Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times

Boo! Different Shirt!

2009-06-15T23:55:00.001-04:00

A lot of factors can go into shaping a sports rivalry. There's shared history, geographical proximity, recent playoff match-ups, and so on. I suspect, though, that the biggest factor determining the strength of a rivalry is, quite simply, volume. Your biggest rivals will tend to be the teams you play most often.

It happens that some cities have "natural" rivalries with other cities, across all (or multiple) sports. Cleveland is not one of those. The Browns' biggest rivals, for example, are clearly Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cincinnati, in that order. But neither the Pirates, Orioles, or Reds registers as much of a blip on the Indians' radar, nor does any of those cities have an NBA team.

Meanwhile, an Indians fan might tell you that their closest rival is the Yankees, but would any Yankees fan say the same? I spoke to an anonymous source in the Yankees front office, who told me, "In... di-ans? Oh, right. The Indians are far, far down on [the Yankees'] list of rivals. Fuhgeddaboudit! I love New York!" The truth is, the Indians don't have any real classic rivalries, but if we could measure it objectively, their closest rivals would all be division foes. The Cavaliers, meanwhile, have had a recent mini-rivalry with the Celtics—something akin to the Browns' mini-rivalry with the Broncos in the 80s—but once again, their closest rivals come from within the division.

This got me to wondering—not because there is any inherent value or purpose in knowing, but just because I was curious—what is Cleveland's most "natural" rival, even in a watered-down field? More simply: what city do we face most often?

Of course, it wouldn't be fair to simply count up games played. For one thing, the Browns play the Bengals twice a year, whereas the Indians play the Reds six times a year. Surely, the Browns-Bengals match-ups should count for more than the Indians-Reds ones. For another thing, there are often imbalances in the schedule, so that in recent years, the Indians may have played more games against the Mariners (say) than the Rangers, but that does nothing to help us predict how often they'll meet in an upcoming, or given, year.

To illustrate how I'll calculate "match-up volume" (or "rivalry suitability," if you prefer), let's consider an example... say, Boston. Though the number of regular season Indians-Red Sox games will vary from year to year, the Indians average about 7.4 regular season match-ups with each AL East team, in a given season. That means that the Red Sox occupy about 4.57% of the Indians' 162-game schedule. Meanwhile, in a given NBA season, the Cavs will have 36 games to spread among the 10 non-division Eastern Conference teams—meaning they'll play the Celtics 3.6 times per year. Thus, the Celtics occupy 4.39% of the Cavaliers' regular season focus. Finally, in a given NFL season, the Browns will have 6 games to dole out to the 12 non-division AFC teams—meaning they'll face the Patriots 0.5 times per season. That means that the Patriots take up about 3.13% of the Browns' regular season schedule. To summarize:

Red Sox:  4.57% of Indians'  reg. season
Celtics:  4.39% of Cavs'      "     "
Patriots: 3.13% of Browns'    "     "
----------------------------------------
average:  4.03% of Cleveland  "     "

By this method, Boston gets a regular season rating of 4.03%, which I'll be able to compare to ratings for other cities (stay tuned).

Of course, the regular season is only part of the equation. We can also calculate the average number of playoff meetings between any two teams in a given year. Naturally, our methodology will consider all teams to be equally talented, so that the numbers will apply equally to the 2059 season (when—who knows—the Red Sox may suck) as to 2009.

This part of the calculation is considerably trickier, so I won't waste your time walking you through it. You'll have to trust me when I say that, in a given year, we can expect to see about 0.0391 playoff series between the Indians and Red Sox, 0.0667 playoff series between the Cavs and Celtics, and 0.0432 playoff games between the Browns and Patriots. We'll consider any playoff match-up, whether 7-game series or single game, to be equally monumental. Once again, in table form:

Red Sox:  0.0391 playoff match-ups vs Indians
Celtics:  0.0667    "        "     vs Cavs
Patriots: 0.0432    "        "     vs Browns
-----------------------------------------------
sum:      0.1489    "        "     vs Cleveland

By this method, Boston gets a playoff total of 0.1489, which, as before, I'll use to compare it to other cities.

Okay, now we rank... but first, one caveat. I had to make some executive decisions about how to define cities. For example, I've got one city, "All NY/NJ Area," which includes the Yankees, Mets, Knicks, Nets, Jets, and Giants. That's a lot of teams, which means a lot of match-ups. Don't be surprised to find this Frankenstein monster of a city atop the rankings—and take it with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, I've got another city, "New York," which removes the Nets from that mix, and a third city, "New Jersey," which reinstates the Nets, but removes the Yankees, Mets, and Knicks. I have similar categories such as "San Francisco," "Oakland," and "All Bay Area," not to mention ones like "Milwaukee," "Green Bay," and "All Wisconsin." I just wanted to cover my bases. And I realize it's not perfect. What are ya gonna do?

First let's look at the top regular season ratings:

                  Indians    Cavs  Browns    avg.
1. All NY/NJ Area   5.06%   8.78%   4.69%   6.18%
2. Chicago         11.60%   4.88%   1.56%   6.02%
3. Detroit         11.11%   4.88%   1.56%   5.85%
4. Baltimore        4.57%   0.00%  12.50%   5.69%
5. Cincinnati       3.70%   0.00%  12.50%   5.40%
6. Minneapolis     11.11%   2.44%   1.56%   5.04%
7. Kansas City     11.11%   0.00%   3.13%   4.75%
8. New York         5.06%   4.39%   4.69%   4.71%
9. All Bay Area     5.90%   2.44%   4.69%   4.34%
10. Pittsburgh      0.49%   0.00%  12.50%   4.33%

And now, the top playoff totals:

                  Indians    Cavs  Browns     sum
1. All NY/NJ Area  0.0435  0.1333  0.0471  0.2240
2. New York        0.0435  0.0667  0.0471  0.1573
3. Boston          0.0391  0.0667  0.0432  0.1489
4. Miami           0.0045  0.0667  0.0432  0.1143
5. New Jersey        --    0.0667  0.0471  0.1137
6. Indianapolis      --    0.0667  0.0432  0.1098
7. Toronto         0.0391  0.0667    --    0.1058
8. All Bay Area    0.0488  0.0044  0.0471  0.1003
9. Oakland         0.0443  0.0044  0.0432  0.0919
10. Chicago        0.0130  0.0667  0.0039  0.0836

As expected, New York dominates both lists. But beyond that, I was a little surprised at how different the two lists are. I initially expected to find that regular season meetings correlate reasonably well to playoff meetings, but such is not the case (we'll return to this topic shortly). So while the expected geographic rivals (Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati) dominate the regular season rankings, the second list contains some genuine surprises, such as Miami, Indianapolis, Toronto, and Oakland.

So how do we combine the regular season averages with the playoff totals, to get one super-ranking? No matter how we do it, it's going to be rather arbitrary and somewhat sloppy. For one thing, I have no idea whether regular season match-ups should be weighted as equally important, twice as important, half as important, etc., as playoff match-ups. So we may as well just weight them equally.

Using Boston as an example once more, here's how I'll combine the two numbers. Boston's regular season ranking (4.03%) ranks 11th, whereas its playoff total (0.1489) ranks 3rd. I'll average those two ranks (11 and 3) together, to get a "combined rating" of 7.0, which, as it happens, places Boston 4th on our quick 'n' dirty overall rankings. Observe:

                  reg. rk   playoff rk    avg.
1. All NY/NJ Area     1          1        1.0
2. New York           8          2        5.0
3. Chicago            2         10        6.0
4t. Boston           11          3        7.0
4t. Detroit           3         11        7.0
6. All Bay Area       9          8        8.5
7. Baltimore          4         15        9.5
8. New Jersey        15          5       10.0
9t. Miami            17          4       10.5
9t. Oakland          12          9       10.5
11. Toronto          16          7       11.5
12. Indianapolis     18          6       12.0
13. Kansas City       7         23       15.0
14t. Atlanta         21         12       16.5
14t. Los Angeles     13         20       16.5
16. Philadelphia     22         12       17.0
17t. Washington D.C. 23         12       17.5
17t. Dallas          14         21       17.5
19. All Wisconsin    20         16       18.0
20. Cincinnati        5         33       19.0
21. Minneapolis       6         35       20.5
22. Pittsburgh       10         33       21.5
23t. Charlotte       28         17       22.5
23t. Seattle         19         26       22.5
25. Milwaukee        30         17       23.5
26. San Francisco    27         21       24.0
27. Denver           25         24       24.5
28t. Orlando         32         19       25.5
28t. Houston         26         25       25.5
30t. All Tennessee   29         27       28.0
30t. Tampa Bay       24         32       28.0
32. San Diego        34         27       30.5
33. Buffalo          35         29       32.0
34. Jacksonville     36         29       32.5
35. Nashville        37         29       33.0
36. Phoenix          31         36       33.5
37. New Orleans      33         37       35.0
38. Memphis          38         39       38.5
39. Oklahoma City    39         39       39.0
40. Portland         40         39       39.5
41. Sacramento       41         39       40.0
42. Salt Lake City   42         39       40.5
43t. St. Louis       44         38       41.0
43t. San Antonio     43         39       41.0
45. Green Bay        45         45       45.0

Still, even this overly complex list doesn't necessarily tell us what Cleveland's most "natural" rivals are. Sure, our teams face New York teams more than any other, but a rivalry should be reciprocal; that is, important to both sides. If I'd written a similar post about Philadelphia's natural rivals, or Atlanta's, or Washington's, or Detroit's, we'd likely get the same result: New York at the top. If Cleveland appeared anywhere near the top of New York's list, that would be a different story. But my guess is, that's not the case.

Similarly, Chicago, Boston, and the Bay Area register high on our Cleveland list, but I'm not sure how high Cleveland would rank on their respective lists. Take Chicago, for example. As far as Cleveland is concerned, Chicago is equivalent to Detroit, but with an extra MLB team (the Cubs). And since the Cubs don't matter much to the Indians, Chicago ranks only slightly ahead of Detroit. But from Chicago's perspective, the Cubs matter just as much as the White Sox, which opens Chicago up to a whole slew of National League teams that will wash Cleveland down the list quite a ways.

What, then, do I take from our big list? Well, we might be justified in focusing the majority of our attention on New York, Chicago, and Boston, but our most "natural" rival, depressingly, is probably Detroit, followed by Baltimore. Also noteworthy is the fact that Cincinnati and Pittsburgh rank so poorly. The truth is that the Browns have a strong connection to the Steelers and Bengals in the regular season, but the geographical playing field is leveled once you get into the postseason. And despite what Bud Selig might tell you, those cities aren't especially important to the Indians, let alone the Cavs.

Okay, so there are no big surprises in these data. I was just curious, is all. In compiling these rankings, however, I did gain a new appreciation for some interesting quirks of the various leagues' scheduling and playoff formats, especially in Major League Baseball. For example, MLB is really giving the shaft to certain teams with its adherence to long-standing, but arbitrary, traditions. With fewer teams in the American League, a given AL team starts every season with a better shot of making the playoffs than a given NL team. And with fewer teams in the AL West than any other division, the A's, Angels, Mariners and Rangers get to start each season with even better postseason odds. Meanwhile, the poor NL Central teams are really at a disadvantage: each NL Central team has a 1/6 shot at winning its division, plus a 1/13 shot of winning the wild card in the event it doesn't win the division. That translates to annual playoff odds of about 23%. For contrast, the AL West teams start the year with 32% playoff odds. And in case you're curious, the AL Central and East teams have odds of about 27%; the NL East and West teams start at about 26%.

The real problem here is the weird insistence on having all interleague play take place at the same time. Baseball should model its regular season on the NBA's, with interleague series sprinkled throughout the season. If they did that, they could have 15 teams in each league, and 5 teams in each division, thus making everyone's playoff odds the same. I mean, does anyone find interleague play so exotic anymore that it must be treated like some kind of festival—a season within the season? I like the variety it brings to the schedule, but I can think of no conceivable reason why the Indians couldn't play their 2010 season opener in, say, Miami. (Besides, I'd like to see a game get snowed out there.)

Something else that I found curious, though not necessarily unfair, is the rule that prohibits division foes from meeting in the ALDS or NLDS. For one thing, this made my calculations of the Indians' average number of playoff match-ups with each American League team maddeningly complex. But more interestingly, the rule has the effect of making playoff series between division rivals surprisingly rare. For all of MLB's talk about cultivating rivalries (with the creation of the unbalanced schedule and the "rigged" assignment of interleague match-ups), it's worth noting that the Indians are almost five times more likely to have a playoff series against a Boston or a Seattle than against a Minnesota or a Detroit. In fact, the odds of an Indians-Twins ALCS are almost as low as the odds of an Indians-Rockies World Series.

I could go on further about the quirks of, say, the NBA and NFL seasons, but I've already strayed too far off my original topic. Point is, Detroit sucks. I think we can all agree on that. Stay Cleveland-y, Cleveland.

Corey Liveblogs Checking In On The Indians

2009-06-02T21:20:00.001-04:00

Last updated: 9:20 PM

8:31 PM

Like most of you (I'm assuming), I awoke Sunday morning with an incredible headache and no memory of anything that happened during the previous 214 days. Did the U.S. go to war with Canada? Did they invent flying cars? Did Spielberg finally produce I, Ernie (the Rubin Brothers' much-hyped screenplay)? Was I published in the New York Times? Who can say?

But today, in the throes of this amnesiac terror, I was hit by a comforting thought: no matter what crazy things happened between October 28 and May 30, it's still only June now, and that means I have plenty of sweet, headache-free Indians baseball to look forward to. Yes, the Indians will set us free—I'm talking about the team that was best in the world twice in the last four seasons (according to 3rd-order winning percentage). I'm talking about the team whose 2008 season, while hugely disappointing, still featured the Majors' 6th-best record, post-All Star break. I'm talking about the team with the reigning Cy Young winner; the team with the Four Essential S's of Success (Sizemore, Slider, Shapiro, Stadium Mustard); the team that always rocks in odd-numbered years. In short, if ever it was Tribe time, it's Tribe time now.

The one problem is that we're already more than two months into the season, and it's only now that I'm finally capable of picking up an Indians box score. I have absolutely no idea how the Indians have done in their first 53 games. I mean, they could be in first place by 15 games, or they could be in first place by a mere 5 games. The range of possibilities is endless!

So here's my idea: I'm going to let you, dear reader, join me on my journey of discovery. I'm actually going to liveblog my checking the baseball standings for the first time in 2009. We've done precious little liveblogging in the history of this site, because liveblogging is asinine and pointless, but hey, I just know that this is going to make for riveting drama! Are you ready?

8:32 PM

What the WHAT?!

8:39 PM

The internet is broken or something, because apparently, the Indians are in last place. And they have the 4th-worst record in the Majors. The Indians! I checked like 12 different websites. What the heck happened?

8:42 PM

Hmm, maybe the Indians' record is not a good reflection of their performance so far. Let's check Baseball Prospectus's Adjusted Standings. Let's see... the Indians' 3rd-order winning percentage is .513, which is quite a bit higher than their actual winning percentage (.415). It ranks them 3rd in the division, and 12th in the Majors.

