Why haven't we addressed coaching?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Celtics already have a lead assistant in Sam Casell. Who would people like to see as the Celtics add as a non-lead assistant?

A former head coach. Not to keep banging the Spurs drum, but another example is that Brett Brown is an assistant for the Spurs (in addition to Billy Donovan).

I think Roy pointed to SVG during the 2024 as a consultant, which I think did a lot of good for the squad.

I thought it was Jeff that did the consulting in 2024?

[Jiri Welsch]

Celtics already have a lead assistant in Sam Casell. Who would people like to see as the Celtics add as a non-lead assistant?

A former head coach. Not to keep banging the Spurs drum, but another example is that Brett Brown is an assistant for the Spurs (in addition to Billy Donovan).

I think Roy pointed to SVG during the 2024 as a consultant, which I think did a lot of good for the squad.

I thought it was Jeff that did the consulting in 2024?

It 100% was. I was picturing Jeff but typed "SVG" for some reason. Don't get old, kids!

[wiley]

I don't understand how anybody in management has watched our team in the playoffs and said "Our biggest problem?  Jaylen Brown".  For whatever JB's faults, the reason we have lost to an underdog in 3 out of 4 seasons has little to do with JB, or his salary slot.

The biggest reasons we lost against the 76ers were 1) being unprepared, 2) not making adjustments either in-game or between games.  So, we saw the same offensive and defensive schemes exploited over and over again.   Brad addressed Queta's inability to stay on the floor by adding Robinson, but he's done little to answer why so many players showed a steep regression in the postseason.

The team clearly needs a fresh set of eyes on the bench.  Since the title team Charles Lee has left.  JVG has left.  The team's coaching is poorer than it was.

Joe isn't getting replaced, but why not supplement the bench?  It doesn't impact the salary cap, so why not invest in improving the team where we can?

I agree that Joe and his coaching staff made mistakes, however the reason the Cs lost the series to Philly was they had a terrible shooting series.  regular season FG% - 46.7%   3pt% - 36.7%
 
1st loss....FG%-39% (-7.7)     3pt%-26%  (-10.7)
2nd loss....FG%-40% (-6.7)    3pt%-28%  (-8.7)
3rd loss.... FG%- 44% (-2.7)   3pt%-33%  (-3.7)
4th loss.....FG%- 40% (-6.7)   3pt%-27%  (-9.7)

You need to make baskets to win.

You make baskets by creating quality shots, which does not include continuously setting league records for 3-point attempts each season.

All you have to do is look at Games 1 & 2 at home vs the Knicks in the second round of the 2025 playoffs, when the Celtics had second-half leads of 20+ points in both games and proceeded to blow those leads by jacking up multiple missed 3's and continuing to do so with the lead declining with no change made whatsoever in the offensive strategy. I've never seen anything that bad in all my years of playing, coaching and watching basketball at all levels. Tatum was not injured in either of those games.
Losing the 3-1 series lead this year to the Sixers just added insult to injury.
Stating that we lost because we had a terrible shooting series is kind of the point, don't you think ? Stop taking low percentage shots !!!!

Mazzulla is THE problem and until he is gone, we won't win another title.
For the life of me, I don't understand how Brad doesn't see this.
If Brad somehow thinks Mazzulla is a good coach, then he is the problem as well.

Please don't trot out the tired old comment that Joe won a title. Joe's team won a title in spite of him. They had an easy draw in the playoffs that was further facilitated by opponents sustaining injuries to their best players. We also had a high-quality post option in Porzingis, which almost forced the team to play more inside-out offense.

I certainly agree with the bolded....  the style that Charles Barkley occasionally calls "stupid"  is not stupid because taking threes is always bad.  It's stupid because it's sometimes bad.  The strategic and mental part of any sport requires constant adjustment, not sticking through with analytics no matter what the situation.   Joe may be the one sticking to closely to what he knows is Brad's analytics based approach, or, perhaps Brad is somehow influencing Joe to stick to the threes more than Joe would like (not sure, but I lean towards Joe not making in game adjustments as much as perhaps Stevens himself would), though when Stevens was still the coach I believe he received some of the exact same flak from Barkley that the Mazzula C's hear almost every post season.   

