Game 13: Nuggets @ Cavs 11/19/2023

[jbk1234]

I'm not ready to trade Mitchell, but if the Nets season starts to go sideways, and they make Mikal available for him mid-season, I could probably get ready.

[afarmenian]

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.

Can't say i follow the logic. Mitchell is who is, Garland is who is, its why most fans were wary of the fit to begin with. Sure its easy for us to say well just figure it out abut you are talking about unprogramming years of basketball and under a coach who is more of a "be your self" kind of rah rah guy. I just think you take Mitchell out early quarters let garland run the show and then Mitchells back and is your closer.


And Maybe i am in the minority but I don't see this tremendous monopolization of the ball from Mitchell. Sure he is up there bottom of the top 10 in usage and touches but its not like its late 00s Lebron hijacks the offense all game.

[JujitsuFlip]

Wow, Niang has like no lift on his jumper, huh?

[toooskies]

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.

Can't say i follow the logic. Mitchell is who is, Garland is who is, its why most fans were wary of the fit to begin with. Sure its easy for us to say well just figure it out abut you are talking about unprogramming years of basketball and under a coach who is more of a "be your self" kind of rah rah guy. I just think you take Mitchell out early quarters let garland run the show and then Mitchells back and is your closer.


And Maybe i am in the minority but I don't see this tremendous monopolization of the ball from Mitchell. Sure he is up there bottom of the top 10 in usage and touches but its not like its late 00s Lebron hijacks the offense all game.

Saying that players don't have the capability to change or even adjust their games given time is nuts. Mitchell is 27 and Garland is about to turn 24. Particularly for two guys who seem self-aware and respectful of their teammates.

But what you think you see, Garland and Mitchell not playing well together, isn't even true-- Garland and Mitchell are +10 per 100 possessions when they're on the floor together, which is better than their individual +5.9 (for Mitchell) and +3.4 (for Garland). They coexist fine and seem to thrive with the other out there. What's killing us is that our bench units are awful, and that probably is mostly due to having injured backup PGs.

We see Donovan play hero ball when he doesn't have a PG out there to run the possession.

(We also see the team giving up a ton of open 3-point makes in garbage time, which tanks all of our deep bench's stats. Emoni's mostly getting garbage time minutes, and the team seems to not defend very well in those minutes. But Denver also pulled a cheap move by scoring after we dribbled out our possession under a minute left.)

[JujitsuFlip]

What's killing us is that our bench units are awful, and that probably is mostly due to having injured backup PGs.

Well, and also because the bench units are essentially nonexistent; as i pointed out back in April and JBK pointed out recently.

[JonFromVA]

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.

All the credit in the world to Jarrett Allen. He (with the support of the refs) managed to throw Jokic off his game and with Murray they lacked a changeup once we started hitting their fastball.

CPJ was a lesson that efficiency + hustle are invaluable. If/when we get that consistently from both Garland and Mitchell, we're going to win a lot of games. I'll just have to cross my fingers that CPJ isn't buried back on the bench.

[jbk1234]

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

Can't say i follow the logic. Mitchell is who is, Garland is who is, its why most fans were wary of the fit to begin with. Sure its easy for us to say well just figure it out abut you are talking about unprogramming years of basketball and under a coach who is more of a "be your self" kind of rah rah guy. I just think you take Mitchell out early quarters let garland run the show and then Mitchells back and is your closer.


And Maybe i am in the minority but I don't see this tremendous monopolization of the ball from Mitchell. Sure he is up there bottom of the top 10 in usage and touches but its not like its late 00s Lebron hijacks the offense all game.

Saying that players don't have the capability to change or even adjust their games given time is nuts. Mitchell is 27 and Garland is about to turn 24. Particularly for two guys who seem self-aware and respectful of their teammates.

But what you think you see, Garland and Mitchell not playing well together, isn't even true-- Garland and Mitchell are +10 per 100 possessions when they're on the floor together, which is better than their individual +5.9 (for Mitchell) and +3.4 (for Garland). They coexist fine and seem to thrive with the other out there. What's killing us is that our bench units are awful, and that probably is mostly due to having injured backup PGs.

