The Celtics are content to live or die by the three, but is an adjustment needed on off shooting nights?

The Celtics are content to live or die by the three, but is an adjustment needed on off shooting nights?


By Gary Washburn Globe Staff,Updated February 28, 2023




One of the primary reasons the Celtics were drubbed Monday at Madison Square Garden was the season-worst 3-point shooting performance.

Boston missed 33 of 42 attempts, hitting just 21.4 percent, killing any opportunity to rally against theKnicks, who coupled points in the paint with timely 3-point shooting to pull away for the 109-94 win.

It was one of the Celtics’ worst offensive performances of the season, and the result was indicative of their identity. Boston is a 3-point shooting team, unbeatable when it shoots 39.5 percent or higher, average when shooting below that mark.

The Celtics are 26-0 when they have hit that percentage or higher and 18-18 when they don’t. When they make less than 30 percent of their threes, they are 5-7, so Monday’s result was no surprise.

The question is whether they should stick with this 3-point personality when it’s obviously been so successful; or perhaps shift the emphasis to inside shots on nights when the threes aren’t falling. The Celtics made 66 percent of their 2-pointers Monday — they were stellar inside the arc, but they insisted on chucking 3-pointers it cost them a chance to win.


“I thought we executed pretty well,” said coach Joe Mazzulla after the loss.” I thought we had a lot of really good looks, and when those don’t fall it just puts more pressure on you. It puts more pressure on your defense. You know, you’re constantly in that 5-to-10-point range when you’re down so we got [the deficit] to 9 and I thought we got three wide open threes from really good shooters, and we missed them.”

Jayson Tatum’s struggles can help explain the defeat. After hitting 10 3-pointers in the Feb. 19 All-Star Game, he made only one against New York, forcing others to carry more of an offensive load, especially without Jaylen Brown.

Marcus Smart will always willfully shoot when called upon but he wasn’t capable of keeping the Celtics within single digits and neither were Al Horford or Derrick White. Mazzulla didn’t use Robert Williams as a low-post or rim threat as much as he could and the big man attempted four shots in 29 minutes.

If the Celtics are unable to make 3-pointers, they should opt for more twos, specifically when they are hitting nearly 70 percent of those shots.

“I know we got more shots than they did; I know we got more offensive rebounds,” Mazzulla said. “They beat us at the free throw line. I don’t know what the adjustment would be if we get more shots and get more offensive rebounds. We just go 9 for 42 from three.”

It’s OK for the Celtics to be reliant on the 3-pointer when they’re chasing games. And they have so many good shooters — Tatum, Brown, White, Malcolm Brogdon, Grant Williams — that nights like Monday are rare, and even if they are abysmal from deep, they can still give them a chance to win with defense and 2-point shots.

Another issue Monday was foul trouble. The Knicks attempted 34 free throws to the Celtics’ 14, and coupled with the lack of 3-point shooting, Boston never stood a chance offensively. A strength of the Celtics offense is not needing a high volume of free throws to win. Boston is 6-0 in the six games it has attempted 10 or fewer free throws this season.

In those six games, the Celtics shot 45.6 percent from the 3-point line. Time and again, 3-point shooting has saved them and it’s been good enough for the NBA’s second-best record.

The Celtics are second in the league in triples made and eighth in 3-point shooting percentage. In other words, they win because they are hitting from deep.

“If their No. 1 job is protecting the paint,” Mazzulla said of the Knicks, “what’s the [point of] running into the paint? Can you get easy [shots] in the shot clock early off misses? But when you’re in the halfcourt setting because of our fouling, because they made shots, you have to take the [threes] that are there. A huge strength of ours is the ability to generate a really good open look. I feel like every three we took was by a good shooter and a good shot. I think you have to encourage those.

“We went on that [second-half] run in Philly because we took open threes and they went in. We were able to stretch the game out. The fact that [Monday] stayed at an 8- to 11-point game for a lot of it meant we couldn’t get over the hump with our shot execution.”

The Celtics have the ability to win a championship with the offensive arsenal they have now, but it wouldn’t hurt to put more emphasis on getting easier baskets, especially from Robert Williams and with Tatum and Brown attacking the rim.

