2023-24 Regular Season

[jbk1234]

Right or wrong, my real point here is I think we have a very different outlook on this off-season if JBB stuck with what he'd been doing all season and that means stuff like starting Isaac come hell or high water and only pulling him if it's clear he's killing us with bricked shots. That means using his 3rd big - which was supposed to be Dean with Kevin gone, but if he was too hurt then Stevens. Using Stevens when we need a burst of energy/toughness or another defender. Using Rubio to calm things down, pick up the pace, and get the ball moving especially when Caris or Cedi are getting sloppy.

And personally, I thought Lopez and Neto played very positive minutes when they got a chance but JBB never treated them as even candidates to be in the rotation, so hoping he'd dust them off (let alone Diakite, Mobley, Windler, or Merril) is just wishful thinking.

We really didn't need a ton of minutes from these guys to get the starters minutes down in to the reasonable range.

So, let's say JBB stuck to the script and exposed our bench? Maybe he takes some hits for trusting them and not pumping up the minutes on everyone else, but everyone else presumably plays better, fewer people are calling for his head, and everyone stays focused on what needs to happen this Summer which is improving the bench rather than blowing up the team.

Or maybe, just maybe some of those guys he didn't trust got their act together and showed us they're not all trash to be dumped so we can take on some other team's cast-offs.

Outside of LeVert, and arguably Stevens, our bench players saw very few minutes after the trade deadline, and they didn’t start in a great place before that. He pretty much did stick to the script.

Not sure how you can say that, his rotations in the playoffs were all over the map as he tried to find something that worked rather than lean on the rotations he'd supposedly been preparing.

It would be one thing if JBB decided Caris would match up better .vs. the Knicks and gave him the start in game 1. Or if he wanted another vet in the starting lineup, he could have just left Caris in the starting lineup to close out the regular season; but I find his lack of faith in his own decisions disturbing.

I mean he had four different options all of which were flawed or problematic in different ways. No one clearly won the job. LeVert was given it, then Okoro. Wade was good early and then got injured. Cedi might be the most erratic shooter of all time.

Given those realities, and having a really deep team as an opponent, I don’t have him a problem with him going with whoever is working in a game or a particular matchup. There wasn't a lot to be confident in and I'm not convinced there was a single answer on the roster. If the Warriors can yank Bogut as a starter in Game 4 of the Finals, a guy like Okoro is certainly at risk of getting demoted.

My main criticisms are that he just doesn't value shooting enough, was too concerned with losing a regular season game to really develop rotations into cohesive units, and doesn't seem to excel at the X and O aspects of coaching.

[JonFromVA]

We just lost a playoff series where our opponent barely averaged 100 ppg. We can afford to surrender a little defense. We cannot run it back for a third season with a broken offense.

We were tied for the 8th ranked offense in the regular season, rather than break the defense it may be more productive to examine why the offense and rebounding broke down in the playoffs and address that. It's not like team's only discovered they could pack the paint on us in the playoffs.

That's based on offensive rating, but when you look at actual ppg, our offense was bottom 10. Ratings are projections based on 100 possessions, but the Cavs play at a slower pace so the projections aren't terribly useful. There was certainly no reason to believe that the delta between actual points scored and projected points would shrink as we faced tougher defenses and the game slowed down in the playoffs.

I wouldn't call per100 a "projection", it's not trying to estimate or guess. It's simply normalizing a statistic for pace so we can compare teams that play at different paces. Otherwise PPG is not a very helpful statistic.

We can certainly discuss the pros/cons of the slow pace we play at and whether our net rating would improve if we played at a faster pace; but statistically the only difference is that a team that plays at a slower pace will have less variance in the final score. That would seem to imply luck could play a bigger factor in the outcome of the game as a single good or bad outcome has a proportionally larger affect on winning/losing; but it doesn't seem to work out that way. Great fast paced teams seem more likely to give up a huge run and lose control of the game at the worst time .vs. a great slow paced team which tends to slowly choke out opponents and can cling to even a small lead.

tldr: Our pace is not a problem in and of itself, but it is what tempts JBB to play our starters bigger minutes and reduces shot opportunities for everyone.

It's worth considering that if you have rhythm shooters/scorers and pull them or cut out their attempts after a few misses - you will suffer; and if you wear down your shooters legs by playing them to the point of fatigue they will front rim shots unless they are capable of overcoming muscle memory and adjusting their shot on the fly. This is exacerbated in the playoffs where effort/energy tend to be at their highest and your less likely to run in to a team taking a night off.

[jbk1234]

We were tied for the 8th ranked offense in the regular season, rather than break the defense it may be more productive to examine why the offense and rebounding broke down in the playoffs and address that. It's not like team's only discovered they could pack the paint on us in the playoffs.

