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

[Roy H.]

“They have two Joe Mazzullas,” Perkins said (h/t MassLive). “They have the one that got the philosophy of we’re going to get up more 3s than you. When they hit them, he looks great. Then you have the other Joe Mazzulla, who just stands over there, and you wonder. If you take his brain out and you put it in a bird, the bird is going to start flying backwards. You got that Joe Mazzulla.

“You know why I say that? It’s because he doesn’t get his guys easy looks. Time and time again, we kept saying, attack the paint. You have so many guys that are great at cutting. They cannot continue to play AAU style basketball all the time. You gotta have sets.”

Keeping in mind that Kendrick '8 Step Travel' Perkins necessarily knows more about professional basketball than anyone posting on this forum, do we or should we hold the opinions of players beyond critique by nature of the fact that they used to be professionals? I'm not sure that's a position that holds up particularly well.

I'd love to see a post that accurately breaks down his mistakes. It doesn't exist, and people are merely regurgitating anxious feelings after team losses.

Any chance that you'll never agree that pointing out a mistake is accurate?  Has there ever been a criticism that you have deemed valid?

What would you say his weaknesses are?

What was the game last season where he left, uh, Derrick White on the bench for the entire fourth or 10 minutes of the fourth or something? That was pretty egregious - but also plausibly blamed on the lack of assistants.

Oh, Perk isn't some noble philosopher king that we should pay particularly close attention to.  It was just a quote that reflected what a lot of others feel.  And, he's one of the few players who got to share a locker room with KG/PP/Ray + Lebron + Durant, so I'm sure he's been privvy to some interesting conversations.

[smokeablount]

“They have two Joe Mazzullas,” Perkins said (h/t MassLive). “They have the one that got the philosophy of we’re going to get up more 3s than you. When they hit them, he looks great. Then you have the other Joe Mazzulla, who just stands over there, and you wonder. If you take his brain out and you put it in a bird, the bird is going to start flying backwards. You got that Joe Mazzulla.

“You know why I say that? It’s because he doesn’t get his guys easy looks. Time and time again, we kept saying, attack the paint. You have so many guys that are great at cutting. They cannot continue to play AAU style basketball all the time. You gotta have sets.”

Keeping in mind that Kendrick '8 Step Travel' Perkins necessarily knows more about professional basketball than anyone posting on this forum, do we or should we hold the opinions of players beyond critique by nature of the fact that they used to be professionals? I'm not sure that's a position that holds up particularly well.

I’ve seen the argument made here that Brad can’t be criticized by us because he’s a professional and we all sit on the couch. I don’t agree, but if it that’s the standard then no one here has the credentials to call out Perk either. And Brad has to yield to Perk on championship commentary since he never won one. Gets complicated…

[Kernewek]

“They have two Joe Mazzullas,” Perkins said (h/t MassLive). “They have the one that got the philosophy of we’re going to get up more 3s than you. When they hit them, he looks great. Then you have the other Joe Mazzulla, who just stands over there, and you wonder. If you take his brain out and you put it in a bird, the bird is going to start flying backwards. You got that Joe Mazzulla.

“You know why I say that? It’s because he doesn’t get his guys easy looks. Time and time again, we kept saying, attack the paint. You have so many guys that are great at cutting. They cannot continue to play AAU style basketball all the time. You gotta have sets.”

Keeping in mind that Kendrick '8 Step Travel' Perkins necessarily knows more about professional basketball than anyone posting on this forum, do we or should we hold the opinions of players beyond critique by nature of the fact that they used to be professionals? I'm not sure that's a position that holds up particularly well.

I’ve seen the argument made here that Brad can’t be criticized by us because he’s a professional and we all sit on the couch. I don’t agree, but if it that’s the standard then no one here has the credentials to call out Perk either. And Brad has to yield to Perk on championship commentary since he never won one. Gets complicated…

It's definitely very easy to slide into credentialism in any discussion, especially on an online forum where most of us are going by usernames. If none of us can say anything unless we've done anything at the NBA level - played/scouted/coached/whatever, it's going to be a very quiet room.

