Joe Mazz's approach to timeouts - agree or disagree

[celts55]

While I personally would have liked to see him call a TO, in his defense, they weren’t playing that badly. I know Brown missed 2 wide open 3’s. I’m not sure a time out would have changed that.

Also, I’ve read a number of people complaining about last shot. I thought it was a good play. Brown had a good look, but he missed. Happens

I’m not overly impressed with Joe so far, but I wasn’t impressed with Ime the first half of last year either. I’m willing to give him some time to figure things out

Lastly, I’m more concerned with the team Stevens has put together. At least 5 pretty much unplayable guys sitting on the bench. When Luke is getting playing time, it pretty much tells you all you need to know

[Wretch]

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.

I agree 100% with this. In the Army the mantra was "You fight as you train."   If you want players to learn how to figure it out on their own in high stakes situations you need to let them learn how to when the stakes are lower. 

[droopdog7]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

[sgrogan]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

Correct. The lack of bad play does though, sometimes. Sometimes it requires good play to stop momentum.
But if a savvy coach recognizes bad play, and calls a time out to coach the players into better play, with their full attention, as opposed to while they are playing? If time permits a play can be drawn up for the specific players that are on the court.

[droopdog7]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

Correct. The lack of bad play does though, sometimes. Sometimes it requires good play to stop momentum.
But if a savvy coach recognizes bad play, and calls a time out to coach the players into better play, with their full attention, as opposed to while they are playing? If time permits a play can be drawn up for the specific players that are on the court.

So timeouts don’t stop momentum.  Everything you said after that, go back to the first statement.  Timeouts don’t stop momentum.

As for savvy coaches, it’s not that hard.  If pretty much everyone watching at home and in the stands can start calling for timeout, then every coach can do that too.  Just some coaches have a different philosophy, and that philosophy is not better or worse (in a vacuum) than calling or not calling a TO when everyone else is.

[Big333223]

Wasn't this a criticism of Brad Stevens, too?

[Hoopvortex]

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.

Thank you.

Need more poll choices; I didn't choose either.

If you see something that needs to be put in with your players, either in their execution or mentally, stop play and fix it. If they're doing what they're supposed to, don't waste a precious timeout - you might need it later.

[GreenEnvy]

Wasn't this a criticism of Brad Stevens, too?

I always felt Brad used timeouts very different in the regular season than the playoffs.

Time will tell with Joe.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

[nickagneta]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

Actually it's not. There is not one numerical data point that proves that timeouts work to stop momentum or big swings of points. Not one data point. Not one study. Nothing.

And most intelligent coaches from high school through to the pros will tell you that.

[ozgod]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

Actually it's not. There is not one numerical data point that proves that timeouts work to stop momentum or big swings of points. Not one data point. Not one study. Nothing.

And most intelligent coaches from high school through to the pros will tell you that.

Forsberg said the same:

If you’re a fan of the Boston Celtics, you’ve probably spent at least some portion of the past 10 days screaming at your television set for a timeout that didn’t come quick enough for your liking.

Most of you don’t need this reminder but, given the events of this week, it feels mildly important to reaffirm: Joe Mazzulla deserves the benefit of time.

Every first-year coach is thrust under a harsh microscope and we overanalyze everything from their after-timeout plays to their timeout cadence to, in the case of Mazzulla, his vigorous gum chewing.

Mazzulla simply has to find his voice. Much of his demeanor and coaching style seems culled from Brad Stevens, the man who brought him aboard as an assistant in 2019. Mazzulla isn’t going to be Brad. He isn’t going to be Ime. He has to figure out what works best for him, what allows him to get the best out of this group.

It might just take time to figure that out. And he might never call that timeout that most of us are screaming for.

It’s on the players to be a little bit more locked in to help Mazzulla in the early part of his head coaching voyage. There’s only so much a coach can do when the intensity and focus of his players fluctuates. It’s not Mazzulla missing open shots in key spots.

We do think these Celtics sometimes need a shorter leash and that timeouts can be helpful to reel them back in when those lapses occur. But 75 years of NBA basketball suggests that there’s no firm rule for timeout usage.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/why-celtics-interim-head-coach-joe-mazzulla-deserves-benefit-time

[ozgod]

I always felt that coaches like Brad and Joe Mazz want players to take ownership of how they are playing and be accountable for their performances. I saw them using timeouts only if they thought the players had deviated from the game plan or were not playing the right way. If they were playing the right way but were just either executing poorly or missing shots and the other team was converting on the other end, they hold on to their timeouts and trust that the team will start executing if they are making the right plays, even if the other team is on a run. Ultimately they call for it if they think they need to talk to the players to get them to start playing the right way (because the players have become demoralized and their defense is starting to slack off, or they are letting poor offense affect defense) again, as opposed to using it to try and stop momentum.

But they are coaches who are younger and more data driven and haven't seen quantifiable evidence that timeouts stop runs. The old timers like Doc or D'Antoni or Pop tend to do it all by feel or because "it's the way it's always been done" and they see themselves more as active managers of the game as opposed to facilitating the players and supporting them. Just two different approaches.

[nickagneta]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

Actually it's not. There is not one numerical data point that proves that timeouts work to stop momentum or big swings of points. Not one data point. Not one study. Nothing.

And most intelligent coaches from high school through to the pros will tell you that.

Forsberg said the same:

If you’re a fan of the Boston Celtics, you’ve probably spent at least some portion of the past 10 days screaming at your television set for a timeout that didn’t come quick enough for your liking.

Most of you don’t need this reminder but, given the events of this week, it feels mildly important to reaffirm: Joe Mazzulla deserves the benefit of time.