We see Donovan play hero ball when he doesn't have a PG out there to run the possession.

(We also see the team giving up a ton of open 3-point makes in garbage time, which tanks all of our deep bench's stats. Emoni's mostly getting garbage time minutes, and the team seems to not defend very well in those minutes. But Denver also pulled a cheap move by scoring after we dribbled out our possession under a minute left.)

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. While it is true that players are capable of change, it tends to be the exception rather than the norm in the NBA once guys are off their rookie contracts. Not only do you need the ability, you need the desire, and as we saw with Kyrie after adding LBJ and Love, he was simply unwilling to sacrifice to get Love going early in order to make the team more difficult to defend.

In terms of the data, both Garland and Mitchell play good chunks of their minutes with our bench units plus one of Allen/Mobley. If our bench units were or are awful, then that's dragging down Garland and Mitchell's individual numbers when they're separated.

Something that works 80% of the time against the league writ large, 40% of the time against playoff teams, and only 20% of the time against elite teams, is unlikely to work when you need it to in the playoffs. Especially if you're looking at the final few minutes of a game when teams focus on stops and engage in offense/defense substitutions.

The better test will be derived from ratings, against good teams, when one of them is just out. Then measure that against their ratings together, again against good teams, and see what the delta looks like.

There does appear to be defensive slippage when starting them both. Usually their offensive output overcomes it, but not always. The ball and player movement does appear better with Garland as the primary ball handler and Allen/Mobley are the primary beneficiaries. Well-coached opposing teams appear more focused at getting the ball out of Garland's hands so he doesn't bend their interior defense in a way that Mitchell does not.

Ultimately, we probably rise or fall with Mitchell's ability to improve as a a secondary floor general, an off-ball player and within a team-oriented offense. We may need another coach to help get him there. He may not get there at all.

[JonFromVA]

Can't say i follow the logic. Mitchell is who is, Garland is who is, its why most fans were wary of the fit to begin with. Sure its easy for us to say well just figure it out abut you are talking about unprogramming years of basketball and under a coach who is more of a "be your self" kind of rah rah guy. I just think you take Mitchell out early quarters let garland run the show and then Mitchells back and is your closer.


And Maybe i am in the minority but I don't see this tremendous monopolization of the ball from Mitchell. Sure he is up there bottom of the top 10 in usage and touches but its not like its late 00s Lebron hijacks the offense all game.

Saying that players don't have the capability to change or even adjust their games given time is nuts. Mitchell is 27 and Garland is about to turn 24. Particularly for two guys who seem self-aware and respectful of their teammates.

But what you think you see, Garland and Mitchell not playing well together, isn't even true-- Garland and Mitchell are +10 per 100 possessions when they're on the floor together, which is better than their individual +5.9 (for Mitchell) and +3.4 (for Garland). They coexist fine and seem to thrive with the other out there. What's killing us is that our bench units are awful, and that probably is mostly due to having injured backup PGs.

We see Donovan play hero ball when he doesn't have a PG out there to run the possession.

(We also see the team giving up a ton of open 3-point makes in garbage time, which tanks all of our deep bench's stats. Emoni's mostly getting garbage time minutes, and the team seems to not defend very well in those minutes. But Denver also pulled a cheap move by scoring after we dribbled out our possession under a minute left.)

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. While it is true that players are capable of change, it tends to be the exception rather than the norm in the NBA once guys are off their rookie contracts. Not only do you need the ability, you need the desire, and as we saw with Kyrie after adding LBJ and Love, he was simply unwilling to sacrifice to get Love going early in order to make the team more difficult to defend.

In terms of the data, both Garland and Mitchell play good chunks of their minutes with our bench units plus one of Allen/Mobley. If our bench units were or are awful, then that's dragging down Garland and Mitchell's individual numbers when they're separated.

