Will the Celtics learn their lesson from Game 1 collapse vs Knicks?

The Boston Celtics don't need to abandon the 3-point shot entirely. But they need to find a healthy balance between their analytics-driven approach and other in-game factors.

Analysts have determined that it's smarter in the long run to prioritize 3-point attempts over shots inside the arc. It's the Celtics' foundation, and a factor in their championship-level success over the past season-plus, and it could still be one of the reasons they hoist banner No. 19 in June.

That doesn't mean they need to keep chucking it from deep when the shots simply aren't falling. That doesn't mean they need to play panicky hero-ball when the opposition is closing the gap. That doesn't mean they should avoid adjustments in those pockets of time when the algorithm is down.

If the Celtics simply netted a couple of easy baskets amid the Knicks' epic second-half run, they could've stopped the bleeding. They could've slowed it down for a moment, taken a breath, stopped their backward momentum, felt better about their game. Blood, breath, good feelings. Human qualities.

Analytics don't take those things into account. And sometimes, it backfires. Game 1 was a tremendous example. And the Celtics' stars acknowledged that when they reflected on the loss.

"In those moments, when the other team's got momentum, we can't just fire up threes," said Jaylen Brown. "To break up momentum, you got to get to the free-throw line, get to the paint, get to the basket, maybe get an easy two, hit some free throws, and then maybe the next 3-pointer feels a little bit better.

"I felt like we just settled in the second half a lot. But, we'll look at it and make adjustments."

Brown (0-for-5 from 3-point range in the second half) was a key component of the settling. And it wasn't just that they heaved too many threes, it's that they were contested or otherwise lower-percentage plays than it already would've been with an open look. They're obviously not going to abandon the 3-point shot, but they should find a way to attempt more open ones. It may be smart to focus on shooting triples, but the way they went about it in the second half was unwise.

"In hindsight, we go back, we probably could drive the ball a little bit more, because we missed a lot of shots tonight," said Jayson Tatum. "But, it's a balance, sometimes. It's a make-or-miss league, but then there are some times when you could get a better shot."

It makes sense that the players themselves look back on that second half and think, "Yeah, we probably could've played that differently." Because the 3-point approach goes beyond them. It'll be on the guys above the players to notice when it's time to switch things up a bit on the court.

Head coach Joe Mazzulla doesn't sound particularly willing to do that. Mazzulla tends to feel the same after games and look at the big picture, regardless of results, which are qualities you want in a head coach. But he could stand to have the same perspective as his players as far as what they could've done better in Game 1. From the sound of it, he's expecting to just roll out the same plan and let it play out, and the wins will take care of themselves.

"Whether it's possessions, shots, you can always find 5-10 that you could be better at," Mazzulla said Monday after Game 1. "To me, I look at the process and the shot quality. Our shot quality was high. The points in the paint were even. We shot one more layup than they did. We shot 10 non-paint twos, they shot much more than that.

"You have to take a look at the process of what we're trying to accomplish, and we were able to accomplish good results for the most part. Like I said, there was probably 8-10 shots that we could be better."

Here's the thing: that handful of possessions that the Celtics could've been better, arguably cost them the game. It probably won't cost them this series. But if and when they get to the NBA Finals, and they face a stronger defensive team and more close games, will they know to adjust and be better in real-time?

Nobody's asking Mazzulla to overhaul the entire system. Just to recognize quickly, in the moment, when it's time to make a small, temporary adjustment. Then get back to the process when the system is back online.

Because knowing where you could've been better after the fact is to focus too heavily on that vaunted process, and excuse (or outright dismiss) the result. Pro sports is as results-oriented a business as there is on this planet. The Celtics may ultimately learn the hard way that the process can't stay so rigid while always expecting a positive end result, as if it were preordained.

There are other factors at play. Factors that exist outside of math equations and strictly enforced systems. The C's got a taste of that on Monday night. And if they don't realize the need to adjust the process within those few possessions that often determine wins and losses, the resulting taste of the season will go down bitter.