There is almost no other reason to have PP on this team other than to bring some energy off the bench and his ability to hit multiple 3s.
And they needed both last night.
And they needed both last night.
Pritchard was part of the rotation that night as someone was out (Brogdon or White).The OKC game was not a B2B, and no one seemed particularly upset that Mazzulla salvaged a win by giving Pritchard some late 3rd/early 4th minutes.
I don't feel super-strongly about this one way or the other, but I think it's fair to criticize Mazzulla's thought process around PP as being a bit inconsistent.
C’mon you’re better than “no other reason to have him on the team.” It’s not like he’s Tacko who had zero role. He’s deep bench depth for nights when we aren’t at full strength and a capable emergency rotation guy in spots. Last night wasn’t one of those nights….neither were other nights when people complain he doesn’t play while in the same breath ask for more White minutes.There is almost no other reason to have PP on this team other than to bring some energy off the bench and his ability to hit multiple 3s.
And they needed both last night.
I legit don’t understand where this is coming from. No player plays the entirety of the second half. If Pritchard came in late in the third or started the 4th which guy who likely would have been sitting anyway would have objected?I disagree that players wouldn’t object to losing their minutes to a non-rotation player on a non-B2B. This is results-oriented stuff……the far better players didn’t get the job done so the coach should have played the inferior player. That’s not a real-time process in a non-B2B.
I think we have different definitions of "benched." I'm talking about cutting White and Brogdon back from 26 and 30 minutes, which they played last nite, respectively, to something like 22 and 25 to see if Pritchard might provide a spark. If he's firing blanks like the rest of the team, he can always be returned to the bench ASAP.Then I won’t but I will say that if you want to lose guy like White or Brogdon or Smart that is certainly the way to help a guy lose confidence, be pissed off at you, lose him, etc etc. It’s short sighted.
No, a key player shouldn’t be benched in a regular season game bc he’s having a bad night unless other factors are in play…..B2B where the player expects shorter minutes, injury, illness….those would qualify.
"Lose" White Smart or Brogdon? Over a sub in 1 game where nothings' falling? That's just not a credible fear, IMO.Then I won’t but I will say that if you want to lose guy like White or Brogdon or Smart that is certainly the way to help a guy lose confidence, be pissed off at you, lose him, etc etc. It’s short sighted.
No, a key player shouldn’t be benched in a regular season game bc he’s having a bad night unless other factors are in play…..B2B where the player expects shorter minutes, injury, illness….those would qualify.
Pritchard is the new Zappe apparently.
No, not even remotely. The point here is:Pritchard would get swallowed alive by the Magic’s size.
I can see two main rationales for not using timeouts as often as the best coaches do. One seems bad, and the other seems good/defensible.7. Timeout use. CJM is letting them "play through" opposing team momentum. Funny enough the best HC's use them all the time to stop other team runs, change lineups/players, & make in-game adjustments. If CJM wants to let the players figure it out, then he can just put away the gumball machine and go into genius coma arms-folded mode. We'll have to get used to it but that doesn't mean we have to like it. How many "challenges" + TOs has Joe saved up for the end of the season?
The existing research on the effectiveness of timeouts on short-term performance in basketball (Mace et. al.; Roane et. al.) supported the idea that timeouts can be highly effective at aiding short-term performance. The findings from this paper support this idea that timeouts can be effective at enhancing performance, but at a smaller magnitude. Regardless of whether a team was home or away, the short-term scoring ratio for teams that called timeout following six consecutive points being scored against them was higher than the short-term scoring ratio for teams that did not call a timeout following six consecutive points being scored against them. The most significant of these results, the home-team with the first-half restriction, shows a .21 increase in average ratio for the next ten points, meaning that calling a timeout predicts that the home-team will score 5.47 out of the next ten points as opposed to 5.26 points when a timeout is not called. This result is small, but supports the idea that timeouts can be a marginally effective tool for coaches to use to help their teams win
Agreed. I'd also guess that's what he's trying to do on #2. Although I think these players have gone through the gauntlet of the playoffs countless times, they're pretty hardened and know what to expect/how to react. Especially after the FINALS appearance.I can see two main rationales for not using timeouts as often as the best coaches do. One seems bad, and the other seems good/defensible.
1. (bad) "We are going to re-invent NBA basketball and get good at playing without timeouts so that we evolve beyond needing them." This seems unlikely to work.
2. (better) "We didn't face any adversity last year in the 2nd half of the season, and then it felt like a splash of cold water in the face when it hit us against the Bucks/Heat/Warriors. Let's try to play through bad stretches more this year as a way of manufacturing some extra experience handling adversity."
I don't know that I fully buy #2, but I could see a reasonable person thinking it, and also could see him being right.
Funny what a road trip and integrating a new big into the lineup can do. Has this ever happened to any other team?From The Athletic:
While some offensive regression was to be expected after the team’s blistering start, this has been a steep fall. The Celtics own the league’s worst offensive rating over their last nine games.
https://theathletic.com/4015418/2022/12/18/boston-celtics-offense-orlando-magic/
While I share your sentiment that the sky is not falling, it's more than travel weariness. We watched the book get out on how to defend this team, and the team hasn't responded yet. I mean, we were talking about it here, even when the team was still winning those games. There needs to be an adjustment. I missed both Orlando games, but every one before that in this last stretch was the same--drop and hedge enough to take away most drives, force the Cs to make somewhat-contested 3s, don't allow the inside-out game that was killing the league. And it's working. We had a nice run with all of the ghost screens and baseline cuts, but now Joe has to dial up some more actions.Funny what a road trip and integrating a new big into the lineup can do. Has this ever happened to any other team?