C's management can always come back and say, well, we didn't implement our system as well as we did in the regular season, or as well as we should have.  Or, we don't have the right players to follow through with our system.  Both of these are unsound approaches.  The playoffs are different than the regular season.  The defense is tougher, making it harder to hit uncontested threes.  The game pressure is greater, with more on the line, often making it harder to hit threes (clutch players aside).   

Not only that, the playoffs are simply where grittiness is rewarded.  Just launching threes is basically saying you'd like a walk in the park victory and not a gritty victory.  If you can hit them, fine.  If you're not hitting them, can't hit them, etc, are being defensed into not hitting them, etc. then continuing to take them is inviting losses in which you never really fought.   

[Indocelts]

Amother thing that iritates me about Joe is that, despite his "analytical approach" to the game, he let Tatum shot 34% on  10 3PTAs per game a season ago. For me it is favoritism and not analytics, and I think it encourages Tatum to play a lazy game uncorrected. If I were his teammate I would be demoralized with such favoritism.
I suspect that Brown also felt such favoritism hence his complaint when the play style changed once Tatum was inserted back this season.

[Celtics4ever]

I think it's more he trusts proven players more than favoritism.   A rook can be killing it and he will take them out for a minor mistake.   If you knew his college coach, you would understand, he was that way too.

[Celtics2021]

I think it's more he trusts proven players more than favoritism.   A rook can be killing it and he will take them out for a minor mistake.   If you knew his college coach, you would understand, he was that way too.

I think it is both trust and also teaching.  If a young guy makes a mistake on something they have been emphasizing, he takes them out pretty quickly to re-emphasize not to do whatever was just done.  Tatum and White need less teaching, and so the instant feedback of being taken out for something is less useful.

[Roy H.]

I think it's more he trusts proven players more than favoritism.   A rook can be killing it and he will take them out for a minor mistake.   If you knew his college coach, you would understand, he was that way too.

I think it is both trust and also teaching.  If a young guy makes a mistake on something they have been emphasizing, he takes them out pretty quickly to re-emphasize not to do whatever was just done.  Tatum and White need less teaching, and so the instant feedback of being taken out for something is less useful.

I get his point, though.  Sometimes, veterans and star players do need teaching.  It was back in 2023 that Joe said that he didn't emphasize defensive commitment, because the necessity to play defense should be obvious.  But, some of the players bristled at it (Smart, Brogdon, Brown), because they knew that even vets need to be reminded things.

With basketball, I think a guy like Tatum needs to be coached, even if it;s not as much as a guy like Hugo.  When our stars make bad turnovers, don't move the ball, take bad shots, etc., they need to be reminded of it.

I think that practice and intensive film study are becoming less prevalent in the NBA, and there's this tendency not to coach up the stars for the reasons you say.  But, it's nonsense in a way, and is driven by fragile egos moreso than is what is best for the team.

[Celtics2021]

I think it's more he trusts proven players more than favoritism.   A rook can be killing it and he will take them out for a minor mistake.   If you knew his college coach, you would understand, he was that way too.

I think it is both trust and also teaching.  If a young guy makes a mistake on something they have been emphasizing, he takes them out pretty quickly to re-emphasize not to do whatever was just done.  Tatum and White need less teaching, and so the instant feedback of being taken out for something is less useful.

I get his point, though.  Sometimes, veterans and star players do need teaching.  It was back in 2023 that Joe said that he didn't emphasize defensive commitment, because the necessity to play defense should be obvious.  But, some of the players bristled at it (Smart, Brogdon, Brown), because they knew that even vets need to be reminded things.

