Author Topic: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22  (Read 3552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #300 on: November 24, 2022, 08:25:14 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8792
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I'm willing to bet TPs with anyone that Timelord starts from his first day back.

From the 16th to the 27th of December the team is home. Let's say he debuts on Xmas Day.  That means Rob will be getting a bunch of practice time in with the team before getting into the lineup which should get him up to speed with his starting play mates.

Since he is going to be a starter and will be practicing with the starters for a while already, it makes sense to have his minutes, if they are restricted, to be while he is playing with the guys he is supposed to be playing most of his minutes with.

For that reason, I say he starts, plays 5-6 minutes then sits until there's just 5-6 minutes left in the half, then plays those minutes with the starters. Rinse and repeat in the 2nd half.

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #301 on: November 24, 2022, 08:34:55 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8564
  • Tommy Points: 266
Been busy at work all day so I couldn't check the game. Delighted to see Celtics get back in the win column. As for Timelord returning from injury I think the wisest course if action would be to build him up gradually and not rush him back. He is more important for the post season.

I've been saying since before the "extended injury time" to bring TL off the bench and start Tatum at PF. Tatum has hopefully proven to everyone on here he can play PF full time considering his numbers and the team wins. Al, TL, Kornet and (some) Grant should be sharing the Center minutes keeping Al and TL healthy. Go with something like

C-Al/TL/Kornet
PF-Tatum/Grant/Vonleh
SF-JB/Hauser
SG-White/PP
PG-Smart/Brogdon

Other than when facing Bucks and Al on a B2B I like it going to this by default.

I think Rob is better as a starter because he sets a tone on D.   I realize he may come off the bench when he returns, but I would rather see Al do that as it gives him better matchups or return to double big.
You probably need more of that TL defense off the bench assuming Hauser, Grant and Brogdon run with TL and a Jay. Brogdon would likely maximize TL more than anyone else. TL covers the paint if guys get by the less mobile bench players. Also looking at the crazy offense that the team has going I'm not breaking it up.

Watched a few breakdown videos on the C's offense. The team IQ with player movement and passing is really shocking based on last year. It has a lot to do with Tatum and Whites fit as well as the roles of Hauser and Brogdon off the bench. Everyone just slides around with the ballhandler having great options. It will only get stronger chemistry wise by the time TL returns.

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #302 on: November 24, 2022, 10:07:14 AM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Tommy Points: 776
I just got home ........ looks like Mazulla is still playing stubborn with his timeouts - to allow a 27-point lead to evaporate to single digits and the last two possessions were Tatum jacking up 28-foot shots. I am beginning to really dislike Mazzula.

A timeout doesnít stop a run. The players do.

Yes, timeouts do stop runs.
You see it every night.

He called one late in the third, when the run started. They didnít get better. Timeouts were obviously not the issue.

Good Lord, that is one exception you are pulling out of the entire season.
Mazzulla has consistently allowed big leads to disappear without at least trying something different.

Youíre complaining that Mazzulla was terrible *in this game*. I was responding by talking about *this game*.

My reference was the entire season and I was ASKING if he did it again tonite........
which he apparently did because he allowed the run without a timeout after the timeout you mentioned.
It's Coaching 101 and this young, inexperienced guy thinks he has some new answer to managing games.
That is what bothers me.
Try it once in awhile if you want Joe, just not all the time. Keep it simple during your interim season.

Having said that, it was very good to see the Celts respond tonite after the Bulls game.

The coach has said on multiple occasions that he wants the players to figure things out while the game is being played. The Celtics have the best record in the NBA. I think itís working out just fine.
Yeah, unless you can point to the exact times in the 4 losses that a timeout should have been called and prove beyond a doubt that calling one then would have changed the outcomes of those 4 games(and no one can do that), what's to complain about? The philosophy doesn't appear to be hurting the team. And, Mazzula never said he would coach this way in the playoffs. So why complain? Unless complaining is just your schtick.

Positive Nick ......... never let a criticism go unchallenged, huh ?