This could indicate that the Indians have been really unlucky (maybe), or that they've had a particularly difficult schedule so far (yeah, let's go with that). The difference between 2nd-order and 3rd-order winning percentage is essentially a strength-of-schedule adjustment, and in fact, when you go from 2nd-order to 3rd, the Indians get the biggest boost.

Still, that can't be the only reason, can it? It seems like this happens to the Indians almost every year (since 2005, anyway). I don't know how long this pattern (of underperforming their "adjusted" winning percentages) has to continue before I'll be convinced that it's symptomatic of some underlying, franchise-specific cause, but I am curious. That will have to be a topic for its own post sometime soon.

8:55 PM

Well, it looks like the offense has been solid. The Indians rank 8th in the Majors, having scored 5.21 points per 100 possessions—er, runs per game. And hey, check out Victor Martinez, who's 13th in the Majors with a VORP of 25.0. Next among Indians hitters is Shin-Soo Choo at 17.9, then Asdrubal Cabrera at 14.5, and... wait a minute? Where's Sizemore?

8:57 PM

Grady's VORP is 0.0! He's been replacement level, hitting just .223/.309/.417. That's... shocking. And, what's this? He went on the freaking disabled list not two days ago? Yikes. Maybe it's for the best.

9:00 PM

Super yikes. Sizemore's not the only one on the DL. The Indians have placed 432 players there, including Travis Hafner, Aaron Laffey, Anthony Reyes, Scott Lewis, Rafael Betancourt, Joe Smith (Joe... Smith? Whoa, for a second I thought my memories were coming back to me; it was like a glimmer of recognition; then suddenly, it was gone), and Jake Westbrook. In fact, apparently, since I started writing this stupid post, another Indian has hit the DL, that being the surprisingly on-fire Asdrubal Cabrera. Terrific, just terrific.

9:09 PM

Let's check some pitching stats now...

Well, there's your problem! The Tribe ranks just 28th (that's 3rd-worst) in run prevention, allowing 5.53 per game. So whose fault is it? Certainly not Cliff Lee, who's making a decent case that his amazing 2008 was no fluke: Lee ranks 7th in the Majors with a 2.6 SNLVAR (which is like SNVA but adjusted for quality of batters faced, and based on replacement level, not league average... you can just think of it as "he's been worth 2.6 wins" if that helps) and 6th in pitching VORP (24.4). Cliff has actually been the unluckiest pitcher in baseball, meaning he's either had no run support, been let down by his bullpen, or both.

After Lee, you've got Carl Pavano (wait, huh?) pitching surprisingly well for Carl Pavano (1.2 SNLVAR, 6.1 VORP), and not much else to cheer about. Okay, so once again, the question is, whose fault is it? Well, among starters, Fausto Carmona's been about as bad as I might be willing to imagine (-8.1 VORP), but the real problem appears to be in the bullpen, where almost no one has been above replacement level, and those that have are either injured or not getting any innings. I don't feel like running through the whole list; sufficed to say that it includes about 10 guys not named Betancourt, Herges, Aquino, or Wood—not to suggest that those four have been outstanding or anything, either.

9:20 PM

Gee, I feel better. Don't you?

Go, uh... Browns?

Cavaliers-Magic Super Preview Extravaganza (Or: Enjoy Your Magic Salad!)

2009-05-20T00:09:00.005-04:00

Get out your maple syrup, ladies and germs, because it's finally time for the real playoffs to begin! As we're about to see, the Magic are actually a bona fide elite team. So while the Cavs are still the favorites, this series is unlikely to be a walk in the cake... the pan-cake (boom)!

Let's go straight to the four factors:

When the Cavs are on offense

As a reminder, the Cavs finished the regular season with an Offensive Efficiency of 112.4, ranking them 4th in the NBA. Orlando, however, has the best defense in the league. That's right: the Magic—not the Cavaliers—have the NBA's best defense. Of course, most people will tell you what they hear on TV before every single Cavs game—that the Cavs rank #1, having given up the fewest points per game (91.4). The Magic defense, in fact, allowed just the 6th-fewest points per game (94.4). But the Cavs play the 6th-slowest-paced games in the NBA (88.7 possessions per game) whereas the Magic play the 12th-fastest (92.3). This seemingly minor discrepancy allows Orlando's opponents to have more scoring opportunities, in a given game, than Cavs opponents get. What we actually want to know is how likely each team's opponents are to score on a given possession. On that count, while the Cavs defense ranks 3rd (102.4), Orlando ranks #1 with a Defensive Efficiency of just 101.9.

Shooting
```
          eFG%    NBA rank
Cavs      .519        4
Magic     .465        1
```
There are only four defenses that contest shots as efficiently as the Cavs offense makes them, and one of those four is the Cavs' own defense. Unfortunately, Orlando ranks #1 in eFG% allowed—and it's not just Dwight Howard making that happen. The Magic rank #2 in 3-point percentage allowed (.342). And according to 82games.com's shot selection data, they rank 3rd in eFG% allowed on shots classified as "jump" (.424). Of course, Howard does a pretty good job preventing inside shots, too, as the Magic rank 2nd in eFG% allowed on "close" shots (.515) and 2nd in eFG% allowed on "tip-ins" (.385).
Turnovers
```
           TO%    NBA rank
Cavs      .125        6
Magic     .123       26
```
This is the one area where the Cavs hold a clear advantage, as Orlando doesn't seem too interested in forcing turnovers. That's great, because the Cavs take pains not to commit them. The Cavs will get shots off on almost all their possessions; the real issue is that they may not be the highest-percentage shots. Notably, a defense that doesn't force turnovers—but does do a great job contesting shots—can expect to see a hell of a lot of missed shots, i.e., defensive rebounding opportunities, which brings us to factor #3...
Rebounding
```
         OReb%    NBA rank
Cavs      .277       12
Magic     .241        2
```
Alas, the Magic defense is quite excellent at hauling in those many, many missed shots. Their top defensive rebounders are Dwight Howard (29.5 DReb%, to rank 2nd in the NBA) and his backup, Marcin Gortat (26.3%), who shouldn't be written off (we'll talk more about him later on). After those two, there's a huge drop-off to the next tier of Tony Battie (17.0%) and (especially) starting forwards Hedo Turkoglu (14.2%) and Rashard Lewis (13.9%). It's clear the Magic are getting their defensive boards from the center position alone, but that seems to be enough to make them extremely effective.
Getting to the foul line & foul shooting
```
        FTA/FGA   NBA rank     FT%    NBA rank
Cavs      .312       12       .757       21
Magic     .277        6         --       --
```
Once again, the Magic have the edge, as they do a great job keeping their opponents off the line. Getting Howard into foul trouble would be an incredible coup, but it's not going to be easy. Howard commits just 3.4 fouls per 36 minutes, which ranks him well below most centers in the NBA, including all of the big men on the Cavs' roster. Conveniently, 36 minutes is about the amount of playing time Howard averaged this season, so 3.4 fouls is more or less his per-game average. Still, I'd like to see LeBron attack Howard inside, early and often, and see what happens.

One thing is clear: the Cavs offense is not going to be able to do whatever it wants, at will, as was the case (comically, at times) against Atlanta. In fact, they'll have as tough a time scoring points against Orlando as against anyone else. Dwight Howard deserved his Defensive Player of the Year award, indeed: he ranked 1st in the NBA in both D-Rating (95) and Defensive Win Shares (7.6).

When the Cavs are on defense

You'll recall that the Cavs defense finished the regular season ranked 3rd in Efficiency (102.4). The Orlando offense, meanwhile, ranks 11th, having scored 109.2 points per 100 possessions.

Shooting
```
          eFG%    NBA rank
Magic     .520        3
Cavs      .468        2
```
The Magic are an excellent shooting team, though not quite at the shot-contesting level of the Cavs defense (the league eFG% is .500, so the Cavs defense is .032 better than average, whereas the Magic offense is only .020 better). The Magic have attempted and made the 2nd-most 3-point shots in the NBA, but they rank just 7th in 3-point percentage. That in mind, we might expect Orlando's most efficient scoring to come from inside. The team eFG% leader is actually the departed Jameer Nelson (.580), but after that, sure enough, it's Howard (.572) and Gortat (also .572).
Turnovers
```
           TO%    NBA rank
Magic     .134       19
Cavs      .135       10
```
The Magic are below average when it comes to turnovers. Their worst offenders are reserve guard Anthony Johnson (16.4 TO%), Howard (15.1%), and Turkoglu (14.6%). The Cavs have another advantage here.
Rebounding
```
         OReb%    NBA rank
Magic     .240       29
Cavs      .254        9
```
To my shock, the Magic are the 2nd-worst offensive rebounding team in the NBA. I say shock because, as was the case on the defensive glass, Howard (13.8 OReb%, to rank 3rd in the NBA) and Gortat (even better, at 14.1%, though without enough minutes to qualify for a league ranking) are as good as it gets. But just like on the defensive end, the rest of the team is just not doing its fair share of rebounding (no one else cracks 9.0%; only third-string center Battie, at 8.9%, cracks 3.8%—which is just pathetic). On defense, the Magic haven't suffered too badly from this imbalance, because the rest of the team's glasswork, while weak, has been existent. On the offensive end, however, the situation is dire for Orlando, as literally every single forward and guard on the team has been terribly, miserably incompetent at grabbing offensive boards. Perhaps this is by design, but if so, the team is suffering from it. This is a big advantage for the Cavs, about whose defensive rebounding prowess you already know.
Getting to the foul line & foul shooting
```
        FTA/FGA   NBA rank     FT%    NBA rank
Magic     .351        3       .715       30
Cavs      .294       12         --       --
```
This is a great example of why I don't like to measure factor #4 by the traditional metric, FTM/FGA. The Magic are superb at getting to the line, but awful at converting their free throws into points. You might have guessed that Dwight Howard has something to do with that. In the regular season, he attempted 36.7% of Orlando's free throws (the next highest such percentage is just 17.3%, for Turkoglu). The reason for this is certainly tied up in the fact that Howard is notoriously bad at making foul shots (.594, worse even than Anderson Varejão... though not quite in Ben Wallace territory). The Cavs would be wise to employ the Hack-a-Dwight whenever doing so can prevent him from hitting a field goal. For that matter, even when Howard is on the bench, the Cavs should think about the Hack-a-Gortat, as Howard's backup is actually even worse from the line (.578). Remember, Howard and Gortat lead the team in eFG%.

The Magic will live or die by their shooting success. They're not going to get many second chances, nor are they going to get off that many shots to begin with, as the Cavs have significant advantages in both rebounding and turnovers. Unfortunately for Orlando, the Cavs are also very, very good at forcing bad shots. The Cavs defense has a decisive edge over the (admittedly decent, if one-sided) Magic offense. In fact, I'd say that edge is significantly wider than the one held by the (admittedly incredible) Magic defense over the (also somewhat incredible) Cavs offense. Point is, this will be a defensive battle... in which the Cavs should have the upper hand.

Gratuitous graphs

As I've done all pancakes long, I offer you a few more bubble graphs. The first one plots each player's O-Rating (x-axis) and D-Rating (y-axis) from the regular season (click to enlarge):

First, notice how almost all of the bubbles are on the positive side of the "league average" line. Second, it's clear that Dwight Howard is the best defensive player in the series (in the NBA, in fact) while LeBron is the best offensive player. But the scale of the graph almost makes it look like both superstars are about equally "above average." That's not the case—because the range of O-Ratings among the two teams is wider than the range of D-Ratings, the graph has been horizontally compressed. In other words, while Howard may be a better defender than LeBron, it's only by a little bit, whereas LeBron's offensive edge over Howard is significant. WAAWA! (We are all witnesses. Amen.)

Same idea now, except we're plotting Net Offensive +/- and Net Defensive +/-:

Comparing graphs #1 and 2, the broads strokes are roughly the same (unlike when we were studying the Hawks, whose plus/minus was clearly calculated on opposite day). There is one player whose bubble catches my eye, though, and that's the oft-aforementioned Marcin Gortat. Throughout this preview, I've been pointing out the ways that Gortat, of whom many of you probably had never even heard before, has been one of Orlando's most effective players. Basically, everything Howard does well, Gortat's done well, too. In fact, according to O-Rating and D-Rating, Gortat was actually more efficient than Howard in the regular season (though Howard's heavier workload and longer track record obviously keep him atop the team rankings).

Plus/minus would have us believe, however, that Gortat is actually the worst player on the Magic roster, by a huge margin. Once again, I have to wonder whether plus/minus is giving us unreliable information, or revealing serious flaws in the world of advanced NBA statistical analysis. Now, obviously, the 6'11" Gortat is Howard's backup, so the two almost never appear on the floor at the same time. That means his plus/minus will suffer from Howard's absence. But if, as I've been claiming, Gortat plays about as well as Howard, shouldn't Orlando's second team be seeing some benefit? Unfortunately, I don't have a real answer. Not having given him a second thought before, I'll definitely be watching Gortat closely in this series. Stan Van Gundy seems to have jumped on the Gortat bandwagon, too: in the regular season, Tony Battie was the primary backup center, earning 1202 minutes to Gortat's 794. But in the playoffs, Gortat is getting more than twice Battie's minutes (and the most minutes for any big man off the bench).

Speaking of the playoffs, there have been enough games now that I felt it would be okay to do a bubble graph. I only have O-Rating and D-Rating data, so here you go:

In case you didn't look closely, LeBron's O-Rating (122 in the regular season) has been 139—139!—in the postseason. And his D-Rating (99 in the regular season) has been 89 in the postseason. WAAWA!

Beyond that, the rest of the Cavs have been incredible in the playoffs, too. On Orlando's side, it's worth noting that Gortat has been their most efficient player in the postseason, just as in the regular season.

Well, there you have it. Finally, a real test for the Cavaliers. While I can't be the only fan who's entertained a fantasy or two about the Cavs sweeping their way to the NBA Finals, the odds of beating the Magic four straight times are remote (Edit: Neil Paine at Basketball-Reference.com gives about a 16.8% chance of a Cleveland sweep). It's not even a foregone conclusion that the Cavs will win the series (though the odds of that are still pretty good, I have to admit; Edit: Paine pegs the Cavs' chances of winning the series at 82.1%). Now let's tip off already!

Are We The Best Ever Yet?

2009-05-15T18:50:00.000-04:00

In my wittily-titled post "The Regular Season," I pointed out that the 2009 Cavaliers' regular season was the 5th-best ever (and by "ever" I of course mean "since the NBA-ABA merger," because, seriously, I have only moderate amounts of time to waste, and I choose to waste them as efficiently as possible). In the ensuing weeks, the Cavaliers have gone on a playoff rampage the likes of which we haven't seen since... well, I don't want to spoil the rest of this post. Now, granted, the Cavs have not yet faced an especially tough playoff opponent, so it hardly seems fair to compare them to the top playoff teams in history, who (one presumes) faced stiffer competition, most of them having made it at least as far as an NBA Finals appearance.