That's based on offensive rating, but when you look at actual ppg, our offense was bottom 10. Ratings are projections based on 100 possessions, but the Cavs play at a slower pace so the projections aren't terribly useful. There was certainly no reason to believe that the delta between actual points scored and projected points would shrink as we faced tougher defenses and the game slowed down in the playoffs.

I wouldn't call per100 a "projection", it's not trying to estimate or guess. It's simply normalizing a statistic for pace so we can compare teams that play at different paces. Otherwise PPG is not a very helpful statistic.

We can certainly discuss the pros/cons of the slow pace we play at and whether our net rating would improve if we played at a faster pace; but statistically the only difference is that a team that plays at a slower pace will have less variance in the final score. That would seem to imply luck could play a bigger factor in the outcome of the game as a single good or bad outcome has a proportionally larger affect on winning/losing; but it doesn't seem to work out that way. Great fast paced teams seem more likely to give up a huge run and lose control of the game at the worst time .vs. a great slow paced team which tends to slowly choke out opponents and can cling to even a small lead.

tldr: Our pace is not a problem in and of itself, but it is what tempts JBB to play our starters bigger minutes and reduces shot opportunities for everyone.

It's worth considering that if you have rhythm shooters/scorers and pull them or cut out their attempts after a few misses - you will suffer; and if you wear down your shooters legs by playing them to the point of fatigue they will front rim shots unless they are capable of overcoming muscle memory and adjusting their shot on the fly. This is exacerbated in the playoffs where effort/energy tend to be at their highest and your less likely to run in to a team taking a night off.

Well the PPG are the points you actually score, and as the team who scores more points wins the game, I'd argue it's the far more important metric. Everything else is extrapolation based on models that contain assumptions that may, or may not be valid. It's not all that different from when a player's BPM isn't matching up with his on/off numbers.

Look, if you don't believe there were plenty of warning signs regarding our offense in the regular season, that's what you believe. I disagree. We repeatedly struggled against good defensive teams and you're guaranteed to see some of those teams in the playoffs. Our offense was more fluid, and less predictable, last season with Lauri at the 3.

I mean look at how many points the Nuggets and Heat scored. Heck, look at how many points the Celtics and Lakers scored in losing efforts. The Cavs offense never got to a place where it was going to match that type of scoring.

[JonFromVA]

Outside of LeVert, and arguably Stevens, our bench players saw very few minutes after the trade deadline, and they didn’t start in a great place before that. He pretty much did stick to the script.

Not sure how you can say that, his rotations in the playoffs were all over the map as he tried to find something that worked rather than lean on the rotations he'd supposedly been preparing.

It would be one thing if JBB decided Caris would match up better .vs. the Knicks and gave him the start in game 1. Or if he wanted another vet in the starting lineup, he could have just left Caris in the starting lineup to close out the regular season; but I find his lack of faith in his own decisions disturbing.

I mean he had four different options all of which were flawed or problematic in different ways. No one clearly won the job. LeVert was given it, then Okoro. Wade was good early and then got injured. Cedi might be the most erratic shooter of all time.

Given those realities, and having a really deep team as an opponent, I don’t have him a problem with him going with whoever is working in a game or a particular matchup. There wasn't a lot to be confident in and I'm not convinced there was a single answer on the roster. If the Warriors can yank Bogut as a starter in Game 4 of the Finals, a guy like Okoro is certainly at risk of getting demoted.

My main criticisms are that he just doesn't value shooting enough, was too concerned with losing a regular season game to really develop rotations into cohesive units, and doesn't seem to excel at the X and O aspects of coaching.

A lot of negative data on the Warrior's performance .vs. the Cavs when Bogut was on the floor had accumulated before Kerr bothered to pull him; whereas Okoro was actually +6 in a 4pt loss in game 1 and was even +2 in his not quite 3 minutes in game 2.

Basically, all that lineup preparation is wasted if the coach is going to panic and make knee-jerk moves. If he wanted to protect Isaac from that pressure, he should have made the decision weeks in advance.

[JonFromVA]

That's based on offensive rating, but when you look at actual ppg, our offense was bottom 10. Ratings are projections based on 100 possessions, but the Cavs play at a slower pace so the projections aren't terribly useful. There was certainly no reason to believe that the delta between actual points scored and projected points would shrink as we faced tougher defenses and the game slowed down in the playoffs.

I wouldn't call per100 a "projection", it's not trying to estimate or guess. It's simply normalizing a statistic for pace so we can compare teams that play at different paces. Otherwise PPG is not a very helpful statistic.

