Around The NBA

[JonFromVA]

Strus was the ordained starter by the last coach, and the better player. Maybe by Altman too. But Kenny isn't here to follow in JBB's footsteps. Ultimately Okoro with the starters was a better lineup in 22-23 than Strus with the starters last year.

Wade is clearly the backup 4 given we only have TT around, and Niang was worse in just about every way than Okoro both in the playoffs and regular season. Him ahead of Okoro in the rotation is a joke, unless Okoro sets himself back by not signing before camp.

You can pull all the advanced #s you want, a guy willing to shoot 7 three pointers per game is more valuable than a guy unwilling to do that, especially next to 2 non shooting bigs. Okoro being gifted the starter job went out the window after his 2nd season.

If goofball jb could figure that out, I'm confident Kenny knew that before he signed on the dotted line.

Is Wade the back-up 4? Idk that i would agree with that. Pretty sure it will probably be Niang. I'm fine with it being Wade but i just envision he will probably be playing more 3 than 4.

Again, Niang is more valuable to an offense than Okoro, because he's willing to shoot; regardless how trash he was for the 12 playoff games.

We signed a coach who values shooting and spacing. We didn't sign Lionel Hollins.

Is Max Strus taking shots away from Mitchell/Garland/Mobley/Allen better than him taking shots away from Caris LeVert? That's the question. Adding less efficient offensive capability to four capable offensive players is of minimal benefit. Adding a good point of attack defender to a lineup without one is a much bigger benefit to the lineup.

Coaches like Auerbach, Krzyzewski, Popovich, Kerr have brought one of their five best players off the bench on purpose to improve the team's overall fit. It's not a crazy idea.

As long as our starting lineup has Allen and Mobley in it and they aren't spacing the floor, we're going to have some struggles. It's not insane to want to come out with a defensive oriented lineup. And then as the rotations begin and one of our bigs goes to the bench, we can move towards lineups with 4 shooters.

LeVert starting at SF is good option too if I remember the lineup data.

otoh, Strus in his second season with the team and hopefully a healthy Garland very well could improve.

[toooskies]

Virtually no one shot well against the Knicks. We didn't shoot well this year either, with Strus landing under 35%, LeVert shooting 18% from three with more minutes and fewer attempts than Okoro.

My overall point is that Okoro's future earnings are very dependent on him getting into Atkinson's good graces, whether that's to claim a starting spot or just a regular place in the rotation.

[JujitsuFlip]

Virtually no one shot well against the Knicks. We didn't shoot well this year either, with Strus landing under 35%, LeVert shooting 18% from three with more minutes and fewer attempts than Okoro.

My overall point is that Okoro's future earnings are very dependent on him getting into Atkinson's good graces, whether that's to claim a starting spot or just a regular place in the rotation.

Our team success is more important than that.

If the guy wants to holdout, that's up to him. Cavs allegedly made him an offer, Okoro didn't accept it. Cavs let Okoro hit RFA and he couldn't secure an offer sheet.

Okoro has 17 days to decide if he wants to accept the QO or not.

[jbk1234]

Okoro isn't going to start. Strus already solidified himself as the starting SF. Atkinson is from the Kerr, MDA, and Bud coaching trees. Those guys value shooting, Okoro is allergic to shooting; not a fit.

Okoro could be a solid 3rd wing off the bench behind LeVert and either Wade/Niang.

Strus was the ordained starter by the last coach, and the better player. Maybe by Altman too. But Kenny isn't here to follow in JBB's footsteps. Ultimately Okoro with the starters was a better lineup in 22-23 than Strus with the starters last year.

Wade is clearly the backup 4 given we only have TT around, and Niang was worse in just about every way than Okoro both in the playoffs and regular season. Him ahead of Okoro in the rotation is a joke, unless Okoro sets himself back by not signing before camp.

And if I remember the data right, Strus was much better in other lineups. So, it's something that should be investigated by a coach who coaches with more than his gut.

Did our starting unit even play 25% of last season's games together last season?

Garland played in 57 games.

Mobley played in 50.

Mitchell played in 55.

[toooskies]

Strus was the ordained starter by the last coach, and the better player. Maybe by Altman too. But Kenny isn't here to follow in JBB's footsteps. Ultimately Okoro with the starters was a better lineup in 22-23 than Strus with the starters last year.

Wade is clearly the backup 4 given we only have TT around, and Niang was worse in just about every way than Okoro both in the playoffs and regular season. Him ahead of Okoro in the rotation is a joke, unless Okoro sets himself back by not signing before camp.

