Darius Kinnard Garland

[Nathan S]

If there was someone else to play, then I guess it would make sense. We didn't have someone else to play, so Garland got those minutes.

I dunno, I have a hard time seeing RJ Barrett or Deandre Hunter having better years. The perception is weird because RJ who had a horrible season by all accounts, didn't improve much, but if you look at Darius' numbers at the end of the year they are much better month by month. I'd rather have him than either of those guys right now, when I wanted both over him before the draft. I am just not sure what I am seeing. Like I looked at his numbers vs Devonte Graham, and there is no way I would trade 20 year old Garland for 24 year old Graham, but people are high on Graham, and i didn't see it in the film, and I don't see it in the numbers.

What is Garland worst at? Probably defense, but that is a hard thing to tease out on this team where everyone is a bad defender by the numbers except Nance. Next I would say turnover, which were bad, but were greatly reduced later in the season. That is also the area young player improve the most.

What metrics are you using to see how bad he was? I am just curious. I am not sure I buy advanced stats for rookies. With Sexton he had such a bad start his whole year numbers didn't tell the story and while I agree you can't expect Darius to have the same obsessed drive Sexton had, I did see some of the same things which was a guy who wasn't ready being thrown to the Wolves, who didn't really get his legs until after Christmas.

I'm hedging a bit because, yeah, I don't totally trust advanced stats either (at least, not if we're talking about discerning small differences in bad-ness). But yeah, while Hunter and Barrett were similarly bad on offense, they both have an edge on Garland on defense, both by the stats and by the eye test. Being 6'6"/6'7"-ish instead of 6'1" is a big advantage on D.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If there was someone else to play, then I guess it would make sense. We didn't have someone else to play, so Garland got those minutes.

I dunno, I have a hard time seeing RJ Barrett or Deandre Hunter having better years. The perception is weird because RJ who had a horrible season by all accounts, didn't improve much, but if you look at Darius' numbers at the end of the year they are much better month by month. I'd rather have him than either of those guys right now, when I wanted both over him before the draft. I am just not sure what I am seeing. Like I looked at his numbers vs Devonte Graham, and there is no way I would trade 20 year old Garland for 24 year old Graham, but people are high on Graham, and i didn't see it in the film, and I don't see it in the numbers.

What is Garland worst at? Probably defense, but that is a hard thing to tease out on this team where everyone is a bad defender by the numbers except Nance. Next I would say turnover, which were bad, but were greatly reduced later in the season. That is also the area young player improve the most.

What metrics are you using to see how bad he was? I am just curious. I am not sure I buy advanced stats for rookies. With Sexton he had such a bad start his whole year numbers didn't tell the story and while I agree you can't expect Darius to have the same obsessed drive Sexton had, I did see some of the same things which was a guy who wasn't ready being thrown to the Wolves, who didn't really get his legs until after Christmas.

My concern with Garland is that because of his size and relative lack of high-end athleticism, he has to make up for that with exceptional skill on the offensive end. I didn't really see that at all. I saw a guy who might develop into a "good" shooting, "good" distributing undersized PG with limited athleticism and poor defense.

Didn't really see even a hint of "wow".

 

[Cavatt]

My concern with Garland is that because of his size and relative lack of high-end athleticism, he has to make up for that with exceptional skill on the offensive end. I didn't really see that at all. I saw a guy who might develop into a "good" shooting, "good" distributing undersized PG with limited athleticism and poor defense.

Didn't really see even a hint of "wow".

His ball-handling is quite good. I think it is his best strength. I don't know if he can use it effectively. This year fancy dribbling led to a lot of turnovers.

Some people swear his shooting is real. I don't know what to think about that. He may need to just get used to the speed of the game. He was clearly out of shape for the first 2 months at least. Being gassed affects your shot. He will not reach his ceiling if he can't become an elite shooter. His weaknesses like his first step and lack of aggression around the basket can't be covered up unless he is one of the deadly 3 pt shooting pg's.

I've heard some people say he has an incomplete on the year. I would argue he definitely showed fewer flashes than KPJ or even Sexton last year, and that is concerning. I haven't seen that tough competitive "dog" in him yet, and that is the thing I am most worried about.

