Cavonometry Games 3-4: Thinking Back to 2010

Nov 4, 2014; Portland, OR, USA; Cleveland Cavaliers forward LeBron James (23) during the national anthem before the game against the Portland Trail Blazers at the Moda Center. Mandatory Credit: Craig Mitchelldyer-USA TODAY Sports

There is no way around it, the Cleveland Cavaliers have become the center of the basketball universe. Throughout this season, Nylon Calculus’ resident box score whisperer, Jeff Fogle, will be checking in on them regularly, looking for patterns and trends. This is Cavonometry.

Cleveland’s poor play out of the gate in 2014-15 has inspired many to think back to the projected 2010-11 Miami Heat juggernaut that only managed to start the season 9-8 (5-12 against market prices) before melding its talents well enough to reach the NBA Finals against eventual champion Dallas.

While it’s true that it did take awhile for LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh to play fluidly together, that ’10-11 team really was a juggernaut for a few games after losing their season opener to hated Boston (a team they would knock off in the playoffs several months later).

2010-11 Miami’s First Five Games

Miami (-1) lost at Boston 88-80

Miami (-8) won at Philadelphia 97-87

Miami (-4) beat Orlando 96-70

Miami (-9) won at New Jersey 101-78

Miami (-16.5) beat Minnesota 129-97

The new collection of stars was so talented that they could crush bad teams—New Jersey and Minnesota—like bugs, while scoring four consecutive double-digit victories of 10, 26, 23, 32 points. And, you see stellar defense in the points allowed category except for the extended garbage time with the T-wolves. The Heat held Orlando (with Dwight Howard) and New Jersey to less than 80 points.

The 2014-15 Cavs have a soft defense, and have already failed to play up to expectations against non-playoff teams New York and Utah. Patience is certainly in order as the Cavs hope to come together as a team on both sides of the ball this season. We can’t forget that LeBron’s Miami era began with a loud bang, then fell back to earth. No bang yet for Cavonometry to cover by the numbers.

Picking up with our boxscore travelogue (you can read about Game 1 here, and about Game 2 here), in Game 3 at Portland…

Portland 101, Cleveland 82

Two-Point Percentages: Cleveland 34%, Portland 58%

Three-Pointers: Cleveland 9/21, Portland 8/25

Free Throws: Cleveland 11/14, Portland 19/25

Rebounds: Cleveland 41, Portland 48

Turnovers: Cleveland 14, Portland 11

There were so many negatives that it’s hard to know where to start. A full rendering would seem like overkill. What obviously jumps out is the differential in 2-point shooting. Cleveland’s defense was abysmal inside the arc. Quick examples:

*Robin Lopez was 8 of 11 on two-point shots

*Wesley Matthews was 5 of 6 on two-point shots

*Nicolas Batum was 3 of 3 on two-point shots

*LaMarcus Aldridge was 7 of 14 on two-point shots from further distance

*Damian Lillard was only 1 of 3, but was 10 of 10 from the free throw line because he kept getting fouled.

That’s the Portland starters…and they were 24 of 37 inside the arc, for 65 percent!

Cleveland’s starting five was 13 of 43 inside the arc, for just 30 percent (LeBron 2/8, Kevin Love 2/6, Anderson Varejao 4/6, Kyrie Irving 2/12, and Dion Waiters 3/11).

It’s true that the NBA is trending to more and more three-pointers. When treys cancel out, as they often do, a two-point emasculation like this is humbling indeed for an anticipated super-team. Note that Cleveland was favored by 2.5 points, yet didn’t have a lead in the second half.

To this point in the season, a glaring tendency to start well offensively before fizzling had made itself very apparent. Look at the scores by quarters through the first three games…

25-19-20-26 vs. New York

28-30-20-20 at Chicago

34-16-19-13 at Portland

Cleveland needed to score in all of those fourth quarters, yet only averaged 19.7 points per fourth. That’s compared to 29.0 in first quarters. Crunch time offensive flow is clearly an issue, and it’s reasonable to assume that fatigue for overburdened starters may be in play as well.

Is it easy for opposing coaches to make “halftime adjustments” against the “getting to know each other” Cavs? As a composite favorite, Cleveland had been outscored thus far 53-46, 46-40, and 46-32 in second halves heading into Game Four at Utah. Let’s see what happened there.

Utah 102, Cleveland 100

Two-Point Percentages: Cleveland 43%%, Utah 57%

Three-Pointers: Cleveland 6/16, Utah 7/21

Free Throws: Cleveland 34/40, Utah 17/22

Rebounds: Cleveland 30, Utah 41

Turnovers: Cleveland 12, Utah 12

The first half here was basically a continuation of what happened the night before. Utah was well over 60 percent shooting on deuces while pulling away to what peaked at a 16-point lead. Even though Cavs coach David Blatt made a change, benching Dion Waiters in favor of Shawn Marion in the starting lineup, there wasn’t any sort of spark for the visitors.

To Cleveland’s credit, they slowly rallied back to create an exciting ending. Well, a bizarre exciting ending against a host that had no idea how to execute late in a close game. The final moments…

*Down 4 with 17 seconds left, LeBron threw a very poor inbounds pass that got deflected back to him…then he nailed a three-pointer to cut the deficit to one.

*Down 3 with 8 seconds left, LeBron brought the ball up quickly, and drew an extremely questionable foul on pump-faked Derrick Favors while shooting a long three-pointer. He made the three free throws to force a tie.

*With 3 seconds left, Utah’s Gordon Hayward got the inbounds pass, and hit a fadeaway at the buzzer to win the game.

I haven’t been including assists in the game boxscores to this point. I may have to start, because tonight’s low assist-to-basket ratio for the Cavs was the most stunning thing from Wednesday night’s numbers.

Assists/Made Baskets

22 assists on 32 baskets vs. New York

18 assists on 41 baskets at Chicago

18 assists on 31 baskets at Portland

6 assists on 30 baskets at Utah

Some of that was created by Utah’s foul tendencies. Passers aren’t credited with an assists if the receiver gets hacked and goes to the free throw line. Cleveland made 34 of 40 free throws. So, some of the postgame reaction of “Oh my god, Cleveland only had 6 assists!” was created by Utah’s hacking after the ball had moved to a shooter. But, if you just focus on “unassisted baskets,” the numbers are 10, 23, 13, and 24. We’re not seeing a trend toward better teamwork.

Good news that Cleveland’s scoring by quarter went 23-25-27-25. Though, James did have to score 6 points in the last 17 seconds to bring the final stanza up to snuff. Cleveland won the second half 52-43, their first second half victory of the young season.

Must remember to note that Cleveland was outrebounded by both Portland and Utah, by a combined 89-71 margin. The Cavs are really having troubles near the basket.

Market Report (thru 4 games)

Cleveland (-13) lost to New York 95-90 (missed by 18)

Cleveland (+4) won at Chicago 114-108 (covered by 4 in regulation, 10 on the night)

Cleveland (-2.5) lost at Portland 101-82 (missed by 21.5)

Cleveland (-5.5) lost at Utah 102-100 (missed by 7.5)

At the end of regulation, market expectations have been too high by 43 points through 4 games.

If you’d like to monitor the pace elements plus offensive and defensive efficiency for the Cavs (or any other team) through the season, please visit our “Team Possession Stats” pages. The link takes you to the default page of Atlanta. Use the scroll option to bring up results for your desired team. Shield your eyes when looking at Cleveland’s defensive efficiency.

Our next edition of Cavonometry will go up Saturday afternoon after Game 5 is played late Friday in Denver.