And if I remember the data right, Strus was much better in other lineups. So, it's something that should be investigated by a coach who coaches with more than his gut.

Did our starting unit even play 25% of last season's games together last season?

Garland played in 57 games.

Mobley played in 50.

Mitchell played in 55.

28 games started together. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2024_start.html

[jbk1234]

And if I remember the data right, Strus was much better in other lineups. So, it's something that should be investigated by a coach who coaches with more than his gut.

Did our starting unit even play 25% of last season's games together last season?

Garland played in 57 games.

Mobley played in 50.

Mitchell played in 55.

28 games started together. https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CLE/2024_start.html

Yeah, that's not enough of a sample size, for me anyway. This is especially the case because there were longish stretches where we had more than just one starter out.

[JonFromVA]

Strus was the ordained starter by the last coach, and the better player. Maybe by Altman too. But Kenny isn't here to follow in JBB's footsteps. Ultimately Okoro with the starters was a better lineup in 22-23 than Strus with the starters last year.

Wade is clearly the backup 4 given we only have TT around, and Niang was worse in just about every way than Okoro both in the playoffs and regular season. Him ahead of Okoro in the rotation is a joke, unless Okoro sets himself back by not signing before camp.

And if I remember the data right, Strus was much better in other lineups. So, it's something that should be investigated by a coach who coaches with more than his gut.

Did our starting unit even play 25% of last season's games together last season?

Garland played in 57 games.

Mobley played in 50.

Mitchell played in 55.

They played 367 minutes together, that's a decent volume for comparing lineups.

[JujitsuFlip]

I just think with Mobley moving to the Draymond/hub role and my assumption is Garland moving to a Steph type role. Strus is going to be huge. Niang finding his shot is going to be huge. Merrill being able to get his shot off is going to be huge. TJ is so dang hit or miss with his efficiency but if he can shoot it. If Tyson can shoot it. If Mobley can just look at a few more jumpers. If LeVert can stop hijacking the offense.

Kenny has such a huge task here. We don't have time for a player to be scared to shoot or stepping out in the corner multiple times per game bc he's allergic to shooting.

[jbk1234]

And if I remember the data right, Strus was much better in other lineups. So, it's something that should be investigated by a coach who coaches with more than his gut.

Did our starting unit even play 25% of last season's games together last season?

Garland played in 57 games.

Mobley played in 50.

Mitchell played in 55.

They played 367 minutes together, that's a decent volume for comparing lineups.

It's really not, not for a starting unit. It's 10 games worth of data at 36mpg. That's before you get into who the opponents were for those minutes.

[JonFromVA]

Did our starting unit even play 25% of last season's games together last season?

Garland played in 57 games.

Mobley played in 50.

Mitchell played in 55.

They played 367 minutes together, that's a decent volume for comparing lineups.

It's really not, not for a starting unit. It's 10 games worth of data at 36mpg. That's before you get into who the opponents were for those minutes.

Having been looking at this data since 82games.com came on line circa 2002, I think anything over 100 minutes is worth looking at.

But I'm not looking for proof, only evidence.

[JujitsuFlip]

.

[jbk1234]

They played 367 minutes together, that's a decent volume for comparing lineups.

It's really not, not for a starting unit. It's 10 games worth of data at 36mpg. That's before you get into who the opponents were for those minutes.

Having been looking at this data since 82games.com came on line circa 2002, I think anything over 100 minutes is worth looking at.

But I'm not looking for proof, only evidence.

You know my thing, the larger the sample size the better as it's more likely to include games against playoff-caliber teams and data against the teams who don't get in is of limited predictive value for the postseason. As well as the Cavs appeared to play without Garland during the regular season, they only played 12 playoff teams with him out, and they lost half of those games. The year before, there was ample evidence that we struggled to score against good teams in the 4th quarter long before we ran into the Knicks.

[JonFromVA]

It's really not, not for a starting unit. It's 10 games worth of data at 36mpg. That's before you get into who the opponents were for those minutes.

Having been looking at this data since 82games.com came on line circa 2002, I think anything over 100 minutes is worth looking at.

But I'm not looking for proof, only evidence.

You know my thing, the larger the sample size the better as it's more likely to include games against playoff-caliber teams and data against the teams who don't get in is of limited predictive value for the postseason. As well as the Cavs appeared to play without Garland during the regular season, they only played 12 playoff teams with him out, and they lost half of those games. The year before, there was ample evidence that we struggled to score against good teams in the 4th quarter long before we ran into the Knicks.