We can certainly discuss the pros/cons of the slow pace we play at and whether our net rating would improve if we played at a faster pace; but statistically the only difference is that a team that plays at a slower pace will have less variance in the final score. That would seem to imply luck could play a bigger factor in the outcome of the game as a single good or bad outcome has a proportionally larger affect on winning/losing; but it doesn't seem to work out that way. Great fast paced teams seem more likely to give up a huge run and lose control of the game at the worst time .vs. a great slow paced team which tends to slowly choke out opponents and can cling to even a small lead.

tldr: Our pace is not a problem in and of itself, but it is what tempts JBB to play our starters bigger minutes and reduces shot opportunities for everyone.

It's worth considering that if you have rhythm shooters/scorers and pull them or cut out their attempts after a few misses - you will suffer; and if you wear down your shooters legs by playing them to the point of fatigue they will front rim shots unless they are capable of overcoming muscle memory and adjusting their shot on the fly. This is exacerbated in the playoffs where effort/energy tend to be at their highest and your less likely to run in to a team taking a night off.

Well the PPG are the points you actually score, and as the team who scores more points wins the game, I'd argue it's the far more important metric. Everything else is extrapolation based on models that contain assumptions that may, or may not be valid. It's not all that different from when a player's BPM isn't matching up with his on/off numbers.

Look, if you don't believe there were plenty of warning signs regarding our offense in the regular season, that's what you believe. I disagree. We repeatedly struggled against good defensive teams and you're guaranteed to see some of those teams in the playoffs. Our offense was more fluid, and less predictable, last season with Lauri at the 3.

I mean look at how many points the Nuggets and Heat scored. Heck, look at how many points the Celtics and Lakers scored in losing efforts. The Cavs offense never got to a place where it was going to match that type of scoring.

C'mon man, PP100 is no more and no less an extrapolation/projection than PPG is and being able to dictate YOUR pace over the other team is one of the oldest strategies in basketball.

The actual pace of this last Celtics/Heat game was just 97pp100 as both the Celts and Heat are slow paced teams. The Celtics actually exceeded their regular season offensive rating in the game with a 119.6 (.vs. 118), but the Heat had a 126.8 offensive rating (.vs. 113).

As to why the Heat got their offense rolling on a very good defensive team like the Celts and whether they can repeat it - I'll leave to the folks who follow those teams. If I had to make a guess, I'd point out Robert Williams was -14 in the game and perhaps the Heat found a way to exploit a player who's usually a major contributor to the Celts defense when he's able to play.

[jbk1234]

Not sure how you can say that, his rotations in the playoffs were all over the map as he tried to find something that worked rather than lean on the rotations he'd supposedly been preparing.

It would be one thing if JBB decided Caris would match up better .vs. the Knicks and gave him the start in game 1. Or if he wanted another vet in the starting lineup, he could have just left Caris in the starting lineup to close out the regular season; but I find his lack of faith in his own decisions disturbing.

I mean he had four different options all of which were flawed or problematic in different ways. No one clearly won the job. LeVert was given it, then Okoro. Wade was good early and then got injured. Cedi might be the most erratic shooter of all time.

Given those realities, and having a really deep team as an opponent, I don’t have him a problem with him going with whoever is working in a game or a particular matchup. There wasn't a lot to be confident in and I'm not convinced there was a single answer on the roster. If the Warriors can yank Bogut as a starter in Game 4 of the Finals, a guy like Okoro is certainly at risk of getting demoted.

My main criticisms are that he just doesn't value shooting enough, was too concerned with losing a regular season game to really develop rotations into cohesive units, and doesn't seem to excel at the X and O aspects of coaching.

A lot of negative data on the Warrior's performance .vs. the Cavs when Bogut was on the floor had accumulated before Kerr bothered to pull him; whereas Okoro was actually +6 in a 4pt loss in game 1 and was even +2 in his not quite 3 minutes in game 2.

Basically, all that lineup preparation is wasted if the coach is going to panic and make knee-jerk moves. If he wanted to protect Isaac from that pressure, he should have made the decision weeks in advance.

Okoro got into foul trouble, had to sit, Garland went off, and the Cavs won by 20 points. Garland had his worse game of the series in Game 3, bounced back in Game 4, and Mitchell had his worse game of the series. LeVert had a pretty good game 5, and yet, we still lost when neither Allen nor Mobley got many touches and Mitchell/Garland were a combined 4/18 from 3.

I'm just not seeing how Okoro over LeVert changes the outcome in this series. You make a fair point about fresh legs in terms of Garland and Mitchell, and the injury to Okoro towards the end of the season was unfortunate, but Okoro's shooting needed to be at place where it just wasn't when the playoffs started.

[JonFromVA]

I mean he had four different options all of which were flawed or problematic in different ways. No one clearly won the job. LeVert was given it, then Okoro. Wade was good early and then got injured. Cedi might be the most erratic shooter of all time.