Your idea of reviewing all four losses and analyzing the timeouts in just those games is entirely missing the point.
There are plenty of other posters here who rail against Mazzula and his timeout philosophy. I am hardly alone.
Check the game threads.

People will always find something to complain about. Also innovatuons will never be born if people just follow traditional beliefs without challenging them. How many championships would the warriors have if they followed years old gameplay? Im guessing 0?

I will also add that if you look at the game log, you are going to have a very hard time finding the point where Mazzulla should have called his timeout. Whatever happened in other games, I did not see it during this game. If you want to say he always does it, so you assume thatís what happened last night, I say, having watched the game and looked over the game log, that this assumption is wrong.  Other things can happen during games, and they did last night. The worst period the Cs had was a 9-point rally by the Mavs when the lead went from 25 points to 16. The whole thing took 3:15,
And came immediately *after* the Cs took a timeout. The Cs were driving hard to the cup - I assume, carrying out Joeís plan from the TO, but did not convert, while the Mavs hit their shots. Then we went to end of quarter - a long play stoppage, effectively a timeout.

Joe took another timeout at 6:47. The the Cs were up 15, at the time, basically where they were at the start of the quarter, but the Mavs were at the line with the chance to get within 13. So, he called the timeout. Cs got the ball and Tatum missed his shot *right after the timeout* - he did not miss bc Joe failed to call a timeout. Next trip Luka was well-defended and hit a 27-foot step back three. How does a timeout have anything to do with that? Mavs down 10. Should he have called another? I donít see it. Then each team scored three times until there was 3:23 left - Cs added two to our lead, because we hit a 3. Mavs call a full timeout - so no need for Boston to call one. Where did Joe need to call timeout there? Over the next 1:21 of play that Dallas timeout failed to turn the tide - we built the lead to 17 and the game was over.

And I will add: the ESPN game log doesnít include any tv timeouts. So I am pretty sure there were some stoppages that arenít in the game log.

Iíve seen Boston give up 15-2 runs when I wanted a timeout. Last night just didnít look like that to me. 

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #303 on: November 24, 2022, 10:41:14 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8792
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I just got home ........ looks like Mazulla is still playing stubborn with his timeouts - to allow a 27-point lead to evaporate to single digits and the last two possessions were Tatum jacking up 28-foot shots. I am beginning to really dislike Mazzula.

A timeout doesnít stop a run. The players do.

Yes, timeouts do stop runs.
You see it every night.

He called one late in the third, when the run started. They didnít get better. Timeouts were obviously not the issue.

Good Lord, that is one exception you are pulling out of the entire season.
Mazzulla has consistently allowed big leads to disappear without at least trying something different.

Youíre complaining that Mazzulla was terrible *in this game*. I was responding by talking about *this game*.

My reference was the entire season and I was ASKING if he did it again tonite........
which he apparently did because he allowed the run without a timeout after the timeout you mentioned.
It's Coaching 101 and this young, inexperienced guy thinks he has some new answer to managing games.
That is what bothers me.
Try it once in awhile if you want Joe, just not all the time. Keep it simple during your interim season.

Having said that, it was very good to see the Celts respond tonite after the Bulls game.

The coach has said on multiple occasions that he wants the players to figure things out while the game is being played. The Celtics have the best record in the NBA. I think itís working out just fine.
Yeah, unless you can point to the exact times in the 4 losses that a timeout should have been called and prove beyond a doubt that calling one then would have changed the outcomes of those 4 games(and no one can do that), what's to complain about? The philosophy doesn't appear to be hurting the team. And, Mazzula never said he would coach this way in the playoffs. So why complain? Unless complaining is just your schtick.

Positive Nick ......... never let a criticism go unchallenged, huh ?

Your idea of reviewing all four losses and analyzing the timeouts in just those games is entirely missing the point.
There are plenty of other posters here who rail against Mazzula and his timeout philosophy. I am hardly alone.
Check the game threads.

People will always find something to complain about. Also innovatuons will never be born if people just follow traditional beliefs without challenging them. How many championships would the warriors have if they followed years old gameplay? Im guessing 0?

