Fire Joe! ... or critique Joe ... or defend Joe... or worry about Joe's coaching

[Big333223]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

[mobilija]

So, about 2/3 thru the 4th qtr when the game had been a bit helter skelter back and forth with neither team taking control. After a time out, the team goes to Porzingis in the post a few times in a row resulting in FTs and a bit of a cushion, seemed to have a settling effect. Then after a defensive stop, ball goes up floor to JB. Post by Porzingis late to develop, swings to Tatum who hits a late shot clock 3. Good defense, one more post to Porzingis, a general slow down of the game, hero ball by Tatum (mostly ineffective), a timely 3 by Mr calm cool clutch DW assited by JB and a subsequent layup by JB, and basically that's ball game and a win.

What part of that do we attribute to coaching and what part to the players?

[ozgod]

So, about 2/3 thru the 4th qtr when the game had been a bit helter skelter back and forth with neither team taking control. After a time out, the team goes to Porzingis in the post a few times in a row resulting in FTs and a bit of a cushion, seemed to have a settling effect. Then after a defensive stop, ball goes up floor to JB. Post by Porzingis late to develop, swings to Tatum who hits a late shot clock 3. Good defense, one more post to Porzingis, a general slow down of the game, hero ball by Tatum (mostly ineffective), a timely 3 by Mr calm cool clutch DW assited by JB and a subsequent layup by JB, and basically that's ball game and a win.

What part of that do we attribute to coaching and what part to the players?

Who was it attributed to in the game thread? I have a feeling not Joe 

[Celtics2021]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

Now we have the best record again.  You forgot to mention we’ve also played the most difficult schedule to date, by opponent winning percentage.

The complaints of people about a coach leading a team on a 63-win pace are pretty rich.  If we had a better coach would we be 18-4 and on a 67-win pace?  Is this team as talented, or more, as the 85-86 Celtics but for coaching?  Is Joe so bad he’s already cost us 2 wins and we’re really the Warriors of last decade?

[gift]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

...fire Doc, fire Brad, fire Ime, fire Joe, fire the next guy too while we're at it.

[Roy H.]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

Now we have the best record again.  You forgot to mention we’ve also played the most difficult schedule to date, by opponent winning percentage.

The complaints of people about a coach leading a team on a 63-win pace are pretty rich.  If we had a better coach would we be 18-4 and on a 67-win pace?  Is this team as talented, or more, as the 85-86 Celtics but for coaching?  Is Joe so bad he’s already cost us 2 wins and we’re really the Warriors of last decade?

Do you disagree that bad coaches can win a ton of games with top talent?

How do you rate Luke Walton as a head coach?

The argument I'm seeing cracks me up.  "Judge coaches by their record, period.  But it's terribly unfair to ask what the record might be with a different coach."

[mobilija]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

Now we have the best record again.  You forgot to mention we’ve also played the most difficult schedule to date, by opponent winning percentage.

The complaints of people about a coach leading a team on a 63-win pace are pretty rich.  If we had a better coach would we be 18-4 and on a 67-win pace?  Is this team as talented, or more, as the 85-86 Celtics but for coaching?  Is Joe so bad he’s already cost us 2 wins and we’re really the Warriors of last decade?

Do you disagree that bad coaches can win a ton of games with top talent?

How do you rate Luke Walton as a head coach?

The argument I'm seeing cracks me up.  "Judge coaches by their record, period.  But it's terribly unfair to ask what the record might be with a different coach."

A handful of times I've presented what looks like positive coaching from Joe. Actual in game evidence, not some subjective what would X look like or what if. This is generally met with crickets from the "Joe is an idiot" crowd.

It's hard to evaluate coaching. We rarely hear what they are saying and hardly ever see them coach. It's largely inference from how the players act/perform or tangible things like TOs or challenges. So, I get it, it's tough to separate what is actual coaching vs player performance vs fan emotion.

[Roy H.]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

Now we have the best record again.  You forgot to mention we’ve also played the most difficult schedule to date, by opponent winning percentage.

The complaints of people about a coach leading a team on a 63-win pace are pretty rich.  If we had a better coach would we be 18-4 and on a 67-win pace?  Is this team as talented, or more, as the 85-86 Celtics but for coaching?  Is Joe so bad he’s already cost us 2 wins and we’re really the Warriors of last decade?

Do you disagree that bad coaches can win a ton of games with top talent?

How do you rate Luke Walton as a head coach?

The argument I'm seeing cracks me up.  "Judge coaches by their record, period.  But it's terribly unfair to ask what the record might be with a different coach."

A handful of times I've presented what looks like positive coaching from Joe. Actual in game evidence, not some subjective what would X look like or what if. This is generally met with crickets from the "Joe is an idiot" crowd.

It's hard to evaluate coaching. We rarely hear what they are saying and hardly ever see them coach. It's largely inference from how the players act/perform or tangible things like TOs or challenges. So, I get it, it's tough to separate what is actual coaching vs player performance vs fan emotion.

Joe does some things right, sometimes.  Anybody who denies that is not watching reality.

But, I don't think he coaches well consistently, particularly in terms of his "shoot more threes" and "no adjustments" philosophies. 

When we get to the playoffs, I expect Joe to be an obstacle to overcome, just like last season. 

[Vermont Green]

It is hard to rate coaching as a fan just by watching the games.  It is even harder to determine if the team would be better or worse and by how much, it is was a different coach.

What I look for in judging a coach is first and foremost buy in.  There is no stat for this, there is no way to definitively determine this, you just have to go by what you see on the court.  How hard is the team playing.  How is the body language during time outs when the coach is telling them what to do.  I think the team has bought in more this season than last season.

The next thing that I look at is more of the traditional Xs and Os.  What is the scheme in general.  What do they do coming out of time outs.  Do rotations and match ups make sense.  For this category, I am satisfied overall with Mazzulla but of course not always 100%.  I don't like the level of emphasis on 3s.  I would like to see a more diverse offensive approach.

Winning or record is of course the bottom line, but a really good coach (like Popovich) can end up with a bad team and a bad record.  It is less likely that a bad coach ends up winning due to a good team but it can certainly happen that way too.  What is more reflective of the coach is whether or not they are getting the most out of the talent that they have, which of course is subjective.

I can't say for sure at this point if Mazzulla is a good coach or a great coach, but I feel pretty sure he is not a bad coach.  Or that he is the problem.  Maybe this is a backhanded compliment but I think he is a good enough coach and getting better.  I am not convinced that our record would be any different if we had Popovich for example.

[mobilija]

Best record in the NBA? Best net rating in the NBA? Better fire the coach.

What a joke.

We don't have the best record in the NBA, but I'm curious:  what do you think our record would be with a poor NBA coach?  How bad could a team with our top-6 be?

You're right, my mistake, they're a half game behind Minnesota for the best record in the NBA and have had the best record for a good portion of the season so far. They do have the best net rating. The team is doing the thing fans claim to care about (winning) and yet you're still calling for him to be fired?

What would our record be with a poor coach? That's a terrible, unanswerable question.

Now we have the best record again.  You forgot to mention we’ve also played the most difficult schedule to date, by opponent winning percentage.

The complaints of people about a coach leading a team on a 63-win pace are pretty rich.  If we had a better coach would we be 18-4 and on a 67-win pace?  Is this team as talented, or more, as the 85-86 Celtics but for coaching?  Is Joe so bad he’s already cost us 2 wins and we’re really the Warriors of last decade?

Do you disagree that bad coaches can win a ton of games with top talent?

How do you rate Luke Walton as a head coach?

The argument I'm seeing cracks me up.  "Judge coaches by their record, period.  But it's terribly unfair to ask what the record might be with a different coach."

A handful of times I've presented what looks like positive coaching from Joe. Actual in game evidence, not some subjective what would X look like or what if. This is generally met with crickets from the "Joe is an idiot" crowd.

It's hard to evaluate coaching. We rarely hear what they are saying and hardly ever see them coach. It's largely inference from how the players act/perform or tangible things like TOs or challenges. So, I get it, it's tough to separate what is actual coaching vs player performance vs fan emotion.

Joe does some things right, sometimes.  Anybody who denies that is not watching reality.

But, I don't think he coaches well consistently, particularly in terms of his "shoot more threes" and "no adjustments" philosophies. 

When we get to the playoffs, I expect Joe to be an obstacle to overcome, just like last season.

Yeah, I agree that last years playoffs was a struggle from the perspective making adjustments in a series. And the 3 ball philosophy can be tiresome and feast or famine, but that is sorta how basketball and particularly yhe NBA is played now, no?

However, my above synopsis of the end of the Cavs game suggests that Joe made and adjustment and set up the team for post play (ie 3 ball not the 1st option). So, maybe your gripes about Joes philosophies aren't actually his philosophies, at least not anymore. The playoffs will be telling.

[michigan adam]

People do understand that the majority is not done at the court on game day right?  On this team, the most important part of the job is to get these players in the right mindset to play unselfish ball WITH each other, and let their talent and superior balance of O and D overwhelm their opponents.  Basically get the guys ready to play, and then step back and allow them to play.  He is doing that in spades.  With a couple notable let downs on the road this year, the C's have basically not self destructed like prior years, and have actually recovered from poor/slow starts to pull out wins they never would have before, all with 2 additional star players and their ego's to manage.  Joe has done a great job.  Yes he is still feeling out time outs and "game management".  He is not a huge X's and O's guy that scripts out all the plays on the sideline in timeouts.  Is that him or the players that don't want to play that way?  I'm very happy the C'S have a coach that manages the talent, and doesn't need to be seen on the sidelines.  Let the players play.

[Roy H.]

People do understand that the majority is not done at the court on game day right?  On this team, the most important part of the job is to get these players in the right mindset to play unselfish ball WITH each other, and let their talent and superior balance of O and D overwhelm their opponents.  Basically get the guys ready to play, and then step back and allow them to play.  He is doing that in spades.  With a couple notable let downs on the road this year, the C's have basically not self destructed like prior years, and have actually recovered from poor/slow starts to pull out wins they never would have before, all with 2 additional star players and their ego's to manage.  Joe has done a great job.  Yes he is still feeling out time outs and "game management".  He is not a huge X's and O's guy that scripts out all the plays on the sideline in timeouts.  Is that him or the players that don't want to play that way?  I'm very happy the C'S have a coach that manages the talent, and doesn't need to be seen on the sidelines.  Let the players play.

I understand your philosophy, but why hire a basketball guy to be coach at all, then?  Wouldn't an expert in group dynamics, or even a clinical therapist, be best under your philosophy?  Or just an good executive from another field?

From my perspective, it's about more than just letting the players play.  When you do that, they fall into lazy habits.  Game management, Xs-and-Os, real time adjustments, preparation, and offensive / defensive philosophy are all very important aspects of coaching. 

[Phantom255x]

Hire Joe! 

Lol I will say, it's funny how this thread is abandoned when they are winning, but after a single loss it pops up again with 10 new pages. Mazzulla is far from perfect and has his flaws, but the team is 18-5. Also, there've been "Ime's got to go" and "fire Stevens" threads too, so reality is there is never gonna be a coach that's perfect here.

[Kernewek]

People do understand that the majority is not done at the court on game day right?  On this team, the most important part of the job is to get these players in the right mindset to play unselfish ball WITH each other, and let their talent and superior balance of O and D overwhelm their opponents.  Basically get the guys ready to play, and then step back and allow them to play.  He is doing that in spades.  With a couple notable let downs on the road this year, the C's have basically not self destructed like prior years, and have actually recovered from poor/slow starts to pull out wins they never would have before, all with 2 additional star players and their ego's to manage.  Joe has done a great job.  Yes he is still feeling out time outs and "game management".  He is not a huge X's and O's guy that scripts out all the plays on the sideline in timeouts.  Is that him or the players that don't want to play that way?  I'm very happy the C'S have a coach that manages the talent, and doesn't need to be seen on the sidelines.  Let the players play.

I understand your philosophy, but why hire a basketball guy to be coach at all, then?  Wouldn't an expert in group dynamics, or even a clinical therapist, be best under your philosophy?  Or just an good executive from another field?

From my perspective, it's about more than just letting the players play.  When you do that, they fall into lazy habits.  Game management, Xs-and-Os, real time adjustments, preparation, and offensive / defensive philosophy are all very important aspects of coaching.

Well, as far as why you hire basketball people - lots of athletes have a documented distrust of people from 'outside' the sport, especially when it comes to coaches and analysts. In the interview Kristaps did with JJ Reddick the other day, he talks about how the stats guys didn't necessarily do the best job selling him on why they were making the recommendations that they were about his game, so it took him longer than it should have, arguably, to get his game to that next level.

Agree with the second one, but I don't know if all of that has to come directly from the head coach - think about the distribution of labour between Doc & Thibs with the Big 3 Celtics.

[jpotter33]

I thought last night was one of Joe’s better games coached. Liked his rotations overall, had the guys prepared from the get-go, and made great adjustments on the defensive coverages, particularly in the high PnR. Showing some growth - or at least some better help from having an actual staff this year.