He plays a tough position, and he shares the backcourt with a nonstandard SG, so it was bound to be a tough road because he needs to seamlessly transition between on and off the ball play, which is not something that you would figure he would master his first year. I knew watching him that he wasn't having a good year, but I wouldn't have guessed it was the worst ever. I have seen plenty of scrubs that have no business in the NBA. Garland at least proved he could be a bench player I think by the end of the year.

 

[Randolphkeys]

It's debatable of course, in particular you could argue that there were rookies who played 10-20 minutes per game who were worse per-minute than Garland. But Garland's combination of 30+ minutes per game, and severely negative per-minute impact on both ends of the court is unprecedented, IMO.

The only argument in his favor is "well, Sexton was almost as bad as a rookie, and he improved a lot, so maybe Garland will improve too." But that's not very convincing to me...they're different players; just because Sexton improved a lot doesn't mean Garland will. Players like Sexton are the exception; the vast majority of players who start off their careers really badly simply continue to be bad players.

The only thing worse than drafting huge long-term projects in the top five is giving up on the long-term project after less than a season.

I was lukewarm on the Garland pick. I was a really comforted that other players I liked who were still on the draft board weren't world changers either. I was of the mind that if you know Garland needs a year, why not swing for the fences with a small forward like Sekou Doumbouya who is a year away?

Anyways, I believe the Cavs painted themselves into a corner. Let this back court have one more year and take somebody to bolster the aging frontcourt.

 

[Nathan S]

The only thing worse than drafting huge long-term projects in the top five is giving up on the long-term project after less than a season.

I was lukewarm on the Garland pick. I was a really comforted that other players I liked who were still on the draft board weren't world changers either. I was of the mind that if you know Garland needs a year, why not swing for the fences with a small forward like Sekou Doumbouya who is a year away?

Anyways, I believe the Cavs painted themselves into a corner. Let this back court have one more year and take somebody to bolster the aging frontcourt.

I don't know that that's "worse." I think of it this way. If Garland was in this draft, where would he be picked? Reasonable minds could disagree, of course, but somewhere from late lottery to mid 20's seems like a fair range. Now, would you let a mid first rounder dictate who you draft in the top-5? No way. The fact that Garland was a high lottery pick last year shouldn't stop us from making a sober evaluation of how promising he is right now, which is ultimately what's relevant. The Cavs have a long wishlist of things they'd like to see in this pick, and one thing of course is a good fit with Garland. But I don't think that should be the #1 thing on the list, or even close to it.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Reasonable minds could disagree, of course,

We do! Because scouting goes way back farther than his college resume, which includes games you can count on one hand.

They invested on the body of work he displayed in high school in Tennessee, the McDonald's All American game, Jordan Brand Classic and all its practices, Nike Hoop Summit, and all the AAU back dealings.

In fact, Garland's pick at #4 is a lighthouse warning me that armchair fans like me who don't get to watch the closed door faceoffs between American born draft class titans. We don't get to decide who is a quality prospect for the draft anymore. It's become a closed door process with few glimpses we once enjoyed.

So if Garland had a track record I never get any info on which led to the #4 pick, I also don't have enough information to gauge if he is a bust or not after a long layoff and a shortened season.

The American youth basketball machine is broken. At this point I can only point out when a franchise is making bad decisions when the draft ends. It's too late to give up on Garland unless we have a lot of proof he is more Winston Garland than the franchise thought.

And... Take note when someone accidentally tells the truth on Twitter.

 

[Nathan S]

We do! Because scouting goes way back farther than his college resume, which includes games you can count on one hand.

They invested on the body of work he displayed in high school in Tennessee, the McDonald's All American game, Jordan Brand Classic and all its practices, Nike Hoop Summit, and all the AAU back dealings.

In fact, Garland's pick at #4 is a lighthouse warning me that armchair fans like me who don't get to watch the closed door faceoffs between American born draft class titans. We don't get to decide who is a quality prospect for the draft anymore. It's become a closed door process with few glimpses we once enjoyed.

