RealGM

We keep getting these test games while being injured. Nuggets are missing Murray so it seems fairly even as far as injuries.

Even with Mitchell missing, I don't see a reason as to why Cleveland shouldn't win this game. Mobley and Allen should be giving Jokic fits throughout the night and without their second scoring option, the added length out there on the floor should see us putting up a really solid defensive resistance. I've liked the progress we've made and I'm happy we're 6-6 after the really rough start to the season with injuries, but this is really the one where I feel like we should be turning it around.

I didn't even realize that LeVert was out tonight too. I somewhat take back what I said about being disappointed if we don't win, but with that said, we are looking good and Porter JR looks like the real deal. I'm also very impressed with the defense.

I will say this, Garland looks like a completely different player without Mitchell, maybe the cavs need to figure out how to stagger their minutes even more than they already do.

afarmenian wrote:I will say this, Garland looks like a completely different player without Mitchell, maybe the cavs need to figure out how to stagger their minutes even more than they already do.

They need to do just the opposite, and Mitchell should be the one to adjust.

We hit the Sam Merrill line of guards being out. But he gave us good minutes in the first half.

CPJ having another good game.

One thing I think Mobley and Allen have gotten better at is handling bounce passes. It's a great alternative when the other team is guarding high to stop the lob.

I can't wait to hear you guys complain about this one.

Strus play making ability has been downplayed, imo. Guy already has 5 assists.

Like to see CPJ performing well again, that back cut was filthy.

Kinda weird the team seems to play better without Mitchell...

After you guys were complaining about the Cavaliers "barely" beating the Pistons (and that isn't even really the case... it was only close because the Pistons made four straight well contested three pointers in the third quarter... otherwise it was very clear who the better team was), we have just witnessed them BLOW OUT the defending champs. Yeah sure, the Nuggets were without Murray. But if we want to play that game, Cleveland was without Mitchell, LeVert AND Okoro tonight.

It's almost like... hear me out... we had a rough start because we were missing multiple starters and rotation players, and had a very rough schedule to start the season?

This is why you don't proclaim the season to be a lost cause two weeks into it.

This was the kind of win we haven't had this year.

I love seeing Craig Porter, Merrill, and Thompson get real minutes and shine in those minutes. Craig Porter has been legitimately stellar so far

The defense was looking like the Cavs of last year. Great win

Iwasawitness wrote:After you guys were complaining about the Cavaliers "barely" beating the Pistons (and that isn't even really the case... it was only close because the Pistons made four straight well contested three pointers in the third quarter... otherwise it was very clear who the better team was), we have just witnessed them BLOW OUT the defending champs. Yeah sure, the Nuggets were without Murray. But if we want to play that game, Cleveland was without Mitchell, LeVert AND Okoro tonight.

It's almost like... hear me out... we had a rough start because we were missing multiple starters and rotation players, and had a very rough schedule to start the season?

This is why you don't proclaim the season to be a lost cause two weeks into it.

I'll be the first to admit there are still worries about this roster, but our record has not shown how good we are as a team thus far.

I just want to see the offense translate into the playoffs and games like this show us a glimpse of that

ijspeelman wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:After you guys were complaining about the Cavaliers "barely" beating the Pistons (and that isn't even really the case... it was only close because the Pistons made four straight well contested three pointers in the third quarter... otherwise it was very clear who the better team was), we have just witnessed them BLOW OUT the defending champs. Yeah sure, the Nuggets were without Murray. But if we want to play that game, Cleveland was without Mitchell, LeVert AND Okoro tonight.

It's almost like... hear me out... we had a rough start because we were missing multiple starters and rotation players, and had a very rough schedule to start the season?

This is why you don't proclaim the season to be a lost cause two weeks into it.

I'll be the first to admit there are still worries about this roster, but our record has not shown how good we are as a team thus far.

I just want to see the offense translate into the playoffs and games like this show us a glimpse of that

There are absolutely still worries about this roster. This game adds credibility to the theory that the Cavaliers are much better off trading away Mitchell sooner rather than later. It's not a matter of offense. Cleveland was able to close out effectively on shooters all night long and limit a very good offense. As long as Mitchell is on the team, those worries, as well as the limitations that he provides, will continue to prevail.

