing to win (tho when they do, they are literally unbeatable), they need to not shoot awful. And guess what, they have a lot of good shooters. They are 37.7% as a team is good for 5th in the league.

High 3 point rates will lead to games where you will lose because you took too many threes and didn't make them, but if you're good at hitting threes it will on the whole lead to a lot MORE games where you make a lot and win. Its not a bad strategy. Play good defense, shoot a bunch of threes almost let the HOU rockets beat one of the greatest teams of all time (none of the teams today are close to that level).

So ya, it will lead to some losses. But its not clear to me that as the team is currently constructed they would be better off taking more twos vs threes.

Re: Celtics (47-21) at Rockets (15-52) Game #69 3/13/23
« Reply #384 on: March 14, 2023, 07:14:37 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47892
  • Tommy Points: 2906
We shot 12-42 for a whopping 28.6% from three tonight, but I guarantee you if someone brings it up to Joe he'll point to the missed layup at the end as "proof" of his argument that there's no difference in layups and threes.

https://twitter.com/AdamHimmelsbach/status/1635476458238771200

Quote
Mazzulla on Celtics going 12 for 42 on threes on a night they had lots of success getting to the rim.

"The threes, people like to talk about those. Free throws, offensive rebounds, second-chance points and turnovers. That’s the game. That’s everything."

Called it.

It's almost like it's the same exact story every night but you're too stubborn and dogmatic to do anything about it. This guy is just too immature. He simply refuses to look at the evidence and let that impact his decision-making.

He's also not wrong tho. The team hit 12 threes, the rockets hit 11 and only shot 31% from three. The three ball was not really the deciding factor. The Celtics basically played the rockets even or little below even in every aspect of the game.

Threes: 12 on 42 vs 11 on 35 for Rockets.
FT's: Allow 27 vs taking 21 (made 19 vs 20 for rockets)
oREB: Gave up 15, got 10.
Assists: Had 13, rockets had 27!
Turnovers: Generated 10, gave up 13.

Its hard to say its threes that lost you this game when a 15 win team won all the hustle stats.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I'm saying the entire philosophy that is overreliant on three point shooting absolutely was a significant component of this loss, as well as most of our other losses. The entire offensive philosophy revolves around us hitting a large proportion of our threes, and when we don't hit those threes we don't adjust - we just continue to shoot threes hoping they go in.

We shot an abysmal 12 of 42 and were off on the three all night for a whopping 28.6%, and the threes constituted 48% of our total field goal attempts. On the contrary, we were 27 of 45 on two point field goals tonight for an efficient 60%, and they only constituted 52% of our total shots. The Rockets only took threes as 39% of their shots, and they benefitted from more free throws and better looks because of it.

A competent offensive philosophy doesn't just continue to jack up threes all night when you're not hitting them. A competent offensive philosophy finds other, more efficient and higher percentage ways to score when the three isn't working. All it took was a little less emphasis on the three and we win this game, and that's been an issue in virtually all of our losses.

No, it wasn't wholly the reason for the loss, as our abysmal rebounding and overall lack of energy and defensive urgency clearly played a role, too. It's never a singular reason. However, the bunk offensive philosophy that is so narrow-minded that we literally cannot win if we don't hit a decent clip of our threes is absolutely a constant contributing factor to our losses. Yet, Joe refuses to acknowledge this and work in contingency plans; rather, he just continues to preach the philosophy of there being "no such thing as a bad three".

I get what you're saying. I just sort of think Joe is right.

Look, high rates of three-point shooting will lead to outcomes that naturally rely more on three-point shooting than lower rates. The Celtics this year are:

26-0 when shooting at least 40% from three.
15-8 when shooting when shooting greater than 32%, but less than 40%.
5-14 when shooting 32% or less.

That means in games when the C's shoot at least 32% they are 41-8. Thats a 68.5 win pace. And its more than 2/3's of their games. The c's don't need to shoot amazing to win (tho when they do, they are literally unbeatable), they need to not shoot awful. And guess what, they have a lot of good shooters. They are 37.7% as a team is good for 5th in the league.

High 3 point rates will lead to games where you will lose because you took too many threes and didn't make them, but if you're good at hitting threes it will on the whole lead to a lot MORE games where you make a lot and win. Its not a bad strategy. Play good defense, shoot a bunch of threes almost let the HOU rockets beat one of the greatest teams of all time (none of the teams today are close to that level).

So ya, it will lead to some losses. But its not clear to me that as the team is currently constructed they would be better off taking more twos vs threes.

You’re presenting it like there’s no other options, though - shoot primarily threes or primarily twos.

That’s not what most of us are arguing. In fact, I think most of us are generally fine with an overall three point heavy offense, as we have the shooters and can generally do it well and effectively when it’s also combined with good ball and player movement and not iso.

However, there simply has to be a contingency plan for when we’re shooting like we were last night. It was blatantly obvious last night - particularly with Tatum, last layup notwithstanding - that were consistently more accurate and efficient in our scoring when taking it to the hole rather than jacking threes. Yet, that’s the problem - it’s like we accept that we’re going to lose games when we don’t shoot the three well, and we do nothing to combat it and just keep shooting the three.

That’s just not a championship-level offensive scheme, particularly when defenses buckle down in the playoffs and you don’t have two of the top 5 all time shooters on your team (GS). I don’t see how that’s a successful playoff strategy of putting all of our eggs in the three point shooting percentage basket with no real contingency plan.