I think there's a difference, though, between acknowledging that we don't have the same scope of information as someone in the front office or on the coaching staff and pointing out when someone like Perk says something that's not particularly insightful or interesting (is there a head coach that doesn't look good when his team is hitting from deep, and doesn't look bad when the team can't get anything to fall from three?).

So:
The team, as of now, has a top-three offense and a top-two defense in the league. We're at the bottom of the league in turnovers and personal fouls committed. They're leading the league in 3PA, sure, but it's not a particularly massive outlier, especially when you consider the shape of our roster. ... things are pretty good - and that's reflected in the record.

In other words, could we play more like Minnesota, offensively? Sure, but our team could just as easily be much worse off, given the fact that we're winning a lot more games than we lose.

But, because the record is good, there's a tendency for people to use close losses as an opportunity to grandstand about things that, though they have the inevitable benefit of hindsight, tend to lack much in the way of compelling evidence beyond the appeal to authority-style causality that comes from the fact that the game was a loss.

In other words, these suggested adjustments could just as likely to result in a worse record and worse performance. The presumption that these (often unspecified) adjustments definitely won't result in worse play is due to unexplained reasons beyond it being 'something that real hoopers know' or some other unquantifiable feeling. Vibes, if you like.

As a result, it's very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to complaints like: 'the team just doesn't attack the paint enough' - is that playcalling or (just as reasonably) is the problem equal parts ball movement and an inability to get calls at the line when they do drive; or '(unspecified)bad lineup combinations', is that considering the paucity of talent on our bench? is that because the guy we usually rely on to be 'a stopper' had a bad night? Both? All of the above? - so on and so forth.

In other words, if you're not willing to explain your point about the problems with the coaching, it doesn't make much sense for people to do anything other than point and say 'scoreboard', no matter how obvious or accurate your point about the problems with the coaching may be.

-- like I said a page or so ago, though, this cuts both ways - if you're defending the coach, you can bring receipts, and relying only on the record is just as problematic as ignoring it entirely. That's just not the focus of the conversation here, or the tenor of the thread more broadly. --

And people don't always have the time, energy, or effort to write a full length post, which is fine. We're all doing this for fun, after all.

[Silas]

“They have two Joe Mazzullas,” Perkins said (h/t MassLive). “They have the one that got the philosophy of we’re going to get up more 3s than you. When they hit them, he looks great. Then you have the other Joe Mazzulla, who just stands over there, and you wonder. If you take his brain out and you put it in a bird, the bird is going to start flying backwards. You got that Joe Mazzulla.

“You know why I say that? It’s because he doesn’t get his guys easy looks. Time and time again, we kept saying, attack the paint. You have so many guys that are great at cutting. They cannot continue to play AAU style basketball all the time. You gotta have sets.”

Keeping in mind that Kendrick '8 Step Travel' Perkins necessarily knows more about professional basketball than anyone posting on this forum, do we or should we hold the opinions of players beyond critique by nature of the fact that they used to be professionals? I'm not sure that's a position that holds up particularly well.

I’ve seen the argument made here that Brad can’t be criticized by us because he’s a professional and we all sit on the couch. I don’t agree, but if it that’s the standard then no one here has the credentials to call out Perk either. And Brad has to yield to Perk on championship commentary since he never won one. Gets complicated…

It's definitely very easy to slide into credentialism in any discussion, especially on an online forum where most of us are going by usernames. If none of us can say anything unless we've done anything at the NBA level - played/scouted/coached/whatever, it's going to be a very quiet room.

I think there's a difference, though, between acknowledging that we don't have the same scope of information as someone in the front office or on the coaching staff and pointing out when someone like Perk says something that's not particularly insightful or interesting (is there a head coach that doesn't look good when his team is hitting from deep, and doesn't look bad when the team can't get anything to fall from three?).

So:
The team, as of now, has a top-three offense and a top-two defense in the league. We're at the bottom of the league in turnovers and personal fouls committed. They're leading the league in 3PA, sure, but it's not a particularly massive outlier, especially when you consider the shape of our roster. ... things are pretty good - and that's reflected in the record.

In other words, could we play more like Minnesota, offensively? Sure, but our team could just as easily be much worse off, given the fact that we're winning a lot more games than we lose.