But even with Mitchell, there are still reasons to be excited.

Strus has been a great acquisition. Porter JR looks like the real deal. And Mobley, despite what people want to claim, is continuing to make improvements, even on a game by game basis.

ijspeelman wrote:This was the kind of win we haven't had this year.

I love seeing Craig Porter, Merrill, and Thompson get real minutes and shine in those minutes. Craig Porter has been legitimately stellar so far

The defense was looking like the Cavs of last year. Great win

That's the issue with JB though, because as soon as guys get healthy, those 3 are back to being glued to the bench. If he would go 11 deep, nighly, then everyone could be getting minutes, staying fresh, and staying in a consistent playing rhythm.

Iwasawitness wrote:

ijspeelman wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:After you guys were complaining about the Cavaliers "barely" beating the Pistons (and that isn't even really the case... it was only close because the Pistons made four straight well contested three pointers in the third quarter... otherwise it was very clear who the better team was), we have just witnessed them BLOW OUT the defending champs. Yeah sure, the Nuggets were without Murray. But if we want to play that game, Cleveland was without Mitchell, LeVert AND Okoro tonight.

It's almost like... hear me out... we had a rough start because we were missing multiple starters and rotation players, and had a very rough schedule to start the season?

This is why you don't proclaim the season to be a lost cause two weeks into it.

I'll be the first to admit there are still worries about this roster, but our record has not shown how good we are as a team thus far.

I just want to see the offense translate into the playoffs and games like this show us a glimpse of that

There are absolutely still worries about this roster. This game adds credibility to the theory that the Cavaliers are much better off trading away Mitchell sooner rather than later. It's not a matter of offense. Cleveland was able to close out effectively on shooters all night long and limit a very good offense. As long as Mitchell is on the team, those worries, as well as the limitations that he provides, will continue to prevail.

But even with Mitchell, there are still reasons to be excited.

Strus has been a great acquisition. Porter JR looks like the real deal. And Mobley, despite what people want to claim, is continuing to make improvements, even on a game by game basis.

idk if the bolded is my takeaway from this game.

In the past two seasons, we have 50% W/R with Mitchell out, but we have a 72.2% W/R with Garland out. I am absolutely not insinuating that Garland is the problem (because he is not), but just because we won handily without Mitchell doesn't mean this roster is better off with trading him.

Something that didn't show up, but worried me was our lack of shot creation outside of Garland. Craig Porter and the Cavs scheme made up for our lack of shot creation this game, but if teams play us like they did the end of 2021-22 without Mitchell then we are not going to look like a great club.

I just don't think the takeaway from this game is: "Mitchell is holding us back" and/or "See we don't need Mitchell to be competitive"

Iwasawitness wrote:

ijspeelman wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:After you guys were complaining about the Cavaliers "barely" beating the Pistons (and that isn't even really the case... it was only close because the Pistons made four straight well contested three pointers in the third quarter... otherwise it was very clear who the better team was), we have just witnessed them BLOW OUT the defending champs. Yeah sure, the Nuggets were without Murray. But if we want to play that game, Cleveland was without Mitchell, LeVert AND Okoro tonight.

It's almost like... hear me out... we had a rough start because we were missing multiple starters and rotation players, and had a very rough schedule to start the season?

This is why you don't proclaim the season to be a lost cause two weeks into it.

I'll be the first to admit there are still worries about this roster, but our record has not shown how good we are as a team thus far.

I just want to see the offense translate into the playoffs and games like this show us a glimpse of that

There are absolutely still worries about this roster. This game adds credibility to the theory that the Cavaliers are much better off trading away Mitchell sooner rather than later. It's not a matter of offense. Cleveland was able to close out effectively on shooters all night long and limit a very good offense. As long as Mitchell is on the team, those worries, as well as the limitations that he provides, will continue to prevail.

But even with Mitchell, there are still reasons to be excited.

Strus has been a great acquisition. Porter JR looks like the real deal. And Mobley, despite what people want to claim, is continuing to make improvements, even on a game by game basis.