So if Garland had a track record I never get any info on which led to the #4 pick, I also don't have enough information to gauge if he is a bust or not after a long layoff and a shortened season.

The American youth basketball machine is broken. At this point I can only point out when a franchise is making bad decisions when the draft ends. It's too late to give up on Garland unless we have a lot of proof he is more Winston Garland than the franchise thought.

And... Take note when someone accidentally tells the truth on Twitter.

The information on Garland from this season is both more abundant and more relevant to predicting his NBA future than all the data from his high school years combined. Is it enough to say he's a bust or not? It's dangerous to talk in absolutes, of course, so I'd agree that it's not. But you can't simply disregard it either. It certainly hurts the odds of him developing into a core player, the only question is by how much.

 

[Randolphkeys]

The information on Garland from this season is both more abundant and more relevant to predicting his NBA future than all the data from his high school years combined. Is it enough to say he's a bust or not? It's dangerous to talk in absolutes, of course, so I'd agree that it's not. But you can't simply disregard it either. It certainly hurts the odds of him developing into a core player, the only question is by how much.

I'm honestly trying to avoid confirmation bias here. I didn't want Garland, I have seen with my own eyes why I shouldn't want Garland. The key here is that he was taken after he played four total competitive games for a calendar year. They took him, it was a questionable idea, but the plan obviously had to be a long leash.

If the Cavs take Wiseman, I equally expect him to be rusty and a long-term project who needs a full season of patience. If this is what the Cavs want to do, it requires waiting before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Nathan S]

I'm honestly trying to avoid confirmation bias here. I didn't want Garland, I have seen with my own eyes why I shouldn't want Garland. The key here is that he was taken after he played four total competitive games for a calendar year. They took him, it was a questionable idea, but the plan obviously had to be a long leash.

If the Cavs take Wiseman, I equally expect him to be rusty and a long-term project who needs a full season of patience. If this is what the Cavs want to do, it requires waiting before jumping to conclusions.

My goal isn't to jump to conclusions...I'm just thinking about priorities. For me, the #1 priority would be the success of our 2020 first rounder. Pick the best guy, and do everything possible to put him in a position to succeed. A close #2 priority would be Sexton's development. Put players around him that maximize his developmental potential. The #3 priority would probably be KPJ's development, where again, we want to play him in lineups where he'll thrive. Priority #4, finally you think about maximizing Garland's potential.

It's not that I don't care about Garland at all...I just care about him less than I care about our other guys. If the choices we make to satisfy priorities 1-3 also happen to help Garland's development, then great, that's icing on the cake. If they hurt Garland's development, that sucks but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Even if you play your hand well you usually don't get everything you want.

 

[Cavatt]

My goal isn't to jump to conclusions...I'm just thinking about priorities. For me, the #1 priority would be the success of our 2020 first rounder. Pick the best guy, and do everything possible to put him in a position to succeed. A close #2 priority would be Sexton's development. Put players around him that maximize his developmental potential. The #3 priority would probably be KPJ's development, where again, we want to play him in lineups where he'll thrive. Priority #4, finally you think about maximizing Garland's potential.

It's not that I don't care about Garland at all...I just care about him less than I care about our other guys. If the choices we make to satisfy priorities 1-3 also happen to help Garland's development, then great, that's icing on the cake. If they hurt Garland's development, that sucks but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Even if you play your hand well you usually don't get everything you want.

In other words. What are the odds we hit on Garland, Sexton and KPJ? Low I suppose We have seen 2 of them flash good things. Better to maximize those 2 and lower Garlands priority.

I agree we should lower Garlands priority(it might have been high for Beilein.) Sexton has shown some killer instinct and consistent improvement.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I dunno, I have a hard time seeing RJ Barrett or Deandre Hunter having better years.

I really didn't catch much of Barrett.......but I did watch the Hawks quite often......and Hunter, at least to me, showed some pretty interesting flashes as a big wing.

He was really up and down early but started to really settle in around the ASB.

Feb / Mar....... he was averaging 14, 7, 2 and 1 while shooting 42% from 3 on 5+ 3PA per game.

