Tl;dr: The Celtics iso all the time because they're elite at making shots, but not as good at passing. It's an intentional strategy.
I've long since run out of new basketball content to consume waiting for the Finals, so I wanted to be part of the solution. Strap in for a way-too-long post because I am very bored.
Hopefully it's informative for people who haven't watched much Celtics basketball this year or are wondering why the hell we iso so much.
Is Mazzulla An Idiot?
A common talking point in the media and even with relatively sophisticated analysts like Zach Lowe and Ben Taylor is that Boston's offense "stagnates" and iso's too much. Against a set defense, the Celtics usually do a series of PnR's to find a favorable matchup. Then, the ballhandler tries to beat the (hopefully) mismatched or out-of-position defender 1-on-1 with the rest of the team standing around.
You'll see this a million times in any Celtics game, and it has even increased (at least by my eye test) in the playoffs. This state of affairs confuses people because the side effect is often an all-NBA guy like Tatum standing in the corner and doing nothing.
Is this a waste of talent? Is Mazzulla an idiot?
Given that Mazzulla and his staff get paid millions of dollars to scheme for the Celtics (not to mention GM Brad and his X's-and-O's genius), it's safer to assume that the media is missing something instead of them. After watching a ton of Celtics basketball this season, I'd like to share my pet theory: Celtics are covering for their lack of passing talent, their only real offensive weakness.
The One Offensive Weakness
By the numbers, the Celtics technically were the best offense of all-time this year. We all know they have an 8-player rotation of shooters. They also have a surplus of individual shot creators. Tatum, Brown, and Porzingis all iso score at great-to-elite levels. White, Jrue, and Pritchard can make stuff happen off the dribble as secondary creators as well.
All this stuff is non-controversial, so I won't belabor the point.
However, while all these players have really good scoring ability and are GOOD passers, none of them are ELITE passers like a top-tier point guard, let alone someone like Luka or Jokic. As such, iso ball is often a decent option to reduce the number of potentially poor passing decisions.
Let's use three examples to illustrate my point. First, Tatum's behind the back pass to Horford in the ECF G3 against the Pacers near the end of the game. Here's a link. I rate Tatum as a good play-maker (B or B+) because he's very good at getting past the initial defender, drawing help, and then making nifty pass to an open man like Horford.
People used this pass to highlight his progress as a creator for teammates. While he has certainly grown, notice though that he has a simple read here. While the pass itself is awesome, Tatum is still just reading his and Horford's defenders for the most part. It's not rocket science.
Another example (sorry, no link): Again ECF G1, this time in OT. With less than 2 minutes left, Tatum botches a pass to Jrue Holiday, leading to 3 FT's for Haliburton after a steal the other way. While infrequent watchers of Celtics basketball chalked this up to Tatum "choking", it's actually representative of many bad possessions by the Celtics.
You see awkward passing from time-to-time, not just from Tatum but every ballhandler. Hesitant post entry passes, missed cutters, slightly inaccurate passes that give the defense time to close out a shooter, stuff like that. The team has all gotten better at passing, but no one is at the level of elite distributors, let alone someone like Luka.
Final example (sorry, no link): WCF Game 2. Around 3:35 in Q1, Luka gets trapped near the logo by Ant and Gobert. Without hesitation, Luka fake-looks to the left wing and lasers a no-look pass to Lively in the paint. Because the pass gets there so fast and unexpectedly, McDaniels panics and helps from the strong-side corner, leaving Lively an easy pass to a wide open Hardy who hilariously bricks the 3.
I like this example because it's so routine for Luka. We saw plays like this virtually every game from him this year (at least ones I watched), sometimes multiple times. No-look lasers, precise lobs, pinpoint skip passes to the opposite corner, you take these for granted when watching top tier passers like him.
These are not skills that any Celtic has or even approaches. It's not that they lack all-world level passing of someone like Luka, which is obvious. It's that they lack a player with even all-star level passing, someone like prime Rondo or Draymond.
Motion Is Overrated
OK, so the Celtics lack a truly elite passer. So what? This doesn't stop them from running more motion in their offense, right? Yes, but this brings us full circle to Celtics' offensive talent.
Let's review the Celtics offensive talent again. Porzingis has crazy post up efficiency vs. mismatches. Tatum and Brown can get around (or through) almost any defender in the league 1-on-1. Derrick White only needs a sliver of space to launch 3s or drive past someone for his little floater. Jrue has his big boy post-moves.
Assuming we can get a mismatch or attack downhill, that's usually enough for us to get a good look. Adding motion to the offense, especially off-ball actions in conjunction with on-ball actions, leads to more difficult pass-reads and pass-making. This can lead to more turnovers, especially without an elite passer at the helm.
