How much upside does Joe have?

[Roy H.]

I'm still concerned he's going to attribute the 3's rather than the defensive effort for the win. Both helped, but if the defense isn't there in the first half, we would've been down.

Agreed.  It's not rocket science, but Joe still doesn't get it.

Points allowed:

87 - win
99 - win
106 - win
119 - loss
119 - loss
120 - win
121 - win
130 - loss

Shockingly, there's a correlation between giving up a ton of points and losing.  We have a losing record when giving up 119+ points, and that's happened in 5 of the last 6 games. 

As for offense:

Game 1: .653 eFG%. 18 FTAs
Game 2: .576 eFG%, 16 FTAs

The shooting / efficiency was much better in Game 1.  The difference wasn't that we shot more threes, it was that we limited turnovers.

In fairness, our efficiency was so good in G1 because Embiid was out and we killed the Sixers at the rim, particularly in the first half.  That's not so easy when Embiid plays, but the flipside is that Philly leaves a lot of shooters open when he's on the court.  So we're going to see a lot more jumpshots for the rest of this series, I'd imagine.  Not as efficient as open layups, but it should still get the job done.

100% agree on the defense and the limiting turnovers though.

My only gripe is Joe's public comment after Game 1 where he complained that we should have taken more threes.  On the broadcast in Game 2, Reggie Miller said Ime wanted "double" the number in Game 2.  That's before Embiid's availability was known. 

I don't understand how a coach looks at the monster efficiency we had in Game 1 and blames that for the loss.  It's wild to me.  I agree in Game 2 the drives weren't there, but that in no way justifies the criticism for shooting fewer threes in Game 1.

It's why I don't think Joe has much upside, and why I'd fire him:  he's an idiot who doesn't recognize what works on offense, while at the same time regularly downplaying defense.

[Vermont Green]

I'm still concerned he's going to attribute the 3's rather than the defensive effort for the win. Both helped, but if the defense isn't there in the first half, we would've been down.

Agreed.  It's not rocket science, but Joe still doesn't get it.

Points allowed:

87 - win
99 - win
106 - win
119 - loss
119 - loss
120 - win
121 - win
130 - loss

Shockingly, there's a correlation between giving up a ton of points and losing.  We have a losing record when giving up 119+ points, and that's happened in 5 of the last 6 games. 

As for offense:

Game 1: .653 eFG%. 18 FTAs
Game 2: .576 eFG%, 16 FTAs

The shooting / efficiency was much better in Game 1.  The difference wasn't that we shot more threes, it was that we limited turnovers.

In fairness, our efficiency was so good in G1 because Embiid was out and we killed the Sixers at the rim, particularly in the first half.  That's not so easy when Embiid plays, but the flipside is that Philly leaves a lot of shooters open when he's on the court.  So we're going to see a lot more jumpshots for the rest of this series, I'd imagine.  Not as efficient as open layups, but it should still get the job done.

100% agree on the defense and the limiting turnovers though.

We lost game 1 because PHI had 89 FGA and we had 75 FGA.  This discrepancy was primarily the result of the 16 turnovers, 16 possessions that did not end up with a FGA by us.  That is a lot to overcome.

Hard to win no matter how efficient your offence is if the other team gets 14 more shots.  The exception to this can be if you have considerably more FTAs, but this was not the case.  We had 6 more FTA and 5 more FTM.

I want to add that in game 2, 92 FGA for BOS, 79 for PHI.  Totally flipped the script on this.  16 FTA for BOS, 23 FTA for PHI, so they made up some of this via fouls but this is the stat that changed the most game 1 to game 2.  This is impacted by  turnovers, O-rebounds.  If we can not lose the OReb and TO battle, we are going to win the series.

[Celtics4ever]

I'm still concerned he's going to attribute the 3's rather than the defensive effort for the win. Both helped, but if the defense isn't there in the first half, we would've been down.

Agreed.  It's not rocket science, but Joe still doesn't get it.