I will also add that if you look at the game log, you are going to have a very hard time finding the point where Mazzulla should have called his timeout. Whatever happened in other games, I did not see it during this game. If you want to say he always does it, so you assume thatís what happened last night, I say, having watched the game and looked over the game log, that this assumption is wrong.  Other things can happen during games, and they did last night. The worst period the Cs had was a 9-point rally by the Mavs when the lead went from 25 points to 16. The whole thing took 3:15,
And came immediately *after* the Cs took a timeout. The Cs were driving hard to the cup - I assume, carrying out Joeís plan from the TO, but did not convert, while the Mavs hit their shots. Then we went to end of quarter - a long play stoppage, effectively a timeout.

Joe took another timeout at 6:47. The the Cs were up 15, at the time, basically where they were at the start of the quarter, but the Mavs were at the line with the chance to get within 13. So, he called the timeout. Cs got the ball and Tatum missed his shot *right after the timeout* - he did not miss bc Joe failed to call a timeout. Next trip Luka was well-defended and hit a 27-foot step back three. How does a timeout have anything to do with that? Mavs down 10. Should he have called another? I donít see it. Then each team scored three times until there was 3:23 left - Cs added two to our lead, because we hit a 3. Mavs call a full timeout - so no need for Boston to call one. Where did Joe need to call timeout there? Over the next 1:21 of play that Dallas timeout failed to turn the tide - we built the lead to 17 and the game was over.

And I will add: the ESPN game log doesnít include any tv timeouts. So I am pretty sure there were some stoppages that arenít in the game log.

Iíve seen Boston give up 15-2 runs when I wanted a timeout. Last night just didnít look like that to me.
TV timeouts are attributed to each team starting with the home team and oscillating back and forth and occur after the first stoppage of play after the 7 minute and 3 minute mark of each quarter, if the team doesn't take a timeout on their own after those marks.

These are mandatory. So out of the 7 timeouts a team gets, 4 are mandatory and occur at certain times depending on whether you are home or away. Also, a team can only use 4 timeouts in the 4th quarter and only 2 timeouts in the final 2 minutes of the game.

So you will see no TV timeouts in a box score. They are given to the team according to the schedule I listed above.

This is why the screams for timeouts, especially early in game are so ridiculous. Over the course of the game, you only have three that aren't mandatory for you to take at a certain time. So when the team starts a little slow and people are going nuts to call a timeout at the 9 or 8 minute mark in the first quarter of a home game, doing so is stupid because you will have to call or be charged with another timeout after the 7 minute mark.

And coaches like to save timeouts for the 4th quarter when they might be most needed during a close game.

I guarantee that almost all the people going crazy about timeouts in these game threads have no idea about these rules. Oh, they'll come back replying to this saying they do, but I wouldn't believe them, because if they did, they would see how foolish some of their calls for timeouts really are.


Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #304 on: November 24, 2022, 10:51:04 AM »

Online Neurotic Guy

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20733
  • Tommy Points: 2228
Glad that the Mavs got no closer than 9, but that Horford 3 that got a very fortunate bounce was critical.  Mavs with the ball down 9 would not have felt comfortable.  I can picture Luka lofting a contested 26 footer to put the Mavs down 6.

I don't like that the C's are still letting teams back into games when the door should be slammed shut.  This game was a move in the right direction as they buckled down and didn't let it get too close, but Mavs never should have been able to smell comeback in this one.   

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #305 on: November 24, 2022, 11:19:34 AM »

Offline G-Bones

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 174
  • Tommy Points: 35
The NBA refs help to keep games close.  They are in the entertainment business

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #306 on: November 24, 2022, 01:59:11 PM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21610
  • Tommy Points: 1893
  • On To Banner 18!
I'd give Tatum a rest this Friday. It's a marathon not a sprint
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Mavericks (9-7) at Celtics (13-4) Game #18 11/23/22
« Reply #307 on: November 24, 2022, 05:28:38 PM »

Offline tenn_smoothie

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4820
  • Tommy Points: 553
Brick Wall > Head
The Four Celtic Generals:
Russell - Cowens - Bird - Garnett

The Four Celtic Lieutenants:
Cousy - Havlicek - McHale - Pierce