On the other hand, average together the Cavs' first two playoff opponents this year, and you get something that's roughly league average, maybe better. In other words, the Cavs' quality of opposition faced in the postseason is as good (or better) than their quality of opposition faced in the regular season. And as amazing as the Cavs' box scores were in the regular season, they've been even more amazing in the playoffs. So I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that the Cavs have been objectively better in the last 8 games than in the previous 82.

For fun—and only for fun—here are the top playoff teams in modern history, as measured by playoff Pythagorean win percentage:

                    PW   PL   PW%
1. 2009 Cavaliers  7.5  0.5  .938
2. 2009 Nuggets    9.0  1.0  .900
3. 2001 Lakers    13.8  2.2  .863
4. 1991 Bulls     14.3  2.7  .841
5. 1996 Bulls     15.0  3.0  .833
6. 1987 Lakers    14.4  3.6  .800
7. 1986 Celtics   14.2  3.8  .789
8. 1999 Spurs     13.1  3.9  .771
9. 1996 Jazz      13.8  4.2  .767
10. 1985 Lakers   14.5  4.5  .763

As I pointed out, it's extremely likely that the Cavs and Nuggets will come down from this incredibly lofty perch as the rounds go on. And there's also the small sample size effect to grapple with. But it certainly is nice to know that so far, the 2009 Cavs are the best pancake team ever.

What would really be nice, though, is if we could rank teams in "first 2 rounds of the playoffs" performance, which would put everyone on an even playing field with the Cavs. Unfortunately, compiling that data would take me way too long (like, 40 times too long). What I can more or less do, however, is figure out how teams did in "first round only" performance. Take, for example, the 2001 Lakers. I know they put up an .863 Pythagorean winning percentage for the whole playoffs, but I can't break that down into individual playoff rounds. That said, I do know that their first round opponent, the Blazers, posted a playoff Pythagorean win percentage of approximately .100, which corresponds to only one series of play (since the Blazers were eliminated), which means that the Lakers' first-round Pythagorean win percentage in 2001 was necessarily .900 (the opposite of Portland's).

So, here's what I'll do. I'll show you the ranking of the best first-round victories in my database. Now, because these data are going to be for one round of play only, they're going to fall victim to even wackier small sample size effects (especially when you consider that first-round series used to be best-of-5, and before that, best-of-3). On top of that, these data are probably going to represent victories over even weaker opponents. What I'm saying is, even if the 2009 Cavs' stats so far are moderately fluky, we can expect to find a bunch of teams at the top of this list whose "first round only" performance is just flukishly unthinkable.

                   opp.  PW   PL    PW%
1. 1986 Lakers     SAS  3.0  0.0  1.000
2. 2009 Nuggets    NOH  4.9  0.1   .980
3. 1987 Lakers     DEN  2.9  0.1   .967
3. 1996 Bulls      MIA  2.9  0.1   .967
3. 2001 Hornets    MIA  2.9  0.1   .967
6. 1982 76ers      ATL  1.9  0.1   .950
7. 1987 Pistons    WAS  2.8  0.2   .933
7. 1991 Bulls      NYK  2.8  0.2   .933
9. 2004 Pacers     BOS  3.7  0.3   .925
9. 2009 Cavaliers  DET  3.7  0.3   .925

In 1986, the Lakers absolutely decimated the Spurs, winning their three games by scores of 135-88, 122-94, and 114-94. That actually translates to a Pythagorean win percentage of about .984, but it also rounds to 3.0 Pythagorean wins and 0.0 Pythagorean losses, which is why my spreadsheet is spitting out the (admittedly impossible) Pythagorean win percentage of 1.000. Still, the Lakers were obviously benefiting from a small sample size (3 games) and feasting on a weak opponent (San Antonio's regular season Pythagorean win percentage was .443, putting them among the worst playoff teams ever).

My point is, the Cavs' playoff Pythagorean so far—.938—while unlikely to hold up, is at least twice as reliable as the percentages in the table above (and it would still rank 7th in that table).

I have one other thought before we wrap this up. The Cavs' playoff opponents so far have been roughly as good, on average, as their regular season opponents were. So what if we treated the last 8 games as just an extension of the regular season? Would an additional 8 games of utter domination be enough to catapult the Cavs' 5th-ranked .787 regular season Pythagorean past the 1st-ranked 1996 Bulls (.850)? I decided to combine all teams' regular season and playoff performance into one super-ranking:

                  games   PW%
1. 1996 Bulls      100   .847
2. 1997 Bulls      101   .802
3. 2009 Cavaliers   90   .800
4. 2008 Celtics    108   .787
5. 1991 Bulls       99   .782
6. 1992 Bulls      104   .782
7. 1999 Spurs       67   .779
8. 1986 Celtics    100   .773
9. 1987 Lakers     100   .767
10. 1994 Sonics     87   .763

Okay, so it's going to be extremely difficult for the Cavs to do anything over the remainder of the playoffs that would give them bragging rights over the '96 Bulls. But they have temporarily moved up into the 3rd position, mere percentage points behind the 2nd-ranked '97 Bulls.

Well, that turned out to be a much longer post than I originally intended. Can you tell I'm anxious for the Conference Finals to begin?

LeBron's Greatest Shooting Games

2009-05-11T17:30:00.004-04:00

In his Game 3 recap, Brian Windhorst wonders if LeBron's 47 points on 15-of-25 from the field Saturday ranks as His greatest shooting game ever. However, Windhorst doesn't really draw a final conclusion, so this felt like my cue to jump in.

"Greatest shooting game" is not very well-defined. It could mean "greatest scoring game" (in which case, "scoring" could simply mean "most points," but that's obviously not what we're talking about here) or it could mean "greatest display of shooting skills"—which could refer specifically to long-range shooting, as opposed to lay-ups, or even points earned at the foul line. On the other hand, the better-defined "most efficient scoring game" still doesn't quite get to the heart of it. For example, say LeBron were to go 4-of-4 from the field (2-of-2 from 3-point range) and 3-of-3 from the line; that would instantly become His "most efficient" performance ever. But He would only have scored 13 points, so He wouldn't exactly deserve any "degree of difficulty" bonus.

That in mind, let's approach this a couple of ways. For our purposes, I will consider "shooting" and "scoring" to be the same thing; I don't particularly care what type of shots LeBron attempts, so long as He is efficient and scores a lot. First off, let's simply rank LeBron's most efficient scoring games, as measured by TS% (that's True Shooting Percentage—essentially, eFG% but with foul shooting factored in, too):

                   FG-FGA  3P-3PA  FT-FTA  Pts   TS%
1. 4/12/09 vs BOS   9-14    5-8     6-6     29  .871
2. 2/10/09 @ IND   15-21    4-7    13-14    47  .865
3. 3/2/09 @ MIA    13-21    6-7    10-10    42  .827
4. 3/4/09 vs MIL    7-11    4-5     5-7     23  .817
5. 3/15/05 vs UTA  11-15    2-5    12-16    36  .817
...
28. 5/9/09 @ ATL   15-25    5-10   12-16    47  .733

Okay, so Saturday's game ranks only 28th, but it's clearly going to move up a bit once we attempt to account for volume of workload. At a minimum, though, there's no way LeBron's Game 3 performance against Atlanta can top February's game in Indiana (a 96-95 loss), in which LeBron scored the same number of points (47) but did it more efficiently. Obviously, for this exercise, I'm treating every game as if it were equally important. We'll look at playoffs-only in a bit.

I find it gratifying, by the way, to note that the top 4 most efficient scoring games in LeBron's career all took place this season. In fact, they all took place within the span of 61 days.

Next, let's try to introduce scoring volume into the equation. LeBron's highest-scoring game ever, of course, was 3/20/05 in Toronto, when He scored 56 (with a TS% of .657, making it the 87th-most efficient game of His career). Now, we'll have to decide how to weight efficiency against volume. In other words, is efficiency (measured in TS%) equally as important as volume (measured in points scored)? Twice as important? Half as important?

The truth is, I don't really know the answer (though there are ways one could try to figure it out), so I'm just going to take the easy route and weight the two equally. Of course, it's not enough to simply multiply TS% by points scored—that would just give us an approximation of the number of shots attempted. Instead, I'm going to average each game's "points rank" (for the 56-point game in Toronto, that would be 1) with its "TS% rank" (for the 56-point game, that would be 87).

                   Pts  rank   TS%  rank   avg rank
1. 2/10/09 @ IND    47   10   .865    2       6.0
2. 12/10/05 @ MIL   52    3   .778   14       8.5
3. 3/29/06 vs DAL   46   14   .801    8      11.0
4. 3/2/09 @ MIA     42   26   .827    3      14.5
5. 4/1/06 vs MIA    47   10   .754   19      14.5
...
10. 5/9/09 @ ATL    47   10   .733   28      19.0

So Saturday's game moves up to 10th. Admittedly, my decision to weight volume and efficiency equally was completely arbitrary, but at a minimum, there is one game (12/10/05 at Milwaukee) in which LeBron's performance was better in terms of both points and TS%, so I don't think there's any way we can objectively get Saturday's game to come out on top of the list.

In fact, the only way you can possibly frame the argument for Saturday's game as the "best scoring game" of LeBron's career is to consider the fact that, as a playoff game, it was "more important." Personally, I do care a great deal to know how LeBron performs in so-called "more important" situations, but I also feel it's a bit of a leap to say that because the game was more important, the performance itself was "better"—I prefer to judge the performance on the performance's own merits. But you could certainly make the argument that a .733 TS% in the playoffs is "better" (or "harder to accomplish") than a .733 TS% in the regular season. I wouldn't necessarily agree with you—but you would hardly be the first to say so.

Here, then, are LeBron's most efficient playoff games (measured solely by TS%):

                   FG-FGA  3P-3PA  FT-FTA  Pts   TS%
1. 5/9/09 @ ATL    15-25    5-10   12-16    47  .733
2. 4/30/06 @ WAS   13-23    7-12    5-7     38  .729
3. 5/3/06 vs WAS   14-23    0-1    17-18    45  .728
4. 4/18/09 vs DET  13-20    1-4    11-14    38  .726
5. 5/5/09  vs ATL  12-20    2-6     8-9     34  .710

The game in question does indeed come out on top. Next, here are LeBron's top playoff scoring games using my combined points/TS% "average rank":

                   Pts  rank   TS%  rank   avg rank
1. 5/9/09 @ ATL     47   10   .733   28      19.0
2. 5/3/06 vs WAS    45   16   .728   33      24.5
3. 4/30/06 @ WAS    38   47   .729   31      39.0
4. 4/18/09 vs DET   38   47   .726   34      40.5
5. 4/28/06 @ WAS    41   28   .641  110      69.0

So I think it's safe to say that Game 3 in Atlanta was clearly the best scoring performance in LeBron's postseason career. For those who are curious, LeBron's unforgettable Game 5 in Detroit in 2007 ranks 1st (among playoff games) in terms of points scored (48), but only 13th (among playoff games) in terms of TS% (.613). In that game, while LeBron was truly omnipotent in the fourth quarter and overtimes, He was merely superhuman in the first three quarters, so the game comes out as LeBron's 7th-best postseason scoring game, according to my arbitrary ranking system. Meanwhile, LeBron's legendary Game 7 shootout vs. Paul Pierce in 2008 ranks as His 8th-best postseason scoring game, ranking (among playoff games) 3rd in points (45) but only 17th in TS% (.602).

In conclusion, I have scientifically determined that LeBron is, y'know, amazing... and stuff. Enjoy Game 4.

Cavaliers-Hawks Super Preview Extravaganza (Or: Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?)

2009-05-04T17:52:00.001-04:00

Just when you were starting to enjoy your inter-rounds vacation, it's time for more pancake hoops! This month, our beloved Cavs take on those Southern belles, the Atlanta Hawks. Atlanta had a .556 Pythagorean win percentage in the regular season, which makes them the NBA's 13th-best team, and rightly deserving of the 4th seed in the Eastern Conference. (Interestingly, the Hawks' Pythagorean stats peg them as being worse than every single playoff team in the West—and also Phoenix—but hey, this is the swinging East, baby!)

(Here's another interesting tidbit for you before we dive in. In the first round, the Hawks and Heat, despite playing seven blowouts, were more evenly matched than the Celtics and Bulls, five of whose games were famously close. In Round 1, the Celtics outscored the Bulls 788 to 758, whereas the Heat actually outscored the Hawks by a slim margin: 617 to 611. Atlanta's average margin of victory in four games was 16.0, whereas Miami's average margin of victory in three games was 23.3. Ironically, those two surprisingly high figures end up cancelling each other out.)

Anyway, as our ancestors have done for countless millennia, we'll run through each of the four factors—once for offense and once for defense—to see what kind of contests we can expect from the Cavs and Hawks. Let's do it.

When the Cavs are on offense

As you know, the Cavs have the NBA's 4th-best offense, with 112.4 points scored per 100 possessions. Atlanta has the NBA's 11th-best defense, having given up 107.6 points per 100 possessions.

Shooting
```
          eFG%    NBA rank
Cavs      .519        4
Hawks     .494       11
```
In stark contrast to previous years, shooting is the Cavs' biggest offensive strength, in which they're led by Mo Williams (.548 eFG%), Wally Szczerbiak (.536) and Anderson Varejão (.536). The highest volume shooter, The MVP, is right behind with an eFG% of .530. Atlanta, for their part, is pretty decent at controlling opponent shots, especially on the perimeter. While the Hawks rank 11th in overall eFG% allowed, they rank 7th in 3-point percentage allowed (.353). Of course, the Cavs offense does rank 2nd in 3-point percentage (.393), so I don't think a drastic change of strategy is really needed here.
Turnovers
```
           TO%    NBA rank
Cavs      .125        6
Hawks     .132       12
```
Among Cavaliers who get regular minutes, only two guys turn the ball over at higher than the league average rate of 13.3%—Ben Wallace (15.7 TO%) and Sasha Pavlovic (13.8%). The Hawks are better than average at forcing turnovers, more so with steals (.082 steals per possession, to rank 10th) than with other types of turnovers. Atlanta's top ball-stealers are my nemesis Flip "Ronald" Murray (2.4 Stl%), Josh Smith (2.1%) and Mike Bibby (1.9%). To be fair, though, only 47.3% of Hawks' forced turnovers come in the form of steals—the 25th-highest such total in the NBA.
Rebounding
```
         OReb%    NBA rank
Cavs      .277       12
Hawks     .284       24
```
The Cavs' three offensive rebounding dynamos are Wallace (12.8 OReb%), Z (11.0%) and Joe Smith (10.8%). Regardless, the Hawks are somewhat weak in defensive rebounding. Al Horford (25.0 DReb%) and Zaza Pachulia (20.9%) are in fact quite great, but those two cohabit the court only 10.9% of the time, and the rest of the team really struggles to help out on the defensive glass (Josh Smith is next with 17.6%).
Getting to the foul line & foul shooting
```
        FTA/FGA   NBA rank     FT%    NBA rank
Cavs      .312       12       .757       21
Hawks     .272       27         --       --
```
The Cavs get to the line a fair amount but aren't so great at converting those free throws into points. The Hawks, however, are among the worst at keeping their opponents off the line, so the Cavs should get plenty of foul shot attempts.