Given those realities, and having a really deep team as an opponent, I don’t have him a problem with him going with whoever is working in a game or a particular matchup. There wasn't a lot to be confident in and I'm not convinced there was a single answer on the roster. If the Warriors can yank Bogut as a starter in Game 4 of the Finals, a guy like Okoro is certainly at risk of getting demoted.

My main criticisms are that he just doesn't value shooting enough, was too concerned with losing a regular season game to really develop rotations into cohesive units, and doesn't seem to excel at the X and O aspects of coaching.

A lot of negative data on the Warrior's performance .vs. the Cavs when Bogut was on the floor had accumulated before Kerr bothered to pull him; whereas Okoro was actually +6 in a 4pt loss in game 1 and was even +2 in his not quite 3 minutes in game 2.

Basically, all that lineup preparation is wasted if the coach is going to panic and make knee-jerk moves. If he wanted to protect Isaac from that pressure, he should have made the decision weeks in advance.

Okoro got into foul trouble, had to sit, Garland went off, and the Cavs won by 20 points. Garland had his worse game of the series in Game 3, bounced back in Game 4, and Mitchell had his worse game of the series. LeVert had a pretty good game 5, and yet, we still lost when neither Allen nor Mobley got many touches and Mitchell/Garland were a combined 4/18 from 3.

I'm just not seeing how Okoro over LeVert changes the outcome in this series. You make a fair point about fresh legs in terms of Garland and Mitchell, and the injury to Okoro towards the end of the season was unfortunate, but Okoro's shooting needed to be at place where it just wasn't when the playoffs started.

I suspect you lost my train of thought somewhere along the line if you think I was suggesting sticking with Okoro and playing our bench more would have changed the outcome. I've been talking about changing the perception of the outcome and where the fingers are being pointed.

Not to mention, Okoro didn't "have to sit" in game 2. Maybe he needed to sit and have a chat with the coaching staff to help him stay out of further foul trouble, but the NBA allows 6 and he only burned 2 when he got benched for the rest of the game.

[jbk1234]

A lot of negative data on the Warrior's performance .vs. the Cavs when Bogut was on the floor had accumulated before Kerr bothered to pull him; whereas Okoro was actually +6 in a 4pt loss in game 1 and was even +2 in his not quite 3 minutes in game 2.

Basically, all that lineup preparation is wasted if the coach is going to panic and make knee-jerk moves. If he wanted to protect Isaac from that pressure, he should have made the decision weeks in advance.

Okoro got into foul trouble, had to sit, Garland went off, and the Cavs won by 20 points. Garland had his worse game of the series in Game 3, bounced back in Game 4, and Mitchell had his worse game of the series. LeVert had a pretty good game 5, and yet, we still lost when neither Allen nor Mobley got many touches and Mitchell/Garland were a combined 4/18 from 3.

I'm just not seeing how Okoro over LeVert changes the outcome in this series. You make a fair point about fresh legs in terms of Garland and Mitchell, and the injury to Okoro towards the end of the season was unfortunate, but Okoro's shooting needed to be at place where it just wasn't when the playoffs started.

I suspect you lost my train of thought somewhere along the line if you think I was suggesting sticking with Okoro and playing our bench more would have changed the outcome. I've been talking about changing the perception of the outcome and where the fingers are being pointed.

Not to mention, Okoro didn't "have to sit" in game 2. Maybe he needed to sit and have a chat with the coaching staff to help him stay out of further foul trouble, but the NBA allows 6 and he only burned 2 when he got benched for the rest of the game.

I don't have an issue with any coaching staff sticking with guys who are already on the floor when it's really working in the playoffs. It's a bit of an odd criticism tbh. Kyrie sat for the last quarter and a half against the Pacers in a Game 3.

But as long as we're using small sample sizes, it is worth noting that the Knicks only scored 90 points in the game where Okoro only played 2 minutes.

[toooskies]

Need to back up JonFromVA here. Points per 100 possessions is a totally accurate tool to compare how well a team scores, on average. It's simply an average across possessions instead of an average across games. Since both teams' possession count will be roughly the same each game, it's just a pace-adjusted number with no trickery, and less deceptive when comparing teams that play at different speeds.

Ultimately we lost because nobody played up to their regular season potential-- unless you notice that, well, the Knicks were a good matchup against us in the regular season too. Thibodeau used the same dare-you-to-shoot defense against us in the regular season.

[JonFromVA]

Okoro got into foul trouble, had to sit, Garland went off, and the Cavs won by 20 points. Garland had his worse game of the series in Game 3, bounced back in Game 4, and Mitchell had his worse game of the series. LeVert had a pretty good game 5, and yet, we still lost when neither Allen nor Mobley got many touches and Mitchell/Garland were a combined 4/18 from 3.