I would say it adds credibility to Mitchell having something to learn about trusting teammates and playing less hero ball. The instinct to fire the coach or trade the best player is massively overreacting. There's barely evidence to think anything yet.

JujitsuFlip wrote:

ijspeelman wrote:This was the kind of win we haven't had this year.

I love seeing Craig Porter, Merrill, and Thompson get real minutes and shine in those minutes. Craig Porter has been legitimately stellar so far

The defense was looking like the Cavs of last year. Great win

That's the issue with JB though, because as soon as guys get healthy, those 3 are back to being glued to the bench. If he would go 11 deep, nighly, then everyone could be getting minutes, staying fresh, and staying in a consistent playing rhythm.

Hopefully these moments help JB in seeing that these guys can contribute on a night to night basis. I assume Porter has earned that trust.

Despite Merrill going 3/9 from three, there was fear in defenses when he got the ball. And Thompson keeps showing up with surprisingly agile defense and touch around the rim.

ijspeelman wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:

ijspeelman wrote:
I'll be the first to admit there are still worries about this roster, but our record has not shown how good we are as a team thus far.

I just want to see the offense translate into the playoffs and games like this show us a glimpse of that

There are absolutely still worries about this roster. This game adds credibility to the theory that the Cavaliers are much better off trading away Mitchell sooner rather than later. It's not a matter of offense. Cleveland was able to close out effectively on shooters all night long and limit a very good offense. As long as Mitchell is on the team, those worries, as well as the limitations that he provides, will continue to prevail.

But even with Mitchell, there are still reasons to be excited.

Strus has been a great acquisition. Porter JR looks like the real deal. And Mobley, despite what people want to claim, is continuing to make improvements, even on a game by game basis.

idk if the bolded is my takeaway from this game.

In the past two seasons, we have 50% W/R with Mitchell out, but we have a 72.2% W/R with Garland out. I am absolutely not insinuating that Garland is the problem (because he is not), but just because we won handily without Mitchell doesn't mean this roster is better off with trading him.

Something that didn't show up, but worried me was our lack of shot creation outside of Garland. Craig Porter and the Cavs scheme made up for our lack of shot creation this game, but if teams play us like they did the end of 2021-22 without Mitchell then we are not going to look like a great club.

I just don't think the takeaway from this game is: "Mitchell is holding us back" and/or "See we don't need Mitchell to be competitive"

You tell me which is more sustainable... an offensive system with more balanced scoring and playmaking that doesn't rely on one man isoing for the majority of it, or the one where a guy is isoing for the majority of it?

I'd be willing to be that you would go with the former.

Don't get me wrong, if Mitchell were to fully buy into the idea of being a system player and support piece while Garland runs the show, I would at least be more supportive of the idea of keeping him for the offensive side of things. But the simple fact of the matter is, Mitchell being around is always going to limit our defense. Even if we could manage to somehow be first in defense again this year (I don't think we're going to be better than Minnesota or Boston in that regard), we are always going to have trouble on closeouts and that's a serious problem against the stronger offensive teams in the league. I love that Mobley and Allen can defend anywhere on the floor, but I would much rather they stay closer to the paint and practically clog it like they did tonight.

Strus and Wade were able to almost effortlessly limit open looks at the perimeter. That wasn't a matter of skill. They're both good defenders, but it really helps when you have the height to close the distance easier.

You are right though. This is only a two game sample size and we just don't have enough data to go off of to draw anything conclusive. But with that said, I'm thrilled with what I've seen so far, and if this is the norm, then I will get down on my knees and pray that Mitchell does not commit to Cleveland. I really think that getting a really good wing to start the SF while Strus moves over to the SG spot is the way to go for this team.

Iwasawitness wrote:

ijspeelman wrote:

Iwasawitness wrote:
There are absolutely still worries about this roster. This game adds credibility to the theory that the Cavaliers are much better off trading away Mitchell sooner rather than later. It's not a matter of offense. Cleveland was able to close out effectively on shooters all night long and limit a very good offense. As long as Mitchell is on the team, those worries, as well as the limitations that he provides, will continue to prevail.