The Cavaliers hold an edge in every one of the four factors, although the Hawks aren't too far behind. Both teams have clearly got their priorities in the right order here: notice how the league ranks—of both the Cavs offense and Hawks defense—decrease as we move from factor to factor (the four factors are generally listed in order from most to least important). So both units are well-rounded... the Cavs are just plain better.

When the Cavs are on defense

The Cavs have the NBA's 3rd-best defense, having given up 102.4 points per 100 possessions, whereas the Hawks have the NBA's 10th-best offense, having scored 109.3 points per 100 possessions. Let's let the factors paint us a picture:

Shooting
```
          eFG%    NBA rank
Hawks     .504       11
Cavs      .468        2
```
Cavs' opponents do not tend to get much efficiency out of their field goal attempts. One of the biggest reasons for that is that the Cavs lead the NBA in 3-point percentage allowed, at just .333 (and it's not especially close: Orlando's D ranks 2nd, having allowed .342 on 3-point attempts). The Hawks' shooters rank just 16th in 3-point percentage, so the Cavs should really own the perimeter in this series. For what it's worth, the Hawks' most efficient shooters are the rarely-used [small sample size fluke] Solomon Jones (.608 eFG%), who is not an outside threat, followed by Maurice Evans (.533), Al Horford (.525) and Mike Bibby (.518). Notably weak as a shooter is Joe Johnson (.489), who leads the Hawks in minutes played and in usage rate (26.6%).
Turnovers
```
           TO%    NBA rank
Hawks     .125        7
Cavs      .135       10
```
The Hawks do not turn the ball over much. The Cavs are also fairly good at forcing turnovers. I don't have much else to point out here.
Rebounding
```
         OReb%    NBA rank
Hawks     .260       19
Cavs      .254        9
```
Atlanta's top offensive rebounder is Zaza Pachulia (13.8 OReb%), who is clearly a much better rebounder than I ever realized (his DReb% is also quite superb). After that, there's a big drop before you get to Jones (9.1%) and Horford (7.6%), both of whom are not that great on the offensive glass, for big men. They'll have to contend with Big Z (21.6 DReb%), Varejão (20.6%), Wallace (19.7%), and The MVP (19.0%), all of whom are pretty strong for their respective positions.
Getting to the foul line & foul shooting
```
        FTA/FGA   NBA rank     FT%    NBA rank
Hawks     .323        9       .737       28
Cavs      .294       12         --       --
```
Atlanta earns its way to the stripe, but is third-worst in the NBA at making its free throw attempts. The real culprit is Josh Smith, who ranks 2nd on the team in FTA, having attempted 359 free throws, but converted only 58.8% of those (worst on the team among regular minutes-getters). Nearly everyone else on the team is either decent at foul shooting, or doesn't get fouled very often. So if there's one guy the Cavs can afford to (and should look to) hack, it's Smith.

The Hawks don't have much to caw about on this end of the floor, either. They hold a slight advantage in the area of turnovers, which they'll need, because the Cavs aren't going to allow them many second chance points, and they certainly aren't going to give them many open looks either.

Gratuitous graphs

Once again, I've prepared two of my trademark "offense vs. defense" bubble graphs, to show you how the individual Hawks compare to the individual Cavs. The first one shows each player's O-Rating against his D-Rating. The reason one bubble appears to be a shade of orange is that Delonte West and Al Horford finished the regular season with the exact same O-Rating and D-Rating, and also about the same number of minutes. So whichever way I set it up, one player's bubble always eclipsed the other's. Click to enlarge:

The second graph shows each player's Net Offensive Plus/Minus against his Net Defensive Plus/Minus:

First off (again), praised be LeBron, the Ruler and King of all the universe. Secondly, it seems that Dean Oliver's stats (i.e., the first graph) and plus/minus (the second graph) can't find many Hawks players on which to agree. For offense, O-rating likes Solomon Jones, Marvin Williams, and Maurice Evans, all of whom do quite poorly by plus/minus standards. Plus/minus prefers instead Joe Johnson and Josh Smith (of course, Smith has about the worst O-Rating on the whole team—go figure). For defense, D-Rating likes Smith and Al Horford, while plus/minus likes Murray (holy crap!) and Pachulia. Overall, Oliver's stats seem to suggest that Atlanta's best player is Horford, Williams, or (if we're allowing for small sample sizes) Solomon. Plus/minus suggests the best player is Murray (still shocked), Pachulia, Smith, or Johnson.

What do I make of this? Honestly, it's pretty confusing. For one thing, it reveals that whatever else the Hawks are, they're balanced. They don't have a Dwyane [sic] Wade carrying them, that's for sure. You could make a case for just about every major contributor being Atlanta's most (or least) efficient weapon. For what it's worth, I tend to trust O-Rating and D-Rating slightly more than I trust plus/minus, but believe me when I say that the two sets of numbers don't usually paint such contradictory pictures.

Still, I can hazard a guess as to what's going on here. When we say that Joe Johnson rates well in offensive plus/minus, what it means is "the Hawks offense tends to score more efficiently when Joe Johnson is on the floor," but it doesn't care whether Johnson himself is the guy doing the scoring. O-Rating, on the other hand, takes Johnson's individual stats—scoring efficiency being foremost among them—and builds upward from there. And it just happens that Johnson is among the least efficient scorers on the team. Complicating the picture is the fact that Johnson is also the Hawk with the highest usage rate (26.6%); in other words, when he's on the floor (and he's on the floor a lot—he leads the team in minutes), he's the player most likely to "use up" a possession, either by shooting the ball or turning it over. In summary, Johnson's offensive plus/minus could be high because of some not-obvious effect he has on his teammates' scoring (such as drawing extra defenders, in which case, shame on the defense) or it could be some weird tendency in Coach Mike Woodson's substitution patterns, resulting in better shooters taking the floor at the same time as Johnson (for example, Johnson and Murray play the same position, so they might tend not to share the floor, which would allow each to "benefit" from the other's absence).

This is all well and good, but it's not just Joe Johnson whose plus/minus flatly contradicts his individual stats. It's like the whole team is taking opposite pills. The reason for this might be related to the fact that the Hawks have a slightly negative correlation (-.29) between their usage and their offensive efficiency. Most teams will have a positive such correlation, as players have to "earn" the right to use up possessions (by being efficient to begin with). The Cavs, for example, have a healthy .38 correlation between their usage and their offensive efficiency. This could mean that the Hawks are not allocating their resources in the best possible way, or it could mean that they've happened upon some delicate balance whereby some players use up possessions badly, in order to make it possible for other players to use up other possessions efficiently. Or I could just be trying too hard. Either way, I find Atlanta to be a very interesting and unusual team.

Whew, that's enough Hawks talk. This is a still a Cavs blog, I swear. (Also, this may or may not be a socks blog—2005 joke!) Enjoy Round 2, friends—and I promise I'll wake you up when the real playoffs start. Go Cavs!

Emptyin' the Mailbox: Cavaliers Supplement

2009-05-01T11:30:00.008-04:00

Friends, by now you are aware that Alex and I have developed an effective system for purging our inbox of the gomillions upon gomillions of reader inquires we receive each week. We decided several years ago that the best way to respond to your many e-mails would be to use the NBA All-Star Break, MLB All-Star Break, and Browns bye week, respectively, to respond to an arbitrarily selected handful of Cavs, Indians, and Browns questions. Our most recent such cleansing, for example, took place in February, when we answered some token Cavs questions. Mission accomplished, lip service paid, inbox purged—alles in Ordnung, right?

Wrong! You see, interest in the Cavs is at an all-time high, and as such, our poor mailbox is in serious need of an emergency emptyin'. Considering the fact that it's now the Cavs' bye week, we figured it was a good time for a Cavaliers mailbag supplement. Here we go!

Hey guys,

Should I have a preference as to the outcome of Hawks vs. Heat?

Reggie B.
Dili, East Timor

Corey says: The short answer is no, you should not. The Hawks are the NBA's 13th-best team (.556 Pythagorean win pct.) and the Heat are next at 14th-best (.509). Atlanta ranks 10th in offense (109.3 points per 100 possessions) while Miami ranks just 20th (107.8). Defensively, the two teams are tied for 11th (both have D-Ratings of 107.6). So if you're concerned about which team will be "easier" for the Cavs, I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest one or the other. Atlanta's talent is more spread out among four or five key contributors, whereas Miami has more riding on one player, that being Dwyane [sic] Wade. But again, I don't think that matters in terms of the Cavs' chances of winning the series.

On the other hand, because of Wade, Miami does attract more media attention. I'm not saying I care about that sort of thing, but a Cavs-Heat series, it seems to me, has a better chance of "being remembered," especially if LeBron and Wade both have a few particularly high-scoring games.

On the third hand, it may be in the Cavs' best interest to get the next round underway sooner rather than later. The Cavs are not going to get any more well-rested than they are right now. A Cavs-Hawks series beginning on Sunday (as opposed to Tuesday) stands a pretty good chance of wrapping up earlier than a Magic-Celtics or Magic-Bulls series beginning on Monday. It's a minor consideration, but what else am I going to hang my rooting interest on? So, for Game 6 anyway... go Hawks! ("Caw!")

Dear Mistake by the Lake Spotring Tims,

What do you think of Joe Smith's Cavaliers playoff rap? Would you mind transcribing and annotating the lyrics? Thanks!

Julie Davner
Rapid City, SD

Corey says: As you know, Julie, every NBA player has a clause in his contract requiring him to dabble in producing and/or performing hip hop on the side, so it's no surprise that Joe Smith came out with a special playoff anthem for the 2009 Cavaliers. The song's been pretty ubiquitous in Cleveland the last two weeks, but if you haven't heard it yet, click here to take a listen. Personally, based on one song's worth of evidence, I think Joe's more talented as a producer than a lyricist or performer.

Anyway, per your request, below you'll find a fully-annotated transcription of the lyrics. There are a few references I couldn't quite understand or place—mostly, I suspect, nicknames the Cavs players have given one another. Here you go:

One team, one goal,¹ one dream,
One theme, one quest, one ring.
(×2)

Once again, it's on, back on the quest for a title.
In order for us to get it, must compete with our rivals.

Loaded with ammunition, time to handle our business.
This time, no lookin' back 'til our business is finished.

Z, the President,² LeBron James, the King,
And Anderson Varejão, they call him the Wild Thing.

Mo-Will, Mo Gotti,³ he's shootin' from long range.
D-Gib, Capone, the Bench Mafia's brain.⁴

Big Ben's an animal, Joe Smith's a beast.⁵
Can't mention the Bench Mob without mentioning [Streets?].⁶

That's: T.K., breakin' ankles on the iso.⁷
Cavaliers toyin' with opponents like Tyco.⁸

J.J. and D.J., absorbin' all knowledge
That a veteran'll share; both show a lot of promise.

D-West, knockin' down jumpers off the curl.
Szczerbiak, on the post; can't escape Wally's World.⁹

'Renzo, anchors the D, guardin' the paint.
Sasha shootin' from three is like money in the bank.

Welcome back, Jawad, the home town connect.¹⁰
Mike Brown, captain the ship, callin' the sets.

But of course, can't forget our sixth man:
Twenty thousand, five hundred and sixty-two fans.

In The Q, it's impossible to lose.
But we can't celebrate 'til we finish payin' dues.

One team, one goal, one dream,
One theme, one quest, one ring.
(×3)

¹Smith has to have started working on this song before the Cavs marketing department unveiled their 2009 playoff slogan, right? And yet this can't be a coincidence—somehow Joe got advance notice of the "One Goal" slogan and decided to make it a mantra in his song.

²I think he's saying "president" but I can't be certain. Is Ilgauskas known as The President? Or do I just have a lot to learn about the Lithuanian political system?

³~~Admittedly, "Mobody" is a complete guess, because I can't exactly make the word out. But it really does sound like it starts with an M, so maybe it's a portmanteau of "Mo" and "nobody."~~ Reader isley23 suggests that the lyrics are "Mo Gotti," which plays into the mafia theme established elsewhere in the song. John Gotti was a famous mob boss who died in 2002.

⁴Al Capone was a prominent leader of the Chicago mob in the 1930s and 40s. "Bench Mafia" is a twist on "Bench Mob," a term frequently used to describe a basketball team's bench players. By calling Daniel Gibson "Capone," I think Smith is implying that Gibson, like Mo Williams, is a "leader" of the bench—I would guess this has more to do with off-the-court shenanigans/handshakes/theater than with on-the-court performance.

⁵This is a reference to Joe's rap pseudonym. From Wikipedia: "Joe Smith is currently working on a solo rap album under the pseudonym 'Joe Beast'. Included on the soon-to-be released album were [sic] tracks titled 'Murda Kapital' and 'I Does This'."

⁶I'm not sure what he's saying here. "Streets" is my best guess. In any case, it sounds like he's introducing a nickname for Tarence Kinsey, given what follows immediately after.

⁷"Iso" is a reference to the isolation play. Thanks to reader isley23 for correcting me (I originally thought, "breakin' ankles on the ice, so...").

⁸I suspect someone is going to post a comment with an explanation of what "Tyco" is, but I have not been able to figure it out via Google search. I don't even know how to spell it. Maybe it's a reference to Tycho Brahe, the 16th-century astronomer who lost his nose in a duel (thus "toyin' with [his] opponents")? Or maybe it's a reference to Japanese taiko drums? Well, I am an idiot. As soon as I posted this, I was informed that this is a reference to Tyco Toys (thus, "toyin' with..."). I have heard of Tyco Toys, of course; I just didn't think of it because I stupidly assumed this was some kind of street slang or rap icon. D'oh.

⁹"Wally World" is apparently a nickname for Szczerbiak, according to Wikipedia's disambiguation page. The term originated, however, as the fictional theme park Walley World in the 1983 movie National Lampoon's Vacation.

¹⁰Jawad Williams is from Cleveland and played his high school ball at St. Ed's; thus, "home town connect."

Hey Corey and Alec,

I enjoyed your graphs comparing the '08-'09 Cavs to various other great teams, but you didn't do one showing the top teams in Cavs franchise history. I'd like to know how this year's Cavs stack up against Price, Daugherty, and co.

Petunia Y.
Postboy, OH

Corey says: That's a good suggestion, Petunia. Here are the top teams in Cavaliers franchise history, according to Pythagorean win percentage:

             Pyth. W%
1. 2009 Cavs   .787
2. 1989 Cavs   .734
3. 1993 Cavs   .704
4. 1992 Cavs   .672
5. 1994 Cavs   .638
6. 2007 Cavs   .638

And here's the graph showing those teams' running point differentials:

That 1989 squad (the team that suffered "The Shot") was more remarkable than I realized. They were, in fact, the best team in the NBA that year, significantly ahead of Phoenix (.718), the Lakers (.712), and Detroit (.698). But they were also a little unlucky in the regular season, finishing with only the 2nd-best won-lost record in the East, which was only good enough for the #3 seed, due to division alignments. That earned them a first-round match-up with the 6th-seeded Bulls—who were the 11th-best team in the NBA, with a Pythagorean win percentage of .548—and the rest is history. Regardless, late in the regular season, as you can tell from the graph, the 1989 Cavs were on pace to finish as the then-best team in NBA history, but they relaxed (or faded, if you prefer) just a tiny bit in the last 10 games, and finished the year as the then-5th-best team of all time.