I'm just not seeing how Okoro over LeVert changes the outcome in this series. You make a fair point about fresh legs in terms of Garland and Mitchell, and the injury to Okoro towards the end of the season was unfortunate, but Okoro's shooting needed to be at place where it just wasn't when the playoffs started.

I suspect you lost my train of thought somewhere along the line if you think I was suggesting sticking with Okoro and playing our bench more would have changed the outcome. I've been talking about changing the perception of the outcome and where the fingers are being pointed.

Not to mention, Okoro didn't "have to sit" in game 2. Maybe he needed to sit and have a chat with the coaching staff to help him stay out of further foul trouble, but the NBA allows 6 and he only burned 2 when he got benched for the rest of the game.

I don't have an issue with any coaching staff sticking with guys who are already on the floor when it's really working in the playoffs. It's a bit of an odd criticism tbh. Kyrie sat for the last quarter and a half against the Pacers in a Game 3.

But as long as we're using small sample sizes, it is worth noting that the Knicks only scored 90 points in the game where Okoro only played 2 minutes.

Again, it's not about sample sizes or outcomes, it's about perception. Isaac looks like a bust, has little trade value, and there's little reason to hope he can be part of our core or even to believe he's worth the QO.

In fact, just about everything about our team looks looks like a bust right now except for perhaps Caris who thanks to a not awful showing may have cemented a decent contract this Summer and the starting SF job moving forward. LeVert haters are going to love that ...

[jbk1234]

I suspect you lost my train of thought somewhere along the line if you think I was suggesting sticking with Okoro and playing our bench more would have changed the outcome. I've been talking about changing the perception of the outcome and where the fingers are being pointed.

Not to mention, Okoro didn't "have to sit" in game 2. Maybe he needed to sit and have a chat with the coaching staff to help him stay out of further foul trouble, but the NBA allows 6 and he only burned 2 when he got benched for the rest of the game.

I don't have an issue with any coaching staff sticking with guys who are already on the floor when it's really working in the playoffs. It's a bit of an odd criticism tbh. Kyrie sat for the last quarter and a half against the Pacers in a Game 3.

But as long as we're using small sample sizes, it is worth noting that the Knicks only scored 90 points in the game where Okoro only played 2 minutes.

Again, it's not about sample sizes or outcomes, it's about perception. Isaac looks like a bust, has little trade value, and there's little reason to hope he can be part of our core or even to believe he's worth the QO.

In fact, just about everything about our team looks looks like a bust right now except for perhaps Caris who thanks to a not awful showing may have cemented a decent contract this Summer and the starting SF job moving forward. LeVert haters are going to love that ...

I don't see any reason why Okoro can't be part of a three guard rotation with Garland and Mitchell, at least for another season. I don't see any reason why he couldn't eventually win the starting SF job back if he can continue to improve as a three point shooter.

In terms of looking like a bust, It's not like he got the Wade treatment after 7 minutes in game 1. He saw plenty of minutes off the bench in the series. If the rest of the NBA views him as a miss, it's probably because of all the minutes that preceded the playoffs.

As far as LeVert, he did what he was asked of him this season and I assume that's appreciated, but it's important for the Cavs to remember why he was brought in to begin with. Rubio got injured and we needed a secondary ballhandler to stop teams from successfully doubling Garland. Rubio's back, we traded for Mitchell, and there's a question as to how much you need to pay a 4th ball handler.

If the plan is to keep Mitchell, then it's probably worth asking whether LeVert will have any trade value on his new contract because the Cavs could have the full MLE next summer as well. You start stacking up guys on those contracts, and maybe they're viewed as more favorable trade pieces.

[JonFromVA]

I don't have an issue with any coaching staff sticking with guys who are already on the floor when it's really working in the playoffs. It's a bit of an odd criticism tbh. Kyrie sat for the last quarter and a half against the Pacers in a Game 3.

But as long as we're using small sample sizes, it is worth noting that the Knicks only scored 90 points in the game where Okoro only played 2 minutes.

Again, it's not about sample sizes or outcomes, it's about perception. Isaac looks like a bust, has little trade value, and there's little reason to hope he can be part of our core or even to believe he's worth the QO.

In fact, just about everything about our team looks looks like a bust right now except for perhaps Caris who thanks to a not awful showing may have cemented a decent contract this Summer and the starting SF job moving forward. LeVert haters are going to love that ...

I don't see any reason why Okoro can't be part of a three guard rotation with Garland and Mitchell, at least for another season. I don't see any reason why he couldn't eventually win the starting SF job back if he can continue to improve as a three point shooter.

In terms of looking like a bust, It's not like he got the Wade treatment after 7 minutes in game 1. He saw plenty of minutes off the bench in the series. If the rest of the NBA views him as a miss, it's probably because of all the minutes that preceded the playoffs.