We can rattle off all the factors for pages which is all part of the story, but the numbers no matter how small the volume still reflect reality. We need lineups that work, unless there's some specific strategy we're shooting for ... like the starters wear down the other team with defense, and then the reserves come in and toast them.

And if that's the idea, the numbers suggest Strus would be better being part of the reserve group.

[JujitsuFlip]

Having been looking at this data since 82games.com came on line circa 2002, I think anything over 100 minutes is worth looking at.

But I'm not looking for proof, only evidence.

You know my thing, the larger the sample size the better as it's more likely to include games against playoff-caliber teams and data against the teams who don't get in is of limited predictive value for the postseason. As well as the Cavs appeared to play without Garland during the regular season, they only played 12 playoff teams with him out, and they lost half of those games. The year before, there was ample evidence that we struggled to score against good teams in the 4th quarter long before we ran into the Knicks.

We can rattle off all the factors for pages which is all part of the story, but the numbers no matter how small the volume still reflect reality. We need lineups that work, unless there's some specific strategy we're shooting for ... like the starters wear down the other team with defense, and then the reserves come in and toast them.

And if that's the idea, the numbers suggest Strus would be better being part of the reserve group.

It's 2024 and the Cavs have 3 bigs on their roster, maybe 4. That can't be the strategy. And even if it is the strategy, Garland shouldn't start, dude is a turnstile. At that point go...

Mitchell
Okoro
Wade
Mobley
Allen

Then off the bench you stagger guys in.

Garland
Strus
LeVert
Niang
TT

Can use Merrill situationally for shooting.

Have Tyson and TJ battle out for the 12th man role in camp. Kenny historically never played more than 11 guys real minutes in the rotation.

[jbk1234]

Having been looking at this data since 82games.com came on line circa 2002, I think anything over 100 minutes is worth looking at.

But I'm not looking for proof, only evidence.

You know my thing, the larger the sample size the better as it's more likely to include games against playoff-caliber teams and data against the teams who don't get in is of limited predictive value for the postseason. As well as the Cavs appeared to play without Garland during the regular season, they only played 12 playoff teams with him out, and they lost half of those games. The year before, there was ample evidence that we struggled to score against good teams in the 4th quarter long before we ran into the Knicks.

We can rattle off all the factors for pages which is all part of the story, but the numbers no matter how small the volume still reflect reality. We need lineups that work, unless there's some specific strategy we're shooting for ... like the starters wear down the other team with defense, and then the reserves come in and toast them.

And if that's the idea, the numbers suggest Strus would be better being part of the reserve group.

Lineups that work against which teams?

The Cavs have gotten some pretty significant reality checks the last two years in the playoffs. The strategy should be to put your best starting unit that's capable of beating playoff teams on the floor. That's the unit that's going to play the most minutes in the playoffs and that should be the goal every year Mitchell remains on the roster.

[ijspeelman]

You know my thing, the larger the sample size the better as it's more likely to include games against playoff-caliber teams and data against the teams who don't get in is of limited predictive value for the postseason. As well as the Cavs appeared to play without Garland during the regular season, they only played 12 playoff teams with him out, and they lost half of those games. The year before, there was ample evidence that we struggled to score against good teams in the 4th quarter long before we ran into the Knicks.

We can rattle off all the factors for pages which is all part of the story, but the numbers no matter how small the volume still reflect reality. We need lineups that work, unless there's some specific strategy we're shooting for ... like the starters wear down the other team with defense, and then the reserves come in and toast them.

And if that's the idea, the numbers suggest Strus would be better being part of the reserve group.

It's 2024 and the Cavs have 3 bigs on their roster, maybe 4. That can't be the strategy. And even if it is the strategy, Garland shouldn't start, dude is a turnstile. At that point go...

Mitchell
Okoro
Wade
Mobley
Allen

Then off the bench you stagger guys in.

Garland
Strus
LeVert
Niang
TT

Can use Merrill situationally for shooting.

Have Tyson and TJ battle out for the 12th man role in camp. Kenny historically never played more than 11 guys real minutes in the rotation.

Imo you need to start your best players so Garland needs to start. If he works better in other lineups so be it, but he should be getting starter minutes, but could be staggered w DMitch.

I really want to see what Atkinson can do to unlock synergy between our two all-star guards

[jbk1234]

We can rattle off all the factors for pages which is all part of the story, but the numbers no matter how small the volume still reflect reality. We need lineups that work, unless there's some specific strategy we're shooting for ... like the starters wear down the other team with defense, and then the reserves come in and toast them.

And if that's the idea, the numbers suggest Strus would be better being part of the reserve group.

