"Someone once said that it is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism." - Frederick Jameson
“It is easier to imagine an end to the world than the Celtics under .500 under Joe Mazzulla.” - Matt Moore
A friend asked me the other day why I believed the Celtics would still win more than 50 games this season.
“They traded Jaylen Brown for Paul George!” he cried.
To be honest, I find the idea that the Celtics won’t be good baffling. Last preseason, we thought Boston would slide. I still had them as a playoff team, but didn’t think they would be a top-three seed. Without Jayson Tatum, their best player, they won 56 games.
In the aftermath, we ascribe credit where we can most easily find it.
Jaylen Brown averaged 29-7-5 last season and earned All-NBA honors. So then Brown becomes the reason the Celtics survived and thrived.
The reality is that you can both think the world of Jaylen Brown and think all the “anuhlyticks” are dumb and still come to believe that the Celtics are once again going to crank out a 50-win season.
You just have to understand that the Celtics chase efficiency and an edge, and drive never-endingly toward the best way to win. Which is what you should want.
And that pursuit isn’t ended by the trade of Brown; the pathway is just redirected.
FOREVER EFFICIENCY
A sneaky thing happened last season with Boston last season. The Celtics were not No.1 in 3-point rate. They weren’t No.2 or No.3.
They were No.4, which is of course, still high, but they weighed in at 46.9 percent of their shots from deep, compared to their championship season at 1st in the league at 47.1, and the bleak-as-hell 2025 season, when Mazzulla went full mad scientist and Boston took over half their shots, 53.6 percent, from three-point range.
The second-highest team in 2025 was the Warriors at 46.9 percent, the same rate as Boston last season.
But even though the step was marginal, it was significant. And yes, it was caused by Brown, who took 5.2 mid-range shots per game, two more than Tatum’s next-highest total of any Celtic over the last four seasons.
So maybe it’s that simple. The Celtics took fewer threes because Brown had a bigger usage.
Except Boston was also still second in offensive efficiency at 119.9, schedule-adjusted. Was Brown just that good from mid-range? No, he averaged 0.82 points per possession, including fouls and turnovers, on mid-range attempts per Synergy Sports, which rated him “good”; he was basically “pretty good for high usage” from mid-range.
But the Boston offense molded to the available ingredients, giving Brown more hold of the offense while maintaining the efficiency.
Another way to think of it is how Wendy’s recently revealed they made all their recipes worse in terms of ingredients. The Celtics weren’t chasing some mid-range fad; they were making the most of the environment they were in without Tatum, with Brown as the primary initiator. It was a worse version of the Celtics, but still profitable in terms of wins and losses, and driven by the most efficient way there.
One reason I admire Mazzulla is that he has an ethos and a commitment. He likes threes, he likes open threes, and believes it’s a team strength of the Celtics. He talks about the details, the margins, the commitment to doing the little things. The mathematical edge he’s provided Boston works. It just does. There’s very little argument against it.
When it’s failed, it’s been a failure to execute margins combined with a poor variance result. If you have a bad shooting night, the margins the Celtics exploit (they were killer on the offensive glass last season) reinforce you and hold you steady. If you don’t execute to perfection, the math advantage sneaks you out a win. The Celtics only fail when both don’t go right.1
What’s missing from this, purposefully, is the qualitative stuff everyone complains about.
The Celtics don’t play a fun brand of basketball. The wins and big shots are fun, because basketball is fun. If you’re a Celtics fan, seeing your team drop 45 3’s on a team’s head is inherently fun because the outcome is fun.
I’m not complaining about this; the league is way more diversified now than it’s given credit for, and ultimately, I do care about teams optimizing themselves and making themselves the best they can be. Caring about math does that because basketball is a quantitative game. You need more points.
It’s capitalism. You need more wealth.