Points allowed:

87 - win
99 - win
106 - win
119 - loss
119 - loss
120 - win
121 - win
130 - loss

Shockingly, there's a correlation between giving up a ton of points and losing.  We have a losing record when giving up 119+ points, and that's happened in 5 of the last 6 games. 

As for offense:

Game 1: .653 eFG%. 18 FTAs
Game 2: .576 eFG%, 16 FTAs

The shooting / efficiency was much better in Game 1.  The difference wasn't that we shot more threes, it was that we limited turnovers.

He is trying not to throw his players under the bus.   I bet he got on them about the D behind closed doors.    He is trying to be a player's coach but sometimes players need called out.

[wdleehi]

I'm still concerned he's going to attribute the 3's rather than the defensive effort for the win. Both helped, but if the defense isn't there in the first half, we would've been down.

Agreed.  It's not rocket science, but Joe still doesn't get it.

Points allowed:

87 - win
99 - win
106 - win
119 - loss
119 - loss
120 - win
121 - win
130 - loss

Shockingly, there's a correlation between giving up a ton of points and losing.  We have a losing record when giving up 119+ points, and that's happened in 5 of the last 6 games. 

As for offense:

Game 1: .653 eFG%. 18 FTAs
Game 2: .576 eFG%, 16 FTAs

The shooting / efficiency was much better in Game 1.  The difference wasn't that we shot more threes, it was that we limited turnovers.

In fairness, our efficiency was so good in G1 because Embiid was out and we killed the Sixers at the rim, particularly in the first half.  That's not so easy when Embiid plays, but the flipside is that Philly leaves a lot of shooters open when he's on the court.  So we're going to see a lot more jumpshots for the rest of this series, I'd imagine.  Not as efficient as open layups, but it should still get the job done.

100% agree on the defense and the limiting turnovers though.

My only gripe is Joe's public comment after Game 1 where he complained that we should have taken more threes.  On the broadcast in Game 2, Reggie Miller said Ime wanted "double" the number in Game 2.  That's before Embiid's availability was known. 

I don't understand how a coach looks at the monster efficiency we had in Game 1 and blames that for the loss.  It's wild to me.  I agree in Game 2 the drives weren't there, but that in no way justifies the criticism for shooting fewer threes in Game 1.

It's why I don't think Joe has much upside, and why I'd fire him:  he's an idiot who doesn't recognize what works on offense, while at the same time regularly downplaying defense.

Except of course the Celtics did play better defense.  Just because a coach says one thing to the media doesn't mean he doesn't say something else to the team.   

[Goldstar88]

I'm still concerned he's going to attribute the 3's rather than the defensive effort for the win. Both helped, but if the defense isn't there in the first half, we would've been down.

Agreed.  It's not rocket science, but Joe still doesn't get it.

Points allowed:

87 - win
99 - win
106 - win
119 - loss
119 - loss
120 - win
121 - win
130 - loss

Shockingly, there's a correlation between giving up a ton of points and losing.  We have a losing record when giving up 119+ points, and that's happened in 5 of the last 6 games. 

As for offense:

Game 1: .653 eFG%. 18 FTAs
Game 2: .576 eFG%, 16 FTAs

The shooting / efficiency was much better in Game 1.  The difference wasn't that we shot more threes, it was that we limited turnovers.

In fairness, our efficiency was so good in G1 because Embiid was out and we killed the Sixers at the rim, particularly in the first half.  That's not so easy when Embiid plays, but the flipside is that Philly leaves a lot of shooters open when he's on the court.  So we're going to see a lot more jumpshots for the rest of this series, I'd imagine.  Not as efficient as open layups, but it should still get the job done.

100% agree on the defense and the limiting turnovers though.

My only gripe is Joe's public comment after Game 1 where he complained that we should have taken more threes.  On the broadcast in Game 2, Reggie Miller said Ime wanted "double" the number in Game 2.  That's before Embiid's availability was known. 

