Joe Mazzulla officially named head coach
- Thread starter Beale13
- Start date
Jalen Williams got that late bucket over Tatum, not PP. It was an action involving Tatum and DWhite; PP was on Isaiah Joe.
PP was fine/good down the stretch, particularly since Jrue and Hauser didn't have it. Very weird criticism of one of Joe's best moves in the game.
Thanks. I'm probably misremembering the time in the game then. I thought an OKC player (Jalen Williams) bully/backed PP down, he fell, & they scored over him at some point.
Just looked at the end of Q4 highlights. OKC didn't go after him on defense & he didn't score so PP was a non-factor.
It's more about the process. CJM rarely goes offense/defense at the end of games. He almost always sticks with the same 5 in late/tight or OT (unless fouling out). Playing someone other than an awful (or injured) Jrue is progress BUT there were stoppages in the last minute when they needed a defensive stop that called for the best defensive 5.
It sounds crazy, but I think Joe thought that PP was part of their best defensive 5 at that point. Jrue was bad/hurt, and Hauser was getting torched by OKC--it was a bad matchup for him.
I guess they could go Brissett, but PP does a good job of getting into the ball, and OKC doesn't really have "just shoot over you" guys. They have guys you need to be quick on.
I think the process was good, and nearly stole the game.
PP adds pace, ball handling, and deep 3pt shooting which would be very helpful with any live ball turnover.
OKC wasn't attacking him, so no real harm in having Payton on the floor.
If there is any half-court defensive edge from OB, maybe CJM exploits it down the road.
Close wins/losses are much better for development than SAS blowouts, so enjoyed the game.
I agree---OKC was getting to the basket 'around' defenders not through and PP is quicker than just about anyone Celtics have. There's lots of ways he can get hurt defensively, but OKC didn't utilize any of them in 4th quarter the other night and credit to Joe (as several of us noted in game thread) for recognizing that and using it. OKC is well-coached and if they played again two days later there'd be a counter built in---and I expect CJM would have something else in mind then too.
Similarly, using Tatum on SGA in 4th was a great adjustmnet...length was one of the ways to constrain him becuase no one was actually able to stay in front of him. CJM didn't play that card early but did when he needed to and it worked quite well. Kudos to Tatum too for digging in on it.
According to TV Abby, Tatum asked to guard Shai, but still credit to Coach Joe for going with the flow and listening to his players.
Named Eastern Conference head coach of the month for December.
https://www.nba.com/celtics/news/news-pressrelease-celtics-joe-mazzulla-named-nba-eastern-conference-coach-of-the-month
https://www.nba.com/celtics/news/news-pressrelease-celtics-joe-mazzulla-named-nba-eastern-conference-coach-of-the-month
People talk about "Mazzulla ball" as if it's a focus on offense, but this year's team has been more consistent that any Celtics team in awhile. The winter/spring 2022 run was great, but it felt like they were red-lining the RPMs.
This team really locks in defensively, but it's able to turn it on and off as needed, and it feels way more under control and confident on that end.
This team really locks in defensively, but it's able to turn it on and off as needed, and it feels way more under control and confident on that end.
The Cs are only allowing 0.6 ppg more than the Heat who need to put in serious defensive efforts night-in/night-out due to their relative lack of offensive explosiveness. The T'wolves are way out in front but the Celtics have basically been in "break glass in case of emergency" mode on defense thus far, and are still in shouting distance of 2nd best. So long as Mazzulla gets the team to exercise that muscle regularly between now and April and the team keeps their depth sans injuries, the playoffs should see a higher end of execution that side of the ball.
Lions don't concern themselves with the trades of play-in teams (or something. This Pacers team is good.)
Joe needs just 11 wins to get to 100 over the course of his long and storied one+ year NBA career. Looking at the schedule, nothing upcoming is particularly easy for the C's but he has a chance to get there by the all star game.
It's been mentioned that Joe currently has the highest winning percentage of any NBA coach ever?
