Let's talk about Joe...

[Roy H.]

As in, discussion, rather than simply ranting.

There are all kinds of discussion points, obviously.  Some I'll throw out there:

1.  What strengths / weaknesses does he have as a coach?

2.  Can the weaknesses be covered up by hiring different assistant coaches?

3.  Did management make a mistake promoting Joe without a safety net?  Should they have acted sooner to address coaching (i.e., when the Ime allegations came to light internally in June)?

4.  When Tatum says publicly that he preferred Ime to Joe, what do we make of that?

5.  Where does he rank among NBA coaches currently?

6.  How important is coaching, particularly in the playoffs?

[slamtheking]

to your points, I don't see a strength in Joe's coaching.  I really don't at this point.   I just don't see any cohesive effort on the floor either on offense or defense. 

I'm not sure adding a more experienced coach as an assistant will help since I don't know how Joe would handle that dynamic -- especially since it would point out for everyone that the organization feels he's too green to coach.

earlier in the year with the way the team came out of the gate, I thought they may have had the talent and desire to win that would have minimized Joe's lack of experience.  the past couple of months have shown that is very unlikely to be the case and that if the C's did win the title this year (no longer as favorites but now looking more like a dark horse), it'll be in spite of Joe rather than with him as a key part of it.

[droopdog7]

Nba is 96% players and 4% coach.  And most fans don’t even understand how to actually evaluate the coaching part, obsessing over timeouts and stuff like that. 

Joe is doing a fine job.  The team is slumping, yes, but it will come out of it.  And the best team will win.  We all know if could be the Celtics, but more than likely it won’t be.  Been that way all year, even when they were the favorite in everyone’s mind.

[Kuberski33]

1.  What strengths / weaknesses does he have as a coach?

He seems to relate well to the players. He's a players coach in that he coaches like a guy who's played the game at a fairly high level recently (not a bad thing). He's intense. Has a decent feel for the game. I think he's fine as an X and 0 guy. He doubles occasionally (something Brad refused to do often to his detriment). He's got a rotation (even if I don't agree with it).

Here's why we're in the current situation we are:  Joe's gone to a playoff rotation way too soon. He's shortened it to 7 guys - filling in as needed. And the results have been two fold. Grant has lost his rhythm at both ends of the court - though he played well defensively last night. He's lost Pritchard. He's probably lost Luke as contributor. Muscala hasn't really been effective being used this way. And then secondly, his vets/stars are either tired or aren't bringing it every night - or for significant portions of games. We've been watching the later over the past two games (and late in the Cavs win if you want to throw that in).

The guy is trying for best record and seems to be burning out his team in the process.  That's where inexperience comes in.  If the Jays break down or the team goes out in round 1 or gets past round 1 only to lose in 5 or less in round 2 - then he'll firmly be in everyone's bullseye as the problem.  I think the scenario's above are very much in play.

Joe still has time to adjust.  We'll see.  Coaches at every level over-rely on their best players to the detriment of the team.

[wdleehi]

Starting with his strengths:
 - He seems to understand x's and o's.   We have seen the team with both top level offense and defense.
 - He seems to have a good handle on the lockerroom.   Players are bought in.   The show respect for the coach and the plan


The weakness
 - New NBA headcoach
 - Doesn't seem to adjust well when the plan isn't working.   Rigid in the plan.   These are the players we are using in this matchup.   These are the strategies. 
 - Doesn't understand the long term vs. the short term.   Plays top players too many minutes and doesn't get bench players enough time during regular season.

[wdleehi]

One more piece, he may not know or understand the buttons to push for all the individual players to get the best out of them.

[angryguy77]

Nba is 96% players and 4% coach.  And most fans don’t even understand how to actually evaluate the coaching part, obsessing over timeouts and stuff like that. 

Joe is doing a fine job.  The team is slumping, yes, but it will come out of it.  And the best team will win.  We all know if could be the Celtics, but more than likely it won’t be.  Been that way all year, even when they were the favorite in everyone’s mind.

Are you telling me that Spolstra was only good for 4% of the success Miami had last year with that group?
Last night shows you the coach does more tha four% with the how hard the knicks are playing.