But, because the record is good, there's a tendency for people to use close losses as an opportunity to grandstand about things that, though they have the inevitable benefit of hindsight, tend to lack much in the way of compelling evidence beyond the appeal to authority-style causality that comes from the fact that the game was a loss.

In other words, these suggested adjustments could just as likely to result in a worse record and worse performance. The presumption that these (often unspecified) adjustments definitely won't result in worse play is due to unexplained reasons beyond it being 'something that real hoopers know' or some other unquantifiable feeling. Vibes, if you like.

As a result, it's very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to complaints like: 'the team just doesn't attack the paint enough' - is that playcalling or (just as reasonably) is the problem equal parts ball movement and an inability to get calls at the line when they do drive; or '(unspecified)bad lineup combinations', is that considering the paucity of talent on our bench? is that because the guy we usually rely on to be 'a stopper' had a bad night? Both? All of the above? - so on and so forth.

In other words, if you're not willing to explain your point about the problems with the coaching, it doesn't make much sense for people to do anything other than point and say 'scoreboard', no matter how obvious or accurate your point about the problems with the coaching may be.

-- like I said a page or so ago, though, this cuts both ways - if you're defending the coach, you can bring receipts, and relying only on the record is just as problematic as ignoring it entirely. That's just not the focus of the conversation here, or the tenor of the thread more broadly. --

And people don't always have the time, energy, or effort to write a full length post, which is fine. We're all doing this for fun, after all.

You got that right...also, enjoyed the read....thanks.

[green_bballers13]

I'd love to see a post that accurately breaks down his mistakes. It doesn't exist, and people are merely regurgitating anxious feelings after team losses.

Any chance that you'll never agree that pointing out a mistake is accurate?  Has there ever been a criticism that you have deemed valid?

What would you say his weaknesses are?

I think there's a chance that I will discount the importance of a head coach. I think that many of these games come down to a missed bucket (or seven). Tatum could have taken Aaron Gordon out to the 3 point line to win the game and we wouldn't be talking about Joe. Tatum's shot didn't fall in an iso situation, and we're back to Joe.

I think a head coach in the NBA is approximately as important as the 8th guy. On our team, that's Sam Hauser/Payton Pritchard/Oshae Brissett territory.

I'm not saying that Joe doesn't matter. I just don't see us focusing on Hauser's deficiencies as much as Joe's.

To those that are focused on last season's Miami series- I don't think you have to worry about role players shooting lights out. I think that was an anomaly.

I think Joe's weaknesses are mainly due to inexperience. Over time, I expect that he will get better. I believe that people have the ability to improve, and our destinies aren't fixed when we are born.

[Roy H.]

I'd love to see a post that accurately breaks down his mistakes. It doesn't exist, and people are merely regurgitating anxious feelings after team losses.

Any chance that you'll never agree that pointing out a mistake is accurate?  Has there ever been a criticism that you have deemed valid?

What would you say his weaknesses are?

I think there's a chance that I will discount the importance of a head coach. I think that many of these games come down to a missed bucket (or seven). Tatum could have taken Aaron Gordon out to the 3 point line to win the game and we wouldn't be talking about Joe. Tatum's shot didn't fall in an iso situation, and we're back to Joe.

I think a head coach in the NBA is approximately as important as the 8th guy. On our team, that's Sam Hauser/Payton Pritchard/Oshae Brissett territory.

I'm not saying that Joe doesn't matter. I just don't see us focusing on Hauser's deficiencies as much as Joe's.

To those that are focused on last season's Miami series- I don't think you have to worry about role players shooting lights out. I think that was an anomaly.

I think Joe's weaknesses are mainly due to inexperience. Over time, I expect that he will get better. I believe that people have the ability to improve, and our destinies aren't fixed when we are born.

So, no weaknesses that you can identify?

And why on earth should a championship caliber team have a flawed coach that is learning on the job?

[green_bballers13]

I'd love to see a post that accurately breaks down his mistakes. It doesn't exist, and people are merely regurgitating anxious feelings after team losses.

Any chance that you'll never agree that pointing out a mistake is accurate?  Has there ever been a criticism that you have deemed valid?