Monday was one of those rare games where the Celtics couldn’t make 3-pointers, couldn’t get consistent defensive, stops and then fouled too often. They can’t assume this won’t happen again and need tobe better prepared for these setbacks when the games carry more significance.

Even if resume has proven they can be an elite team relying on the 3-pointer.


Bob
MY NOTE: Henry Ford once said "you can have a Model T in any color you want, as long as it's black". That's Joe's system for offense; you can ask for any offense you want, as long as it's all-about-the-3. That scares me because in the playoffs coaching really is important since there are so many adjustments.

I was thinking about making this a poll, but I decided to just let you all weigh in on your own.

.

I already weighed in on it in the post game thread after the Knicks game. I'm not going to repeat myself here except to say that we have a team that excels in certain areas because of the composition of the roster, and that, in my opinion, JM maximizes the team's potential, given the PLAYERS strengths and weaknesses. The only other thing I have to say is that blaming the coach for every loss and never crediting him when we win has gotten downright wearisome. For instance, the "he doesn't call enough timeouts" crowd was radio silent when his saving timeouts against the Sixers, contributing mightily to that win. Sly old Doc used his up, so he couldn't advance the ball after Tatum's shot. In the meantime, dumbass Joe was able to call two in the last eight seconds, nullifying the Sixers " foul to give." If he was as clueless as his detractors seem to believe, Stevens would have to have been clueless to hire him.

I’m not gonna rip Joe, I feel like ripping Tatum. Is anyone concerned how bad he’s looked/played last few games? He did hit the game winning shot the game before, but otherwise has been making a lot of bad plays, missing bunnies and open looks. Is he fatigued already? Playoffs are intense, does he look playoff reliable? Last year he played like crap in losing Finals last 3 games. I don’t remember Bird or Pierce being so up and down. When Tatum isn’t great, he’s terrible; could he be below average on off nights, but not so terrible. A superstar should know other ways to get his game going or figure out how to help the team when he’s off. Tatum too many times refuses to adapt and makes the same bad plays/shots over and over. Sometimes he plays so bad, I’m utterly amazed we have somehow pulled out a win, but when hes bad hes scary bad.

I believe the team is locked into being dependent on the 3 due to the roster.

There are shooters, to be sure. A few on the roster can slash and get to the rim given a lane, notably Brown, Smart and Brogdon.

The issue forcing the outside game is still having no bigs. RWIII has enough size and strength, but you won't see him banging anyone around to get position in the paint with those knees. Horford has always been more of a 4 that may have been reincarnated from a 3 in a prior life. Despite adding muscle, that's not Tatum's game either. Blake, Luke and Muscala have made contributions and can be limited help with inside scoring but aren't big scoring threats in the paint do to various age, strength or style/skill related issues. Who do you go to in the paint and who can be a consistent low-post presence? No one.

I think the team can get back to the finals, but it's going to have to live by the 3 to do so. Opponents will game plan for what amounts to the Celtics playing a 4-out with a weak post presence. Celtic ball movement and the occasional drive or dump to a baseline cutter will have to be the off move to get the D to sag a bit. Off shooting nights will happen, you just have to hope not often and not on consecutive games in the postseason.

Have we seen consecutive off nights by everyone?  If so, it's only been once or twice if I recall in some of those 3-game losing streaks.  That's a dull roar for me which I'm going to have to live with. Not a show stopper IMHBAO.  

db

Joe's response to "what do you do when your 3s aren't dropping?" was "take more 3s".

Here's Jaylen's response to that question.




Bob


.

Now we are going to make up JM quotes? He wasn't asked that question, and he never gave that answer. He said they had a lot of good looks and missed them. He was right.Some say JM doesn't call enough TOs. That opinion is legit, but it is only an opinion. There is absolutely no statistical basis for the theory that success is a factor of how many timeouts are used and under what circumstances they should be used. The coach has made his thoughts regarding TO usage clear. They clearly don't comport with the desires of many board members. Cest la vie.As to the three point shot, no coach in his right mind is going to tell legitimate three point shooters not to take open shots. The Celtics were able to drive more against the Cavs than against the Knicks because the Cavs bigs were in drop coverage and the Knicks were packing the paint from the top of the key and doing a better job of staying in front of the guy with the ball.Sometimes strategy and tactics, as well as the use of personnel are determined by matchups. Some on this board would prefer that Joe slam his square pegs into round holes. Not gonna happen.