We have a better team in terms of talent than last year and yet we're in the midst of yet another slump.

That fast start to the season is a long ways away. They've been among the best at times when not slumping. They have some real problems and the only fix we here from the big chew is "ShOoT mOre ThReEs"

[Goldstar88]

This year the Celtics have a top 5 offense and a top 10 defense in the league. If Rob didn’t miss 2+ months, I’d imagine the defense would be closer to top 5 as well. This team has been riddled with injury all season. Joe is doing fine.

[jpotter33]

Nba is 96% players and 4% coach.  And most fans don’t even understand how to actually evaluate the coaching part, obsessing over timeouts and stuff like that. 

Joe is doing a fine job.  The team is slumping, yes, but it will come out of it.  And the best team will win.  We all know if could be the Celtics, but more than likely it won’t be.  Been that way all year, even when they were the favorite in everyone’s mind.

I’m sorry, but this perspective is just bonkers and laughable to me.

Yes, having sufficient talent is probably the biggest consideration in winning in the NBA, but the coach/coaching staff are responsible for a whole host of responsibilities: implementing an offensive and defensive philosophy, ensuring the guys fully understand and buy into these philosophies, manage team dynamics and chemistry, decide on rotations, manage runs and rest throughout a game, strategic play-calling and adjustments, etc.

To argue with a straight face that they maybe contribute “4%” to the game is honestly one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever heard. If this was truly the case, then they’re clearly not worth their salary and the NBA market would’ve corrected itself by now and got rid of them. Non-sensical.

[angryguy77]

that last play of OT where none of the guys seemed to know what to do should be alarming.

All season Joe has been about letting these guys learn on the fly and not hold their hand by taking a TO. We're in the last 1/4 of the season and if this style was working, mistakes like that wouldn't be happening.

Here's another thing about that whole lame philosophy. When you take yourself out of the mix and tell the players to figure it out, you're scapegoating them.

 

[droopdog7]

Nba is 96% players and 4% coach.  And most fans don’t even understand how to actually evaluate the coaching part, obsessing over timeouts and stuff like that. 

Joe is doing a fine job.  The team is slumping, yes, but it will come out of it.  And the best team will win.  We all know if could be the Celtics, but more than likely it won’t be.  Been that way all year, even when they were the favorite in everyone’s mind.

I’m sorry, but this perspective is just bonkers and laughable to me.

Yes, having sufficient talent is probably the biggest consideration in winning in the NBA, but the coach/coaching staff are responsible for a whole host of responsibilities: implementing an offensive and defensive philosophy, ensuring the guys fully understand and buy into these philosophies, manage team dynamics and chemistry, decide on rotations, manage runs and rest throughout a game, strategic play-calling and adjustments, etc.

To argue with a straight face that they maybe contribute “4%” to the game is honestly one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever heard. If this was truly the case, then they’re clearly not worth their salary and the NBA market would’ve corrected itself by now and got rid of them. Non-sensical.

How about ignoring the fact that this team has a better record than last year and are still a title contender?  It’s certainly possible that last year was lightening in a bottle.  At least in terms of just how good they were in the second half or so. 

My point is whatever people think they see or know about coaching, they don’t really know.  And, yes, the nba is far and away a players league.  You think we’re slumping because of timeouts or rotations, or because our best player was playing bad?  Yes, he played better last night but he didn’t make the play like quickley.  That’s why we lost.

[Kuberski33]

This year the Celtics have a top 5 offense and a top 10 defense in the league. If Rob didn’t miss 2+ months, I’d imagine the defense would be closer to top 5 as well. This team has been riddled with injury all season. Joe is doing fine.

I think he is, but there are worrying signs - as I alluded to in my post.

[jpotter33]

2. I don’t know about “covered up”, but it was completely irresponsible to not require Joe to have more head-coaching experience on his staff from the get-go. Joe is just very, very green and has very little high-level coaching experience. So some of this is on management not putting Joe in the best position to support his inexperience.

5. He’s a middle of the pack to bottom third coach at this point. A lot of his shortcomings have been covered up by our hot start and amount of talent, but it’s clear he’s been getting consistently out-coached in games for some time.