The other teams on the graph include Lenny Wilkens's last two Cavs squads (1992 and 1993), Mike Fratello's first Cavs squad (1994), and LeBron's Finals-reaching squad. All four of those teams appear to have suffered from slow starts of varying degrees, but all four managed to turn it around and finish their regular seasons strong.

Hello Sportings Time Mistake by the Lake,

I have enjoyed this mailbag post so far, but where's Alex? Corey really doesn't know anything about basketball because he never played the game.

Mohandas
Rocky River, OH

Corey says: That's very perceptive of you, Mohandas. We thought we could pull the wool over your eyes. You see, Alex is currently on a secret government space mission, which keeps him very busy. Nevertheless, I am in frequent contact with Alex's shuttle, and we consult extensively on all matters Cavaliers. So what I've cleverly decided to do in this post is to pick five sentences at random, and write them in the style of Alex. Bonus points to whoever can correctly identify all five!

I Feel a Draft

2009-04-26T00:44:00.001-04:00

As a NFLPA-certified Draftnik, I couldn't have been more excited by this year's NFL Draft. Especially when it came to who the Browns should select. Most everyone thought that they should take the athletic guy with short hair, but I knew all along—no way, José—they should take the strong guy with the tattoo: he projects better to the pro game. That's what the amateurs always forget, projection to the pro game.

In the end, was it any surprise the Browns picked the strong guy? Alex Mack is a special player with special abilities. Though, I still have some reservations, and I doubt I'm the first to point this out, but sparking and becoming a puddle are much less valuable on the offensive line than, say, as a linebacker. Might a position change be in store?

As for the best picks of Day 1, that would have to be Atlanta getting Peria Jerry, Carolina stealing Everette Brown in the second round, Indianapolis nabbing Fili Moala, and obviously, Tennessee grabbing Sen'Derrick Marks. There are still plenty of sleeper picks to be had on Day 2, though. Look out for when Al Afalava of Oregon, Ell Ash of Houston, Ramarcus Brown of Georgia, Endor Cooper of Howard, Ataefiok Etukeren of Georgetown, Mesphin Forrester of Washington, Tupo Fuaau of Washington State, Dre'Mail Hardin of Stillman, Jorvorskie Lane of Texas A&M, Chantz McClinic of Wake Forest, Brouce Mompremier of South Florida, Captain Munnerlyn of South Carolina, Wopamo Osaisai of Stanford, Everette Pedescleaux of Northern Iowa, SirVincent Rogers of Houston, Rodgeriqus Smith of Auburn, Stryker Sulak of Missouri, Swayze Waters of UAB, and Zeek Zacharie of Louisiana-Monroe are drafted. Getting any one of those players on Day 2 is a draft well done.

And finally, it pains me that the Ravens drafted Michael Oher, an offensive tackle out of Ole Miss. You may remember Oher as the main subject of The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game, a for-real book I once read. I wished the Browns would pick him up, since he came across as an amazing prospect and person in the book. Barring that, I wanted anyone but the Ravens and their horribly ineffective amateur scouting to grab him, but of course, it wasn't to be. And to respond to the inevitable critics, sure, Blind Side isn't as good as Moneyball, but you can't blame Oher, with his background, for not being as good a writer as Billy Beane. That's just ridiculous.

The Regular Season

2009-04-22T19:45:00.000-04:00

Three posts in five days—what is this, 2004?

As we endure the interminable march toward meaningful Cavaliers playoff games, but before we get too far removed from the regular season, I wanted to make a couple of points about that regular season, and what it suggests about the 2009 Cavs' place in history. Plus, I needed an excuse to run more Cavs graphs, as required by my contract.

To begin, here is a running point differential for the Cavs' 2009 regular season (click to enlarge):

The line is nice and steep, and relatively smooth, to boot. But still, that's not a very interesting graph to look at without a little context. Here's one displaying a running point differential for every Cavs team since 2004 (i.e., every LeBron team):

There we go. Talk about unprecedented. The turquoise line represents the 2007 season, when the Cavs made the Finals, but even that one doesn't come close. Meanwhile, the depressing yellow line represents last season—talk about improvement!

Okay, now here's one showing the Cavs alongside the other so-called "elite" teams of 2009 (Boston, L.A., and Orlando):

As you can see, the Celtics had a couple of chances to challenge the balance of power, but the Cavs have mostly been the obvious #1 since November.

The big question, of course, is how the 2009 Cavs rank among the best teams of all time. You may recall my December post pointing out that they were, at the time, the best team ever. And while the Cavs didn't manage to hold on to that particular title, they did finish as the 5th-best team of all team, by Pythagorean win percentage:

                 Pyth. W%
1. 1996 Bulls      .850
2. 1997 Bulls      .824
3. 2008 Celtics    .818
4. 1992 Bulls      .801
5. 2009 Cavaliers  .787
6. 1999 Spurs      .782
7. 1994 Sonics     .778
8. 2007 Spurs      .778
9. 1997 Jazz       .777
10. 2000 Lakers    .776

Here's a graph showing these 10 teams' running point differentials. The 2009 Cavs' rather slow pace factor hurts them a little in the area of point differential, which is a cumulative stat; nonetheless, here you go:

Admittedly, that graph is a little busy, and the Cavs' maroon line can be hard to track, but you can still see how they leveled off a little, relative to the competition, at around game #36.

That leaves just one final question: are the 2009 Cavs at least the best home team of all time? I'm afraid the answer is still no:

                 Home Pyth. W%
1. 1996 Bulls        .920
2. 1997 Bulls        .899
3. 2009 Cavaliers    .892
4. 1971 Bucks        .892
5. 1972 Bucks        .886
6. 1999 Spurs        .882
7. 1989 Cavaliers    .881
8. 2002 Kings        .880
9. 1996 Sonics       .880
10. 2008 Jazz        .879

The Cavs may have nearly tied the mark for best home won-lost record, but in terms of all-time home Pythagorean record, the Cavs finish 3rd. You'll notice that the 1986 Celtics, whose 40-1 home record the Cavs were chasing, aren't even in the all-time top ten. In fact, the '86 Celts rank an astonishing 40th among all home teams ever, with a Pythagorean win percentage of .837. They're only the 3rd-best home team in Celtics history. Meanwhile, the 1989 Cavaliers are also in the top ten.

However you slice it, the Cavs are historically good. Of the all-time top ten in Pythagorean win percentage, eight won the NBA championship, while a ninth had the misfortune of facing the '97 Bulls in the Finals. (The '94 Sonics, on the other hand, lost to an 8th seed in the first round, in what has got to be the worst playoff choke in NBA history.) Of course, the 2009 Cavs may have to face tougher playoff competition than those other eight teams did. The lesson, I suppose, is that there are no sure things—only really solid things with good odds for success. Personally, I like the Cavaliers' chances to win the championship this year. By that, I mean that their chances are higher than any other team's—we're talking somewhere in the 40% range, instead of the 25-30% range usually earned by the #1 overall seed. My point is, there's still a 60% (or so) chance that the Cavs don't win it all—but even if they don't, it wouldn't change the fact that they are (and likely always will remain) one of the best teams ever to play in the NBA.

The Condiments Thicken

2009-04-21T18:35:00.000-04:00

I have not been to an Indians game yet this year, but loyal reader Mike was kind enough to send us a link to this article about a shocking new-for-2009 development at Progressive Field. Long story short, you can now buy "Ketchup Cheats" T-shirts at the Indians team shop. This comes as a surprise, to say the least, and at first I wasn't quite sure how to react to it.

In case you're new around here, my history with Ketchup is both long and ugly. As far as I know, I was the first person to accuse Ketchup of cheating (in the then-Jacobs Field Hot Dog Race) when I wrote this post in June 2005. Exposing injustice within the Hot Dog Race, railing against the insidious and seemingly all-powerful Evil Pittsburgh Ketchup Lobby (or EPKL), and supporting Mustard—one of the great heroes of Cleveland history—quickly became running themes on our blog. Later, some astute and noble Indians fans started the now-famous website KetchupCheats.com (for which I voiced my undying support) and also began selling "Ketchup Cheats" T-shirts. Finally, in August 2008, I announced the beginning of a Cleveland-wide ketchup boycott—a defiant operation that came to include ones upon ones of loyal Clevelanders.

Anyway, the Indians must have gotten wind of this rising tide of populist anger, and decided to try and turn it to their advantage. Here are pictures of the original "Ketchup Cheats" T-shirt (on the left) and the insultingly similar new rip-off (on the right):

So what are we supposed to make of the fact that the Indians themselves are selling these shirts? Do they like Ketchup or don't they? Do they want him to continue cheating, or don't they? Do they even realize that they are the ruling authority on all matters Hot Dog Race? By my reasoning, it's like this:

The existence of these shirts proves that the Indians organization not only is aware of the cheating, but acknowledges that such behavior is, in fact, cheating.
Cheating is wrong.
Legally, it is fully within the power of the Indians organization to put an end to the cheating, either by penalizing, replacing, or banning Ketchup. More on this later.
They would not be selling the T-shirts at all if they had any intention of stopping the cheating any time soon. Ergo...
The Indians organization openly supports the cheating... which is another way of saying that the Indians share Big Ketchup's agenda. Ergo...
The EPKL has infiltrated itself all the way to the top—the Cleveland Indians. In other words, this conspiracy now runs deeper than we feared, even in our wildest nightmares.

The shirts may appear to have an anti-Ketchup slogan on them, but you can't be anti-Ketchup while openly condoning Ketchup's heinous cheating on a daily basis. And you can no longer play dumb—that is, claim to be blissfully unaware of the cheating—once you start selling "Ketchup Cheats" merchandise. No, I'm afraid the Indians are deep in a moral quagmire that's not going to be easy to escape.

That leaves us to ponder: what should a true Clevelander—i.e., one who wants to continue calling attention to Ketchup's cheating, and who wants to continue attending games at Progressive Field as a way of pledging support for noble Mustard, and who may even want to continue rooting for the baseball arm of the Indians organization (oh yeah, forgot about them)—do? On this question, I am firmly with Vince Grzegorek, author of the Cleveland Scene article linked above, who urges fans to continue buying their "Ketchup Cheats" shirts from the grassroots online store, and not from the Indians team shop.

Now, my brother suggests a better way for the Indians to get in on the Hot Dog Race T-shirt racket: sell pro-Mustard shirts instead of anti-Ketchup ones. (Alex's proposed slogan: "Mustard Stands for Truth and Reason.") But it's the whole question of what the Indians should do that bugs me. They should simply put an end to the cheating. Instead, they're obviously determined to condone or even encourage the cheating, so even if they did change the slogans on the shirts, that would still be the situation.

Alex has another theory; namely, that the Indians brass are not the bad guys here, but simply the unfortunate ballpark operators being forced to conduct business within the totalitarian regime of a fascist condiment lobby. In Alex's version, the Indians are like Bunny Colvin or Felix Gaeta, trying to do what they can in an unjust world (that is, selling anti-Ketchup shirts; "aiding the resistance," so to speak) without upsetting the balance of power so much that they get crushed by The Man (in other words, still letting Ketchup cheat his way to title after title).

Still, EPKL coercion or not, I find the actions of the Indians organization to be too incongruous for comfort. Okay, so this may not be the equivalent of the Chinese government selling "Free Tibet" bumper stickers after discovering how well they're selling over in the West. But even in Alex's scenario, we've got... let's say, the provincial government of Tibet... selling "Free Tibet" schwag. Besides, if the EPKL is dictating Progressive Field policy at all—either Hot Dog Race-related or merchandise-related—then I have a hard time buying that they wouldn't put the kibosh on "Ketchup Cheats" T-shirt sales almost immediately. In other words, I think the EPKL almost has to be behind the new T-shirt promotion. They are insidious, indeed.

In conclusion, keep fighting the power, Cleveland. Buy your T-shirts from this website. Boo Ketchup's illegally-won victories. Keep boycotting ketchup products (especially Heinz ketchup) throughout the Cleveland area (in fact, we're now raising the Ketchup Boycott Alert Level to spicy brown). And most of all, support Mustard, because he represents our future, and therefore our greatest hope for survival.

Cavaliers-Pistons Super Preview Extravaganza (Or: Witty Subtitle!)

2009-04-18T00:34:00.004-04:00

Meine Damen und Herren,

The end of the regular season has been a long time coming, but it's finally pancake time at The Q! Okay, so this first series is more like the amuse-bouche before the pancakes. But still—let us preview!

As we usually do for our Super Preview Extravaganzae, I'll run down each of the four factors twice (once for offense and once for defense), to try and paint a picture of how these teams' strengths and weaknesses align.

When the Cavs are on offense

The Cavs have the NBA's 4th-best offense, having scored 112.4 points per 100 possessions, whereas the Pistons have the NBA's 16th-best defense, having allowed 108.0 points per 100 possessions. Let's check the four factors:

Shooting
```
          eFG%    NBA rank
Cavs      .519        4
Pistons   .485        6
```
This—the most important of the factors—is the bread and butter of both the Cavs offense and the Pistons defense. The Cavs' most efficient shooters are Mo Williams (.548 eFG%), Anderson Varejão (.536—surprise!), Wally Szczerbiak (.536), and LeBron (.530). Their highest-volume shooters have been LeBron (25.0% of team FGA), Mo (17.4%), and Z (11.2%). The Cavs' least efficient shooters (among the guys who get regular minutes, anyway) are Ben Wallace (.445 eFG%), Z (.483), and Boobie Gibson (.493). Meanwhile, Detroit has been among the best at forcing inefficient shots, so while the Cavs still hold an edge here, they'll probably have to leverage some other skills to realize their full advantage on the offensive end. Which brings us to...
Turnovers
```
           TO%    NBA rank
Cavs      .125        6
Pistons   .117       29
```
Here we go. The once-vaunted Pistons defense now can't buy a turnover. The Cavs will get their money's worth (i.e. attempting at least one shot) on just about every possession, especially since they're among the best at not coughing it up. The least turnover-prone Cavaliers are Joe Smith (7.3 TO%), Gibson (9.7%), and Z (10.1%).
Rebounding
```
         OReb%    NBA rank
Cavs      .277       13
Pistons   .260       12
```
Though the Cavs are no slouches on the offensive glass, the Pistons hold an edge here. Detroit's best defensive rebounders are Antonio McDyess (27.2 DReb%), Rasheed Wallace (24.6%), and Kwame Brown (24.0%). The Cavs' best offensive rebounders are Ben Wallace (12.8 OReb%), Z (11.0%), and Joe Smith (10.8%). Contrary to popular belief, this is not Anderson Varejão's strong suit (8.9%, to rank 6th on the team)—Andy does collect some offensive boards that other players might not even try for, but not often enough to completely forgive his relative lack of more "conventional" offensive rebounds.
Getting to the foul line & foul shooting
```
        FTA/FGA   NBA rank     FT%    NBA rank
Cavs      .312       12       .757       21
Pistons   .320       19         --       --
```
Traditionally, the stat for measuring this final factor is FTM/FGA, but that has always bugged me. Sure, it combines two different skills—getting to the foul line in the first place, and making one's free throws—into one handy metric, but it has the potential to mislead (as was the case last season, when the Cavs got to the line a lot but couldn't convert on their FT opportunities). Besides, what do I care how well Pistons opponents shot from the line in 2009? I only care how often the Pistons committed fouls resulting in FT opportunities. So I'm going with FTA/FGA—which tells us that the Cavs are above average at earning their way to the stripe, while the Pistons defense is below average at avoiding fouls—in addition to plain old FT%, in which the Cavs are (still) below average (though better than last year). LeBron James, of course, is the Cavalier most likely to earn a trip to line (9.0 FTA per 36 minutes); His FT%, however, is a merely human .780. The most efficient free thrower on the team, of course, is Mo Williams (.912).