It's 2024 and the Cavs have 3 bigs on their roster, maybe 4. That can't be the strategy. And even if it is the strategy, Garland shouldn't start, dude is a turnstile. At that point go...

Mitchell
Okoro
Wade
Mobley
Allen

Then off the bench you stagger guys in.

Garland
Strus
LeVert
Niang
TT

Can use Merrill situationally for shooting.

Have Tyson and TJ battle out for the 12th man role in camp. Kenny historically never played more than 11 guys real minutes in the rotation.

Imo you need to start your best players so Garland needs to start. If he works better in other lineups so be it, but he should be getting starter minutes, but could be staggered w DMitch.

I really want to see what Atkinson can do to unlock synergy between our two all-star guards

Yeah, I really don't think people appreciate how easy the Cavs will be for playoff teams to defend if Mitchell is the only triple threat on the floor. Also, if the Cavs eventually decide that starting both Garland and Mitchell doesn't work, you trade one of them for a triple threat - preferably at SF. You don't move your $40M PG to the bench.

[JujitsuFlip]

It's 2024 and the Cavs have 3 bigs on their roster, maybe 4. That can't be the strategy. And even if it is the strategy, Garland shouldn't start, dude is a turnstile. At that point go...

Mitchell
Okoro
Wade
Mobley
Allen

Then off the bench you stagger guys in.

Garland
Strus
LeVert
Niang
TT

Can use Merrill situationally for shooting.

Have Tyson and TJ battle out for the 12th man role in camp. Kenny historically never played more than 11 guys real minutes in the rotation.

Imo you need to start your best players so Garland needs to start. If he works better in other lineups so be it, but he should be getting starter minutes, but could be staggered w DMitch.

I really want to see what Atkinson can do to unlock synergy between our two all-star guards

Yeah, I really don't think people appreciate how easy the Cavs will be for playoff teams to defend if Mitchell is the only triple threat on the floor. Also, if the Cavs eventually decide that starting both Garland and Mitchell doesn't work, you trade one of them for a triple threat - preferably at SF. You don't move your $40M PG to the bench.

My whole point is how absurd it is to bench Strus for Okoro and say it's bc of defense while keeping someone as awful as Garland in that line-up. The word defense and Garland should never be correlated together.

Start Garland, Mitchell, Strus, Mobley, and Allen. See if Kenny can mimic the dynasty Warriors and make it work.

[jbk1234]

Imo you need to start your best players so Garland needs to start. If he works better in other lineups so be it, but he should be getting starter minutes, but could be staggered w DMitch.

I really want to see what Atkinson can do to unlock synergy between our two all-star guards

Yeah, I really don't think people appreciate how easy the Cavs will be for playoff teams to defend if Mitchell is the only triple threat on the floor. Also, if the Cavs eventually decide that starting both Garland and Mitchell doesn't work, you trade one of them for a triple threat - preferably at SF. You don't move your $40M PG to the bench.

My whole point is how absurd it is to bench Strus for Okoro and say it's bc of defense while keeping someone as awful as Garland in that line-up. The word defense and Garland should never be correlated together.

Start Garland, Mitchell, Strus, Mobley, and Allen. See if Kenny can mimic the dynasty Warriors and make it work.

I agree with your conclusion.

[ijspeelman]

It's 2024 and the Cavs have 3 bigs on their roster, maybe 4. That can't be the strategy. And even if it is the strategy, Garland shouldn't start, dude is a turnstile. At that point go...

Mitchell
Okoro
Wade
Mobley
Allen

Then off the bench you stagger guys in.

Garland
Strus
LeVert
Niang
TT

Can use Merrill situationally for shooting.

Have Tyson and TJ battle out for the 12th man role in camp. Kenny historically never played more than 11 guys real minutes in the rotation.

Imo you need to start your best players so Garland needs to start. If he works better in other lineups so be it, but he should be getting starter minutes, but could be staggered w DMitch.

I really want to see what Atkinson can do to unlock synergy between our two all-star guards

Yeah, I really don't think people appreciate how easy the Cavs will be for playoff teams to defend if Mitchell is the only triple threat on the floor. Also, if the Cavs eventually decide that starting both Garland and Mitchell doesn't work, you trade one of them for a triple threat - preferably at SF. You don't move your $40M PG to the bench.

And we've seen the only playmaking threat be nullified with double/triple teams recently in a Cavs jersey. Garland in 2021-22.

I think what makes those guys dangerous is they are both so dynamic, but Atkinson needs to make them work to refine their off-ball skills when they are both on the floor