bmurph128 wrote:Iwasawitness wrote:bmurph128 wrote:
I am so sick of the bias against Mitchell. How....how is that not true?
He had more points, more assists, more rebounds (against a team who we could not rebound against), more steal and more blocks. His game score on BBRef is 25% higher than Garlands.
How was he not the best Cavs player in that series?
Check his efficiency, stop blindly looking at stats and pay attention to his defense in that series, and get back to me.
Check his efficiency - which is a stat - but stop blindly looking at stats. Got it.
Garland was a tough more efficient with less usage. Mitchell was clearly the better player in that series.
A players shooting efficiency tells you a LOT more than how many more points, rebounds and assists someone gets. If you think Mitchell was by far the best player in that series, you either didn't watch, or did and wasn't paying attention at all. Again, there is a reason a lot of people push back at that idea and it's not out of some perceived bias towards Mitchell.
DowJones wrote:I don't worry about one individual "running the offense". I think that is an outdated way to look at the NBA. Our offense is at its best when we have 4 out and 1 in. That gives Mitchell (and hopefully Garland) enough room to create. You really don't want one PG dominating the ball and setting things up like they did in the past. You want elite shooting/spacing with guards that can also get downhill. When Garland comes back, I want to see him hold the ball less and shoot the ball more. Cleveland has been great at not passing up 3's since Garland/Mobley went down. Garland has a tendency to pass up an ok to good look at a 3 and I don't want to see that. I really hope he starts letting its fly more. If you miss--you miss--but get the shots up.
Agreed, but you have to keep in mind the structure of the team. On both occasions where Garland and Mitchell were left to run the offenses on their own due to injury, the results were much better. Mitchell has guided us through the best stretch of our season by far, and Garland guided us through a 5-1 stretch where we beat Denver and Philly (much smaller sample size, but how much better they looked as a team was important). It's clear, at the very least, that Garland and Mitchell trying to share responsibilities with running the offense does create some kind of clash. How big of a clash is up for debate. But there is a difference. You would, at the very least, want to maximize the potential of your personal to create the best team possible on both ends. To me, it's starting to become clear that even if the two guards can play together, it's not in the current fashion that they are, so some kind of change is warranted. Again, Garland is a terrific off the ball player and spot up shooter. These are strengths that can be utilized properly if Mitchell is the one being left to run things. It's worth trying, if not fully implementing if Garland is willing to play this style when Mitchell is out there with him. How effective it would be is anyone's best guess. But I'm at least willing to try it. We're still at a very weak part of our schedule, so why not?
You are right though, Garland needs to start letting those shots fly. It's not entirely his fault, it's part of how he's always played the game. A level of adaptability is required on his part, and maybe that'll happen if he's forced to play out of his comfort zone.
DowJones wrote:Merrill played 7 minutes tonight. That isn't enough time to get any idea of what he would have done. Besides, a specific matchup in a January regular season game isn't the point. You need to get this team ready for the playoffs and this Clippers team playing at full strength is as close to a simulation of playoff basketball as you can get. Give Merrill 20+ minutes and let him and the team work on their game. Now if we have no intention oof playing him in the playoffs, which I assume will happen because JB is gonna JB, then ok. That is my frustration. We stumbled into this really good 3 point shooter--the kind of 3 point shooter teams are killing themselves to find--and I think it is a better than 50-50 chance that JB has already written him off when it comes to the playoffs. The same way he entirely wrote off Love. What was our excuse last year regarding Love? That he "forgot how to shoot"?
It's not a matter of what he would have done, it's what he was doing at that point. Again, the Cavs looked at their worst when Merrill was out there on both ends of the floor, and a big part of the reason why is because of how the Clippers are structured as a team. They have more length and defense than your typical second unit team. They were able to limit Merrill's off ball movement and open looks which has been a killer for opposing teams. He just could not get open. And Merrill usually doesn't have to worry about there being a Russell Westbrook on the other end staring him in the eyes and daring him to try to guard him. It was a total mismatch and one the Clippers made the Cavaliers paid dearly on. It's no coincidence that the one and really only time the Clippers ever had any real control over the game is when Merrill was out on the floor. And as I said before, Bickerstaff recognized this and realized it's best to keep Merrill out of the game. And if none of that is any indication of how bad Merrill was for Cleveland last night, maybe the fact that he was -9 (leading all Cavs in that category) is. Trust me when I say this, I wanted Merrill out there more than anyone, the guy is on my fantasy team after all. But within the context of the game itself, it made perfect sense to keep him out and it was the right decision.
What this means going forward is anyone's best guess. Another user just mentioned to me that Garland's due back for Wednesday. That could change things in regards to his role on the team going forward. But when you consider the insane offensive impact he had on the team, part of me wants to give Bickerstaff the benefit of the doubt and assume he will try to find a way to keep Merrill included within the rotation. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