I don't understand how a coach looks at the monster efficiency we had in Game 1 and blames that for the loss.  It's wild to me.  I agree in Game 2 the drives weren't there, but that in no way justifies the criticism for shooting fewer threes in Game 1.

It's why I don't think Joe has much upside, and why I'd fire him:  he's an idiot who doesn't recognize what works on offense, while at the same time regularly downplaying defense.

Except of course the Celtics did play better defense.  Just because a coach says one thing to the media doesn't mean he doesn't say something else to the team.

It seems like people don’t understand Joe’s sarcastic and deadpan sense of humor either. He appears to enjoy messing with the media in postgame interviews.

[gouki88]

I'm still concerned he's going to attribute the 3's rather than the defensive effort for the win. Both helped, but if the defense isn't there in the first half, we would've been down.

Agreed.  It's not rocket science, but Joe still doesn't get it.

Points allowed:

87 - win
99 - win
106 - win
119 - loss
119 - loss
120 - win
121 - win
130 - loss

Shockingly, there's a correlation between giving up a ton of points and losing.  We have a losing record when giving up 119+ points, and that's happened in 5 of the last 6 games. 

As for offense:

Game 1: .653 eFG%. 18 FTAs
Game 2: .576 eFG%, 16 FTAs

The shooting / efficiency was much better in Game 1.  The difference wasn't that we shot more threes, it was that we limited turnovers.

In fairness, our efficiency was so good in G1 because Embiid was out and we killed the Sixers at the rim, particularly in the first half.  That's not so easy when Embiid plays, but the flipside is that Philly leaves a lot of shooters open when he's on the court.  So we're going to see a lot more jumpshots for the rest of this series, I'd imagine.  Not as efficient as open layups, but it should still get the job done.

100% agree on the defense and the limiting turnovers though.

My only gripe is Joe's public comment after Game 1 where he complained that we should have taken more threes.  On the broadcast in Game 2, Reggie Miller said Ime wanted "double" the number in Game 2.  That's before Embiid's availability was known. 

I don't understand how a coach looks at the monster efficiency we had in Game 1 and blames that for the loss.  It's wild to me.  I agree in Game 2 the drives weren't there, but that in no way justifies the criticism for shooting fewer threes in Game 1.

It's why I don't think Joe has much upside, and why I'd fire him:  he's an idiot who doesn't recognize what works on offense, while at the same time regularly downplaying defense.

Except of course the Celtics did play better defense.  Just because a coach says one thing to the media doesn't mean he doesn't say something else to the team.

It seems like people don’t understand Joe’s sarcastic and deadpan sense of humor either. He appears to enjoy messing with the media in postgame interviews.

I don't think anyone fails to understand what he's trying to do. It's just that he's Joe Mazzulla, not Pop or Bill Belichick

[GetLucky]

Best coach in the league. He's a baby, his offensive philosophy is pretty clearly ahead of the league by about 2 years, and the defensive principles are solid. To my eye, he is actually more willing to experiment in games than Ime was. I think he's a top 5-10 coach right now. Hopefully the ATOs and game management develops over the next year or two.

Remember when everyone, including LeBron, wanted to fire Spoelstra? They said he was too young to be a championship coach. Pat Riley stood by him and the results are clear to see now.

[Goldstar88]

Best coach in the league. He's a baby, his offensive philosophy is pretty clearly ahead of the league by about 2 years, and the defensive principles are solid. To my eye, he is actually more willing to experiment in games than Ime was. I think he's a top 5-10 coach right now. Hopefully the ATOs and game management develops over the next year or two.

Remember when everyone, including LeBron, wanted to fire Spoelstra? They said he was too young to be a championship coach. Pat Riley stood by him and the results are clear to see now.

I think you might be on to something. He’s clearly respected by the other coaches in the league, finishing as a finalist for the COTY award.

[ozgod]

Best coach in the league. He's a baby, his offensive philosophy is pretty clearly ahead of the league by about 2 years, and the defensive principles are solid. To my eye, he is actually more willing to experiment in games than Ime was. I think he's a top 5-10 coach right now. Hopefully the ATOs and game management develops over the next year or two.