As far as LeVert, he did what he was asked of him this season and I assume that's appreciated, but it's important for the Cavs to remember why he was brought in to begin with. Rubio got injured and we needed a secondary ballhandler to stop teams from successfully doubling Garland. Rubio's back, we traded for Mitchell, and there's a question as to how much you need to pay a 4th ball handler.

If the plan is to keep Mitchell, then it's probably worth asking whether LeVert will have any trade value on his new contract because the Cavs could have the full MLE next summer as well. You start stacking up guys on those contracts, and maybe they're viewed as more favorable trade pieces.

Well, first off Wade is under contract through 2025/26, whereas Isaac is about to become a RFA and may not even be worth his QO. We're about to consider paying Caris to be our starting SF when we only invested 33 games (including playoffs) in to seeing if it might work. Our coach's early judgement was that he would be better off the bench, that is right up until we lost a playoff game.

It's a recipe for disaster unless as you always suggest Altman can manage to get them both re-signed at or below their market value. If the players co-operate with that inspite of how they've been jerked around, then we can at least sustain what we've got and continue to try to sort it out.

Or we let them all go, and try to sell a free-agent to accept our MLE in exchange for our vacated SF position.

[jbk1234]

Again, it's not about sample sizes or outcomes, it's about perception. Isaac looks like a bust, has little trade value, and there's little reason to hope he can be part of our core or even to believe he's worth the QO.

In fact, just about everything about our team looks looks like a bust right now except for perhaps Caris who thanks to a not awful showing may have cemented a decent contract this Summer and the starting SF job moving forward. LeVert haters are going to love that ...

I don't see any reason why Okoro can't be part of a three guard rotation with Garland and Mitchell, at least for another season. I don't see any reason why he couldn't eventually win the starting SF job back if he can continue to improve as a three point shooter.

In terms of looking like a bust, It's not like he got the Wade treatment after 7 minutes in game 1. He saw plenty of minutes off the bench in the series. If the rest of the NBA views him as a miss, it's probably because of all the minutes that preceded the playoffs.

As far as LeVert, he did what he was asked of him this season and I assume that's appreciated, but it's important for the Cavs to remember why he was brought in to begin with. Rubio got injured and we needed a secondary ballhandler to stop teams from successfully doubling Garland. Rubio's back, we traded for Mitchell, and there's a question as to how much you need to pay a 4th ball handler.

If the plan is to keep Mitchell, then it's probably worth asking whether LeVert will have any trade value on his new contract because the Cavs could have the full MLE next summer as well. You start stacking up guys on those contracts, and maybe they're viewed as more favorable trade pieces.

Well, first off Wade is under contract through 2025/26, whereas Isaac is about to become a RFA and may not even be worth his QO. We're about to consider paying Caris to be our starting SF when we only invested 33 games (including playoffs) in to seeing if it might work. Our coach's early judgement was that he would be better off the bench, that is right up until we lost a playoff game.

It's a recipe for disaster unless as you always suggest Altman can manage to get them both re-signed at or below their market value. If the players co-operate with that inspite of how they've been jerked around, then we can at least sustain what we've got and continue to try to sort it out.

Or we let them all go, and try to sell a free-agent to accept our MLE in exchange for our vacated SF position.

Second only to Sexton, no one on a rookie contract has gotten more unearned minutes than Okoro. LeVert was well on his way to getting his minutes cut in Indiana before we traded for him. Maybe the reporting is best face stuff, but LeVert reportedly told JBB he liked coming off the bench (probably because he got more touches and the spacing was better with one of Allen or Mobley is off the floor).

Both players essentially had the starting spot gifted to them and it's not the Cavs fault neither of them made a compelling case for keeping it. That's not on the Cavs. It's not jerking anyone around. This isn't summer camp. It's the NBA.

[JujitsuFlip]

Again, it's not about sample sizes or outcomes, it's about perception. Isaac looks like a bust, has little trade value, and there's little reason to hope he can be part of our core or even to believe he's worth the QO.

In fact, just about everything about our team looks looks like a bust right now except for perhaps Caris who thanks to a not awful showing may have cemented a decent contract this Summer and the starting SF job moving forward. LeVert haters are going to love that ...

I don't see any reason why Okoro can't be part of a three guard rotation with Garland and Mitchell, at least for another season. I don't see any reason why he couldn't eventually win the starting SF job back if he can continue to improve as a three point shooter.

In terms of looking like a bust, It's not like he got the Wade treatment after 7 minutes in game 1. He saw plenty of minutes off the bench in the series. If the rest of the NBA views him as a miss, it's probably because of all the minutes that preceded the playoffs.

