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

[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.

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).

FYI:  The frequency in which we score out of the pick-and-role is 5th (ball-handler) and 6th (roll man) lowest.

[Kernewek]

Sure, and our eFG% is 18th (ball handler) and 11th (roll man). And we very rarely draw shooting fouls from PnR plays that end with either player, which also contributes to the issue ... or perhaps even provides some explanation as to why we run them sparingly.

This is exactly why it's important to be somewhat specific with a critique, so we can engage with it.

[Roy H.]

So, in terms of specific critiques of the offense (other than "shoot more threes" is the most vapid possible response to our shooting variability):

I read on FB that KP is drawing a foul on 34.0% of his post-up possessions, which is the best in the NBA.  He also reportedly makes 69.0% of his FGs out of post-ups.

If those numbers are even close to true, why wouldn't we go to post-ups more?  41.5% of KP's shots are threes, which he hits at 35%.  This seems like a misallocation.  His eFG% on 2PTs is .649; it's only .525 on 3PTs.

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has. 

[mobilija]

So, in terms of specific critiques of the offense (other than "shoot more threes" is the most vapid possible response to our shooting variability):

I read on FB that KP is drawing a foul on 34.0% of his post-up possessions, which is the best in the NBA.  He also reportedly makes 69.0% of his FGs out of post-ups.

If those numbers are even close to true, why wouldn't we go to post-ups more?  41.5% of KP's shots are threes, which he hits at 35%.  This seems like a misallocation.  His eFG% on 2PTs is .649; it's only .525 on 3PTs.

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

I’ve noticed they use the KP post up in late game situations when things are starting to get tight and they need a calming bucket, it’s effective. But they never use it in a last shot situation, they should.

[Donoghus]

So, in terms of specific critiques of the offense (other than "shoot more threes" is the most vapid possible response to our shooting variability):

I read on FB that KP is drawing a foul on 34.0% of his post-up possessions, which is the best in the NBA.  He also reportedly makes 69.0% of his FGs out of post-ups.

If those numbers are even close to true, why wouldn't we go to post-ups more?  41.5% of KP's shots are threes, which he hits at 35%.  This seems like a misallocation.  His eFG% on 2PTs is .649; it's only .525 on 3PTs.

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

Only thing I can think of is the physical toll of working from the post rather than shooting from the perimeter.  Obviously, Porzingis isn't the most durable guy out there.  Maybe its a bit of an energy conservation/health thing.

Total guess on my part.

[Who]

So, in terms of specific critiques of the offense (other than "shoot more threes" is the most vapid possible response to our shooting variability):

I read on FB that KP is drawing a foul on 34.0% of his post-up possessions, which is the best in the NBA.  He also reportedly makes 69.0% of his FGs out of post-ups.

If those numbers are even close to true, why wouldn't we go to post-ups more?  41.5% of KP's shots are threes, which he hits at 35%.  This seems like a misallocation.  His eFG% on 2PTs is .649; it's only .525 on 3PTs.

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

Only thing I can think of is the physical toll of working from the post rather than shooting from the perimeter.  Obviously, Porzingis isn't the most durable guy out there.  Maybe its a bit of an energy conservation/health thing.

Total guess on my part.

I would also think passing / decision making is an issue.

I remember a game there lately where we were trying to force feed possessions into Porzingis in the posts (or usually elbow area midpost action) who had mismatches all night long. He struggled reading double teams. He struggled with the pass outs. The offense got clogged down. Became stagnant. We weren't getting good shots.

[bdm860]

So, in terms of specific critiques of the offense (other than "shoot more threes" is the most vapid possible response to our shooting variability):

I read on FB that KP is drawing a foul on 34.0% of his post-up possessions, which is the best in the NBA.  He also reportedly makes 69.0% of his FGs out of post-ups.

If those numbers are even close to true, why wouldn't we go to post-ups more?  41.5% of KP's shots are threes, which he hits at 35%.  This seems like a misallocation.  His eFG% on 2PTs is .649; it's only .525 on 3PTs.

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

You can see the stats here, so the stats you saw seem right.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/playtype-post-up?dir=D&sort=FG_PCT

He is top 10 in both post up possessions (t-#8) and frequency (#9), but a guy like Jokic takes post up shots 9% more, Embiid 2% more, Sengun about the same.  So there's room to do more, but he's not that out of whack.  But Jokic and Embiid are both averaging 1.18 points per possession for post ups, while Porzingis is 1.40.  So ya, you'd want to utilize that more.

But based solely on my eye test though, he doesn't seem like a dominate post up player.  He seems weak with poor hands.  Weak in that he can't really back people down or easily establish position, and his hands in the post are like how Jaylen dribbles (in that if he's doubled or swiped at or challenged, it seems like he often loses the ball).  He's great at being tall and shooting over people though.  (Does anyone else see that too, or is that an inaccurate observation by me?)   So maybe he's so effective now because him and the team really choose their spots.  I could see him starting to struggle/be much less effective if he went to the post a lot more.

[Roy H.]

So, in terms of specific critiques of the offense (other than "shoot more threes" is the most vapid possible response to our shooting variability):

I read on FB that KP is drawing a foul on 34.0% of his post-up possessions, which is the best in the NBA.  He also reportedly makes 69.0% of his FGs out of post-ups.

If those numbers are even close to true, why wouldn't we go to post-ups more?  41.5% of KP's shots are threes, which he hits at 35%.  This seems like a misallocation.  His eFG% on 2PTs is .649; it's only .525 on 3PTs.

