This is what I mean by Cavs fans being engaged in the-grass-is-always-greener thinking. If the knock on Garland is that his stats are down, then why is Dame, whose numbers worse than Garland's on that list? For that matter, why aren't you factoring in Haliburton's post all-star break collapse.
If the knock on Garland is his team's performance with him at helm of a depleted roster, then why are Trae, Maxey, or Kyrie without Luka, on the list?
People seem to be factoring in the surrounding circumstances for those other players and giving them the benefit of the doubt while insisting that Garland just win anyway..How many of those players could you have subbed onto the Cavs team that took the floor last night and produced a substantially better result? Against that ball pressure with either Martin and/or Butler on them and no real outlet other than Allen?
Neither the debatables nor injured are close IMO.
???????????????????????
Like do you want to go one-by-one?
Damien Lillard has been in the league 11 years, has a career average of 25/7/4, 37% 3P on 8.4 attempts/game, just last year averaged 32/7
Yeah his numbers are "down" this year, that will happen when you join a team with a top 3-5 player. But he is still averaging 6 more points, more assists, more 3PM, more rebounds, and fewer turnovers per game.
His AVERAGE career offensive win share is 7.6, with a high of 10.9 which BTW was #1 in the league. Garland's average is 2.2 and this year will bring that down, with his highest being 4.5. Lillard career average WS/48 0.18, Garland 0.08
He's been in the playoffs, he's hit huge shots, he's carried an entire franchise for a decade.
You are wondering why he is higher on the list than Garland?
Literally every single stat will tell you why he is higher on the list, and he's been doing it for 12 years. Garland hasn't done shit.
If anything YOU are cherry-picking reasons for why some of those guys shouldn't be higher than Garland.
76ers might not be winning without Embiid just like Cavs aren't winning without Spida but Maxey is a substantially better offensive player.
Hawks suck whomever is playing but Trae is still way more gifted offensively than Garland right now. Career average of basically 26 and 10. Does he suck ever worse defensively? Yes, but his offense is elite status, and neither are actually changing the game defensively anyways.
Kyrie...I mean pretty f'ing obvious, similar story to Dame, he is way better, has done it for longer, hit one of the biggest shots in NBA history. Leads all guards in NBA in clutch +/-. DG by the way is around the 70th. And there's only six guards with a worse FG% in the clutch than Garland.
Hali hype got a little out of hand for sure but let's see how he responds. His pre-ASG numbers are way better than anything Garland has done over the last two seasons, oh and also he's a 6'5 PG.
This Garland right now is a pretty mediocre player, he is an average PG, and a net negative in the clutch - I'm not going to spend time looking at all the other players' clutch stats but I'm guessing Garland doesn't fare well.
We know he is better than this and when he's playing up to his standards he's in the tier 2 conversation. That Garland is 21-22 post ASB Garland who averaged 25 and 10.