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
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".