With basketball, I think a guy like Tatum needs to be coached, even if it;s not as much as a guy like Hugo.  When our stars make bad turnovers, don't move the ball, take bad shots, etc., they need to be reminded of it.

I think that practice and intensive film study are becoming less prevalent in the NBA, and there's this tendency not to coach up the stars for the reasons you say.  But, it's nonsense in a way, and is driven by fragile egos moreso than is what is best for the team.

It does happen.  It has to happen less.  You cannot take Tatum out of the game after a mistake or two because the team revolves around him so much, and it will make it harder on everyone else.  But for sure when Joe wants to yell at a star he will call a timeout (something he does more now than he did his first season), or will just bench them in the fourth quarter.  But taking out Tatum or White or Brown for a teaching point is a lot more disruptive to everyone else than taking out Jordan Walsh or Baylor Scheierman, and probably less effective.  The stars have a lot more responsibility on the court and are much less likely to be working on any single skill or habit, but rather working on managing all the different things.  Taking a guy out because he messed up on X because he was too focused on Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, and Z, which are all things you want him to focus on is less useful than when a guy messes up on X and was told to focus only on X, Y, and Z.

[SparzWizard]

I think it's more he trusts proven players more than favoritism.   A rook can be killing it and he will take them out for a minor mistake.   If you knew his college coach, you would understand, he was that way too.

I think it is both trust and also teaching.  If a young guy makes a mistake on something they have been emphasizing, he takes them out pretty quickly to re-emphasize not to do whatever was just done.  Tatum and White need less teaching, and so the instant feedback of being taken out for something is less useful.

I get his point, though.  Sometimes, veterans and star players do need teaching.  It was back in 2023 that Joe said that he didn't emphasize defensive commitment, because the necessity to play defense should be obvious.  But, some of the players bristled at it (Smart, Brogdon, Brown), because they knew that even vets need to be reminded things.

With basketball, I think a guy like Tatum needs to be coached, even if it;s not as much as a guy like Hugo.  When our stars make bad turnovers, don't move the ball, take bad shots, etc., they need to be reminded of it.

I think that practice and intensive film study are becoming less prevalent in the NBA, and there's this tendency not to coach up the stars for the reasons you say.  But, it's nonsense in a way, and is driven by fragile egos moreso than is what is best for the team.

It does happen.  It has to happen less.  You cannot take Tatum out of the game after a mistake or two because the team revolves around him so much, and it will make it harder on everyone else.  But for sure when Joe wants to yell at a star he will call a timeout (something he does more now than he did his first season), or will just bench them in the fourth quarter.  But taking out Tatum or White or Brown for a teaching point is a lot more disruptive to everyone else than taking out Jordan Walsh or Baylor Scheierman, and probably less effective.  The stars have a lot more responsibility on the court and are much less likely to be working on any single skill or habit, but rather working on managing all the different things.  Taking a guy out because he messed up on X because he was too focused on Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, and Z, which are all things you want him to focus on is less useful than when a guy messes up on X and was told to focus only on X, Y, and Z.

If they're dribbling on a fastbreak and someone like Tatum just stops at the top of the arc and launches a 3 and bricks it, then call a timeout immediately and take him out the game for a few minutes.

There's many of those moments with these folks esp how it has caused them to lose games. I recalled Neemais had a wide-open dunk in Game 7 against the 76ers but instead Jaylen Brown took a 3 and clanked it. It was a 1-point deficit too.

[Roy H.]

I think it's more he trusts proven players more than favoritism.   A rook can be killing it and he will take them out for a minor mistake.   If you knew his college coach, you would understand, he was that way too.

I think it is both trust and also teaching.  If a young guy makes a mistake on something they have been emphasizing, he takes them out pretty quickly to re-emphasize not to do whatever was just done.  Tatum and White need less teaching, and so the instant feedback of being taken out for something is less useful.

I get his point, though.  Sometimes, veterans and star players do need teaching.  It was back in 2023 that Joe said that he didn't emphasize defensive commitment, because the necessity to play defense should be obvious.  But, some of the players bristled at it (Smart, Brogdon, Brown), because they knew that even vets need to be reminded things.