Joe's kinda a really, really brusque coach who seems to be slotting into the big void Belichick left behind.
View: https://twitter.com/NoaDalzellNBA/status/1747815875577524515
View: https://twitter.com/NoaDalzellNBA/status/1747815875577524515
I get the feeling that, because he puts so much mental energy into the parts of basketball that he thinks do matter, he has nothing left at all for random talking points.
Most of the good NBA minds are like that afaict. They're constantly obsessing about the actual mechanics/logistics of the game, and the normie questions jar them out of that and feel weird/boring.
Most of the good NBA minds are like that afaict. They're constantly obsessing about the actual mechanics/logistics of the game, and the normie questions jar them out of that and feel weird/boring.
Yeah, sign me up for the same thing but regarding sideline reporters interviewing players / coaches during games.
"Wow, you guys are winning by a lot, what do you attribute it to?"
"Just executing the gameplan. Trusting our teammates."
"Really struggled there in the 3rd quarter, what can you do to turn it around for the 4th?"
"Execute better on defense and offense."
Fucking scintillating, thanks Abby. I'd frankly rather listen to PJ Carlesimo prattle on about coaching Seton Hall in the 80s, because at least Scal might say something funny in response. Once in a great while, Doris Burke used to ask an interesting question or somehow get an interesting answer from these "interviews", but in general it is a mind-numbing waste of time for everyone involved. Like, who is asking for that? Who exactly wants to have these questions asked, when you know you'll get no insight out of the media-trained answer?
If you're going to ask athletes or coaches frivolous questions in the middle of a game, when they're definitely not going to give you tactical insight or thoughtful responses, at least make it fun.
"Luke, what was your favorite play that half?"
"Derrick, is that baby keeping you up much at night, or do you go the earplugs route?"
"Jayson, looked like you thought you were fouled on that drive there with 3 minutes left, what happened from your perspective?"
"Kristaps, do you look to combine with Jaylen a little bit extra because he's your boy, or is the team running more actions just for you two?"
"Wow, you guys are winning by a lot, what do you attribute it to?"
"Just executing the gameplan. Trusting our teammates."
"Really struggled there in the 3rd quarter, what can you do to turn it around for the 4th?"
"Execute better on defense and offense."
Fucking scintillating, thanks Abby. I'd frankly rather listen to PJ Carlesimo prattle on about coaching Seton Hall in the 80s, because at least Scal might say something funny in response. Once in a great while, Doris Burke used to ask an interesting question or somehow get an interesting answer from these "interviews", but in general it is a mind-numbing waste of time for everyone involved. Like, who is asking for that? Who exactly wants to have these questions asked, when you know you'll get no insight out of the media-trained answer?
If you're going to ask athletes or coaches frivolous questions in the middle of a game, when they're definitely not going to give you tactical insight or thoughtful responses, at least make it fun.
"Luke, what was your favorite play that half?"
"Derrick, is that baby keeping you up much at night, or do you go the earplugs route?"
"Jayson, looked like you thought you were fouled on that drive there with 3 minutes left, what happened from your perspective?"
"Kristaps, do you look to combine with Jaylen a little bit extra because he's your boy, or is the team running more actions just for you two?"
The in-game sideline interview is a giant waste of time and annoying especially when it distracts from play (which it does regularly)
Please TV producers, get rid of it altogether.
Abby is much better than most, BUT it just takes away from the product and adds no value
Apropos of nothing, Karalis wondered out loud on his podcast if Joe decided to try out the 2-1-2 zone defense in order to keep his guys engaged through the dog days of the season since the players seem to be having fun with it.
It would be kind of cool if he did.
It would be kind of cool if he did.
Haven't seen comments here about this, so have at it.
View: https://twitter.com/GwashburnGlobe/status/1750242196723261596?s=20
View: https://twitter.com/GwashburnGlobe/status/1750242196723261596?s=20
Haven’t won anything yet? Check.
Acknowledges Celtics are competing against other good teams? Check.