jrleftfoot wrote:I already weighed in on it in the post game thread after the Knicks game. I'm not going to repeat myself here except to say that we have a team that excels in certain areas because of the composition of the roster, and that, in my opinion, JM maximizes the team's potential, given the PLAYERS strengths and weaknesses. The only other thing I have to say is that blaming the coach for every loss and never crediting him when we win has gotten downright wearisome. For instance, the "he doesn't call enough timeouts" crowd was radio silent when his saving  timeouts against the Sixers, contributing mightily to that win. Sly old Doc used his up, so he couldn't advance the ball after Tatum's shot. In the meantime, dumbass Joe was able to call two in the last eight seconds, nullifying the Sixers " foul to give." If he was as clueless as his detractors seem to believe, Stevens would have to have  been clueless to hire him.

I don’t think anyone, at least I don’t think Joe is dumb.He has done a good job with this team in numerous areas. He deserves credit when credit is due. He also deserves the blame when blame is due. I give him credit for managing the team a continuing the continuity that we took on midseason last year.
I do blame him for not strategically using his timeouts. There’s a reason why every coach, especially the more successful ones use their time outs and are strategically prudent when doing so.
If we don’t need them then no need but there have been too many cases where in my opinion there was a need and instead kept rolling.
Sure, he gets lucky sometimes and doesn’t use them and we still win. Thats because he’s inherited a great team with experienced players. However, there’s been numerous times when he didn't and we either lost or nearly lost.
Despite the experience of our vets, these guys still need coaching. I hear great players say it all the time. Coaching is important and T.O.’s are a huge part of it.

Looking at it through a wider lens, you have older experienced coaches with great track records and great Results including championships use their allotted time outs. Some do run out of time outs but I don't think that makes them dumb for doing that either unless it becomes habitual.

On the other hand, we have one of the youngest coaches in the NBA with very little experience as a head coach anywhere and he’s not using his allotted timeouts.

I’m not a gambling man but if I was, my money would be on the former rather than the ladder.
Again Joe is not even close to being dumb, but he also has not shown that overall he is smarter than those coaches either.
I prefer rolling with whats been proven to work.

jrleftfoot wrote:Now we are going to make up JM quotes? He wasn't asked that question, and he never gave that answer. He said they had a lot of good looks and missed them. He was right.Some say JM doesn't call enough TOs. That opinion is legit, but it is only an opinion. There is absolutely no statistical basis for the theory that success is a factor of how many timeouts are used and under what circumstances they should be used. The coach has made his thoughts regarding TO usage clear. They clearly don't comport with the desires of many board members. Cest la vie.As to the three point shot, no coach in his right mind is going to tell legitimate three point shooters not to take open shots. The Celtics were able to drive more against the Cavs than against the Knicks because the Cavs bigs were in drop coverage and the Knicks were packing the paint from the top of the key and doing a better job of staying in front of the guy with the ball.Sometimes strategy and tactics, as well as the use of personnel are determined by matchups. Some on this board would prefer that Joe slam his square pegs into round holes. Not gonna happen.

Foot

With all due respect, Bob did not make up JM quotes.

The fact of the matter is that he did say exactly what Bob referenced.  How do I know?  I heard him say it in a post game interview a few weeks back.

You may want to get your facts straight before you slam board members that you disagree with.

The Celtics beat the Cavs because they shot 50% from the field and from deep.  As far as drives, the Cavs won the points in the paint battle.  We did not win the game because of our drives.  They scored 68 points in the paint to only 44 for us.

The timeout issue discussed on this board is not out of the mainstream of opinions.  I have seen multiple podcasts and sport programs from the Celtics local sports reporters and all of them recognized that SIASJ needs to use his timeouts in a more productive manner.

When you read comments that are critical of CJ you should know that they do not reflect fans desire for the team including the coach to be winners.  When players are criticized it has little to do with caring about that player and wanting for them to do well.

I do not think any experienced basketball fans needs some scientific formula to determine when timeouts should be taken.  We have seen a few game this year when CJ clearly needed to take a timeout or 2 in closeout situations. Or during games when the team was not executing and the result was a deficit or a blown lead.  No timeout is a guarantee for enhancing a positive result but I am sure that you know that timeouts are a critical component associated with game management. Great coaches use them effectively to help their team win more games.