With basketball, I think a guy like Tatum needs to be coached, even if it;s not as much as a guy like Hugo.  When our stars make bad turnovers, don't move the ball, take bad shots, etc., they need to be reminded of it.

I think that practice and intensive film study are becoming less prevalent in the NBA, and there's this tendency not to coach up the stars for the reasons you say.  But, it's nonsense in a way, and is driven by fragile egos moreso than is what is best for the team.

It does happen.  It has to happen less.  You cannot take Tatum out of the game after a mistake or two because the team revolves around him so much, and it will make it harder on everyone else.  But for sure when Joe wants to yell at a star he will call a timeout (something he does more now than he did his first season), or will just bench them in the fourth quarter.  But taking out Tatum or White or Brown for a teaching point is a lot more disruptive to everyone else than taking out Jordan Walsh or Baylor Scheierman, and probably less effective.  The stars have a lot more responsibility on the court and are much less likely to be working on any single skill or habit, but rather working on managing all the different things.  Taking a guy out because he messed up on X because he was too focused on Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, and Z, which are all things you want him to focus on is less useful than when a guy messes up on X and was told to focus only on X, Y, and Z.

If they're dribbling on a fastbreak and someone like Tatum just stops at the top of the arc and launches a 3 and bricks it, then call a timeout immediately and take him out the game for a few minutes.

There's many of those moments with these folks esp how it has caused them to lose games. I recalled Neemais had a wide-open dunk in Game 7 against the 76ers but instead Jaylen Brown took a 3 and clanked it. It was a 1-point deficit too.

The question we don't know:  does Joe consider those bad shots?  Publicly, I have never seen him admit that any three-pointer was a bad shot, but he has to have his limits, right? Is that message being communicated to players? But just because a three-pointer is open doesn't mean that there's an even easier two pointer available?

Joe is an analytics guy. I'm hoping that he is preaching the message that a layup is a much better shot than even an open three. 

[Kernewek]

How is this different from the Fire Joe thread?

I think the team is very unlikely to make substantial adjustments to the way they play without a change in front office and head coaching staff.

[Kernewek]

*never mind, double post*

[Goldstar88]

How is this different from the Fire Joe thread?

 

[Vermont Green]

I have been trying to work through the stats on a theory, but it is tedious.  My theory is that teams make a lower percentage of 3s in the 4th quarter than the rest of the game.  This is based on assuming players are tired and will not shoot long shots as well.

I checked the regular season stats for the 12 teams with the best 3P% for the overall game.  10 of these teams had lower 3P% in the 4th than their average for the entire game, including BOS.  This was also the case for BOS in the playoffs.

So what this means is that teams should be more selective on 3s in the 4th quarter than the rest of the game, especially in the playoffs.  Take it to the hoop a little more.  This could result in no more than a couple less 3s in the 4th quarter.

[Vermont Green]

I decided to ask AI this question, the answer was about the same:

Yes, NBA teams generally experience a slight drop in 3-point shooting percentage in the 4th quarter compared to the first three quarters. While the league average hovers around (36%) for the entirety of the game, accuracy typically dips by (1%) to (2%) late in games. 

This decline is primarily driven by three factors:Accumulated Fatigue:

Deep 3-point shots require significant leg drive. As players log heavy minutes, this fatigue negatively impacts their lift, release timing, and overall shooting mechanics.

Higher Defensive Intensity: In the 4th quarter, teams drastically increase their defensive effort, apply higher pressure, and frequently switch or double-team primary shooters, leading to more heavily contested looks.

Late-Clock Situations: Late in the game, offenses often stall, resulting in an increased number of rushed, low-percentage 3-pointers taken just before the shot clock expires.

Also the playoff theory holds up:

NBA teams typically shoot a lower 3-point percentage in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Data shows that about 72% of playoff squads experience a decline in 3-point accuracy.