Bland enough for WEEI to parse every word and call him lame and a failed coach? Check
I’d say he covered all the bases.
Acknowledges Celtics are competing against other good teams? Check.
Bland enough for WEEI to parse every word and call him lame and a failed coach? Check
I’d say he covered all the bases.
Agreed. He understands how to play the media game - that is for sure.
Its now worth noting that he has a kick ass record over the course of one+ seasons when he could have just as easily gotten Adrian Griffin'd if he didn't handle things well. And unlike Griffin he didn't have any support around him to argue with.
Great piece in the Athletic today from Jared Weiss looking at Mazzulla and how he's been influenced by Man City coach Pep Guardiola. I know nothing about Premier league soccer, but found the whole article fascinating.
“Everybody tries to break basketball up into offense and defense, but it’s one game,” Mazzulla said. “If your transition defense sucks, everybody talks about your transition defense. But it’s your spacing and your decision-making and your shot selection, then it’s your transition defense. I think where basketball and soccer are the same is the transition is happening so fast. You can be on offense and two seconds later, you can be on defense. So the game is constantly changing.”
For Al Horford, this wasn’t an entirely novel concept. He’s a Premier League fan as well. He’s been watching soccer long before the rest of his teammates, and in his prime, Horford ran the offense from the perimeter.
But he was playing on teams with more distinct roles across the lineup. This new “Mazzullaball” removed the silos between roles on each end of the floor.
“Even myself, I’m learning from him just how he is making us understand how to work and take care of those advantages. That’s what he calls them,” Horford told The Athletic. “He wants us to see and execute and really not just be robots out there. Whatever the game is dictating, do it.”
And of course, we must talk about the timeouts, which still seem to perplex game threaders:
“That’s where my timeout philosophy started. I think soccer coaches are the best teachers, because once the game starts, you can’t call a timeout,” Mazzulla said. “The ability to create a system where your guys can operate and function based on the ebbs and flows of the game and how the game is going is really important. You have to empower your players to understand exactly how the game’s going and how quickly you can self-correct to either stop a run or create your own run.”
https://theathletic.com/5298676/2024/02/26/pep-guardiola-manchester-city-joe-mazzulla-celtics/
“Everybody tries to break basketball up into offense and defense, but it’s one game,” Mazzulla said. “If your transition defense sucks, everybody talks about your transition defense. But it’s your spacing and your decision-making and your shot selection, then it’s your transition defense. I think where basketball and soccer are the same is the transition is happening so fast. You can be on offense and two seconds later, you can be on defense. So the game is constantly changing.”
For Al Horford, this wasn’t an entirely novel concept. He’s a Premier League fan as well. He’s been watching soccer long before the rest of his teammates, and in his prime, Horford ran the offense from the perimeter.
But he was playing on teams with more distinct roles across the lineup. This new “Mazzullaball” removed the silos between roles on each end of the floor.
“Even myself, I’m learning from him just how he is making us understand how to work and take care of those advantages. That’s what he calls them,” Horford told The Athletic. “He wants us to see and execute and really not just be robots out there. Whatever the game is dictating, do it.”
And of course, we must talk about the timeouts, which still seem to perplex game threaders:
“That’s where my timeout philosophy started. I think soccer coaches are the best teachers, because once the game starts, you can’t call a timeout,” Mazzulla said. “The ability to create a system where your guys can operate and function based on the ebbs and flows of the game and how the game is going is really important. You have to empower your players to understand exactly how the game’s going and how quickly you can self-correct to either stop a run or create your own run.”
https://theathletic.com/5298676/2024/02/26/pep-guardiola-manchester-city-joe-mazzulla-celtics/
Weiss almost gets into it, but I'd like someone to write an article about Mazzulla's emphasis on "2-on-1s" at some point, because he talks about it ALL THE TIME. They very clearly have an offensive philosophy of:
1. identify mismatch
2. use the mismatch to compromise the defense in some way, not necessarily scoring
3. work that compromise until 2 players have a 2-on-1, whether inside or on the perimeter
4. score out of that 2-on-1
I know that sounds like basic basketball ("lol duh genius, the whole point of basketball is to use your best scorers to compromise the defense"), but it's subtly different from the ways teams have stopped them in the past.