With our embarrassment of talent at shot-making, ending a possession in a passing turnover is a disaster. You'd rather them get a look vs a mismatch in iso and see what happens, even if it does end up in a bricked midrange fadeaway.
A missed shot can still draw a shooting foul, a putback, or an offensive rebound. Meanwhile, any turnover ends our chance to score, and a live ball turnover is hard to stop even with our defensive talent.
For these reasons, the Celtics' current heavy diet of iso isn't a fluke or a result of Mazzulla being dumber than sports media. It's an intentional core piece of the offense, and it's probably optimal given our current roster.
I have more to say about why we're seeing more iso in the playoffs, what other teams have done to slow our iso'ing, and how it'll fare against the Mavs in the Finals, but I'll save that for another edition if I have time. This is already getting way too long.
Agree with me? Think I'm an idiot? Would love to hear in the comments. I'm clearly way too bored.
by CryptoMemeEconomy
7 Comments
Great post! Makes sense that as your individual offensive possessions are more valuable via having a better offense that a turnover hurts you more than a worse offense. So a worse offensive team may be more inclined to hunt for a perfect shot rather than we are. Think it would be interesting to include some stats by shot type (or motion) l in this analysis as well! I wonder if anyone has points per possession broken down by # of passes?
The haters (not me!) might say this analysis supports banning Jaylen from dribbling with his left as a turnover is even more costly for us.
You’re not an idiot. This post gives more insight into our players’ capabilities. One thing I do disagree is the notion that motion is overrated. I think, given our players’ skillset, motion offense will do well to open up the playbook. Even without elite passing skills, our players are creative enough to look for an open man. It also leads to taking advantage of mismatches. Turnovers be damned, but if the ball is on the hands of someone who is steady on offense (Jrue proved this), I think motion offense will do wonders.
I agree with you that iso-offense is valuable and that Joe sees value in it as well. But in certain spots of the game, I think motion offense is congruent to having an easier time scoring a basket. Especially because our team is one of the best shooting teams in the league, if not the best.
With that said, I agree with the majority of what you said. Our weakness in passing, and it being the focal point of the offense, is a thought that never came across my mind.
Interesting post, I don’t agree with much of it, but you make a good overall defense for the isos. However, this is called the Appeal to Authority fallacy:
//Given that Mazzulla and his staff get paid millions of dollars to scheme for the Celtics (not to mention GM Brad and his X’s-and-O’s genius), it’s safer to assume that the media is missing something instead of them.//
It’s not a good argument. Many coaches are paid many millions of dollars a year and suck at their job.
All those no look lasers are consistently hit by maybe 3-5 players in the nba. Jokic, Luka, Lebron, haliburton (maybe). Most teams don’t have that nor need that to win a championship. It is definitely not compulsory to play motion ball. Spurs didn’t have anyone who could do that, warriors didn’t, bucks didn’t. They used quick passing, off ball movement and drive and kick game, respectively.
“It’s that they lack a player with even all-star level passing, someone like prime Rondo or Draymond.” this seems unnecessary to this thesis. Tatum can very easily match Draymond’s passing if surrounded by off ball movement of Curry and Klay.
I think most Celtics fans agree with this synopsis to a certain extent, but that said, I think you are underrating the overall passing and ball movement ability of this team. Iso is a lot more energy consuming and less tiring for defense as well. I don’t think Mavs are going to let us iso anyway. We will end up moving the ball after they double on Tatum. What we need is multiple drive and kick plays per shot clock leading to a wide open 3 or freethrows.
I find it hilarious that through this whole playoff run it’s been abt how we cannot play an iso offense and win a championship like that… now the team were playing in the finals basically calls for an I so offense to beat them…
Motion is not overrated.
A Tatum step back three with a defender there is not good offence.
The offence is more beautiful when Hauser is in there and the team finds him after a few screens.
I think this is correct. I also think motion is overrated in a five out offense. The point is to stretch the defense as much as possible. That is done with equal spacing around the perimeter. Adding motion can actually shrink the floor with congestion in certain areas and drag defenders into the ball handler’s space. It’s usually much better for us when someone intiates a drive, recognizes where the help comes from, and passes it knowing we will have a player in the right spot. Basically what you were talking about with the Tatum pass to Al. I’m sure they are coached to always have someone in the corners and on the wings. Finish if you beat the iso and help is late. Pass it if the help has arrived. Motion is great if everyone is moving in tandem, but it’s not always easy to execute.
And the reason this all makes sense is because our entire philosophy is to launch as many good look threes as possible. We shoot them at an incredibly high volume and an incredibly high efficiency. We shoot the most threes in the league at the second highest percentage. We have shot 39.8 threes per game in the playoffs at a lower percentage than our season average. Hopefully it is higher against the Mavericks. This type of strategy is not going to change now. We will live and die by our three point shooting.