What would you say his weaknesses are?

I think there's a chance that I will discount the importance of a head coach. I think that many of these games come down to a missed bucket (or seven). Tatum could have taken Aaron Gordon out to the 3 point line to win the game and we wouldn't be talking about Joe. Tatum's shot didn't fall in an iso situation, and we're back to Joe.

I think a head coach in the NBA is approximately as important as the 8th guy. On our team, that's Sam Hauser/Payton Pritchard/Oshae Brissett territory.

I'm not saying that Joe doesn't matter. I just don't see us focusing on Hauser's deficiencies as much as Joe's.

To those that are focused on last season's Miami series- I don't think you have to worry about role players shooting lights out. I think that was an anomaly.

I think Joe's weaknesses are mainly due to inexperience. Over time, I expect that he will get better. I believe that people have the ability to improve, and our destinies aren't fixed when we are born.

So, no weaknesses that you can identify?

And why on earth should a championship caliber team have a flawed coach that is learning on the job?

I see people talking about the end of games. Traditionally, I would expect a timeout to create a set play with an inbound pass. I think that Joe wants to catch the defense off guard, especially if they can get Tatum on a lesser player. I would rethink this strategy, though I haven't looked at empirical data on these types of plays. There's a chance that you can yield a higher % shot in transition versus post timeout.

Ask Pat Riley the second question. He can give you a better answer. It's happened before.

Wouldn't you say there's close to a 100% chance that Wyc, Brad, and Mike Z have faith in Joe's ability to win a championship with this group? For me, it really does come down to me trusting Brad and Mike.

[tenn_smoothie]

As GreenBallers said, this thread is where thought goes to die. Maybe not in the sense he meant it however.

There is a continuous demand for "specific examples" of Joe's weaknesses as a coach. These weaknesses have been listed, categorized, described, broken down, , identified and discussed ad nauseam. Why does a question that has been answered repeatedly keep getting asked ?

[Kernewek]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

To answer your question, it's because it's not a very productive discussion when someone says 'this is a problem', it will be up for discussion, and the person who flagged it as a problem doesn't elaborate.

If you say 'Joe is going to bad lineups', but you never say what those lineups are (maybe Kornet and Brown don't mesh well on the floor or whatever), it's pretty hard for someone else to agree or disagree with what you're saying. You might think it's obvious, but none of us are mind readers, and we can only go by what's written in your post.

For me, right - one thing I really don't like about the current offensive philosophy, is that we essentially never use dribble handoffs, especially with the high post now that we have Porzingis. We're bottom of the league in DHO. We were bottom of the league under Udoka (2021-22), we crept up to the 20th spot last year, but we're back at the bottom this year. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I think it's weird, and I don't like it. It bothers me more than shooting a few more threes, because it seems to encourage an uninvolved offense.

Now, that's either a valid or invalid complaint (and you can't argue with the results), but it's a bit more explained than 'threes bad, tough coach good'.

[ozgod]

“They have two Joe Mazzullas,” Perkins said (h/t MassLive). “They have the one that got the philosophy of we’re going to get up more 3s than you. When they hit them, he looks great. Then you have the other Joe Mazzulla, who just stands over there, and you wonder. If you take his brain out and you put it in a bird, the bird is going to start flying backwards. You got that Joe Mazzulla.

“You know why I say that? It’s because he doesn’t get his guys easy looks. Time and time again, we kept saying, attack the paint. You have so many guys that are great at cutting. They cannot continue to play AAU style basketball all the time. You gotta have sets.”

Keeping in mind that Kendrick '8 Step Travel' Perkins necessarily knows more about professional basketball than anyone posting on this forum, do we or should we hold the opinions of players beyond critique by nature of the fact that they used to be professionals? I'm not sure that's a position that holds up particularly well.

I’ve seen the argument made here that Brad can’t be criticized by us because he’s a professional and we all sit on the couch. I don’t agree, but if it that’s the standard then no one here has the credentials to call out Perk either. And Brad has to yield to Perk on championship commentary since he never won one. Gets complicated…

I think everyone should be, and is, allowed to criticize anything and anyone...just that some people might be seen as having more credibility than others if they are professionals...but thankfully here we are all equal, behind usernames that don't indicate what each one's credibility is. We can choose who to agree with and who not to agree with (usually, but not always, we tend to agree with others who already share our own viewpoint, because they validate our own viewpoint...it's a brave person to admit they were wrong on the internet). We are all legends in our own lunchtimes!