The book on the Celtics used to be:
- get them bogged down mismatch hunting
- send late help when Tatum/Brown attack the mismatch, and they'll make bad decisions
The 2-on-1 emphasis is the counter to that, and clearly takes a lot of talent and practice to put into place. DWhite, in particular, is really good at playing this way.
Thanks for posting the article. This - "One of Mazzulla’s favorite drills at practice consists of two five-man lineups walking onto the court with no offense/defense assignment. Then he throws the ball to one group and everyone has to jump into the right play call and defensive coverage immediately." - is a great drill. I'm sure a bunch of coaches are loading it into their sessions today.
I sometime wonder how JMazz will coach when his team doesn't have the ability to create mismatches at every position. Hopefully, we won't find out for years!
Finding a mismatch to force the defense to allow a 2 against 1 somewhere else on the court is a great way to play offense. I know JB has bought into it because he keeps talking about how much "smarter" an offensive player he is.
I sometime wonder how JMazz will coach when his team doesn't have the ability to create mismatches at every position. Hopefully, we won't find out for years!
Good point. To me, it's a lot like the concepts of modern NFL offenses - create movement to isolate a defender (LB or Safety) and make that player have to make choice between two different players to commit to. Once he commits, the other player gets the ball. Like the RPO.
Finding a mismatch to force the defense to allow a 2 against 1 somewhere else on the court is a great way to play offense. I know JB has bought into it because he keeps talking about how much "smarter" an offensive player he is.
Don’t you see his coaching (with not hunting mismatches) when more of the bench is on the floor? I think it’s a credit to him that we’re seeing fewer lineups where you just don’t know who is going to score, like we did in past years. I think it’s both his coaching and that several players have improved over the last year.
He’s winning me over just in how he talks about the game.. every press conference he cites actual numbers to back up his statements… and he seems to be trying to innovate and take advantage of as much as he can with the lineup he has.. the season has basically been a long test of using his starters and bench to play out as many scenarios as possible so that there will be less potential surprises in the playoffs.
It's less about mismatches at every position. None of DWhite, Jrue, Horford, Hauser and PP can really create mismatches (Jrue sometimes in the post, DWhite sometimes in the PnR).
However, they all are elite at maintaining advantages, either by shooting in tight space (Hauser, PP, honestly sometimes DWhite now) or by attacking an advantage to quickly create a 2-on-1, and then making a decision out of it (DWhite, Jrue, Horford....PP is improving somewhat at that).
The true mismatches are usually generated by Tatum, KP, JB, or by actions involving 1-2 of those guys (they love the chin with DWhite/Tatum/KP).
I don't think this is unsustainable in more than the "have good players around Tatum and a couple other scorers" sense. Most of it is dictated by the fact that Tatum is very well-rounded, but not quite elite enough at any facet of offense to build a heliocentric system around, and KP and JB are similar. Leaning into what those guys can do really well, rather than lamenting the fact that they're not prime LeBron or Steph, has led to the best regular season offense the NBA has ever seen. Huge, huge credit to Joe for that.
fewer.
I like the way JMazz talks and thinks about the game but still he has the luxury of having 3 All-NBA(-ish) caliber players on the floor at any time, which means it's easy to create mismatches.
One of the reasons that the Cs defense works so well is that against most teams, there aren't any mismatches on the floor. We saw how hard it was, just for example, for NYK to score when Brunson was off the floor. And it was interesting to see BOS play Brunson basically straight up so as to not to create 2-1s on that end of the floor.
It's not a knock on JMazz; it's more of a thought exercise than anything else. What would change about his philosophy if he were coaching CHA instead of BOS? Maybe nothing. As I said above, hopefully we won't have to find out for many, many years.