I disagree with what you said about taking 3 point shots

"no coach in his right mind is going to tell legitimate three point shooters not to take open shots."


It depends on the situation.  3 point attempts early in the shot clock are not the best ones to take.  When the ball moves and we see multiple passes to search out the best shot, the Celtics are more effective.  It is the coaches job to help his players understand that,  An open shot is not necessarily a good shot.

NYCelt wrote:I believe the team is locked into being dependent on the 3 due to the roster.

There are shooters, to be sure. A few on the roster can slash and get to the rim given a lane, notably Brown, Smart and Brogdon.

The issue forcing the outside game is still having no bigs. RWIII has enough size and strength, but you won't see him banging anyone around to get position in the paint with those knees. Horford has always been more of a 4 that may have been reincarnated from a 3 in a prior life. Despite adding muscle, that's not Tatum's game either. Blake, Luke and Muscala have made contributions and can be limited help with inside scoring but aren't big scoring threats in the paint do to various age, strength or style/skill related issues. Who do you go to in the paint and who can be a consistent low-post presence? No one.

I think the team can get back to the finals, but it's going to have to live by the 3 to do so. Opponents will game plan for what amounts to the Celtics playing a 4-out with a weak post presence. Celtic ball movement and the occasional drive or dump to a baseline cutter will have to be the off move to get the D to sag a bit. Off shooting nights will happen, you just have to hope not often and not on consecutive games in the postseason.

NYCelt

The roster was designed because of the way GSW won  titles.  The Celtic do not want a heavy dependence on a more traditional low post scoring option and the composition of their roster reflects that.  The Celtics are right in line with the offensive evolution of the 3 pointer.  Each year we are seeing more and more teams move to a similar configuration.  

I also think they an get back to the finals.  I would however include great defense in combination with effective 3 point shooting as the formula for success.

For the record Boston is shooting 38% from deep as compared to 36% last season.  They are ranked #2 in the NBA in both 3 point attempts and points score from 3 pointers.  GSW are # 1 in those categories.

I would add Tatum and White to the other 3 slash and get to the rim given a lane guys

Something I'm noticing here and in other threads is the need by a few to lecture others.

These are all opinions. Going on about one's own perception as if it is somehow fact is both needless, boring, and, at times, offensive.

No one here, not me, not anyone, needs a good talking down to. No poster here has that much knowledge on the game.

Express your opinion, agree, disagree, debate, but let's all watch the posturing, shall we?

NYCelt wrote:Something I'm noticing here and in other threads is the need by a few to lecture others.

These are all opinions. Going on about one's own perception as if it is somehow fact is both needless, boring, and, at times, offensive.

No one here, not me, not anyone, needs a good talking down to. No poster here has that much knowledge on the game.

Express your opinion, agree, disagree, debate, but let's all watch the posturing, shall we?

Thank you NYC.

I'm sorry that I sometimes get extra. 41 years as a criminal defense attorney had wreaked havoc on my tact sensibility.Didn't mean to attack bobh. He provides a great deal of solid material to the group. Looking back at my post, I shouldn't have expressed my opinion in the way I did. Sorry Bob, I still think that your disdain for the coach is excessive, but denigrating your opinion was uncalled for.

jrleftfoot wrote:I'm sorry that I sometimes get extra. 41 years as a criminal defense attorney had wreaked havoc on my tact sensibility.Didn't mean to attack bobh. He provides a great deal of solid material  to the group. Looking back at my post, I shouldn't have expressed my opinion in the way I did. Sorry Bob, I still think that your disdain for the coach is excessive, but denigrating your opinion was uncalled for.

hey foot

You are one of the absolute best posters here.  

Everybody on this forum wants coach Joe to be successful.  However criticisms of his coaching decisions can be taken out of context.  

As a 34 years old rookie coach, his task is significant.  I remain hopeful but uncertain that he will be able to  to match wits with the level of proven experience that he will encounter during the playoffs.

The players on this team need to play for each other but they also need to play for their coach.  They need to run through a brick wall or two on behalf of their coach.