Something that works 80% of the time against the league writ large, 40% of the time against playoff teams, and only 20% of the time against elite teams, is unlikely to work when you need it to in the playoffs. Especially if you're looking at the final few minutes of a game when teams focus on stops and engage in offense/defense substitutions.

The better test will be derived from ratings, against good teams, when one of them is just out. Then measure that against their ratings together, again against good teams, and see what the delta looks like.

There does appear to be defensive slippage when starting them both. Usually their offensive output overcomes it, but not always. The ball and player movement does appear better with Garland as the primary ball handler and Allen/Mobley are the primary beneficiaries. Well-coached opposing teams appear more focused at getting the ball out of Garland's hands so he doesn't bend their interior defense in a way that Mitchell does not.

Ultimately, we probably rise or fall with Mitchell's ability to improve as a a secondary floor general, an off-ball player and within a team-oriented offense. We may need another coach to help get him there. He may not get there at all.

First off, there's no point making an argument about BBIQ by invoking Kyre other than that star players often struggle to see beyond the aura everyone has built up around them.

There's so much Garland and Mitchell could do to play better together, but they only need a fraction of that and it's all pretty simple and pretty likely if we can keep the team together long enough to build chemistry and experience.

One season is just a blip compared to the 7 seasons Jokic, Murray, and Malone put in before eventually winning their first ring. In the NBA sometimes you can throw together enough star power to circumvent the process, but even our big star hasn't been out of the 2nd round.

[jbk1234]

Saying that players don't have the capability to change or even adjust their games given time is nuts. Mitchell is 27 and Garland is about to turn 24. Particularly for two guys who seem self-aware and respectful of their teammates.

But what you think you see, Garland and Mitchell not playing well together, isn't even true-- Garland and Mitchell are +10 per 100 possessions when they're on the floor together, which is better than their individual +5.9 (for Mitchell) and +3.4 (for Garland). They coexist fine and seem to thrive with the other out there. What's killing us is that our bench units are awful, and that probably is mostly due to having injured backup PGs.

We see Donovan play hero ball when he doesn't have a PG out there to run the possession.

(We also see the team giving up a ton of open 3-point makes in garbage time, which tanks all of our deep bench's stats. Emoni's mostly getting garbage time minutes, and the team seems to not defend very well in those minutes. But Denver also pulled a cheap move by scoring after we dribbled out our possession under a minute left.)

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. While it is true that players are capable of change, it tends to be the exception rather than the norm in the NBA once guys are off their rookie contracts. Not only do you need the ability, you need the desire, and as we saw with Kyrie after adding LBJ and Love, he was simply unwilling to sacrifice to get Love going early in order to make the team more difficult to defend.

In terms of the data, both Garland and Mitchell play good chunks of their minutes with our bench units plus one of Allen/Mobley. If our bench units were or are awful, then that's dragging down Garland and Mitchell's individual numbers when they're separated.

Something that works 80% of the time against the league writ large, 40% of the time against playoff teams, and only 20% of the time against elite teams, is unlikely to work when you need it to in the playoffs. Especially if you're looking at the final few minutes of a game when teams focus on stops and engage in offense/defense substitutions.

The better test will be derived from ratings, against good teams, when one of them is just out. Then measure that against their ratings together, again against good teams, and see what the delta looks like.

There does appear to be defensive slippage when starting them both. Usually their offensive output overcomes it, but not always. The ball and player movement does appear better with Garland as the primary ball handler and Allen/Mobley are the primary beneficiaries. Well-coached opposing teams appear more focused at getting the ball out of Garland's hands so he doesn't bend their interior defense in a way that Mitchell does not.

Ultimately, we probably rise or fall with Mitchell's ability to improve as a a secondary floor general, an off-ball player and within a team-oriented offense. We may need another coach to help get him there. He may not get there at all.

First off, there's no point making an argument about BBIQ by invoking Kyre other than that star players often struggle to see beyond the aura everyone has built up around them.

