Raptors’ Xs and Os: Adjustments for Game 2

Of course, this will present other problems, as in this scenario Mobley would be guarded by Barrett and CMB would quickly get switched off Allen, also creating a potential mismatch there. But in my eyes Cleveland’s bigs are already getting buckets served up on a silver platter on lobs and laydowns. The Raptors need to solve their biggest issue first – Harden and Mitchell shredding their perimeter defence – and go from there. It’s imperfect, but if Mobley and Allen start getting fed on mismatches, the Raptors can bring help, and that leaves Cleveland’s twin towers to make reads from there. Evan Mobley spraying out of doubles to the Cavaliers’ stable of dead-eye shooters is still an undesirable spot to be in, but it’s at least different, and potentially preferable, from where the Raptors were in Game 1.  

If Quickley can’t go, start Walter over Shead (and change how Shead’s used) 

This is the second and final lineup change I’m positing here. It was surprising that Shead started in place of Quickley instead of Walter in the first place – particularly considering that Walter started eight of the nine games Quickley missed down the stretch, shot 49 percent from 3 in those contests and is Toronto’s best point-of-attack defender. That would leave Toronto’s defensive matchups looking like this: 

Walter-Mitchell 
Scottie–Harden 
Ingram-Wade 
Barrett-Mobley 
CMB-Allen  

While Shead canned five-of-six triples – easily his best shooting game of the season – he shot only 32 percent on the season. Him and Barnes’ outlier shooting in Game 1 can’t be relied on and still didn’t even save the Raptors to begin with. In fact, even though they made them, Shead and Barnes taking these shots was playing into Cleveland’s hands. They wanted Raptors’ possessions ending with the two worst 3-point shooters in their rotation (excluding Jakob Poeltl, who doesn’t take 3s) bombing away.  

To that end, the Raptors need to change how they’re using Shead. It was no accident that the vivacious playmaking that usually defines his offenisve game was absent in Game 1. The Cavaliers were daring him to shoot, which went unsustainably great for Shead outside the arc and predictably painful inside. Just look at the way Cleveland’s bigs fully sag off Shead’s short-mid range shots here and don’t even offer a contest. They did the same on his 3s, he just made them.

Walter’s had success guarding Mitchell this season, is a better shooter than Shead and even passed better than the Raptors backup point guard in Game 1 (though that isn’t the norm). 

Shead needs to be put in better spots for both him and the team to succeed. Having him stationed in the weakside corner – as he often was in the third quarter – isn’t doing much by means of changing the defence. Walter would be a far more effective spacer. Shead’s greatest strength is jolting offence with swift drives and timely passing. He should be either initiating offence or catching and attacking closeouts, which he’s been very effective at this season. Cleveland will still try to force him into shots, but Shead punching middle and moving the ball along can at least get the gears turning for Toronto’s offence, even if it doesn’t generate huge advantages.  

Changes in initiation  

The two keys here are one: solving the top-lock and simplifying Brandon Ingram’s touches and two: getting out in transition more.  

The transition first must come from generating more stops and live-ball turnovers, which could come via Murray-Boyles and Barnes working to force the ball out of Harden and Mitchell’s hands and forcing their bigs to make decisions, as we previously outlined. This also has to be a concerted effort from the Raptors to actively push the ball. They were first in transition frequency off rebounds and third off steals during the regular season, so they can do it, even if Cleveland is being very intentional about getting back. The Raptors will need to take advantage of every opportunity to run. And they may need to get funky on defence to access their game – their lone non-garbage time fastbreak point in Game 1 (oof, depressing) came on CMB’s steal on Mitchell.

When it comes to Ingram taking more than nine shots, there are a couple of potential solutions for the top-locking (defenders denying him from using his usual gambit of off-ball screens) he faced in Game 1. The first and most obvious response to being top locked is to back cut it, which goes against Ingram’s usual tendencies as a low-volume cutter, but could make the Cavs second guess their approach if effective.  

Another would be to simply have Ingram start off handling the ball on more possessions, as he did in this game against the Pistons on March 15. Most of the possessions where the Raptors get him the ball off screens end with him slithering to his spot and shooting over his defender one-on-one anyway. So, as Es noted in that recap, having Ingram bring the ball up can shortcut the Raptors killing clock while Ingram tries to fight defenders around off-ball screens. And in this case, the top locking.  

During the New York Knicks-Indiana Pacers Eastern Conference final last season, Mikael Bridges was face guarding Tyrese Haliburton for the length of the floor to prevent him from seeing the ball. The Pacers responded by setting screens for Haliburton at their own free throw line. The Cavs aren’t going to that length to prevent Ingram from getting the ball, just denying his pet screening actions. The Raptors should be able to get the ball in their top scorer’s hands with a little creativity.  

One final note, this was also pointed out by Nekias Duncan and Joe Wolfond, but the Raptors had success running conventional Spain actions (with no leak) against Allen in deep drop. If he keeps sagging off Poeltl and CMB in these spots, look for the Raptors to keep going to the well until it runs dry.