Remember when everyone, including LeBron, wanted to fire Spoelstra? They said he was too young to be a championship coach. Pat Riley stood by him and the results are clear to see now.

I think you might be on to something. He’s clearly respected by the other coaches in the league, finishing as a finalist for the COTY award.

What a lot of people forget is he's young, he's 34. When Spoelstra was 34 he was an assistant with the Heat. Popovich was an assistant with Kansas. Doc was still playing at age 34, he wasn't even coaching yet, same with Ime. Joe is being judged on a very high bar because this is a high profile job - he took over for a coach that took a team to the Finals and was expected to do the same this season. He's not getting the Will Hardy treatment where he's given time to ease into the job and learn from mistakes and given time to mold the team in his image. He had all of a week to adjustto being the head coach and he's expected to win the championship as a rookie coach. And because the expectations are so high he's judged on that basis - as a coach of one of the league's historically great teams, and he's expected to go better than last season and win a championship. It's that or be fired because we don't want to waste the championship window. I don't think he will be fired if he fails, but people will definitely be calling for him to be fired for wasting a year of the championship window. So he better be close to perfect.

So he's in a really tough position but that's the reality of it. Just as we in real life don't get to choose the problems that come to us, this is the situation that Joe is in and he knew that taking the job. If he didn't want to deal with the pressure and that bar he didn't have to take the job. He will be graded on one criteria - to win a championship. That's the only thing that will be acceptable to fans and media. I'm sure he's not going to make any excuses if he fails, nor will people give him one. It's a results oriented business after all. If coaches like Bud can get fired after winning a championship 2 years ago, and a week after his brother passed away, nobody will make any excuses for poor Joe 

Dan Shaughnessy wrote about the pressure Joe is under and got Doc's thoughts on it:

Rivers, who won a championship as boss of the Celtics in 2008, has been an NBA head coach for 24 seasons. He went 41-41 in his first season as head coach in Orlando and did not make the playoffs, then lost a first-round series to the Bucks in his second season. I asked him what was it like to be criticized in his first playoff series.

“I don’t think I’ve ever been criticized,” Rivers joked. “But, listen, we were an eighth seed [in 2001]. So we were the underdog. We were just fighting to stay alive. So that’s a big difference [from what Mazzulla is experiencing]. You go through it all year and then you go through it times 10 in the playoffs. By the time you get to the playoffs, I’d say most guys are ready for it. That’s what you have to do to coach.”

Do you try not to listen?

“You hear everything,” he said. “But you know you put in the preparation, all the work. And you have a lot of coaches. You’ve done what you need to do, so you don’t worry about it much. You worry about what you have to worry about with the players.

“Joe has a lot more pressure than I had in my first year in the playoffs. He’s taken a team that went to the Finals last year. He’s doing a fantastic job. But like me and all coaches, we’re going to be the guy that gets looked at when anything goes wrong. Joe has never experienced that, but that’s just the way it is. But one thing I know about Joe, he knew that when he signed on. I guarantee it.”

Mazzulla was in good spirits before Game 3, even waving off a Celtic PR person who’d declared that the press session was over. Mazzulla was asked to reflect about his meteoric rise from anonymity to a possible spot in the NBA Finals.

“I’m here because of a lot of other people, what they did, what they accomplished and the sacrifice they made,” he said, “and because of what the Celtics have done for me.”

Then he smiled.

Seriously.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/05/sports/celtics-coach-joe-mazzulla-has-been-defensive-combative-playoffs/

Personally I think he's done ok all things considered, and I think he's going to be better next season as he learns from his mistakes. But again the ultimate pass-fail of his first season as a coach of the Boston Celtics will be if he can win us a championship. A long fanbase demands nothing less - just ok isn't going to be good enough, fairly or unfairly. Once you take the job nobody cares about how green you are, they care about your results.