← Team Metrics
Latest

Cleveland Cavaliers

2019-20
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseEvidence released Aug 22, 2026, 8:30 PM UTCLive database

What were the Cleveland Cavaliers in 2019-20, and what needed front-office attention?

CLE 2019-20: the clearest roster problems were Rim protection, Rim pressure, Defensive event creation. The strongest covered areas were Rebounding. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Larry Nance Jr., Matthew Dellavedova, Alfonzo McKinnie, Kevin Love, Kevin Porter Jr.. Structural basketball need, injuries, replacement lineups, and financial constraints are reported separately.

CoveragePartial8 supported · 3 withheld
Cap positionOver the cap, below the tax line, on selected player charges
Next decision dateJun 30, 2020 · 3 events →

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.
Rebounding
77th percentile
Tristan Thompson carries 27.9%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

CLE 2019-20 Rebounding: this was a team strength; production ranked at the 76.9 league percentile. Tristan Thompson supplied 27.9% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

What needs attention

The clearest roster problems the evidence supports.
Rim protection
4th percentile
Tristan Thompson carries 62.8%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

CLE 2019-20 Rim protection: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 3.8 league percentile. Tristan Thompson supplied 62.8% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Rim pressure
12th percentile
Collin Sexton carries 44.7%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

CLE 2019-20 Rim pressure: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 11.5 league percentile. Collin Sexton supplied 44.7% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Defensive event creation
8th percentile
Larry Nance Jr. carries 37.1%
Availability: No governed recent availability evidence for this seasonMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

CLE 2019-20 Defensive event creation: this was a real roster weakness; production ranked at the 7.7 league percentile. Larry Nance Jr. supplied 37.1% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedMiddle of the league46th percentileDarius Garland · 19.9%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Defensive event creationSupportedStructural team problem8th percentileLarry Nance Jr. · 37.1%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Interior finishingSupportedMiddle of the league39th percentileKevin Love · 24.0%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Passing connectivitySupportedMiddle of the league62nd percentileDarius Garland · 18.6%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldLarry Nance Jr.No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
ReboundingSupportedTeam strength77th percentileTristan Thompson · 27.9%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Rim pressureSupportedCritical team problem12th percentileCollin Sexton · 44.7%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Rim protectionSupportedCritical team problem4th percentileTristan Thompson · 62.8%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
ScreeningWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldLarry Nance Jr.No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Shooting and spacingSupportedMiddle of the league50th percentileCollin Sexton · 25.5%No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Switch coverage proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldLarry Nance Jr.No recent availability layer for this seasonSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low

Who the team depends on

What disappears when a player is removed — and whether an observed replacement five exists.
Larry Nance Jr.
Lineup performance dependence

CLE lineups performed 6.0 points per 100 possessions better with Larry Nance Jr. than without him. The best supported alternative was [Kevin Love, Tristan Thompson, Cedi Osman, Collin Sexton, Darius Garland] over 1240 possessions.

rotation 47%loses 15.1% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Larry Nance Jr.

Kevin Love · Tristan Thompson · Cedi Osman · Collin Sexton · Darius Garland

shrunk net -6.191 over 1,240 possessions

on floor 2,599 possessions · off floor 2,986 possessions

Matthew Dellavedova
Lineup performance dependence

CLE lineups performed 9.4 points per 100 possessions better with Matthew Dellavedova than without him. The best supported alternative was [Tristan Thompson, Larry Nance Jr., Cedi Osman, Collin Sexton, Darius Garland] over 201 possessions.

rotation 26%loses 11.6% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Matthew Dellavedova

Tristan Thompson · Larry Nance Jr. · Cedi Osman · Collin Sexton · Darius Garland

shrunk net -2.112 over 201 possessions — small sample

on floor 1,382 possessions · off floor 4,203 possessions

Alfonzo McKinnie
Lineup performance dependence

CLE lineups performed 4.7 points per 100 possessions better with Alfonzo McKinnie than without him. The best supported alternative was [Tristan Thompson, Larry Nance Jr., Cedi Osman, Collin Sexton, Darius Garland] over 201 possessions.

rotation 19%loses 12.7% of defensive event creation
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Alfonzo McKinnie

Tristan Thompson · Larry Nance Jr. · Cedi Osman · Collin Sexton · Darius Garland

shrunk net -2.112 over 201 possessions — small sample

on floor 1,073 possessions · off floor 4,512 possessions

Kevin Love
Replacement lineup exists, with a performance cost

CLE had an observed replacement lineup for Kevin Love, but it came with a performance cost. The supported alternative was [Tristan Thompson, Larry Nance Jr., Cedi Osman, Collin Sexton, Darius Garland] at -2.1 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 201 possessions.

rotation 57%loses 24.0% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Kevin Love

Tristan Thompson · Larry Nance Jr. · Cedi Osman · Collin Sexton · Darius Garland

shrunk net -2.112 over 201 possessions — small sample

on floor 3,193 possessions · off floor 2,392 possessions

Kevin Porter Jr.
Replacement lineup exists, with a performance cost

CLE had an observed replacement lineup for Kevin Porter Jr., but it came with a performance cost. The supported alternative was [Tristan Thompson, Larry Nance Jr., Cedi Osman, Collin Sexton, Darius Garland] at -2.1 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 201 possessions.

rotation 37%loses 12.4% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Kevin Porter Jr.

Tristan Thompson · Larry Nance Jr. · Cedi Osman · Collin Sexton · Darius Garland

shrunk net -2.112 over 201 possessions — small sample

on floor 2,024 possessions · off floor 3,561 possessions

Function loss, lineup performance, and replacement-lineup evidence remain separate; none is causal player value.

What injuries change

Recent absences and the basketball needs they created or worsened.

No governed recent game-level availability layer exists for this season.

Where money is tied up

Cap position and salary allocation — shown beside the basketball picture, never blended into it.
WithheldThe team was over the cap but below the tax on selected player charges; exception detail remains withheld.
Selected player charges
$131.0M
Share of cap
120%
Tax line
$1.62M under
First apron
$7.92M under
Second apron
No governed line that season

Most salary is mapped to interior finishing; the highest-need area is rim protection. Salary-to-function mapping covers 69% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $109,140,000Luxury tax line: $132,627,000First apron: $138,928,000Second apron: Selected player charges: $131,008,270Source-reported payroll: $131,059,022 (source-named payroll total; not relabeled as cash or cap)

Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence.

What the evidence cannot answer

Deliberate abstentions — where the database refuses a conclusion rather than guessing.
PartialTeam picture available; recent availability and function-level salary mapping incomplete8 of 11 functions supported
  • Point-of-attack defense proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Screening: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Switch coverage proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld

Exact transaction legality: Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Team-season situation report. Structural basketball quality, recent availability, player dependence, replacement lineups, and financial position remain separate. No acquisition recommendation, transaction grade, coaching grade, outcome claim, or causal value is inferred.