But even with Mitchell, there are still reasons to be excited.

Strus has been a great acquisition. Porter JR looks like the real deal. And Mobley, despite what people want to claim, is continuing to make improvements, even on a game by game basis.

idk if the bolded is my takeaway from this game.

In the past two seasons, we have 50% W/R with Mitchell out, but we have a 72.2% W/R with Garland out. I am absolutely not insinuating that Garland is the problem (because he is not), but just because we won handily without Mitchell doesn't mean this roster is better off with trading him.

Something that didn't show up, but worried me was our lack of shot creation outside of Garland. Craig Porter and the Cavs scheme made up for our lack of shot creation this game, but if teams play us like they did the end of 2021-22 without Mitchell then we are not going to look like a great club.

I just don't think the takeaway from this game is: "Mitchell is holding us back" and/or "See we don't need Mitchell to be competitive"

You tell me which is more sustainable... an offensive system with more balanced scoring and playmaking that doesn't rely on one man isoing for the majority of it, or the one where a guy is isoing for the majority of it?

I'd be willing to be that you would go with the former.

Don't get me wrong, if Mitchell were to fully buy into the idea of being a system player and support piece while Garland runs the show, I would at least be more supportive of the idea of keeping him for the offensive side of things. But the simple fact of the matter is, Mitchell being around is always going to limit our defense. Even if we could manage to somehow be first in defense again this year (I don't think we're going to be better than Minnesota or Boston in that regard), we are always going to have trouble on closeouts and that's a serious problem against the stronger offensive teams in the league. I love that Mobley and Allen can defend anywhere on the floor, but I would much rather they stay closer to the paint and practically clog it like they did tonight.

Strus and Wade were able to almost effortlessly limit open looks at the perimeter. That wasn't a matter of skill. They're both good defenders, but it really helps when you have the height to close the distance easier.

You are right though. This is only a two game sample size and we just don't have enough data to go off of to draw anything conclusive. But with that said, I'm thrilled with what I've seen so far, and if this is the norm, then I will get down on my knees and pray that Mitchell does not commit to Cleveland. I really think that getting a really good wing to start the SF while Strus moves over to the SG spot is the way to go for this team.

I think Mitchell has shown some action on that side of the ball in both of his years so far in Cleveland. Everything right now is about the offense to me. I think the defense speaks for itself and as far as we know translates to the playoffs.

I am in full agreement that we should rely on movement offense, but not in agreement that we run iso ball when Mitchell is on the floor. We are constantly running sets and plays that involve moment, but we allow Mitchell/Garland to finish the play with either a simple PNR or ISO if the first two runs at a set don't work.

I have also been a proponent of Mitchell becoming a better off-ball piece. I think he's on the lazier end (relative to the rest of the team) on moving around and finding openings when the play doesn't call for it. I don't think Garland needs to be the number one, but I also don't think Mitchell needs to be. Its all give and take.

We were also one of the best teams last year in not allowing open threes. I haven't checked the stats for this year, but I have no reason to think too differently.

https://www.si.com/nba/cavaliers/opinion/cavs-mailbag-is-the-defense-inconsistent-due-to-rebounding

Ties into some of the conversation being had.

"The Cavs are allowing the ninth-least amount of three-point attempts in the league, but are getting torched at a 37.5% clip... The Cavs are a top-10 defensive-rebounding team (33.8) but have a bottom-four defensive-rebounding percentage (68.9%)".

JujitsuFlip wrote:https://www.si.com/nba/cavaliers/opinion/cavs-mailbag-is-the-defense-inconsistent-due-to-rebounding

Ties into some of the conversation being had.

"The Cavs are allowing the ninth-least amount of three-point attempts in the league, but are getting torched at a 37.5% clip... The Cavs are a top-10 defensive-rebounding team (33.8) but have a bottom-four defensive-rebounding percentage (68.9%)".

It says this was written after the Pistons game, but it seems are DRB% is 74%, not 68.9% (still bottom nine).



I decided to do the calculations for the opponent wide open threes per 100 possessions and it looks like we are right in the middle so far compared to doing well in this last year.