[Roy H.]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

To answer your question, it's because it's not a very productive discussion when someone says 'this is a problem', it will be up for discussion, and the person who flagged it as a problem doesn't elaborate.

If you say 'Joe is going to bad lineups', but you never say what those lineups are (maybe Kornet and Brown don't mesh well on the floor or whatever), it's pretty hard for someone else to agree or disagree with what you're saying. You might think it's obvious, but none of us are mind readers, and we can only go by what's written in your post.

For me, right - one thing I really don't like about the current offensive philosophy, is that we essentially never use dribble handoffs, especially with the high post now that we have Porzingis. We're bottom of the league in DHO. We were bottom of the league under Udoka (2021-22), we crept up to the 20th spot last year, but we're back at the bottom this year. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I think it's weird, and I don't like it. It bothers me more than shooting a few more threes, because it seems to encourage an uninvolved offense.

Now, that's either a valid or invalid complaint (and you can't argue with the results), but it's a bit more explained than 'threes bad, tough coach good'.

I think people use shorthand at this point.  The offense broke down significantly in the playoffs last season.  Data was provided.  So did the defense.  Data was provided.  Joe was confronted.  His answers were "shoot more threes", "no adjustments" and "I didn't preach defense because I assumed they knew that".

How high level can the discussion be?  People have pointed to ball movement stats via lack of assists.  They've noted that we do very little cutting on offense.  Our pick-and-roll offense is near the bottom of the league.

To those complaints, people will say "#2 offense", which is great on average.  But, an offense based around outside shooting is more variable, and we've got no answer when the shooting isn't there.  Worse, when players improvise and attack the basket, like in Game __ against Philly when our efficiency was historically good, the coach calls the team out and says "shoot more threes".

We scored 105 points or fewer in six of our last 10 playoff games, but because overall our offense was #2 in the playoffs, fans assume it's not a problem.

I guess we'll see in this year's playoffs, but it's quite normal for fans to worry we'll see more of the same after last year's 11-9 playoff flameout.

[ozgod]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

To answer your question, it's because it's not a very productive discussion when someone says 'this is a problem', it will be up for discussion, and the person who flagged it as a problem doesn't elaborate.

If you say 'Joe is going to bad lineups', but you never say what those lineups are (maybe Kornet and Brown don't mesh well on the floor or whatever), it's pretty hard for someone else to agree or disagree with what you're saying. You might think it's obvious, but none of us are mind readers, and we can only go by what's written in your post.

For me, right - one thing I really don't like about the current offensive philosophy, is that we essentially never use dribble handoffs, especially with the high post now that we have Porzingis. We're bottom of the league in DHO. We were bottom of the league under Udoka (2021-22), we crept up to the 20th spot last year, but we're back at the bottom this year. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I think it's weird, and I don't like it. It bothers me more than shooting a few more threes, because it seems to encourage an uninvolved offense.

Now, that's either a valid or invalid complaint (and you can't argue with the results), but it's a bit more explained than 'threes bad, tough coach good'.

I think people use shorthand at this point.  The offense broke down significantly in the playoffs last season.  Data was provided.  So did the defense.  Data was provided.  Joe was confronted.  His answers were "shoot more threes", "no adjustments" and "I didn't preach defense because I assumed they knew that".

How high level can the discussion be?  People have pointed to ball movement stats via lack of assists.  They've noted that we do very little cutting on offense.  Our pick-and-roll offense is near the bottom of the league.

To those complaints, people will say "#2 offense", which is great on average.  But, an offense based around outside shooting is more variable, and we've got no answer when the shooting isn't there.  Worse, when players improvise and attack the basket, like in Game __ against Philly when our efficiency was historically good, the coach calls the team out and says "shoot more threes".

We scored 105 points or fewer in six of our last 10 playoff games, but because overall our offense was #2 in the playoffs, fans assume it's not a problem.

