Bucks (0-0) at Celtics (0-0) Game #1 12/23/20

[gouki88]

So, to those that scream about Brad Stevens and his timeouts, tonight with around 9:00 left on the clock Milwaukee was starting a run and instead of calling a timeout, Stevens saved it because the TV timeout was coming up.

Some were complaining about this as they usually do. But it's a good thing he saved it because he needed one with 8.9 seconds remaining so took his last timeout. He told JT go make it happen with confidence and Tatum hits his shot.

You can't constantly call timeouts early in the game because you'll need them late. You especially don't do it if a TV timeout is coming up quickly.

Uh, except the fact that it likely would have not been that close at that point had Brad effectively used the timeouts earlier, thus obviating the need for the extra timeout anyways. This is revisionist history. The fact that we won *despite* the bad judgment made at that time does not make it any less bad of a call. If we would have better managed that run and not let them get momentum in that way it's likely that there's more distance between us in the final minutes.

Defend him all you want, but that's a consistent weak spot of Brad's that *regularly* loses us games because we're not always lucky enough for Tatum to bank in a last-second three and Giannis to miss a go-ahead free throw for us to win it.

Massively clutching at straws here, lol

I mean, it's not though. If anything this argument about the usefulness of the timeout given what happened tonight is.

Nick's position is based on the supposition that if we had used the timeout the game would've gone *exactly* as it did tonight when we didn't use the timeout originally, which in itself is unrealistic based on pure probability and causality.

An effective use of the timeout to manage the Bucks' run there very well could've changed the flow and course of the game, leading to a larger lead and less close game down the stretch. That's the entire argument I'm making. You call the timeout to stop the run, settle your guys down, and then set something up to try and get your guys going again.

Sure, maybe it wouldn't have worked out, but it's illogical to posit that the game would've occurred the exact way it did with or without the timeout there. That's poor logic, and thus is hardly evidence that Brad made the right call to let them continue on that major run that made this a game down the stretch in the first place.

There’s literally no way you can prove the calling of a timeout would have stymied the Bucks. You’re guilty of the exact same things you’re criticising Nick for

Dang, bro, I know it was long but at least read the whole post!  I did say exactly that lol Yeah, it may not have worked - or, hell, perhaps it could have even perhaps made things worse somehow - but what it wouldn't have done is have led to the exact same set of occurences that did occur.

Sure, maybe it wouldn't have worked out, but it's illogical to posit that the game would've occurred the exact way it did with or without the timeout there.

So your point of complaint is... what exactly? We won, in no small part due to Brad hanging on to that timeout, and there's no way of showing that the use of a timeout would have changed anything.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

My notes:

CBS used Theis a bit more in the "swing" role. He not only handled the ball in the DHOs, but he also came off the wing a bit. Theis is a solid basketball player, but I can't help but feeling like we've tapped every ounce of his basketball skill.

Robert Williams got manhandled by Brook Lopez, particularly in his minutes in the first half. Lopez does that to a lot of bigs in the NBA, but Williams has got to figure out how to be effective when bigs are pushing him around.

It felt like we were a step slow to every loose ball and defensive rebound.

I love the Marcus Smart we saw tonight. Only 3 shots, but still had a huge impact on the game.

Jeff Teague is really good at basketball. I think the Teague-Pritchard backcourt in bench minutes will be really effective by mid-season. They might extend leads and cut opposing leads for the starters. That's something we haven't seen in awhile in Boston.

I like what I saw from Grant Williams tonight, even though his on court impact was negative. We need a big man that can confidently shoot the three. He's the guy who can fill that role. Keep shooting!

I love an offense built around Brown and Tatum. I like it when those guys get 45-50 shots a game (although I'd prefer that number lower and their free throws higher). It was great to see Brown carry the offense for a few stretches tonight. Tatum forced some shots, but I think he will figure out how to pick his moments and when to distribute like he did in the playoffs.

[Atzar]

Good question. I've done a bit of research on this before, but it's something I'm interested and continuously reading about. The statistical and economical evidence is mixed on this, and it's further complicated by some other deeper statistical/economical questions and conflicts within the game that impact upon this question.

The most difficult one in particular is whether there is such a thing as "momentum" or a "hot streak" in sports like this, particularly basketball. One side says that, no, there is no such a thing as "momentum" or a "hot streak"; rather, these are just statistical anomalies of chance with several shots, defensive stops, plays, etc. just happening by chance to occur in a positive direction for the team in a short amount of time. The other side (which I am in agreement with) argues that there is such a thing as "momentum" and "hot streaks", which are likely psychological phenomena leading to increased performance that serve as catalysts for the "momentum" and "hot streaks".

Naturally, the former group is generally on the side that things like timeouts are not effective at stopping "runs", because these are really just statistical anomalies that will revert back to normalcy on their own without any conscious efforts by the opposition. The latter group is generally on the side that things like timeouts can be effective to stop "runs", as the runs are primarily based on other psychological, emotional, or other factors rather than just statistical anomalies.

That's a really basic and rough interpretation (lol), but that's one part of the issue that makes this a difficult thing to truly assess. So I do admit that some of this is based upon basketball philosophy, and I - along with many other coaches in the league and people on here - hold a different philosophy when it comes to this issue. But I've seen Brad blow enough games with this decision to forego timeouts in these scenarios that I'm firmly entrenched in this camp. (The same goes for the timeout prior to a game-winning or game-tying end of game offensive scenario. I'm all for the timeout in that scenario, especially with someone as good at drawing up ATO plays as Brad. Yet Brad holds the "let them play" philosophy and prioritizes the iso play and not letting the defense set over drawing up an efficient, set play. I find this very aggravating lol)

I appreciate the thoughtful response.  And further reading supported the philosophical split that you mentioned here.  I read one study on timeout usage in the NCAA that claimed an improvement of 1.5-2.2 points over the five minutes following a timeout, and then a read another study on usage in the NBA that stated such timeouts had no meaningful effect. 

At the very least, it appears fair to say that there are multiple schools of thought and no definitive answer to the question.

TP. Definitely a contentious area.

I'm most interested in the question around whether there is such a thing as "momentum" or having the "hot hand" in basketball. As someone who has played a lot of basketball at multiple levels (a lot of times not that well either lol), I firmly believe that there is such a thing as the "hot hand", as something feels different when you get in those zones and are hitting everything in the building. What are your thoughts on this? Would be interested to know how others feel on this issue, too.

I do believe in a "hot hand" phenomenon.  I've watched too much of shooters like Lillard, Curry, Thompson, Durant, etc getting "hot" and continuously hitting shots of increasing absurdity to think that it doesn't exist.  Seeing an elite shooter get in "the zone" is IMO one of the most impressive things in basketball. 

The part that I'm not as firm on is the idea that a timeout by itself has any meaningful effect on ending momentum.  A change in personnel can do it.  A change in scheme or assignment can do it.  Giving tired players a chance to catch their breath can have an effect (though the other team gets to rest, too).  But I don't think that calling a timeout after an 8-0 run "just to calm down" carries any promise of effect.  IMO it would be the tactical adjustments that accompany the break that would be more likely to have an impact.  Otherwise, I'd be more inclined to attribute changes in performance to statistical noise.  All else being equal, I don't think a guy who hit three straight shots is any more or less likely to hit the fourth just because you called a timeout in between.

[jpotter33]

Good question. I've done a bit of research on this before, but it's something I'm interested and continuously reading about. The statistical and economical evidence is mixed on this, and it's further complicated by some other deeper statistical/economical questions and conflicts within the game that impact upon this question.

The most difficult one in particular is whether there is such a thing as "momentum" or a "hot streak" in sports like this, particularly basketball. One side says that, no, there is no such a thing as "momentum" or a "hot streak"; rather, these are just statistical anomalies of chance with several shots, defensive stops, plays, etc. just happening by chance to occur in a positive direction for the team in a short amount of time. The other side (which I am in agreement with) argues that there is such a thing as "momentum" and "hot streaks", which are likely psychological phenomena leading to increased performance that serve as catalysts for the "momentum" and "hot streaks".

Naturally, the former group is generally on the side that things like timeouts are not effective at stopping "runs", because these are really just statistical anomalies that will revert back to normalcy on their own without any conscious efforts by the opposition. The latter group is generally on the side that things like timeouts can be effective to stop "runs", as the runs are primarily based on other psychological, emotional, or other factors rather than just statistical anomalies.

That's a really basic and rough interpretation (lol), but that's one part of the issue that makes this a difficult thing to truly assess. So I do admit that some of this is based upon basketball philosophy, and I - along with many other coaches in the league and people on here - hold a different philosophy when it comes to this issue. But I've seen Brad blow enough games with this decision to forego timeouts in these scenarios that I'm firmly entrenched in this camp. (The same goes for the timeout prior to a game-winning or game-tying end of game offensive scenario. I'm all for the timeout in that scenario, especially with someone as good at drawing up ATO plays as Brad. Yet Brad holds the "let them play" philosophy and prioritizes the iso play and not letting the defense set over drawing up an efficient, set play. I find this very aggravating lol)

I appreciate the thoughtful response.  And further reading supported the philosophical split that you mentioned here.  I read one study on timeout usage in the NCAA that claimed an improvement of 1.5-2.2 points over the five minutes following a timeout, and then a read another study on usage in the NBA that stated such timeouts had no meaningful effect. 

At the very least, it appears fair to say that there are multiple schools of thought and no definitive answer to the question.

TP. Definitely a contentious area.

I'm most interested in the question around whether there is such a thing as "momentum" or having the "hot hand" in basketball. As someone who has played a lot of basketball at multiple levels (a lot of times not that well either lol), I firmly believe that there is such a thing as the "hot hand", as something feels different when you get in those zones and are hitting everything in the building. What are your thoughts on this? Would be interested to know how others feel on this issue, too.

I do believe in a "hot hand" phenomenon.  I've watched too much of shooters like Lillard, Curry, Thompson, Durant, etc getting "hot" and continuously hitting shots of increasing absurdity to think that it doesn't exist.  Seeing an elite shooter get in "the zone" is IMO one of the most impressive things in basketball. 

The part that I'm not as firm on is the idea that a timeout by itself has any meaningful effect on ending momentum.  A change in personnel can do it.  A change in scheme or assignment can do it.  Giving tired players a chance to catch their breath can have an effect (though the other team gets to rest, too).  But I don't think that calling a timeout after an 8-0 run "just to calm down" carries any promise of effect. IMO it would be the tactical adjustments that accompany the break that would be more likely to have an impact.  Otherwise, I'd be more inclined to attribute changes in performance to statistical noise.  All else being equal, I don't think a guy who hit three straight shots is any more or less likely to hit the fourth just because you called a timeout in between.

But that's kind of my point. I'm not arguing that there's one single thing that will break the momentum of the other team, but the timeout in that scenario allows several differing things to occur - guys get rest, they get calmed down, the coach can get in subs, they can set up a play to get an easy look at the bucket, they can set up  or reemphasize a defensive scheme, etc.

The timeout is really just the medium to allow these other strategies to occur, but it's better to do that sooner rather than later in the run so that there is more of a mitigation effect on the other team - either by proactively stopping the run or mitigating the damage that the run can do. There's certainly a judgment call on when that sweet spot is to call the timeout to end the run, and sure a lot of it is contextual based upon the score, flow of the game, remaining timeouts, etc. But Brad's philosophy consistently seems to wait 3-4-5 possessions too long before calling the timeout, which allows the other team not only to further cut into or build a lead, but also get more into a rhythm and groove that is harder to break.

[Atzar]

I do believe in a "hot hand" phenomenon.  I've watched too much of shooters like Lillard, Curry, Thompson, Durant, etc getting "hot" and continuously hitting shots of increasing absurdity to think that it doesn't exist.  Seeing an elite shooter get in "the zone" is IMO one of the most impressive things in basketball. 

The part that I'm not as firm on is the idea that a timeout by itself has any meaningful effect on ending momentum.  A change in personnel can do it.  A change in scheme or assignment can do it.  Giving tired players a chance to catch their breath can have an effect (though the other team gets to rest, too).  But I don't think that calling a timeout after an 8-0 run "just to calm down" carries any promise of effect. IMO it would be the tactical adjustments that accompany the break that would be more likely to have an impact.  Otherwise, I'd be more inclined to attribute changes in performance to statistical noise.  All else being equal, I don't think a guy who hit three straight shots is any more or less likely to hit the fourth just because you called a timeout in between.

But that's kind of my point. I'm not arguing that there's one single thing that will break the momentum of the other team, but the timeout in that scenario allows several differing things to occur - guys get rest, they get calmed down, the coach can get in subs, they can set up a play to get an easy look at the bucket, they can set up  or reemphasize a defensive scheme, etc.

The timeout is really just the medium to allow these other strategies to occur, but it's better to do that sooner rather than later in the run so that there is more of a mitigation effect on the other team - either by proactively stopping the run or mitigating the damage that the run can do. There's certainly a judgment call on when that sweet spot is to call the timeout to end the run, and sure a lot of it is contextual based upon the score, flow of the game, remaining timeouts, etc. But Brad's philosophy consistently seems to wait 3-4-5 possessions too long before calling the timeout, which allows the other team not only to further cut into or build a lead, but also get more into a rhythm and groove that is harder to break.

Granted.  If you have adjustments to make - substitutions, matchups, schemes that would more effectively counter what an opponent is trying to do to you - then by all means, call a timeout and make them. 

What if you don't, though?  What if a run is a result of execution rather than strategy?  You might have the right guys on the court making the right plays and getting the wrong results.  If the opponent is hitting contested shots on you, you may be fine with your defense and the opponent is just hitting shots.  That happens.  If you're missing layups and the other team is scoring in transition as a result, you might be fine with the shots you're getting and you just need to finish so you have time to set up your defense.  Again, that happens.   

There ARE moments in this game when statistics are what they are and a run is nothing more than a blip that requires no correction.  And admittedly, I'm saying this blind - I don't remember what the Bucks' run in the fourth quarter looked like, so I'm not speaking with particulars here.  But I would suggest that not every run requires a strategic timeout to halt it. 

[colincb]

I have a very strong stats background and from what I've seen there's no definitive statistical answer as to hot hands and stopping runs.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Giannis was called for 3 or 4 offensive fouls?...pretty good considering he had about 7 or 8, if you count all the straight arming he does all game

[nickagneta]

Giannis was called for 3 or 4 offensive fouls?...pretty good considering he had about 7 or 8, if you count all the straight arming he does all game

The one where he just shoved Brown to the ground to get the ball underneath for a layup was bad. So was the obvious superstar call when he ran over Semi.

[Ogaju]

looks like Brad may have saved something for the season opener that he did not show in preseason. Did Javonte even play?

[A Future of Stevens]

I have a very strong stats background and from what I've seen there's no definitive statistical answer as to hot hands and stopping runs.

A friend of mine works as an Actuary, and he has been driving this concept home for years. About once a year he sends me one article or another where hot hands don't necessarily exist. The eye test may tell us otherwise, but numbers don't lie.

[ozgod]

Missed the game  Sounds like it was an epic win  I'm going to watch it on DVR later today, but can anyone tell me why Nesmith didn't play? Is he injured?

I'm seeing a pattern, he doesn't start either of the preseason games and plays less than Pritchard overall, and then doesn't play at all in this game. I wonder if they are seeing something in him that suggests he's not ready, either defensively or maybe he's not quite picking up the Celtics sets yet?

Pritchard seems more composed and ready to contribute right away. That said, if Kemba was fit I wonder how many minutes Pritchard gets.

[SHAQATTACK]

Missed the game  Sounds like it was an epic win  I'm going to watch it on DVR later today, but can anyone tell me why Nesmith didn't play? Is he injured?

I'm seeing a pattern, he doesn't start either of the preseason games and plays less than Pritchard overall, and then doesn't play at all in this game. I wonder if they are seeing something in him that suggests he's not ready, either defensively or maybe he's not quite picking up the Celtics sets yet?

Pritchard seems more composed and ready to contribute right away. That said, if Kemba was fit I wonder how many minutes Pritchard gets.

because Kemba is not available,looks like he will limited from now on ,  they see an immediate need to get another ball handler in there ASAP to help Teague. Doesn't seem intimidated being thrown in the mix and has confidence in his shot and confidence of his team to makemthe right play or pass.   That was a ruff first NBA game against that bunch , only the Lakers would have been more brutal test.  He did as good as many journeyman we ve had would have done. Decent first game .

[SHAQATTACK]

Giannis was called for 3 or 4 offensive fouls?...pretty good considering he had about 7 or 8, if you count all the straight arming he does all game

he watched Lebrons career of pushing off and hammering players trying to cover him.   He watched the master of using the system of calls to his advantage.  That was a key tomthe win being able to,draw charges on him , sit him on the bench off,the floor.,

[footey]

I thought one big key to our victory last night was turnovers.

We only had 6.

Bucks had 16.

Our team really cleaned up their preseason sloppiness.

[cman88]

as amazing at Tatums shot was, that was poor shot selection.

I mean we were only down 1 point and he shot a step back three. I guess talented guys make those shots but I would rather drive and go for a layup or try and get a 2 pointer.

it worked out in the end, but if tatum doesnt hit that there would be alot of scrutiny on the shot selection