The Cavs hold slight advantages in factors #1 and #4, while the Pistons hold a slight edge in factor #3. But it's the Cavs' commanding superiority behind door #2 (turnovers) that keeps... whoever is coaching the Pistons these days... up at night. Bear in mind that both of these teams play at a very slow pace. Detroit (86.7 possessions per game) had the 2nd-slowest pace in the NBA this season, while the Cavs (88.7) had the 6th-slowest. So these games may turn out to be rather low-scoring—just don't confuse that for "good defense." The Cavs have an elite offense, and the Pistons defense is nothing special.

When the Cavs are on defense

The Cavs have the NBA's 3rd-best defense, having allowed 102.4 points per 100 possessions, whereas the Pistons have the NBA's 21st-best offense, having scored 107.4 points per 100 possessions. Take it away, factors:

Shooting
```
          eFG%    NBA rank
Pistons   .483       26
Cavs      .468        2
```
Silly Pistons, you're supposed to shoot the ball into the basket. Oh well; they'll get plenty of shot attempts (thanks to their success at factors #2 and #3), they just won't make many of them. The Pistons' most efficient shooters are bench players Amir Johnson (.595 eFG%), Jason Maxiell (.575), and Kwame Brown (.533). Their worst shooter is actually the high-volume Allen Iverson (.432 eFG%); alas, tragically, Iverson will not play in the series due to a "back injury." It's okay: other than Antonio McDyess, the other Pistons starters all have eFG%s below .500 (the NBA average this season).
Turnovers
```
           TO%    NBA rank
Pistons   .117        1
Cavs      .135       10
```
The Cavs do a good job at generating turnovers, but the Pistons are the best in the NBA at holding onto the ball. If the Pistons offense has one thing to try to exploit against the Cavaliers defense, it's getting as many shot attempts as possible. (I should say, "as many shot attempts per possession as possible." As noted above, the Pistons and Cavs play very slow-paced games, so there won't be that many possessions... but you know what I mean.)
Rebounding
```
         OReb%    NBA rank
Pistons   .279        7
Cavs      .254        9
```
Speaking of maximizing their shot attempts, the Pistons may be able to leverage a slight offensive rebounding advantage to compliment their aforementioned no-turnovers offense. In many ways, this Pistons offense is set up like the Cavs offenses of 2007 and 2008 (only crappier): they're not the best shooters, but they try to make up for it with volume. Detroit's best offensive glassmen are Maxiell (14.0 OReb%), Johnson (13.1%), and McDyess (11.6%). The Cavs, however, are excellent defensive rebounders themselves. They'll counter with Big Z (21.6 DReb%), Varejão (20.6%), and Ben Wallace (19.7%)—or, if Ben doesn't recover from his injury in time, then LeBron (19.0%).
Getting to the foul line & foul shooting
```
        FTA/FGA   NBA rank     FT%    NBA rank
Pistons   .282       23       .751       24
Cavs      .294       12         --       --
```
The Pistons don't get to the line that often, and the Cavs don't foul especially often, either. Without Chauncey Billups, Detroit is also a rather weak free-throwing team.

Like I said, the Pistons will generate volume, in the form of second-chance opportunities and a healthy lack of turnovers, but the bottom line is, they don't convert their opportunities into points. The Cavs, meanwhile, have a truly great defense, designed to shut down just such an offense, by cutting off scoring lanes and frustrating shot attempts. I expect the Pistons to be forced into some undesirable jumpers, not to mention their fair share of dwindling shot clocks.

Gratuitous graphs

In my most recent post (which, I'm ashamed to say, was posted a month ago), I experimented with some bubble graphs, juxtaposing each Cavalier's offensive performance against his defensive performance. Each player is represented by a bubble, which gets bigger the more minutes he plays. Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to see how such a graph would look with both the Cavaliers and their opponents jumbled together. So, as in the previous post, I made two different versions—one using Dean Oliver's O-Rating and D-Rating to measure offense and defense, the other using net offensive and defensive plus/minus ratings. The two sets of statistics offer widely differing outlooks on certain individual players, but the bigger picture remains roughly the same.

First, here is a comparison of all Cavs' and Pistons' O-ratings and D-Ratings (click to enlarge):

Here's the same study, only with offensive and defensive plus/minus (click to enlarge):

What jumps out at me from these graphs? First, mad praises to The Chosen One, our Savior and King. Second, the Pistons appear to have things all backwards. Whereas the Cavs' largest bubbles (i.e. the players getting the most minutes) are also the bubbles closest to the top right corner (i.e. the team's most efficient players), a few of the Pistons' largest bubbles (such as Tayshaun Prince's, Rip Hamilton's, and Rodney Stuckey's) are clustered in the bottom left. Meanwhile, some of Detroit's more top-righterly bubbles (Johnson's, Maxiell's, Brown's) belong to bench players. For that reason, the Pistons might—I said might—be able to pick up some ground during those portions of the game when the second teams come in. To a man, the Cavs' second-teamers rate much better according to O- and D-rating than plus/minus, so who knows, they may still have the Pistons bench overmatched, or they may not.

All in all, this appetizer—I mean series—should be fun to watch. While I am very, very, very disappointed in the Washington Wizards for not holding up their end of the bargain this year (there is nothing like seeing the year-end resignation on DeShawn Stevenson's ass face), I am content to let the once-frightening Pistons be the Cavaliers' new practice squad. Enjoy it, Cavs fans!

The Cavs in Bubble Form

2009-03-16T19:40:00.000-04:00

If there are two things I can never pass up, they're a bowl of matzo ball soup, and a graph about the Cavaliers. So, since we haven't posted anything in a while, here are two Cavs graphs I cooked up, in which the Cavs themselves are represented in matzo ball-form. Sort of.

This first one is pretty simple. It compares each Cav's O-Rating to his D-Rating. These metrics were developed by Dean Oliver and are available at Basketball-Reference. Anyway, the further to the right a player appears, the better his offense has been, and the closer to the top he appears, the better his defense has been, at least by Dean Oliver's methodology. The twist is that I've decided to represent each player as a bubble, whose size reflects how many minutes he's played. Click to enlarge:

For your viewing convenience, here we have the same graph, but cropped to include only the interesting parts:

By O-Rating and D-Rating, it looks like the most valuable Cavs, after LeBron, are in fact Anderson Varejão, Ben Wallace, and Delonte West. Mo Williams looks like the one getting more minutes than he deserves (mostly because he has a poor D-Rating compared to his teammates). Note, however, that D-Rating, unlike O-Rating, does tend to discriminate by position; that is, centers and power forwards tend to have much better D-Ratings than guards. This may in fact reflect an increased importance for big men on the defensive end, or it may be a quirk of Dean Oliver's methodology. So Delonte's defense is especially good (for a guard) and Mo's questionable defense may not in fact be so much of a concern.

Dean Oliver's ratings, of course, are just one way of measuring offense against defense. Another way is the plus/minus methodology originally developed by Dan Rosenbaum (you can view the Cavs' +/- over at BasketballValue.com). Here I've prepared essentially the same graph, only using net +/- ratings instead of O- and D-Ratings (click to enlarge):

Once again, here's the same thing, but cropped for easier viewing. Sorry, Jawad Williams:

Truly, LeBron is the Hokkaido to His teammates' Honshu. And J.J. Hickson is Kyushu. But seriously, these data seem to agree with the earlier set in terms of the broad strokes, but there are some significant disagreements when it comes to individual players. Plus/minus does not like the defense of Varejão or Hickson nearly as much, nor is it too fond of Szczerbiak's offense. On the other hand, +/- does seem to like Big Ben's offense this year (what the...) and has a little bit more love for Gibson and Ilgauskas.

Anyway, time for a soup break. Smell you later, Cleveland.

Briefly: Local Blogger Makes Good, Again

2009-03-06T09:52:00.001-05:00

This has nothing to do with Cleveland sports (go team!), but I wanted to alert all of you puzzle fans that Corey's debut crossword puzzle is in today's New York Times. It's only available online to those with premium accounts, and if you have one of those, you've probably already done the puzzle. Otherwise, you're going to have to purchase a copy at your local newsstand. Congratulations, brother.

Numbers! Yes!

2009-02-20T14:09:00.001-05:00

Justin Kubatko of Basketball-Reference.com has joined in on the playoff probability game with his own report. Unfortunately, it's a black box for now. But it makes for a good complement to John Hollinger's creation.

The Cavs' patience at the trading deadline not only bodes well for the team in the long-term (all of the rumored deals had the Cavs taking on more salary and longer commitments to overpaid players) but also, perhaps, in the short-term. Basketball-Reference.com currently has the Cavs as the favorite to win the Finals, at 33.8%. Hollinger has that a little lower, at 21.1%, but the Cavs are still most likely behind Boston. If the team is already the leading contender to win the championship, is it really necessary to sell the farm for that "last" piece?

That's a question without an answer, obviously. There are some deals that would benefit the Cavs, even if it meant bringing on more salary or losing Wally Szczerbiak's expiring contract. But you have to respect the front office for going with the team that has made them the best in the N.B.A.

Now these playoff odds aren't perfect. We can't assume that the Cavs have a near-50% chance of making the Finals because the model tells us so. I mean, both project the Wizards as mathematically eliminated from the playoffs when we all know that they're going to sneak in as the eighth seed, only to be destroyed by the Cavs in the first round. It's called fate.

Here's a comparison of the two systems, with today's numbers:

            Kubatko  Hollinger
Final W-L     64-18      63-19
Playoffs     100.0%     100.0%
Win div.     100.0%     100.0%
#1 seed       54.2%      41.3%
Make Finals   47.6%      32.3%
Champions     33.8%      21.1%

Emptyin' the Mailbox: Cavaliers Edition

2009-02-15T23:50:00.006-05:00

By now you're probably aware of the crushingly large amount of reader mail we receive here at the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times. Truth is, it would really be impossible for us to try to respond to all of it. So for a few years now, it's been our brazen tradition to use the NBA All-Star Break, MLB All-Star Break, and Browns bye week as opportunities to answer a few Cavs, Indians, and Browns questions, respectively. Right now, it's the Cavs' turn, which is good, because currently, I don't think I'm capable of thinking about anything but Cavaliers basketball (well, Cavaliers basketball and cookies).

So here they are, world: your most pressing Cavs questions.

Hey cool guys,

In December, you pointed out that the Cavs were not only, in fact, the best team in the NBA, but on pace to become the greatest team in league history. However, while they've continued to play well, they haven't been able to keep up their incredible pace of the first 2 months. Are the Cavs still the best in the league? Are they still one of the best ever?

Ramón
Hunting Valley, OH

Corey says: Good question, Ramón. The short answer is that the Cavs are still objectively the best team in the NBA this year (still mostly thanks to their incredible first 2 months), but are no longer on pace to be the best team ever. Here are the top 10 all-time in Pythagorean win percentage and SRS (Simple Rating System, designed to account for strength-of-schedule issues):

               Pythag.
1. 1996 Bulls   .850
2. 1997 Bulls   .824
3. 2008 Celtics .818
4. 2009 Cavs    .808
5. 1992 Bulls   .801
6. 2009 Celtics .795
7. 1999 Spurs   .782
8. 1994 Sonics  .778
9. 2007 Spurs   .778
10. 1997 Jazz   .777

                 SRS
1. 1996 Bulls   11.80
2. 1997 Bulls   10.70
3. 1992 Bulls   10.07
4. 2009 Cavs     9.50
5. 2008 Celtics  9.31
6. 2009 Celtics  9.29
7. 1986 Celtics  9.06
8. 1994 Sonics   8.68
9. 1986 Bucks    8.67
10. 1991 Bulls   8.57

So the Cavs are no longer the most efficient team ever, but they're still in historic territory. It's clear they've slowed somewhat from their early pace, but what kind of slowdown are we talking about? Here's a graph showing the Cavs' running point differential so far this year (click to enlarge):

So things have slowed, but it's hardly time to start worrying. The Cavs are still a team blazing new trails. By the way, to give you some perspective on that graph, here it is again, but with the Cavs' 2006, 2007 and 2008 running point differentials included too (click to enlarge):

Just comparing this year (red) to last year (yellow) is enough to warm any Cavs fan's heart.

Hello Mistakes of the Lake Times,

How are the Cavaliers doing on their SCHOENE projections?

Papa Geno
Sarastros Burg, Austria

Corey says: Ah, another good question. You are referring to the SCHOENE projection system that was introduced this past offseason by Kevin Pelton of Basketball Prospectus as an NBA version of Nate Silver's famous PECOTA. Before the season started, we commented on SCHOENE's projections for the Cavaliers, which seemed pretty rosy at the time. Here's a scatter plot comparing SCHOENE's projected Player Win Percentage for each Cavalier with the actual numbers so far (click to enlarge):

Tossing aside the obvious small sample size anomaly of Darnell Jackson (and by the way: why the heck did SCHOENE project him so favorably?), it looks like SCHOENE did a fantastic job forecasting the 2009 Cavaliers. Even though the Cavs have outperformed even the loftiest of expectations, it hasn't been because any single player has broken the mold; rather, the team as a whole has managed to be a little better than we thought, without any weaknesses. The only Cavaliers whose PW%s don't measure up to SCHOENE's baseline projection are Mo Williams and Daniel Gibson, but even their numbers are extremely close to the projection.

Dear Joe,

I'm your biggest fan! I'm sure you hear that a lot. I love listening to you for every game (I don't have a TV; I'm also blind). I feel like you're a member of the family after all these years. I have a silly question, hope you don't mind. What's your favorite food? Thanks for your time.

Your biggest fan,
Julie Davner
North Duxbury, VT

Alex says: Hey Julie, that's a fantastic question. Although I'm pretty sure you meant for your letter to be delivered to Joe Tait instead of Corey and me. Don't worry, it happens all the time. And this one, I'm pretty confident, I can answer on Mr. Tait's behalf.

Joe's favorite food has got to be DiGiorno pizza. During every game, when it comes time to shill for DiGiorno, he goes above and beyond the call of duty. He doesn't simply promote their frozen pizza. No, he vows that DiGiorno is his manna from heaven, his ambrosia, his elixir of life. He crosses the line from pitchman to congregant in the First Church of DiGiorno Pizza.