I guess we'll see in this year's playoffs, but it's quite normal for fans to worry we'll see more of the same after last year's 11-9 playoff flameout.

This is really what it comes down to. You can break up fans into the following categories with regards as to Joe's competence or lack thereof:

1. This group of fans don't think Joe is up for it. No matter what happens in the regular season they aren't, and won't, be convinced that Joe knows what he is doing until he proves it by winning a championship. That's their bar. Wins in the regular season don't matter, because any coach with half a brain can win a regular season game with good players. And whenever the team loses they come out pointing to the loss as more evidence that Joe needs to be fired before it's too late. These fans are not enjoying the regular season as much as the other groups because a championship is the only thing that will change their mind, and maybe not even then. The only thing that would increase their enjoyment of the season is if Joe is terminated, sooner than later.

2. This group of fans are all-in on Joe. They feel that it's unfair to blame the playoff failure last season on Joe because of any number of reasons/excuses: he was new, it wasn't his coaching staff, he was learning on the job, the players have to share the blame, the players have choked in the playoffs with three different coaches etc etc. They love that the team is leading the league and looking unstoppable, and so when the occasional loss happens they're not worried at all. These fans are enjoying this season enormously. Like the fans in group 1, they also can't wait for the playoffs because they know the team is going to win and that's going to be the only way for them to say "I told you so".

3. This group of fans aren't sold on Joe yet, but they don't think Joe sucks balls either. They accept that he didn't do a great job last season, but that it wasn't all his fault. They worry that he's the wrong choice but they know that he's unlikely to be fired before season end, and maybe even not after. They think that maybe he's showing signs of improvement, but then games pop up where they doubt themselves. There's that nagging feeling in the back of their minds that maybe there are better coaches out there, even though the team is leading the NBA right now. They too are awaiting the playoffs, but with a mix of anticipation and trepidation.

There's no wrong group to be in by the way, but reading the comments I think I can put every single person who has posted in this epic thread in one of these groups 

[Goldstar88]

C’s are tied for the 3rd best defense, they have the 4th best offense, best record, best differential. Teams doing pretty well with Joe the terrible. 

[mobilija]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

To answer your question, it's because it's not a very productive discussion when someone says 'this is a problem', it will be up for discussion, and the person who flagged it as a problem doesn't elaborate.

If you say 'Joe is going to bad lineups', but you never say what those lineups are (maybe Kornet and Brown don't mesh well on the floor or whatever), it's pretty hard for someone else to agree or disagree with what you're saying. You might think it's obvious, but none of us are mind readers, and we can only go by what's written in your post.

For me, right - one thing I really don't like about the current offensive philosophy, is that we essentially never use dribble handoffs, especially with the high post now that we have Porzingis. We're bottom of the league in DHO. We were bottom of the league under Udoka (2021-22), we crept up to the 20th spot last year, but we're back at the bottom this year. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I think it's weird, and I don't like it. It bothers me more than shooting a few more threes, because it seems to encourage an uninvolved offense.

Now, that's either a valid or invalid complaint (and you can't argue with the results), but it's a bit more explained than 'threes bad, tough coach good'.

I think people use shorthand at this point.  The offense broke down significantly in the playoffs last season.  Data was provided.  So did the defense.  Data was provided.  Joe was confronted.  His answers were "shoot more threes", "no adjustments" and "I didn't preach defense because I assumed they knew that".

How high level can the discussion be?  People have pointed to ball movement stats via lack of assists.  They've noted that we do very little cutting on offense.  Our pick-and-roll offense is near the bottom of the league.

To those complaints, people will say "#2 offense", which is great on average.  But, an offense based around outside shooting is more variable, and we've got no answer when the shooting isn't there.  Worse, when players improvise and attack the basket, like in Game __ against Philly when our efficiency was historically good, the coach calls the team out and says "shoot more threes".

We scored 105 points or fewer in six of our last 10 playoff games, but because overall our offense was #2 in the playoffs, fans assume it's not a problem.

I guess we'll see in this year's playoffs, but it's quite normal for fans to worry we'll see more of the same after last year's 11-9 playoff flameout.