Yes, it has a lot in common with how NFL offenses try to scheme things up to isolate specific defenders. It's a more dynamic problem than the NFL one, just because the possessions don't have static start points, which is probably why Joe draws so much inspiration from soccer. Elite soccer also has a lot of using specific players' gravity or "iso" ability to create advantages in space, but also has to do that more dynamically, just because of the nature of the game. In addition, an advantage might be the start of a process, not the end, whereas, in the NFL, you're done once you've created and exploited the advantage.
Celticsblog on Joe's experiments during the regular season:
https://www.celticsblog.com/2024/2/28/24085490/boston-celtics-philadelphia-76ers-joe-mazzulla-experiment-jayson-tatum-jaylen-brown-nick-nurse
https://www.celticsblog.com/2024/2/28/24085490/boston-celtics-philadelphia-76ers-joe-mazzulla-experiment-jayson-tatum-jaylen-brown-nick-nurse
Was thinking about putting this in the NBA thread but since it went to strategy, I thought I'd put this article on shot value in today's NBA: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2024/02/28/nba-teams-taking-too-many-3-pointers-syracuse-paper/72764256007/ - in the JMazz thread.
Two professors at Syracuse's David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics - Shane Sanders and Justin Ehrlich - published a paper called "Estimating NBA Team Shot Selection Efficiency from Aggregations of True, Continuous Shot Charts: A Generalized Additive ModelApproach," which analyzed seven seasons of shot chart data and discovered a "dispremium" has been placed on 3-point shots and that the value of a two-point shot is greater than the value of a 3-pointer when taking into account foul shots.
Looking at shot chart data from 2016-2017 through 2022-2023, the paper concludes that "the expected value of a 2-point attempt is worth 1.096 points and the expected value of a 3-point attempt is worth 1.083 points in the 2022-23 season. The true value, which takes into account free throw attempts, of a 2-point shot is 1.181 points and the true value of a 3-point shot is 1.094 in the same season."
What they believe has happened is that while the value of 3Ps has stayed the same, the value of 2Ps - particularly in the 8-10 foot range - has increased. As the article states:
Two professors at Syracuse's David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics - Shane Sanders and Justin Ehrlich - published a paper called "Estimating NBA Team Shot Selection Efficiency from Aggregations of True, Continuous Shot Charts: A Generalized Additive ModelApproach," which analyzed seven seasons of shot chart data and discovered a "dispremium" has been placed on 3-point shots and that the value of a two-point shot is greater than the value of a 3-pointer when taking into account foul shots.
Looking at shot chart data from 2016-2017 through 2022-2023, the paper concludes that "the expected value of a 2-point attempt is worth 1.096 points and the expected value of a 3-point attempt is worth 1.083 points in the 2022-23 season. The true value, which takes into account free throw attempts, of a 2-point shot is 1.181 points and the true value of a 3-point shot is 1.094 in the same season."
What they believe has happened is that while the value of 3Ps has stayed the same, the value of 2Ps - particularly in the 8-10 foot range - has increased. As the article states:
"We started seeing that there was value added in the mid-range shots by including the additional information with free throws – certainly players just like James Harden," Ehrlich said.
They’re also not advocating for long 2s. Taking mid-range shots in the 8-10 feet range is more preferable for certain players, and because of the data they have mined, the belief is that scoring will increase if their theory is applied correctly.
There are corollary aspects of their research. In the past two decades, 2-point percentage has increased significantly and 3-point percentage has not increased as much. In the 2003-04 season, teams shot 46% on 64.9 2-point attempts per game and 34.7% on 14.9 3s per game. In 2023-24, teams shoot 54.6% on 54.3 2-point attempts per game and 36.7% on 35 3-point attempts per game.
To paraphrase JMazz from the other day, the key is not just taking up 3P shots, the key is taking great shots. Score one for JMazz!
