On Tuesday night, Cavs point guard Darius Garland put together his most impressive fourth quarter of the season: 14 points on 7-for-7 shooting, two assists and zero turnovers in a narrow 120-116 road win over Indiana.
It was a virtuoso showing for Garland. He used his off-ball speed to find gaps in Indiana’s aggressive defensive scheme and trusted his midrange bag time and time again. When the Pacers showed prevent, Garland stepped out and punished them from deep. Bigs Evan Mobley and Jarrett Allen did well to create angles via screening, allowing Garland to handle the rest.
Advertisement
“A great point guard,” Mobley told reporters after the game. “Controlled the pace. Took the easy ones. Played good basketball.”
The significance and timing of Garland’s late-game mastery — he led all players with 29 points — in a season when the veteran guard has struggled with both injury and efficiency, cannot be lost in translation. Yes, the Pacers (6-31) are the worst team in the NBA by a decent enough margin that impressive performances against them could come with caveats. But Cleveland, which was without its water, blood and oxygen supply (otherwise known as Donovan Mitchell) for this game, has been crying out for a change in fortunes.
Recent results — the Cavs have won four out of five after a lifeless late-December blowout loss in Houston — suggest an uptick in the vibes department, but two related questions remain: Can Cleveland, as currently constructed, find a way to contend in the East? And is the version of Garland we saw on Tuesday an illusion or a sign of things to come?
Advertisement
Up to this point, as far as the specific question about Garland is concerned, the unfortunate reality is that the aforementioned performance feels like an aberration.
Watch a Cavs game and it doesn’t take long to identify the issue with the Garland-Mitchell pairing. Not necessarily from a height standpoint, although the historical success rate of smaller backcourts isn’t as robust as their larger counterparts. We’re still less than a year removed from Cleveland winning 64 games with the identical partnership. Sure, some moving parts are a factor — the departure of Ty Jerome, the delayed season debut of Max Strus — but Mitchell, by essentially every advanced metric, has gotten even better. So, what is it?
It’s a gravity/efficiency problem.
The absence of the likes of Jerome and Strus — and until Mobley takes another offensive step forward — puts the bulk of shot creation on Mitchell’s shoulders. In a perfect world, Garland would rank second in command in that aspect. But that hasn’t been the case. Opposing defenses react very differently to Mitchell probes and Garland forays.
Advertisement
When contextualized within the scope of how Cleveland performs in lineups led by Garland or Mitchell, the gap is widened even further. Garland-led units sans Mitchell are scoring just 108.8 points per 100 possessions, a lower rate than the 30th-ranked Sacramento Kings. Flip the scenario, with Mitchell on and Garland off, and the Cavs perform at a top-five clip.
Their “core four” group — Mitchell, Garland, Mobley and Allen — is just their ninth-most frequent pairing, which screams lack of availability and consistency, but all roads lead back to Garland.
Garland’s meager 110.3 points per 100 shot attempts wedges him between Egor Denim, Bub Carrington, Ryan Nembhard and LaMelo Ball in terms of efficiency among point guards, according to Cleaning the Glass (46th percentile). That’s less-than-ideal company when your organization should be contending in a wide-open Eastern Conference.
Advertisement
He’s still a high-level creator, part of the upper one-third class in assist rate, but the sliding scale between passes made and shots taken — compared to Mitchell — skews too far in one direction. According to Synergy tracking data, Mitchell’s shot-to-pass ratio on drives is 55% to 26%; Garland’s is 46% to 33%. When teams know you’re more likely to hunt an assist over a self-created bucket, manipulating coverage becomes easier. Garland’s turnover rate has jumped, his effective field-goal percentage has dropped by nearly 10% and, when factoring in his defensive shortcomings, his on/off splits are nothing to scoff at. (Garland has the sixth-worst differential among guards who have played at least 400 minutes this season, per Cleaning the Glass.)
[Get more Cavaliers news: Cleveland team feed]
Compared to last season, Garland’s shot profile hasn’t changed much if at all. But considering his quickness and burst have been his redeeming qualities and his 56% rim success rate has him in the bottom 20% of guards, it’s clear Garland is still battling through toe and back injuries stemming from the offseason.
“He’s coming off a tough injury,” head coach Kenny Atkinson said last month. “But to me he’s been a soldier. That’s tough to come back from, there’s ups and downs to it. He’s doing everything in his power to come back, but we knew this was going to take time. You don’t just snap your fingers. No offseason, no training camp — but we’re seeing flashes.”
Advertisement
In a perfect world, Cleveland (just half a game ahead of eighth) would evaluate all of their options moving forward with the trade deadline less than a month away — including the prospect of trading Garland. But the Cavs, who are nearly $23 million over the second apron, are financially handicapped. In conversations around the league, Garland’s market — much like the entire point guard market — is muted. Cleveland cannot aggregate salaries in any trade, so any attempts at upgrading at the position are limited to players making comparable money; Tyrese Maxey (no chance), Ja Morant and LaMelo Ball.
With Strus edging closer to a return, perhaps the Cavs can dangle forward De’Andre Hunter (who has been relegated to the bench) on the open market and seek additional scoring upgrades. Or perhaps Garland can use Tuesday’s heroics as a launching pad for the rest of the season.
Mitchell alone cannot hold up what has been a disappointing campaign thus far, and until the gap between the two is shortened, the Cavs will continue to hover around mediocrity.