Among other DiGiornio-related anecdotes Corey and I have heard on the air over the years, Joe had a conversation with his producer expressing surprise that he had purchased over one hundred DiGiorno pizzas on a recent trip to the grocery store; Joe told us about his family's Christmas dinner, which (he swore) consisted of only DiGiorno pizza; Joe regaled his anger at his family upon finding another brand of frozen pizza in their freezer; you get the picture.

So Julie, and all you other Tait's Mates, if you want to be like your hero, go out there and buy some DiGiorno pizza. And if you find yourself with too much, you can always crash some famous rapper guy's house party by pretending to be a delivery man with your DiGiorno.

Mistake by the Cleveland guys,

Whenever LeBron gets a triple double, we always hear about Oscar Robertson and how he averaged one over a whole season. But that was a long time ago and I know basketball was a different game then. How would LeBron have performed if he were in Robertson's shoes? Could he have averaged a triple double too?

Walter
Versailles, OH

Alex says: That's a very interesting question. In the 1961-1962 season, playing for the Cincinnati Royals, Robertson averaged 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, and 11.4 assists per game. No one has come close to that since. One reason is that Robertson was one of the best players of all-time, playing in his peak, and on a one-man team.

Another reason is that professional basketball was a very different game back then. The worst scoring team in the league then averaged 110.9 points per game. This year, the best scoring team manages 108.7 points per game. It's not because players have forgotten how to shoot or that defense has become radically better. That may play a part, but the real culprit is pace. Meaning that games were much faster in the sixties. Possessions were shorter, leading to more shots in forty eight minutes and more scoring per game.

Using team data from the 1973-1974 season to 1978-1979—the only seasons before the three-point line was introduced for which we have possession data—I found an equation to predict a team's pace by it's points per game total. It's a crude tool, but it's the best I could do without investing a week to this. So, my best guess is that the 1962 Cincinnati Royals averaged 112.9 possessions per game (compare that to the 2009 Cavaliers' 89.2).

Now if LeBron averages 28.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, and 7 assists in a 89.2-possesion-per-game environment, how would he do in a 112.9 one? Translating His stats, you'd get an astounding 36 points, 9.5 rebounds, and 8.6 assists. As good as that is, color me surprised. I fully expected LeBron to surpass Robertson. Even if you look at LeBron's best year from a points-rebounds-assists perspective (last season), He still comes up short, with a translated 37.5 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 8.9 assists per game.

This should put Robertson's achievements into perspective for you. LeBron's been a better scorer relatively, but may still have yet to match Robertson's diversity of skills.

Hey fellas,

What is a "catch phrase"?

Austin C.
Cleveland

Corey says: I am glad you asked, Austin. Different people have different standards about what qualifies as a viable catchphrase (obviously). For example, I know (of) this guy—lets call him "A.C."—who watches a lot of Cavs basketball and talks about the Cavs a lot, but in reality he only knows about 5 or 6 distinct sentences. I guess you could call these "catchphrases." For example, if a Cavs player hits a three-point shot, without fail, he says "Deep! At the [name of arena]." Problem is, this is apparently the only thing he is capable of saying following a three-pointer, and he must say it after every three-pointer. It's gotten really bad this year, and I'm starting to wonder if A.C. is going senile.

In fact, if I had the technological skills, I would almost certainly put together an A.C. soundboard for the amusement of our readers (so if you want to help me out with that, let me know). I'm quite confident one could piece together an entire game's worth of credible A.C. commentary using only 10 or 12 prerecorded soundbites, starting with:

after a 3: "Deep! At the [name of arena]."
after a dunk: "Throw(in') the hammer down!"
after a driving basket: "[name of player]... to the hoop!"
after a block: "Get that weak stuff out of here!"
after LeBron scores: "The Elllllllll-train!"
after an "and 1" is called: [Long rambling literal description of what just happened, capped off by...] "Opportunity for a three-point play." (This one is always verbatim, and clearly not intended to be a catchphrase. I really think A.C.'s brain is simply incapable of forming new sentences.)
after Fred McLeod says anything: [nervous giggling]

Again, I would have less of a problem with these if A.C. didn't feel the need to say them at every single possible opportunity and if they weren't the only things he ever said.

While we're on the topic of less-than-deserving catchphrases, am I the only one who finds it weird the way Mike Brown ends every one of his pre-game Joe Tait interviews the exact same way? It's always: "Iiiiiiiii'll SEE ya!" Come to think of it, Joe Tait himself is guilty of making catchphrases out of things that in no way warrant it; for example: "Operators... are standing by," during his ticket sales promos, or "Have a good niiiight, everybody!" at the end of every broadcast. Is there something in the water down there?

Dear Alex and Corey,

Did Mo Williams deserve to be an All-Star?

Amber Rondo
Louisville, KY

Corey says: Well, according to seemingly everyone in the mainstream media, it's preposterous to even ask that question, because apparently, before he became the second guy to make the squad due to injury drop-outs, Mo was going to go down in history as the biggest All-Star snub ever. I'm not so sure, however. For one thing, I don't accept the argument that a team's win total must in some way be proportional to the number of All-Stars it has. There are a lot of different ways to build a winning team. One way is with four All-Star-level players and a weak bench (the Celtics). Another way is with the greatest basketball player in galactic history, surrounded by a deep roster without a glaring weakness, but no obvious other All-Stars (the Cavaliers).

I realize this sounds like blasphemy to some Cavs fans, who probably don't agree with that description of the 2009 Cavs' makeup (they think Mo has been All-Star-caliber), but the reality is that, while Mo's been solid, his contribution to the Cavs' success has been pretty much equivalent to the contributions of about four other guys. The addition of Mo Williams to the roster has turned out spectacularly well, but that has as much to do with the subtraction of Larry Hughes and the reduction of a few other players' minutes than anything Mo's done. It's just really hard to argue that Mo's done better than Devin Harris, or Jameer Nelson, or even Rajon Rondo. Here are the top 12 Eastern Conference guards, ranked by 2009 PER:

                        PER
1. Dwyane Wade, MIA    28.1
2. Devin Harris, NJN   22.7
3. Jameer Nelson, ORL  20.9
4. Vince Carter, NJN   20.4
5. Jose Calderon, TOR  19.3
6. Rajon Rondo, BOS    18.8
7. Andre Miller, PHI   18.5
8. Michael Redd, MIL   18.4
9. Joe Johnson, ATL    18.3
10. Mike Bibby, ATL    17.7
11. Ray Allen, BOS     17.6
12. Mo Williams, CLE   17.0

Granted, PER is far from perfect. For one thing, it doesn't take playing time into account. For another, its methodology, while objective, can sometimes seem arbitrary. So here are the top 12 Eastern Conference guards in total win shares accumulated so far:

                         WS
1t. Dwyane Wade, MIA    8.0
1t. Ray Allen, BOS      8.0
3. Rajon Rondo, BOS     6.9
4. Jameer Nelson, ORL   6.2
5. Andre Miller, PHI    5.8
6t. Vince Carter, NJN   5.7
6t. Devin Harris, NJN   5.7
6t. Mo Williams, CLE    5.7
9. Mike Bibby, ATL      5.0
10t. Jose Calderon, TOR 4.7
10t. Joe Johnson, ATL   4.7
12. Michael Redd, MIL   3.5

Taking both these lists into account, I feel there are 5 guards that have to be considered ahead of Mo: Wade, Allen, Harris, Rondo, and Nelson. I then count three others who should at least be in the conversation, along with Mo, for the sixth guard spot (Johnson, Carter, and Miller). Let's be optimistic and say Mo is the sixth-most deserving Eastern Conference guard. That means he probably does deserve a roster spot. Of course, if we're indulging the fans their totally deranged wish to see the utterly undeserving Allen Iverson start at point guard, then perhaps Mo did not deserve to be among the initially-announced reserves, after all (though Rondo definitely did, ahead of Joe Johnson). Even then, taking Jameer Nelson's injury into account, Mo would've made it back in. Long story short, Iverson screwed everything up, and no, Mo was never on the verge of becoming the worst All-Star snub in history, or even in 2009. Thanks for writing, Ms. Rondo!

Is There a Conspiracy to Keep LeBron Off the Foul Line?

2009-01-30T17:48:00.000-05:00

My selective memory could be playing tricks on me, but it seems like LeBron's not getting as many foul calls this year as He did in previous seasons. I'm not the only one who's wondering this. If you've watched many Cavs broadcasts on FSN—most notably, last night's game in Orlando—you know that Fred McLeod and Austin Carr definitely think something's up with NBA officials this year vis-à-vis The Chosen One. LeBron Himself and Mike Brown may also have their suspicions, judging by the (again, seeming) increased amount of complaining each has done.

So, my hypothesis here is pretty simple ("This season, LeBron is not getting as many foul calls as He should be getting"), and in theory, shouldn't be that hard to test. Let's look at the data.

To approximate "shooting foul-drawing," I'll use FT attempts per FG attempt. This metric will not perfectly account for the fact that some shooting fouls result in more free throws than others, but it's still better than looking at "total fouls drawn" since not all personal fouls are shooting fouls. And anyway, I don't have easy access to "fouls drawn" data, let alone have the ability to separate the shooting fouls from the non-shooting ones.

That said, it won't be enough to simply compare LeBron's 2009 FTA/FGA to His FTA/FGA of previous seasons. For one thing, there could be a league-wide trend in foul-calling, which would affect LeBron's numbers but not necessarily indicate a bias against Him. So at a minimum, we'll want to compare LeBron's FTA/FGA trend line against the league average. Take a look (click to enlarge):

A couple of things are worth noting here. First, LeBron is indeed attempting fewer free throws per field goal attempt (.451) than He did in 2008 (.470); however, His 2009 rate of getting to the line is still higher than it was two years ago (.432), or at any point before that. In other words, it might have been reasonable for us to expect a tiny amount of regression in this area. On the other hand, we didn't necessarily expect that LeBron would be enjoying possibly the greatest statistical season ever for an individual NBA player. In light of that, maybe we should expect to see LeBron's FTA/FGA rate rise—not regress—along with all His other stats.

Secondly, the league average FTA/FGA (.309) has actually risen slightly from last year (.306), so at the very least, I think we can say that LeBron's drop-off in getting to the line is not symptomatic of a larger, NBA-wide trend. Nor is it symptomatic of a Cavaliers team-wide trend: the FTA/FGA of the other (i.e., non-LeBron) Cavs, taken as a group, has also risen (to .280, from last season's .255), which could just be the result of personnel changes, but (at least) seems to dampen the likelihood of a general anti-Cleveland bias.

But here's where it gets interesting. My brother (Alex, not Gomer) was clever enough to suggest that I look into whether (perhaps) fewer of LeBron's field goal attempts are coming from inside. Since shots under the basket are extremely more likely to result in a foul call than outside jumpers, could it be that LeBron's drop-off in getting to the line is the result of a change in shot selection? Let's define "inside" shots using the shot selection categories over at 82games.com: basically, "dunks," "tip-ins," and "close" (a category that includes lay-ups). Here's a season-by-season look at the percentage of LeBron's total field goal attempts that qualified as "inside" attempts (click to enlarge):

Ruh roh. LeBron is actually attempting a career-high portion (40%) of His field goals from closer-in. If anything, this makes it harder for us to explain the decrease in foul-drawing. Instead of FTA per FGA, we can now better approximate LeBron's FTA rate by using FTA per inside FGA. Here's a revised trend line (click to enlarge):

Now it really does look like something weird is going on. LeBron is playing the best offense of His career and he's driving to the hoop more often than ever before, yet His trips to the foul line are now less likely to occur than at any time since His rookie year? What could be the reason for this? Here are a few theories, in no particular order:

There really is a conspiracy to keep LeBron off the foul line in 2009. In general, I'm pretty skeptical of any NBA conspiracy theory, but even if you're inclined to believe it, I don't understand what the motive would be. The league's officiating staff obviously doesn't want to prevent the Cavs from winning, since the team's overall FTA/FGA has actually risen, as we've seen. Why, then, would they want to hinder LeBron specifically? Do they think His style of play could be a corrupting influence on future generations of NBA stars? I don't buy that. Do they want to keep the MVP race close, instead of the beat-down it really should be? That doesn't make much sense either.
There was some officiating bias, but it was during the 2007 and 2008 seasons, not the current season. I guess the reasoning could be that in 2007 and 2008, the league wanted to promote LeBron as much as possible, so they conspired to make Him look good, and now they've stopped because they figure He's already the best player ever. This could explain LeBron's tendency to complain; two years of living high on the hog could have made Him feel entitled. But it would mean that LeBron is now being judged by the same standards as everyone else, which would mean that there are a lot more misguided no-calls around the NBA than we previously realized.
There is no monkey business; it's just a 44-game fluke resulting from officiating error. In other words, the officials have simply dropped the ball a little more often than usual. I find this plausible, at least.
There is no monkey business; it's just a 44-game fluke resulting from the random fact that LeBron has, indeed, been fouled less often. You might have trouble accepting this one. For one thing, our subjective, eyewitness observation lets us see actual examples of no-calls preceded by obvious (indeed, occasionally flagrant) fouls. But our eyewitness observation tends to allow us to remember only those examples that support our (already drawn) conclusions. It's called confirmation bias. In other words, it may be that, yes, the officials are blowing their fair share of calls, but that this is not affecting LeBron in any special way; rather, LeBron Himself is doing something differently which is in fact making it easier for opposing schlubs to avoid fouling Him (or, if you prefer: opposing schlubs are getting lucky by failing to make contact with LeBron when they swat their mitts at Him). We, in turn, instinctively attribute this to the refs.

For what it's worth, I'm betting that the real answer is some combination of the above. The good news is, no matter what the case, I think it would be reasonable for us to expect LeBron's FTA/FGA to increase between now and the end of the season (or, failing that, then in 2010). If there is a bias, then more and more people will begin to notice it, and it will be harder for the officials to maintain it. If there is no bias, then we're talking about some kind of weird fluke, and it will likely correct itself over time.

In the end, the important thing is that the Cavs are playing out of their minds so far, and LeBron is having possibly the greatest season of all time, free throws or no. Ironically, LeBron's 2009 free throw shooting percentage is actually the highest of His career, so even if He is getting fewer opportunities, He's making up for it somewhat with efficiency. Let me say that I don't really think there is an actual conspiracy. I do, however, expect this trend to reverse itself, and if it doesn't, we'll revisit this topic, for sure.

To Hack Or Not To Hack (-A-Ben)?

2009-01-10T17:30:00.005-05:00

Following last night's euphoria-inducing beat-down of the Celtics, after the euphoria and Fruity Pebbles consumption died down, there was some discussion about Doc Rivers' seemingly desperate use of the Hack-A-Ben strategy late in the game. The consensus in the media, it seemed to me, was that this was a poor decision—just look how it worked out for Boston!—but I'm not so sure.

Ben Wallace is the worst free throw shooter of all time, in case you've forgotten, so if the Hack-a-Shaq is going to be effective against anyone, ever, this is the guy. Wallace's career FT% is 41.8%; however, his 2008-09 FT% is currently a lofty 45.5%, which still makes him the NBA's worst by a considerable margin. Never in his career has Ben cracked 49.0%.