As far as LeVert, he did what he was asked of him this season and I assume that's appreciated, but it's important for the Cavs to remember why he was brought in to begin with. Rubio got injured and we needed a secondary ballhandler to stop teams from successfully doubling Garland. Rubio's back, we traded for Mitchell, and there's a question as to how much you need to pay a 4th ball handler.

If the plan is to keep Mitchell, then it's probably worth asking whether LeVert will have any trade value on his new contract because the Cavs could have the full MLE next summer as well. You start stacking up guys on those contracts, and maybe they're viewed as more favorable trade pieces.

Well, first off Wade is under contract through 2025/26, whereas Isaac is about to become a RFA and may not even be worth his QO. We're about to consider paying Caris to be our starting SF when we only invested 33 games (including playoffs) in to seeing if it might work. Our coach's early judgement was that he would be better off the bench, that is right up until we lost a playoff game.

It's a recipe for disaster unless as you always suggest Altman can manage to get them both re-signed at or below their market value. If the players co-operate with that inspite of how they've been jerked around, then we can at least sustain what we've got and continue to try to sort it out.

Or we let them all go, and try to sell a free-agent to accept our MLE in exchange for our vacated SF position.

Technically 45 games as a starter, either way, small sample.

[jbk1234]

Need to back up JonFromVA here. Points per 100 possessions is a totally accurate tool to compare how well a team scores, on average. It's simply an average across possessions instead of an average across games. Since both teams' possession count will be roughly the same each game, it's just a pace-adjusted number with no trickery, and less deceptive when comparing teams that play at different speeds.

Ultimately we lost because nobody played up to their regular season potential-- unless you notice that, well, the Knicks were a good matchup against us in the regular season too. Thibodeau used the same dare-you-to-shoot defense against us in the regular season.

It's crazy to me that people are dying on the, O rating is a better predictor of scoring than how many actual points a team scores per game over an 82 game sample size, hill. If anything the delta between our rating and ppg increased in the playoffs.

[ijspeelman]

Need to back up JonFromVA here. Points per 100 possessions is a totally accurate tool to compare how well a team scores, on average. It's simply an average across possessions instead of an average across games. Since both teams' possession count will be roughly the same each game, it's just a pace-adjusted number with no trickery, and less deceptive when comparing teams that play at different speeds.

Ultimately we lost because nobody played up to their regular season potential-- unless you notice that, well, the Knicks were a good matchup against us in the regular season too. Thibodeau used the same dare-you-to-shoot defense against us in the regular season.

It's crazy to me that people are dying on the, O rating is a better predictor of scoring than how many actual points a team scores per game over an 82 game sample size, hill. If anything the delta between our rating and ppg increased in the playoffs.

The playoff series was only a 5 game sample. We most likely had 5 game samples in the regular season where our delta was higher than that sample.

Each team that faces off plays at the same pace so if one team plays at a slower pace and the other plays at a higher pace then the ORTG of each team will give us an idea of how they will score. The higher pace team will “score less” against the slower pace team and vice versa, but that doesn’t mean that their offense was worse (or better).

Edit: this makes it seem like I think the Knicks series was a product of bad luck and I’d like to clarify that is not what I think, but I don’t think it’s indicator of a slow pace being our downfall

[JonFromVA]

I don't see any reason why Okoro can't be part of a three guard rotation with Garland and Mitchell, at least for another season. I don't see any reason why he couldn't eventually win the starting SF job back if he can continue to improve as a three point shooter.

In terms of looking like a bust, It's not like he got the Wade treatment after 7 minutes in game 1. He saw plenty of minutes off the bench in the series. If the rest of the NBA views him as a miss, it's probably because of all the minutes that preceded the playoffs.

As far as LeVert, he did what he was asked of him this season and I assume that's appreciated, but it's important for the Cavs to remember why he was brought in to begin with. Rubio got injured and we needed a secondary ballhandler to stop teams from successfully doubling Garland. Rubio's back, we traded for Mitchell, and there's a question as to how much you need to pay a 4th ball handler.

If the plan is to keep Mitchell, then it's probably worth asking whether LeVert will have any trade value on his new contract because the Cavs could have the full MLE next summer as well. You start stacking up guys on those contracts, and maybe they're viewed as more favorable trade pieces.

Well, first off Wade is under contract through 2025/26, whereas Isaac is about to become a RFA and may not even be worth his QO. We're about to consider paying Caris to be our starting SF when we only invested 33 games (including playoffs) in to seeing if it might work. Our coach's early judgement was that he would be better off the bench, that is right up until we lost a playoff game.

It's a recipe for disaster unless as you always suggest Altman can manage to get them both re-signed at or below their market value. If the players co-operate with that inspite of how they've been jerked around, then we can at least sustain what we've got and continue to try to sort it out.