Every first-year coach is thrust under a harsh microscope and we overanalyze everything from their after-timeout plays to their timeout cadence to, in the case of Mazzulla, his vigorous gum chewing.

Mazzulla simply has to find his voice. Much of his demeanor and coaching style seems culled from Brad Stevens, the man who brought him aboard as an assistant in 2019. Mazzulla isn’t going to be Brad. He isn’t going to be Ime. He has to figure out what works best for him, what allows him to get the best out of this group.

It might just take time to figure that out. And he might never call that timeout that most of us are screaming for.

It’s on the players to be a little bit more locked in to help Mazzulla in the early part of his head coaching voyage. There’s only so much a coach can do when the intensity and focus of his players fluctuates. It’s not Mazzulla missing open shots in key spots.

We do think these Celtics sometimes need a shorter leash and that timeouts can be helpful to reel them back in when those lapses occur. But 75 years of NBA basketball suggests that there’s no firm rule for timeout usage.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/why-celtics-interim-head-coach-joe-mazzulla-deserves-benefit-time

Yup. If you're doing everything right. If you're making the extra passes, taking the proper open shots, driving when you should be driving, in the proper spots on defense, playing tight defense, boxing out properly but you're just missing your shots, the rebounds are bouncing away from you and you're getting a bad whistle or three, no timeout is going to fix something that's not broken.

And, that happens to every team in every game at least a couple times per game which is why basketball is a game of runs and swings. You can play great, just the way a coach drew it up and give up a 10-12 point run. It happens. It happens every game. To every team. A timeout isn't proven to cause the shots to start going down for you, for them to stop going down for your opponent, for the ball to bounce your way or for the refs to start calling things in your favor.

Now if the players aren't playing the way the coach wants, if they've abandoned the game plan on either side of the ball, if a matchup is not working and you need to sub in different personnel more quickly than waiting for a stoppage in play, the coaches need to call that TO. But otherwise, you just gotta let the players play through it. No matter how many idiots in the stands or in message board game threads are screaming for timeouts and calling the coach a moron.

[slamtheking]

Don't care; timeouts don't stop momentum.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you say.

Actually it's not. There is not one numerical data point that proves that timeouts work to stop momentum or big swings of points. Not one data point. Not one study. Nothing.

And most intelligent coaches from high school through to the pros will tell you that.

Forsberg said the same:

If you’re a fan of the Boston Celtics, you’ve probably spent at least some portion of the past 10 days screaming at your television set for a timeout that didn’t come quick enough for your liking.

Most of you don’t need this reminder but, given the events of this week, it feels mildly important to reaffirm: Joe Mazzulla deserves the benefit of time.

Every first-year coach is thrust under a harsh microscope and we overanalyze everything from their after-timeout plays to their timeout cadence to, in the case of Mazzulla, his vigorous gum chewing.

Mazzulla simply has to find his voice. Much of his demeanor and coaching style seems culled from Brad Stevens, the man who brought him aboard as an assistant in 2019. Mazzulla isn’t going to be Brad. He isn’t going to be Ime. He has to figure out what works best for him, what allows him to get the best out of this group.

It might just take time to figure that out. And he might never call that timeout that most of us are screaming for.

It’s on the players to be a little bit more locked in to help Mazzulla in the early part of his head coaching voyage. There’s only so much a coach can do when the intensity and focus of his players fluctuates. It’s not Mazzulla missing open shots in key spots.

We do think these Celtics sometimes need a shorter leash and that timeouts can be helpful to reel them back in when those lapses occur. But 75 years of NBA basketball suggests that there’s no firm rule for timeout usage.

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/why-celtics-interim-head-coach-joe-mazzulla-deserves-benefit-time

Yup. If you're doing everything right. If you're making the extra passes, taking the proper open shots, driving when you should be driving, in the proper spots on defense, playing tight defense, boxing out properly but you're just missing your shots, the rebounds are bouncing away from you and you're getting a bad whistle or three, no timeout is going to fix something that's not broken.

And, that happens to every team in every game at least a couple times per game which is why basketball is a game of runs and swings. You can play great, just the way a coach drew it up and give up a 10-12 point run. It happens. It happens every game. To every team. A timeout isn't proven to cause the shots to start going down for you, for them to stop going down for your opponent, for the ball to bounce your way or for the refs to start calling things in your favor.

Now if the players aren't playing the way the coach wants, if they've abandoned the game plan on either side of the ball, if a matchup is not working and you need to sub in different personnel more quickly than waiting for a stoppage in play, the coaches need to call that TO. But otherwise, you just gotta let the players play through it. No matter how many idiots in the stands or in message board game threads are screaming for timeouts and calling the coach a moron.

I think this is the nuance missing from the discussion. 

personally at home, I'm frustrated with a lack of a TO when the team has either gotten away from doing what works and/or the other team has figured out how to counteract what was working for the C's and thus the C's give up a serious run. 

This is also what I see in the game threads for the most part --> sure there's one or two individuals calling for a TO after a 6 point run by the other team when the C's are still doing what they're supposed to be doing not when things start going sideways.  But, getting away from passing the ball on offense and into ISO mode and/or chucking a barrage of bricked 3's early in the shot clock is when a TO likely needs to be called.  that as well as the team getting lazy on D and/or the defensive boards. 

a TO isn't so much used for momentum killing of the other team but to correct issues with the C's that cannot just be left to the players to figure out because if they could do that, we wouldn't be watching the other team put up a point swing in the double digits.

[Celtics2021]

I think NBA teams are given too many timeouts anyway, so I appreciate Mazzulla’s propensity to let some of them go unused.