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

You can see the stats here, so the stats you saw seem right.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/playtype-post-up?dir=D&sort=FG_PCT

He is top 10 in both post up possessions (t-#8) and frequency (#9), but a guy like Jokic takes post up shots 9% more, Embiid 2% more, Sengun about the same.  So there's room to do more, but he's not that out of whack.  But Jokic and Embiid are both averaging 1.18 points per possession for post ups, while Porzingis is 1.40.  So ya, you'd want to utilize that more.

But based solely on my eye test though, he doesn't seem like a dominate post up player.  He seems weak with poor hands.  Weak in that he can't really back people down or easily establish position, and his hands in the post are like how Jaylen dribbles (in that if he's doubled or swiped at or challenged, it seems like he often loses the ball).  He's great at being tall and shooting over people though.  (Does anyone else see that too, or is that an inaccurate observation by me?)   So maybe he's so effective now because him and the team really choose their spots.  I could see him starting to struggle/be much less effective if he went to the post a lot more.

Yeah, he's having a career year down there, and picking his spots is probably part of it.

But, in end-of-quarter situations, or when we're struggling from 3PT, it seems like something obvious to try.  I think the biggest frustration I have with Joe is that he's hesitant to make adjustments, and believes that the system is the system. 

[Atzar]

You can see the stats here, so the stats you saw seem right.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/playtype-post-up?dir=D&sort=FG_PCT

He is top 10 in both post up possessions (t-#8) and frequency (#9), but a guy like Jokic takes post up shots 9% more, Embiid 2% more, Sengun about the same.  So there's room to do more, but he's not that out of whack.  But Jokic and Embiid are both averaging 1.18 points per possession for post ups, while Porzingis is 1.40.  So ya, you'd want to utilize that more.

But based solely on my eye test though, he doesn't seem like a dominate post up player.  He seems weak with poor hands.  Weak in that he can't really back people down or easily establish position, and his hands in the post are like how Jaylen dribbles (in that if he's doubled or swiped at or challenged, it seems like he often loses the ball).  He's great at being tall and shooting over people though.  (Does anyone else see that too, or is that an inaccurate observation by me?)   So maybe he's so effective now because him and the team really choose their spots.  I could see him starting to struggle/be much less effective if he went to the post a lot more.

Well, the high post is still the post.  KP is a mid-high post guy more than a low post guy.  Gets his spots from about 10-15 feet, keeps the ball high, and then just shoots on top of his man's head.  Draws a lot of fouls doing that.  I do agree that he sees help coming less often than I'd prefer - court vision is not his strength.  That's a big limitation for him as a passer too, even though I think he's brought a very unselfish attitude to this team overall. 

Guys with his high center of gravity are always going to struggle more to establish low position on the block though.  He's not going to shove his man under the backboard and then smash on him like Embiid can.  KG wasn't really a low post guy for the same reason.  But there's more than one way to play in the post, and KP is effective in his way. 

[green_bballers13]

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

At the risk of sounding content, I think that the Celtics are winning at a decent clip. I'm most concerned about health at this point. Posting up KP (and Horford) seems like a path to wear and tear, or even injury. It's a lot easier to stand out by the 3 point line then to grind down low.

Once the playoffs start, KP can get down and dirty. Until then, he can work on his low post moves in practice.

[Kernewek]

He obviously has to shoot a certain number of threes to stretch the defense for himself and others, but it's odd that we don't post him more since it may be the most efficient shot our offense has.

At the risk of sounding content, I think that the Celtics are winning at a decent clip. I'm most concerned about health at this point. Posting up KP (and Horford) seems like a path to wear and tear, or even injury. It's a lot easier to stand out by the 3 point line then to grind down low.

Once the playoffs start, KP can get down and dirty. Until then, he can work on his low post moves in practice.

Two way street though, right - who is really going to bang down low with KP and Al on a regular basis? Surely most of the guys who can be relied on to guard starter-level players in the post have mostly phased out of the league by now. Unless we think the average bench guy can do it at a replacement-level?

[tenn_smoothie]

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'.

In a previous post, I specifically named the players that were a bad match for the situation in the Denver loss. To start the critical 4th quarter, Joe saw fit to play both Pritchard (too small) and Kornet (too slow) to defend Jamal Murray coming off screens that resulted in one open shot after another, most of which he buried. How specific an argument do you require ?

[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'.

In a previous post, I specifically named the players that were a bad match for the situation in the Denver loss. To start the critical 4th quarter, Joe saw fit to play both Pritchard (too small) and Kornet (too slow) to defend Jamal Murray coming off screens that resulted in one open shot after another, most of which he buried. How specific an argument do you require ?

I realise I was replying to you in the context of the conversation, but I actually think you explain your concerns pretty well most of the time.

Here’s an example from a post by another poster following the Denver loss, this was the analysis: “ 3’s don’t fall and they lost. Joe's lineup sucked too.”

I think it’s reasonable to ask for a little more than that, even (and especially) when it’s got a good chance of being true.

[tenn_smoothie]

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'.

In a previous post, I specifically named the players that were a bad match for the situation in the Denver loss. To start the critical 4th quarter, Joe saw fit to play both Pritchard (too small) and Kornet (too slow) to defend Jamal Murray coming off screens that resulted in one open shot after another, most of which he buried. How specific an argument do you require ?

I realise I was replying to you in the context of the conversation, but I actually think you explain your concerns pretty well most of the time.

Here’s an example from a post by another poster following the Denver loss, this was the analysis: “ 3’s don’t fall and they lost. Joe's lineup sucked too.”

I think it’s reasonable to ask for a little more than that, even (and especially) when it’s got a good chance of being true.

Your thoughtful comments are appreciated.

Yes, some of the observations made here are strictly from the heart and the gut and not from the head.
And I get totally in my feelings watching the Celts play a lot of the time - the pain of a sports fan, why do we do it ?

[ozgod]

Getting fired on Monday!!!