Or we let them all go, and try to sell a free-agent to accept our MLE in exchange for our vacated SF position.

Technically 45 games as a starter, either way, small sample.

I didn't include last season, because the team's need for a secondary playmaker in the starting lineup was addressed by trading for Mitchell.

[JonFromVA]

I don't see any reason why Okoro can't be part of a three guard rotation with Garland and Mitchell, at least for another season. I don't see any reason why he couldn't eventually win the starting SF job back if he can continue to improve as a three point shooter.

In terms of looking like a bust, It's not like he got the Wade treatment after 7 minutes in game 1. He saw plenty of minutes off the bench in the series. If the rest of the NBA views him as a miss, it's probably because of all the minutes that preceded the playoffs.

As far as LeVert, he did what he was asked of him this season and I assume that's appreciated, but it's important for the Cavs to remember why he was brought in to begin with. Rubio got injured and we needed a secondary ballhandler to stop teams from successfully doubling Garland. Rubio's back, we traded for Mitchell, and there's a question as to how much you need to pay a 4th ball handler.

If the plan is to keep Mitchell, then it's probably worth asking whether LeVert will have any trade value on his new contract because the Cavs could have the full MLE next summer as well. You start stacking up guys on those contracts, and maybe they're viewed as more favorable trade pieces.

Well, first off Wade is under contract through 2025/26, whereas Isaac is about to become a RFA and may not even be worth his QO. We're about to consider paying Caris to be our starting SF when we only invested 33 games (including playoffs) in to seeing if it might work. Our coach's early judgement was that he would be better off the bench, that is right up until we lost a playoff game.

It's a recipe for disaster unless as you always suggest Altman can manage to get them both re-signed at or below their market value. If the players co-operate with that inspite of how they've been jerked around, then we can at least sustain what we've got and continue to try to sort it out.

Or we let them all go, and try to sell a free-agent to accept our MLE in exchange for our vacated SF position.

Second only to Sexton, no one on a rookie contract has gotten more unearned minutes than Okoro. LeVert was well on his way to getting his minutes cut in Indiana before we traded for him. Maybe the reporting is best face stuff, but LeVert reportedly told JBB he liked coming off the bench (probably because he got more touches and the spacing was better with one of Allen or Mobley is off the floor).

Both players essentially had the starting spot gifted to them and it's not the Cavs fault neither of them made a compelling case for keeping it. That's not on the Cavs. It's not jerking anyone around. This isn't summer camp. It's the NBA.

LeVert off the bench always made a ton of sense, but who was starting game 1 of this season? It was LeVert, and that's even before Wade hurt his shoulder and Love hurt his thumb.

The whole idea of fixing a rotation for the playoffs is to make sure those groupings are building chemistry and on the same page.

It just makes no sense if the coach is going to throw it all away when the player he decided was his best option gets a couple of fouls or misses a couple of shots. From a team perspective, the playoffs were an opportunity to learn, adapt and grow; wasting that very limited opportunity in any way is a failure.

[JonFromVA]

Need to back up JonFromVA here. Points per 100 possessions is a totally accurate tool to compare how well a team scores, on average. It's simply an average across possessions instead of an average across games. Since both teams' possession count will be roughly the same each game, it's just a pace-adjusted number with no trickery, and less deceptive when comparing teams that play at different speeds.

Ultimately we lost because nobody played up to their regular season potential-- unless you notice that, well, the Knicks were a good matchup against us in the regular season too. Thibodeau used the same dare-you-to-shoot defense against us in the regular season.

It's crazy to me that people are dying on the, O rating is a better predictor of scoring than how many actual points a team scores per game over an 82 game sample size, hill. If anything the delta between our rating and ppg increased in the playoffs.

I'm sorry, multiple people have explained why O and D rating are preferred over PPG when ranking team's O and D.

Now you're bringing up predictive power as if these simple statistics are the results of some sort of multi-variable linear regression and calling us crazy?

You don't need to reject evidence to make your case, you need to explain it ... and it's certainly not that Tom Thibbadeau suddenly discovered he could get away with putting 5 men in the paint and freely cheat off our questionable shooters.

[KuruptedCav]

The team needs size. They give up size 1-5 and the only place they are looking to pick it up is Mobley in the Weight Room.


Don’t need perfect players, need fits who enhance the Core4 rather than average them down. Positional flexibility so they can create mismatches of their own rather than letting opponents dictate would be nice.

Players I think could be available and fit the bill: Naz Reid, Zach Collins, Royce O’Neale, Kyle Anderson, Kelly Olynyk, Taurean Prince.

Or one-way shooters like Joe Harris, Bojan Bogdanovic… who can actually shoot with gravity.

Avoid the John Collins type whose play averages down the players he shares the court with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk