Joe Mazz's approach to timeouts - agree or disagree

[ozgod]

Gary Washburn had this article on Joe Mazz's coaching philosophy in the Globe yesterday. I should note that Joe is not quoted anywhere in the article regarding his timeout or coaching philosophies - rather this is Washburn's hypotheses based on observation. I happen to think his observations are pretty accurate - we've all seen how Joe doesn't call timeouts to stop runs. He tends to let the players play and figure it out for themselves, even if it costs the team the lead and maybe even the game.

Agree or disagree? Obviously it's not always black and white, but for the sake of getting an idea rather than giving a fence for everyone to sit on, pick what statement you generally agree with. If people really want an "it depends" fence, I will add it 

Here is the article. There are some other interesting points in there about Joe's views on challenges, as well as on the Cs' defense, but I'm not quoting that part as it's not relevant to the poll. There's a link to the full story for those who want to read it. I can post it in full if the paywall stops people from reading it all.

Celtics’ Joe Mazzulla forging his own path as an NBA coach
By Gary Washburn Globe Staff,Updated October 31, 2022, 7:59 p.m.

What we’re learning is stylistically, Joe Mazzulla is his own man with his own concepts as the Celtics coach.

He does not like calling timeouts to stop opponent runs, a method that may backfire short term but could serve as an educational opportunity for a team that has endured its share of lapses in this early season.

As the Washington Wizards rallied from a 51-27 deficit late in the first half Sunday, Mazzulla refrained from calling a timeout, only talking to his team during a Wizards mandatory timeout with 2 minutes, 34 minutes left in the first half.

The Celtics watched their lead whittled to 11 points by halftime. But after the break, the Celtics were able to return to their good habits and take control with defense.

Timeouts during opponent surges are customary for NBA coaches. Stopping play is a means of curtailing the momentum, reiterating the game plan and getting the players a breather.

But for some coaches, they relish the opportunity to see how their team responds to adversity. For decades, Phil Jackson would sit for several minutes, legs crossed and watch his Bulls try to maneuver their way out of deficits and opponent runs.

Mazzulla appears to have the same philosophy, even if it might cost his team some leads and maybe some games.

One of the biggest questions when Mazzulla took over for Ime Udoka was his style or did he have one? He spent three seasons as an assistant and was beginning to prepare himself for a head-coaching opportunity when he interviewed for the Utah Jazz job that eventually went to fellow Celtics assistant Will Hardy.

But Mazzulla is such a man of few words; he offered little hints to his coaching philosophy. Celtics faithful have seen some of his tendencies on the fly, such as refraining from timeouts, being meticulous when opting for coach’s challenges — he’s undefeated so far — and being liberal with his playing rotations.

The unique aspect of Mazzulla’s coaching tenure is he’s going to have to learn on the fly, fail in some hunches that could benefit the Celtics long term. The Celtics’ two losses have been a byproduct of porous defense and frustrations with officials against Chicago and pick-and-roll breakdowns against Cleveland that allowed its hot shooters to attempt easier 3-point attempts.

Mazzulla appeared convinced the Celtics issues can be fixed and he’s definitely planning on molding this year’s team in his style, even if that style is still being conceived.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/31/sports/celtics-joe-mazzulla-forging-his-own-path-an-nba-coach/

[SparzWizard]

I think that's a ridiculous philosophy. You should always call a timeout to ice the momentum. That's what they're for. I'm not about costing games esp if the team played hard only to watch it evaporate it like that. The coach's job is to literally coach and help stop any bleeding, draw up plays, and rally them etc.

Phil Jackson had the teams and disciplined guys like Kobe to rally the troop together.

[Celtics4ever]

I have been trying to give Coach Maz some space before passing judgement on him.   But his decisions and rotations are bad, he thinks our D is good and I am not that impressed.   Tonight, Grant rolled his eyes at him after a play when he was wanting the challenge.   

I know a lot of this is on the players.   But he has not been that good thus far.

[jpotter33]

You have an option that goes beyond disagree? Because that's where I'm at, especially to the insane extent that Joe is taking it.

[Neurotic Guy]

I have been trying to give Coach Maz some space before passing judgement on him.   But his decisions and rotations are bad, he thinks our D is good and I am not that impressed.   Tonight, Grant rolled his eyes at him after a play when he was wanting the challenge.   

I know a lot of this is on the players.   But he has not been that good thus far.

Grant was out of line and Joe was as cool as could be. I though he handled it well in the moment and I think he and Grant have a little talk. Grant’s been unleashed emotionally this year and there’s good and bad in it.

[Neurotic Guy]

Joe learns from his mistakes or he doesn’t. Remains to be seen. I believe he’d like to have a do over on that 10 point run.

[Who]

Agreed -- regular season is educational purpose for postseason success. Training players to deal with adverse situations and to respond well individually and collectively is highly valuable.

[jpotter33]

I have been trying to give Coach Maz some space before passing judgement on him.   But his decisions and rotations are bad, he thinks our D is good and I am not that impressed.   Tonight, Grant rolled his eyes at him after a play when he was wanting the challenge.   

I know a lot of this is on the players.   But he has not been that good thus far.

Grant was out of line and Joe was as cool as could be. I though he handled it well in the moment and I think he and Grant have a little talk. Grant’s been unleashed emotionally this year and there’s good and bad in it.

Well, in Joe's defense Grant was wrong there. Sure, there clearly was no foul and it was another incompetent official issue, but there was no use for the challenge there as I believe it would go right back to Cleveland even if they won the challenge.

[Goldstar88]

I think early in the season, let the players try to figure it out. Especially in the first half of games. Obviously If it’s like a 10-0 run, you call a timeout.

[radiohead]

I think early in the season, let the players try to figure it out. Especially in the first half of games. Obviously If it’s like a 10-0 run, you call a timeout.

It’s happened 2 or 3 times this season though. As a fan, it is frustrating to watch.

[Goldstar88]

I think early in the season, let the players try to figure it out. Especially in the first half of games. Obviously If it’s like a 10-0 run, you call a timeout.

It’s happened 2 or 3 times this season though. As a fan, it is frustrating to watch.

Which ones? I don’t recall 2 or 3 games when the opposing team went on a 10 (or more) point run and he didn’t call a timeout.

[radiohead]

I think early in the season, let the players try to figure it out. Especially in the first half of games. Obviously If it’s like a 10-0 run, you call a timeout.

It’s happened 2 or 3 times this season though. As a fan, it is frustrating to watch.

Which ones? I don’t recall 2 or 3 games when the opposing team went on a 10 (or more) point run and he didn’t call a timeout.

I don’t recal them being 10-0 runs but we gave up huge leads in that first Cavs game and the one vs the Bulls. It’s a combination of having a “no Jays” line up, “letting the guys figure it out” and not calling timeouts.

[ozgod]

Joe learns from his mistakes or he doesn’t. Remains to be seen. I believe he’d like to have a do over on that 10 point run.

He mentioned in the post game presser tonight that he's learning just like everyone. So it will be interesting to see if he sticks to his guns, or if his guiding principles are malleable. I added that part of the Washburn story to my OP because his ability to learn will be important.

Right now I think he's playing more of the role of someone who empowers the team, rather than directs it. More coaching rather than coercive or autocratic. I can understand why - he's new, he's coming in with no experience, to coach a team that made the Finals and probably think they have a pretty good idea on what works and what doesn't. He doesn't have the gravitas of a Udoka who even though he was a rookie head coach, had been coaching in the league for over a decade.

So he's probably trying to find that line between respecting what the team had done last year and how they grew as a team, by giving them the opportunity to "figure things out". If it becomes apparent they can't then he has more critical mass to pull their strings. If the hands-off approach isn't working I think he's smart enough to course correct. Udoka was and a lot of people were ready to give up on him after the first month too.

And I think a lot of us who have watched this game for decades are used to the coach being an NFL-type Belichick coach that basically controls of what the players do - calls plays for them, determines who will shoot, who will bring the ball up, what sets to run and calls timeouts to run ATOs and to stop runs. Joe Mazz seems to me to be more of a soccer-type coach where once the players hit the court they are largely in charge and his role is just to empower them to be successful, as opposed to telling them what to do.

As of right now, I think his record on it is mixed - he needs to find the right balance between letting them play and learn and when to pull them in and give them a talking to to refocus them. So I'm ok with him being hands-off, as long as he can adjust if them failing to stop runs becomes a trend rather than an exception.

So we'll see what happens - part of the fun of a season to me is not just watching the team win, but watching the players and the coaches develop and cope with adversity. I'm sure we will get plenty of that 

[Kernewek]

I think it's an interesting thing - conventional wisdom says that timeouts are used as they usually are for good reason, but conventional wisdom was that teams shouldn't shoot so many three pointers until about 10 years ago, and that position has completely reversed.

Another issue of 'conventional wisdom' that's much trickier to quantify is heating up, actually. Something that timeouts are (in theory) deployed to counteract. The most egregious example is icing free throws, probably, but no one seems to do that as much anymore.

So, for now, put me down as a cautious agree. I don't know what it'll do, but it's interesting.

[JohnBoy65]

I coach high school basketball. The school I coach at has produced high level D-1 players and some low level NBA players. So, we're watching and coaching good basketball.

People love to talk about using timeouts to stop a run. It's this mythical idea that doesn't happen. Players stop runs not timeouts. There's no numerical proof that a time out has a positive impact on defense or offense. Momentum is a subjective thing that isn't measurable. So, I've got no issue with him not calling timeouts.