It's tough to compare complete years relative to roles here......but Hunter started to show the ability of being a complimentary scorer / #2 option......which I think was a little surprising. Most envisioned he'd be kind of a plus 3&D guy.......but his returns later in his rookie were interesting.

 

[Cavatt]

I really didn't catch much of Barrett.......but I did watch the Hawks quite often......and Hunter, at least to me, showed some pretty interesting flashes as a big wing.

He was really up and down early but started to really settle in around the ASB.

Feb / Mar....... he was averaging 14, 7, 2 and 1 while shooting 42% from 3 on 5+ 3PA per game.

It's tough to compare complete years relative to roles here......but Hunter started to show the ability of being a complimentary scorer / #2 option......which I think was a little surprising. Most envisioned he'd be kind of a plus 3&D guy.......but his returns later in his rookie were interesting.

Well everyone is saying Garland was the worst rookie of all time, but he and Hunter have very similar numbers. What are Garlands numbers in Feb and March? Why is his uptick not good, but Hunter's is? I personally think that this 2019 class really under performed outside pick 1 and 2.

I don't know where to get month by month rookie stats, this was all I could find.

In his first 14 games, Garland shot just 34 percent from the floor and 30 percent from three-point range, struggling mightily to find an efficient baseline. Since then, the former Vanderbilt guard has converted 44 percent of his shots, including a robust 41 percent from three, in the last 18 contests, averaging 12.9 points per game over that run.

He shot way better after a terrible stretch in the beginning. If you think like I do, that his shooting is the basis for his gravity in the NBA that is a good sign. He really needs to hoist this coming season, but there are plenty of other things as well.

Barrett really sucked. I think he had a worse season than Collin did as a rookie, with a higher usage and fewer assists. People knock Collin for not passing, but he actually has good shot selection for the most part. Barrett takes a bunch of shots he should not, and his passing was shockingly bad. I knew people questioned it coming out, but he does not have the vision that he was said to.

 

[Kouki]

You can find monthly splits on ESPN's website, FYI.

Monthly progressions...

PPG - 9.5, 11.3, 11.8, 14.4, 12.6

FG% - 37.2, 38.3, 42.8, 38.3, 42.9

3PT% - 33.3, 39.4, 35.1, 32.2, 37.5

 

[I'mWithDan]

Well everyone is saying Garland was the worst rookie of all time, but he and Hunter have very similar numbers. What are Garlands numbers in Feb and March? Why is his uptick not good, but Hunter's is? I personally think that this 2019 class really under performed outside pick 1 and 2.

I don't know where to get month by month rookie stats, this was all I could find.

In his first 14 games, Garland shot just 34 percent from the floor and 30 percent from three-point range, struggling mightily to find an efficient baseline. Since then, the former Vanderbilt guard has converted 44 percent of his shots, including a robust 41 percent from three, in the last 18 contests, averaging 12.9 points per game over that run.

He shot way better after a terrible stretch in the beginning. If you think like I do, that his shooting is the basis for his gravity in the NBA that is a good sign. He really needs to hoist this coming season, but there are plenty of other things as well.

Barrett really sucked. I think he had a worse season than Collin did as a rookie, with a higher usage and fewer assists. People knock Collin for not passing, but he actually has good shot selection for the most part. Barrett takes a bunch of shots he should not, and his passing was shockingly bad. I knew people questioned it coming out, but he does not have the vision that he was said to.

I'm not really knocking Garland.....I think being smaller and coming off an injury is a tough combination. He was having to try to succeed against bigger, stronger guys while not feeling 100% confident physically. That's a tough ask.

I was speaking more to Hunter's value / performance.......as there are just lots of also rans on the wing at the NBA level. If you can find a complimentary scoring wing who can knock down 3's, rebound and potentially defend, that is just more valuable to me at this point.

I'm not here to bury Garland, I still think he's wait and see relative to his inexperience and youth.....but given the available guard talent both in the NBA and in the draft, a PG (especially) has to be exceptionally good......and it seems like a best case scenario he attains that level of performance. I guess we'll see. He's in a tough zone of being good enough to keep around but not (yet) good enough to prioritize.

 

[red.]