6. Coaching is at its most valuable in the playoffs, particularly around overall strategic series-long adjustments and in-game management of tight situations. Joe has simply shown no ability in either area. For strategic adjustments, one of the biggest criticisms of Joe is that he’s simply doubled-down on Mazzulla ball and has not developed any contingency plan on nights when shots just aren’t falling. It’s literally the embodiment of “live by the three, due by the three”. That simply won’t cut it in the playoffs when defenses clamp down and you’re not on fire every night. For in-game management, the proof is in the pudding just last night. He continually mismanages rotations, doesn’t recognize obvious mismatches/bad matchups and pairings, is too late on getting involved when we’re reeling, and doesn’t actively help the guys maximize their possessions in end-game situations and expects them to do it themselves.

The game last night was a perfect example. In OT, we had two timeouts to spare, yet he doesn’t call a timeout. They work out a decent play themselves, but Brown gets the ball too late to Tatum and he has to rush his shot. That’s easily fixed by the timeout and getting everyone on the same page about when to start the action in that play. And then in double OT, off the 24 second violation down 2 with 18 seconds left, Joe still doesn’t call the timeout, and they run ten seconds off the clock unnecessarily because - you guessed it - there was confusion amongst the players about what to do. Absolutely no reason not to call the TO there, as the other team already had the ability to sub in defensive players and didn’t.

No reasonable person watches those games and doesn’t coke away at least a bit concerned about Joe’s obvious limitations in both overall strategy beyond Mazzulla ball and his in-game management skills.

[droopdog7]

Nba is 96% players and 4% coach.  And most fans don’t even understand how to actually evaluate the coaching part, obsessing over timeouts and stuff like that. 

Joe is doing a fine job.  The team is slumping, yes, but it will come out of it.  And the best team will win.  We all know if could be the Celtics, but more than likely it won’t be.  Been that way all year, even when they were the favorite in everyone’s mind.

Are you telling me that Spolstra was only good for 4% of the success Miami had last year with that group?
Last night shows you the coach does more tha four% with the how hard the knicks are playing.


We have a better team in terms of talent than last year and yet we're in the midst of yet another slump.

That fast start to the season is a long ways away. They've been among the best at times when not slumping. They have some real problems and the only fix we here from the big chew is "ShOoT mOre ThReEs"

Doesn’t spoestra have the same team as last year?  Did he forget how to coach?  But let me revamp my statement.  More like 75% players, 3% coaching, and 22% random.

[Kernewek]

Nba is 96% players and 4% coach.  And most fans don’t even understand how to actually evaluate the coaching part, obsessing over timeouts and stuff like that. 

Joe is doing a fine job.  The team is slumping, yes, but it will come out of it.  And the best team will win.  We all know if could be the Celtics, but more than likely it won’t be.  Been that way all year, even when they were the favorite in everyone’s mind.

I’m sorry, but this perspective is just bonkers and laughable to me.

Yes, having sufficient talent is probably the biggest consideration in winning in the NBA, but the coach/coaching staff are responsible for a whole host of responsibilities: implementing an offensive and defensive philosophy, ensuring the guys fully understand and buy into these philosophies, manage team dynamics and chemistry, decide on rotations, manage runs and rest throughout a game, strategic play-calling and adjustments, etc.

To argue with a straight face that they maybe contribute “4%” to the game is honestly one of the most ludicrous statements I’ve ever heard. If this was truly the case, then they’re clearly not worth their salary and the NBA market would’ve corrected itself by now and got rid of them. Non-sensical.

I think getting hung up on the percentages is tricky, but I do think coaching is akin to parenting in one specific way* - good parenting seems to have a largely negligible impact on how children turn out, but bad parenting has a massive impact on how children turn out.


This is why, in my view, teams can go from a Mark Jackson to  a Steve Kerr and see a tangible uptick in success from largely the same roster (in Golden State, but also Doc Rivers over Brett Brown in Philly, &c.),  but you don't see a massive increase between Vinnie Del Negro and Doc Rivers on the Los Angeles Clippers.




*There are obviously problems with comparing the relationship between coaches and players to parents and children in more or less every other aspect, and I don't want to act like I'm doing that here.