Seems like Jaylen has really taken that to heart with the midrange fadeaways. I buy that argument, emotionally: NBA players seem quite capable of making 8-10 footers at a very high clip, it's the longer-range 2s that drive me nuts. Like, they practice shots at 3-point range for hours on end, but nobody's making practice of 15-footers a priority for them unless it's part of a particular move. So that's something you heave up in desperation only (or, should be), not a regular part of the offense. But if we spend time practicing closer-in jumpers, hooks, runners etc, there's no reason that can't end up being enough higher-percentage to be a better shot more of the time. Thinking specifically of Tatum's baseline-jumper game, aside from Jaylen's fades.
The one thing our team doesn't do much of (but which seems like opponents hit at 100%) is runners/floaters - guard drives a lane, it's about to be cut off, so he won't get to the rim, but instead he jumps and just guides it home like a curling stone. It gets too high too quickly for rim protectors to get to, and it's a very different shooting mechanic than a jumper, but somehow Trae Young has figured out how to hit them at what feels like 80% from that 8-10 foot range. If Mazzulla wants to commit to the close-in 2 pointers as a greater share of the offense, that's a tool that I think we're leaving in the box.
The one thing our team doesn't do much of (but which seems like opponents hit at 100%) is runners/floaters - guard drives a lane, it's about to be cut off, so he won't get to the rim, but instead he jumps and just guides it home like a curling stone. It gets too high too quickly for rim protectors to get to, and it's a very different shooting mechanic than a jumper, but somehow Trae Young has figured out how to hit them at what feels like 80% from that 8-10 foot range. If Mazzulla wants to commit to the close-in 2 pointers as a greater share of the offense, that's a tool that I think we're leaving in the box.
Floaters are pretty difficult shots, though. I'm not sure you can just get guys to add that to their game (at least consistently).
DWhite seems to me to have an okay floater. According to NBA.com, he's 4-7 on floating bank shots and 32-71 (45.1%) on floating jump shots. I haven't compared that to anyone else.
Hopefully at some point, PP pulls out a floater. That would really help his game.
Hopefully at some point, PP pulls out a floater. That would really help his game.
Hello, let me introduce you to my friend sampling bias. He's really close with mid range shooting these days.
Interesting. Can you go into this more? I'm not a math major and don't play one on TV.
these professors looked at data from recent seasons. the only guys who shoot midrange shots anymore are ones who are really really good at them (Durant, Booker, Paul etc). Seeing the data show that midrange is suddenly more efficient than the 3 is likely an artifact of the fact that everyone who used to shoot them at an inefficient clip stopped shooting them.
the conclusion is probably _not_ that teams should be shooting more mid range shots. Like, just because Kevin Durant can hit those at 55% doesn't say much about what the most efficient strategy is in general.
The interesting point to me from that article is also the most boring one, that a lot of people already knew: for top offensive players, the midrange has a lot of equity beyond raw FG% because of the possibility of fouls, fakes, step-throughs, and high-value passes to the interior and perimeter. Anecdotally, Jaylen draws a lot of his fouls in the midrange, and also has an easier time finding high-value passes from there.
Ok thanks. I would have thought the professors would recognize that. I mean it's basically the same reason why 3P value is going down - everyone saw the value of the 3P shot so everyone is shooting it, even those who are doing so at an inefficient clip, right?
At any rate, I've only skimmed the actual article so thanks for posting that.
I think that's correct. Offenses have become so ruthlessly efficient, that the marginal value of shooting more midrange shots is now approaching layups and threes. Furthermore, defenses have also optimized to defend the three, especially in the corners. NBA offenses have already grasped the low-hanging fruit of wide-open catch-and-shoot corner threes. If teams were to take more threes, the shot selection skew more towards contested pull-up above-the-break threes.
The best evidence that we are close to optimizing is that Boston and Denver are title favorites who occupy both ends of the twos-threes spectrum.
I just skimmed the abstract but it didn't sound like a serious attempt to estimate efficiency but rather a chance to show off using a fancy ML algorithm. I'm cynical.