toooskies wrote:tidho wrote:toooskies wrote:What on-court characteristics do small guards suffer from, particularly in the playoffs, and how did Mitchell suffer from them?
It's not any small guard, it's our small guards and the fact they we're pairing them together. some small guards are excellent defenders (like prime Chris Paul), ours are not. so playing two bad defenders together is a problem within itself. some like to downplay that being a problem but it gets obvious when one or both of our bigs has to chase Turner, Siakam, or Toppin out to the three-point line. it's simply a multiplier of opportunity for the opponent to create mismatches. then the obvious, easier to close on a small shooter, lack of rebounding, etc.
If a proposed deal gives us good value for one of them, then it doesn't really matter exactly why we're doing it. we should just do it.
So when you say "small guard" you mean vertical height. But how tall you are doesn't really matter on the basketball court except for sight lines.
What matters first defensively is reach. Mitchell's got a 6'10" wingspan which makes up for his below-average height for a SG. Mitchell can reach nearly as high vertically and wider horizontally as Derrick White can.
What matters next defensively is bulk. Mitchell's a brickhouse. Nobody's backing Mitchell into the paint or bumping him off his spot playing bully-ball.
And finally defensively, athleticism. Mitchell can jump out of the gym. He's arguably so strong athletically that he gives himself soft tissue injuries. When he's focusing on it he can rise up and grab contested rebounds from bigs, as he did multiple times against the Pacers.
Offensively, small guards often have trouble finishing at the rim or in traffic. Mitchell relentlessly got to the line against the Pacers and routinely finishes at the rim or draws fouls even when crowded by multiple bigs, even in the playoffs.
Another small guard issue is getting off 3-point shots. Mitchell has no problem getting these off volume-wise, although he might be slightly less accurate on his pull-ups in the postseason.
What I'm saying is that Mitchell, while short, is not a "small guard" in practice.
Garland on the other hand has typical small guard characteristics in all the above. So do Jerome and Merrill who both have negative wingspans to go with can't-dunk athleticism-- they are effectively shorter than their listed height. I consider the Cavs to have only one small guard on the court with Garland/Mitchell and two whenever they have two of Garland/Jerome/Merrill.
Wow this Mitchell guy sounds amazing, kinda surprising this flawless specimen never got out of the second round even with multiple top seeded teams.
Mitchell has great length for a little guy. If he's the PG he's not undersized. If he's the SG he's still on the smaller end. It's interesting that you say his athleticism is what triggers soft tissue injuries. Consider it's his need to use that athleticism all the damn time (because he's undersized) that triggers the injuries and will ultimately shorten the time he remains all-star caliber.
I've never said it was about him though, it's about the pairing, and the pairing can be corrected by replacing either one of them.