This is really what it comes down to. You can break up fans into the following categories with regards as to Joe's competence or lack thereof:

1. This group of fans don't think Joe is up for it. No matter what happens in the regular season they aren't, and won't, be convinced that Joe knows what he is doing until he proves it by winning a championship. That's their bar. Wins in the regular season don't matter, because any coach with half a brain can win a regular season game with good players. And whenever the team loses they come out pointing to the loss as more evidence that Joe needs to be fired before it's too late. These fans are not enjoying the regular season as much as the other groups because a championship is the only thing that will change their mind, and maybe not even then. The only thing that would increase their enjoyment of the season is if Joe is terminated, sooner than later.

2. This group of fans are all-in on Joe. They feel that it's unfair to blame the playoff failure last season on Joe because of any number of reasons/excuses: he was new, it wasn't his coaching staff, he was learning on the job, the players have to share the blame, the players have choked in the playoffs with three different coaches etc etc. They love that the team is leading the league and looking unstoppable, and so when the occasional loss happens they're not worried at all. These fans are enjoying this season enormously. Like the fans in group 1, they also can't wait for the playoffs because they know the team is going to win and that's going to be the only way for them to say "I told you so".

3. This group of fans aren't sold on Joe yet, but they don't think Joe sucks balls either. They accept that he didn't do a great job last season, but that it wasn't all his fault. They worry that he's the wrong choice but they know that he's unlikely to be fired before season end, and maybe even not after. They think that maybe he's showing signs of improvement, but then games pop up where they doubt themselves. There's that nagging feeling in the back of their minds that maybe there are better coaches out there, even though the team is leading the NBA right now. They too are awaiting the playoffs, but with a mix of anticipation and trepidation.

There's no wrong group to be in by the way, but reading the comments I think I can put every single person who has posted in this epic thread in one of these groups 

[Kernewek]

Obviously you're not a golfer.

To answer your question, it's because it's not a very productive discussion when someone says 'this is a problem', it will be up for discussion, and the person who flagged it as a problem doesn't elaborate.

If you say 'Joe is going to bad lineups', but you never say what those lineups are (maybe Kornet and Brown don't mesh well on the floor or whatever), it's pretty hard for someone else to agree or disagree with what you're saying. You might think it's obvious, but none of us are mind readers, and we can only go by what's written in your post.

For me, right - one thing I really don't like about the current offensive philosophy, is that we essentially never use dribble handoffs, especially with the high post now that we have Porzingis. We're bottom of the league in DHO. We were bottom of the league under Udoka (2021-22), we crept up to the 20th spot last year, but we're back at the bottom this year. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I think it's weird, and I don't like it. It bothers me more than shooting a few more threes, because it seems to encourage an uninvolved offense.

Now, that's either a valid or invalid complaint (and you can't argue with the results), but it's a bit more explained than 'threes bad, tough coach good'.

I think people use shorthand at this point.

I think you're right, but I think that we should be wary of filling in the blanks with charitable interpretations, as well. There's a difference between using shorthand and saying things that aren't particularly defensible, especially when people just don't bother to defend what they say.

It's very easy to say "our pick and roll offense is near the bottom of the league" - according to what source? Are we not running enough PnR plays? Are we not scoring on PnR attempts?

If you look at the advanced team stats on nba.com, keeping in mind that they're broken down by the player who finished the play (hence the difference between roll man and ball handler) there's not much evidence that the statement is accurate unless we're being very generous with the definition of near, right?  -- We're in the lower quadrant, sure, but we're much closer to the middle of the pack than the absolute bottom (which is why I used the example of DHO - that and it's not something that's been referenced very much).
https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/ball-handler

Now maybe this is a Synergy stat - the C's are one of the teams that convert the least on pick-and-roll plays out of any team in the league. I honestly have no idea, because I don't have a Synergy account/may not have seen that tweet/didn't watch the game when the stat was brought up, or whatever. But I think most of us are comfortable being wrong when someone shows their work.

(Also, I infinitely prefer the conversations here than Mazzulla at the podium with the basketball press, because generally the basketball press is actively discouraged from asking good/useful important questions).