There's so much Garland and Mitchell could do to play better together, but they only need a fraction of that and it's all pretty simple and pretty likely if we can keep the team together long enough to build chemistry and experience.

One season is just a blip compared to the 7 seasons Jokic, Murray, and Malone put in before eventually winning their first ring. In the NBA sometimes you can throw together enough star power to circumvent the process, but even our big star hasn't been out of the 2nd round.

Tbc, Mitchell is already far better at sharing the ball than Kyrie ever was. BBIQ is your desciptor, not mine. That said, he does have to want to do the things that would allow our offense to function at its potential and he's been playing as THE focal point of the offense for his entire career. All the action has been off of what he does. It's familiar to him. It usually, but doesn't always, work.

LBJ prioritized getting his teammates involved early, not because he was this terribly unselfish guy, but because it kept the opposing defenses off balance. They couldn't just focus on him without his teammates going off (it also ensured he had his legs in the 4th quarter).

Mitchell has a tendency to play through that focus come what may, and for brief stretches in the postseason, it may be necessary, but that should be the last resort, not the starting point.

[JonFromVA]

I think the truth lies somewhere between these two positions. While it is true that players are capable of change, it tends to be the exception rather than the norm in the NBA once guys are off their rookie contracts. Not only do you need the ability, you need the desire, and as we saw with Kyrie after adding LBJ and Love, he was simply unwilling to sacrifice to get Love going early in order to make the team more difficult to defend.

In terms of the data, both Garland and Mitchell play good chunks of their minutes with our bench units plus one of Allen/Mobley. If our bench units were or are awful, then that's dragging down Garland and Mitchell's individual numbers when they're separated.

Something that works 80% of the time against the league writ large, 40% of the time against playoff teams, and only 20% of the time against elite teams, is unlikely to work when you need it to in the playoffs. Especially if you're looking at the final few minutes of a game when teams focus on stops and engage in offense/defense substitutions.

The better test will be derived from ratings, against good teams, when one of them is just out. Then measure that against their ratings together, again against good teams, and see what the delta looks like.

There does appear to be defensive slippage when starting them both. Usually their offensive output overcomes it, but not always. The ball and player movement does appear better with Garland as the primary ball handler and Allen/Mobley are the primary beneficiaries. Well-coached opposing teams appear more focused at getting the ball out of Garland's hands so he doesn't bend their interior defense in a way that Mitchell does not.

Ultimately, we probably rise or fall with Mitchell's ability to improve as a a secondary floor general, an off-ball player and within a team-oriented offense. We may need another coach to help get him there. He may not get there at all.

First off, there's no point making an argument about BBIQ by invoking Kyre other than that star players often struggle to see beyond the aura everyone has built up around them.

There's so much Garland and Mitchell could do to play better together, but they only need a fraction of that and it's all pretty simple and pretty likely if we can keep the team together long enough to build chemistry and experience.

One season is just a blip compared to the 7 seasons Jokic, Murray, and Malone put in before eventually winning their first ring. In the NBA sometimes you can throw together enough star power to circumvent the process, but even our big star hasn't been out of the 2nd round.

Tbc, Mitchell is already far better at sharing the ball than Kyrie ever was. BBIQ is your desciptor, not mine. That said, he does have to want to do the things that would allow our offense to function at its potential and he's been playing as THE focal point of the offense for his entire career. All the action has been off of what he does. It's familiar to him. It usually, but doesn't always, work.

LBJ prioritized getting his teammates involved early, not because he was this terribly unselfish guy, but because it kept the opposing defenses off balance. They couldn't just focus on him without his teammates going off (it also ensured he had his legs in the 4th quarter).

Mitchell has a tendency to play through that focus come what may, and for brief stretches in the postseason, it may be necessary, but that should be the last resort, not the starting point.

Mitchell has primarily played SG throughout his career, it literally was someone else's job to run the offense when he was on the floor. He may like Kyrie feel he doesn't need ball movement to create a good shot for himself, but I still expect his synergy with the team to grow. The Jazz are a team that usually plays much better than the talent level would suggest.