I'm way behind on my Cs watching but have parts of every game but the LAL. I know none of us really have these statistics but I'd be super interested in seeing what the Cs have as to whether the Cs are actually taking tougher shots.While I share your sentiment that the sky is not falling, it's more than travel weariness. We watched the book get out on how to defend this team, and the team hasn't responded yet. I mean, we were talking about it here, even when the team was still winning those games. There needs to be an adjustment. I missed both Orlando games, but every one before that in this last stretch was the same--drop and hedge enough to take away most drives, force the Cs to make somewhat-contested 3s, don't allow the inside-out game that was killing the league. And it's working. We had a nice run with all of the ghost screens and baseline cuts, but now Joe has to dial up some more actions.
Travel weariness, incorporating TL, teams seeing tape and adjusting. I’m sure to a degree it’s some combination of all but even prior to this recent stretch a reasonable fan would expect the natural ebb and flow of the season to regress in this direction. We’ll have worse losses along the way than these I’m pretty sure of that.While I share your sentiment that the sky is not falling, it's more than travel weariness. We watched the book get out on how to defend this team, and the team hasn't responded yet. I mean, we were talking about it here, even when the team was still winning those games. There needs to be an adjustment. I missed both Orlando games, but every one before that in this last stretch was the same--drop and hedge enough to take away most drives, force the Cs to make somewhat-contested 3s, don't allow the inside-out game that was killing the league. And it's working. We had a nice run with all of the ghost screens and baseline cuts, but now Joe has to dial up some more actions.
Yeah you and wbcd are correct that some regression in shooting alone was to be anticipated, and I have no issue with the travel theory. Probably nothing to panic over. But I am concerned that the book is out and that, hence, this regression is permanent absent more Joe wizardry. Which is fine when you're regressing from "best offense evah", but it does mean that they'll have to play both ends better now.Travel weariness, incorporating TL, teams seeing tape and adjusting. I’m sure to a degree it’s some combination of all but even prior to this recent stretch a reasonable fan would expect the natural ebb and flow of the season to regress in this direction. We’ll have worse losses along the way than these I’m pretty sure of that.
FWIW, I think that's unfair. It's a bad habit, perhaps a nervous tic. They go hero ball and/or ICBM mode when the defense really challenges what they had planned. I don't think of it as laziness as much as a lack of a plan B or the confidence to stick with the plan A. Guys are playing through contact and selling out their bodies at both ends. Lazy doesn't seem like the right word.I think the Celtics have a lazy side that just wants to live or die by shooting the first open three available.
Well, whatever you want to call it, they have shown themselves capable of working to create good looks, and they really don't work to create good looks when they are struggling.FWIW, I think that's unfair. It's a bad habit, perhaps a nervous tic. They go hero ball and/or ICBM mode when the defense really challenges what they had planned. I don't think of it as laziness as much as a lack of a plan B or the confidence to stick with the plan A. Guys are playing through contact and selling out their bodies at both ends. Lazy doesn't seem like the right word.
Not sure why you have to ascribe negative motives to everything that you don't agree with, but whatever.I think the Celtics have a lazy side that just wants to live or die by shooting the first open three available.
Paint touch 3s, kick-out/step-in 3s, wide-open 3s, and corner 3s are what they hunt for. Obviously getting "a great shot over a good shot" is appealing.I'm not speaking for Ed, but the bad 3s that this team falls back into aren't the secondary transition ones. Everyone agrees that those are good shots. It's when we have a bunch of possessions in a row where the ball isn't moving, not enough cutting/screening etc. This team has always lapsed back into that (most do) when challenged. It's a bad habit.
I fight this at all levels. You want the team that bombs threes. If you are confident and nailing shots you are almost unbeatable. But, it is thought o live with the randomness of it at times. I disagree with a coach that lets everyone shoot the open three, saying the flow and confidence it creates is worth the misses you get from weaker guys casting away. I like my guys to find the better shooter if possible. He has won more games than me, and gone on to higher levels, so as far as NBA goes I am sure he is correct that letting guys shoot, in today's game is the answer.I think the Celtics have a lazy side that just wants to live or die by shooting the first open three available.
I like this.I fight this at all levels. You want the team that bombs threes. If you are confident and nailing shots you are almost unbeatable. But, it is thought o live with the randomness of it at times. I disagree with a coach that lets everyone shoot the open three, saying the flow and confidence it creates is worth the misses you get from weaker guys casting away. I like my guys to find the better shooter if possible. He has won more games than me, and gone on to higher levels, so as far as NBA goes I am sure he is correct that letting guys shoot, in today's game is the answer.
Make or miss league!!!!!
I watched the first half. I can confirm this.The Celts were absolutely unwatchable in the first half
They appear to be, from my casual observation, bad at, or prone to, playing long stretches of abysmal defense. The otherworldly offense they played over the first 20-25 games covered up for this deficiency.I just don’t understand what’s going on. After the Suns game, I thought this team would never lose again.
I get shooting regression. I get other teams making it harder to drive and kick. But getting down 30 in the first half to a team that has Nesmith in the closing lineup? WTF?