So does Hack-A-Ben pay dividends? Obviously, we cannot draw any conclusions based on one game's anecdotal evidence. What it boils down to is this: the Cavaliers' current Offensive Efficiency is 113.1—that is, the Cavs can be expected to score 1.131 points per possession—does Hack-A-Ben reduce that number, on a per-possession basis, enough to offset the amount of personal fouls your team will have to rack up?

If we assume Wallace will make 45.5% of his FT attempts, then we can assume he will score .455 points per attempt, which means, each time you foul him, he can be expected to net his team about .91 points with his two shot attempts. Of course, the Cavs will be able to rebound a few of Ben's misses. Offenses tend to recover about 30% of reboundable missed free throws, and we can assume that there will be about .545 reboundable misses per Wallace trip to the line. So the Cavs can be expected to pick up an extra possession about 16.4% of the time. Further, each time the Cavs do get the ball back, we can expect them to come away with about one extra point (I'm roughly averaging the 1.13 they score normally with the 0.91 they might score if Ben gets Hacked again). In short, a typical Hack-A-Ben possession should result in a net gain of about 1.074 points for the Cavaliers. That means that if every single possession were a Hack-A-Ben possession, the team would have an Offensive Efficiency of 107.4—worse than their usual, to be sure, but hardly anything to sneeze at. In fact, 107.4 is better than the current NBA average Efficiency of 106.8.

Consider this, too: 113.1 is the Cavs' Offensive Efficiency against an average defense. The Celtics have one of the best defenses in the NBA (99.9, which is currently edged only by the Cavs' own 99.3). And when the Celtics Hack-A-Ben, they're taking that off the table. So really, we shouldn't be comparing 107.4 (the Hack-A-Ben offense) to 113.1 (the normal Cavs offense). We should be comparing 107.4 to something a lot closer. Last night, I was convinced Doc Rivers was doing the smart thing, but now I'm beginning to think I may—gulp—agree with the consensus here.

That said, I'm certain that Hack-A-Ben is still the correct strategy for some teams in some situations. I'd like to try to define what those situations are. For starters, we've already reasoned that the strategy becomes less effective as the Cavs' "normal" scoring chances go down. So if, for example, your defense sucks (meaning the Cavs can be reasonably expected to score 1.25 points on every possession, or some such ridiculousness), then by all means, Hack-A-Ben. If, for example, LeBron seems to have decided that all of His shots that night will go in, and also that they will each be worth 5 points, then by all means, Hack-A-Ben. On the other hand, if your defense is amazing, consider just sticking with that. Or if, for example, LeBron is not playing because He had to travel to Switzerland on short notice to stop the Large Hadron Collider from destroying the Earth, then Hack Not!

So when the Cavs take on the league-worst defense of Golden State on January 23, the Warriors should definitely practice their fouling technique. But when in the game would it appropriate to start Hacking-A-Ben? You can't just start intentionally fouling in the opening minutes of the first quarter; your entire team would foul out. So how long can you sustain it? Assuming you have 12 men suiting up, you can commit up to 67 personal fouls before you literally have to field a four-man team. And of those 67, you can expect that about 21 will occur in the normal course of things. That leaves 46 fouls to work with, but even then, you're definitely going to want to leave a cushion, so to speak, so that your core players don't all foul out. Let's be conservative and say that you can afford to earmark 30 intentional fouls to your Super Hack-A-Ben strategy (you'll have plenty of opportunities to sub players in and out, with all those free throws being attempted).

Now the question is, how many minutes of clock could you eat up by Hacking-A-Ben 30 times? The average NBA possession lasts about 15.7 seconds, but you could intentionally prolong your own team's offensive possessions, so let's say you'll take about 20 seconds off the clock each time you get the ball back. Let's also say that you'll be forced to Hack-A-Ben about 5 seconds into each Cavs possession. Remembering that the Cavs will rebound some of Ben's misses, let's say that each Cavs possession will take about 10 seconds, total. That means each "cycle" will take about 30 seconds off the clock. Now, there won't be a full 30 cycles, because you'll have to Hack-A-Ben more than once per possession (each time the Cavs get an offensive rebound), so let's say there will be about 25 cycles.

That translates to about 12.5 minutes of game time, which is less than I would have expected, but still, it means you could reasonably start Hacking-A-Ben at the outset of the fourth quarter, and never have to stop. Of course, eventually Mike Brown might take Ben out of the game, so my recommendation would be to try to spread those 12.5 minutes of Hacking out across the third and fourth quarters.

Regardless of the timing, the Hack-A-Ben will severely shorten the length of each Cavs possession, so if you are trailing by a heck of a lot, it might increase your chances of getting extremely lucky (this was probably Doc Rivers' reasoning). But other than that, if Hack-A-Ben does indeed decrease the Cavaliers' Offensive Efficiency over the time period in question, then it is not a strategy that should be reserved for blowouts, or tight games, or losing efforts, or even winning ones. If you really believe it works (for your team), you should use it every time you play the Cavaliers, regardless of the game circumstances.

The problem is, it's such an uncommon strategy that it has the connotation of being either desperate or unsportsmanlike. That's why you'll generally only see it employed in so-called "desperate" situations. As a coach, you'll get blasted in the press if you make significant use of the Hack-A-Ben without ultimately winning the game. And against the Cavaliers, winning the game is generally going to be a long shot, slight advantage or no. Take last night's game: the strategy appeared to be a terrible one for the Celtics (instead of just a possibly questionable one), not because Ben made many free throws, but because Boston's offense suddenly went cold, meaning they made up no ground. Doc Rivers is getting blasted today for all the wrong reasons.

That brings me to one final point of discussion: the counter-strategy we saw LeBron attempt to implement on one of last night's possessions: shoot a crazy three right before Wallace gets fouled—if it goes in (as LeBron's did, although unfortunately they ruled that LeBron was a second too late), Ben has the chance to make it a four-point play. Worst case, if it doesn't go in, Ben gets three FT attempts instead of two. This is a very clever strategy, of course, but it can only be employed once or twice, I think, since the opposing team would merely have to "fake" fouling Ben, and they'd have forced the Cavs into wasting a possession on a ridiculous shot that was unlikely to go in. So ultimately, I'm not sure the "Calling Their Bluff" counter-strategy will ultimately tip the scales into the Cavs' favor (for long, anyway). At most, it may serve to put a momentary end to the Hack-A-Ben shenanigans.

In closing, the question "To Hack or not to Hack?" is far from clear-cut. At a minimum, I am willing to conclude that it is the correct strategy sometime, meaning if every NBA coach was both smart and unconcerned about his reputation, we'd see it much more often. The better the Cavs get (or, the more people realize the Cavs are for real), the more often Hack-A-Ben ought to make sense. I guess we'll see.

LeBron Day 2008

2009-01-01T22:04:00.000-05:00

It's the most wonderful time of the year and for the fifth consecutive December 30, Corey and I and a few friends closed it out with a raucous celebration of LeBron Day. If you're unfamiliar with this most holy of days, every December 30, the faithful are compelled to make a pilgrimage to Akron, Ohio to visit the sites of LeBron's youth. After that, it's back to Cleveland for a LeBron Day party, i.e. watching the Cavs play the Heat, and the LeBron Olympics!

This year we honored many of the ancient LeBron Day traditions, dating all the way back to 2004, and started some new ones we hope catch on in the coming years. You can check out our previous celebrations for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Since LeBron Day fell on a Tuesday this year, our normal group of LeBron Day pilgrims was decimated by something described to me as "work". Even Corey's record four consecutive pilgrimages-made streak was snapped. Nevertheless I, along with Friends of the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times Brad, Ryan, and Mike, soldiered on to Akron. First stop, per tradition: Acme Market, site of the first LeBron Day miracle:

Gadzooks! Imagine our surprise to find that among the hundreds of shelves (I'm estimating) of Powerade at Acme Market, there was not one bottle of FLAVA23 or otherwise LeBron-endorsed Powerade product. Could this be the first LeBron Day tragedy?

But wait! The always helpful Brad and Ryan remembered that LeBron also endorses VitaminWater. After a bit of celebrating, we picked up some bottles of the Tropical Citrus-flavored VitaminWater and were on our way.

Our next stop was the Sprite aisle, in preparation for the traditional toasting of Sprite in front of the skyline of Akron. But once again, our plans were (nearly) dashed. Acme had sold out their plastic bottles of Sprite. Obviously, some other pilgrims must have beaten us to the store that morning:

We fortunately took advantage of Acme's healthy supply of Sprite in other containers. We headed to the checkout line where, for the fifth consecutive year, the cashier was not amused:

Now fully stocked, we could travel to the next site on our pilgrimage, Portage Path Elementary School, where a young LeBron was enrolled in the '90s. Eschewing the custom of posing with the school's sign, we headed straight for LeBron's boyhood playground:

This year, we came prepared, too. After a quick christening, it was time to hoop it up on LeBron's boyhood basketball court:

It went in.

After channeling our inner LeBron, the next stop on our itinerary was St. Vincent-St. Mary High School. Who could ever forget LeBron's four magisterial years at the school, when He won Mr. Basketball of Ohio three times and our heart all four? Getting the spirit of the 2008 LeBron Day, Brad commemorated LeBron's high school years at SVSM:

At the nearby intersection of King Ct. (which can only stand for "King of the Court" we must still presume), Ryan too extolled His four glorious years of schooling:

We headed down the enormous hill to the back of the school to see if, once again, the gate to the football field was left unlocked. And it was! Shortly after I showed our appreciation of LeBron's many seasons of wide receiving on this field, we noticed some other guy hanging out by the press box, thus cutting short our on-field shenanigans. We quickly made our escape.

Our journey led us next to Akron Children's Hospital, possible location of LeBron's birth (hey, you don't know!):

Circling back around on downtown Akron's confusingly-laid-out streets, we tried to find the Radisson Hotel, where you may remember LeBron held his NBA Draft Day party in 2003. But alas, what crazy hotel is this?

Nevertheless, we marched right on to the Grand Ballroom and reenacted that fateful phone call—from some Cavaliers-type guy to LeBron—after the holy ping pong ball was chosen:

Then it was southward ho to Mabel Riedinger Middle School, the location of LeBron's awkward and angsty (yet still sublime) middle school years:

We circled back around downtown for the traditional toast to LeBron's glory in front of Akron's beautiful skyline, and pouring-out of Sprite for our fallen homies. This one was for you, Judge Tubbs!

And then, per the LeBron Day custom, I somehow poured Sprite on Corey's head:

On the way back to Cleveland, we had one more stop to visit: James Manor in Bath, Ohio. We took a quick drive-by photo before the guard stood up from his chair in the guard house and we made yet another quick escape:

From there it was on to the sacred pilgrimage-ending place, Quicken Loans Arena, for the ceremonial Tossing of Fruity Pebbles to the Wind. We were just approaching the steps of The Q when—zounds!—who should we coincidentally run into but Corey himself, along with Friends of the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times Scott, Aaron, and Max. It was yet another LeBron Day miracle!!!

With a mighty heave, we brought this holy sojourn to a proper close:

Now it was time to retire to Corey's apartment, where we were joined by still another loyal LeBron worshipper, The Other Mike (a.k.a. Moke), for a good old-fashioned LeBron's Birthday party. As we chowed down on delicious treats, we flipped on the Cavs game in order to catch a glimpse of The Chosen One:

For some reason, LeBron decided to let the Heat win this one, but we weren't too disheartened—it was time for the annual LeBron Olympics! The contestants battled each other through four grueling events in an attempt to collect the highest number of LeBron Lottery tickets, which would prove most useful in the final event, the LeBron Lotto itself.

The first event was a bubble blowing contest, featuring LeBron's own Bubblicious flavor, LeBron's Lightning Lemonade. Ben defended his bubble-blowing title from 2007, "blowing" away the competition (get it?):

Next up, LeBron Trivia—a popular event from years past.

Moke showed incredible knowledge of LeBron trivia, winning the Round 2 prize. Ben, on the other hand, didn't do so well:

The next event had technically taken place earlier in the evening. It was a "predict the score and various details of tonight's Cavs game" contest:

Max's clairvoyance helped him to a narrow victory in Round 3.

The fourth event was certainly going to be pivotal to winning the LeBron Lottery. It was the traditional "Tank for LeBron" competition, in which contestants must suck, but make it look convincing. They would truly have to channel their inner Milt Palacio to win this one. Points would be awarded for shots that hit the rim but didn't go in; points would be deducted for shots that went in:

Max proved the most adept shot-misser. With wins in two separate events, he was definitely looking like the favorite for the big prize.

Corey put all the Ping Pong Balls of Destiny into the hopper and took an oath, swearing he had not tampered with the equipment:

And the winner was... Max! No big surprise there. The prize for winning the LeBron Lottery was, of course, LeBron:

Finally, we sliced open the holy birthday cake and brought our day of reverence to an end:

It just might have been the most successful LeBron Day ever! We all had a great time, and we hope you did too. Happy new year, everybody, and go Cavs!

Ever Wanted to Run the Hot Dog Race?

2008-12-23T19:24:00.001-05:00

Because now you can:

The Cleveland Indians are currently scouting for Promotion Team Members (aka Fun Bunch) to assist with the execution of all in-park and plaza entertainment, which enhances the atmosphere and fan experience. Fun Bunch team members will assist with opening ceremonies, national anthem, ceremonial first pitches, in-game and post-game contests and promotions, promotional giveaways, and special celebrations. They will also assist Slider with all skit performances as part of our in-game entertainment, and interact with Fans and the general public to generate excitement at Progressive Field. Each member of the Fun Bunch will be involved in additional responsibilities as assigned by Manager of Promotions. Fun Bunch members should be available to work extended days, evenings, weekends, and holidays as directed. Team members are also required to make outside appearances (Club Functions, Private Parties, etc.) at various times throughout the year with the team mascot (including evenings and weekends). We are seeking energetic individuals with previous experience in promotions, special events, street teams, youth programs, and exposure to performing in front of large audiences. Fun Bunch applicants must have some type of previous training in high school sports/track and cardio/respiratory endurance between 400-800 meters. Running skills will be tested as Fun Bunch employees will be required to participate in the Hot Dog Races. If you are an enthusiastic entertainer interested in creating excitement, we want to meet you! Please apply today!

Nine dollars per hour to dress up as a hot dog and defeat the evil Ketchup? I'm so down. Although if you're a reader of this blog, it's doubtful you have the necessary "previous training in high school sports/track and cardio/respiratory endurance between 400-800 meters".

You can apply at the Indians' job board. Good luck, everyone.

The Best, Jerry! The Best!

2008-12-18T17:50:00.001-05:00

The 1996 Chicago Bulls won 72 regular season games and are widely regarded as the greatest team in NBA history. Indeed, no one has ever played more efficiently over an entire season: the '96 Bulls' Pythagorean win percentage (.850) is yet to be outdone. The closest any squad has ever come to a Pythagorean win percentage that high would be the 1997 Bulls (.824), followed by the reigning NBA champions, the 2008 Boston Celtics (.818).

A third of the way through the current season, however, the 2009 Boston Celtics are making a valiant attempt to challenge that mark. As of this morning, Boston is sitting on a Pythagorean win percentage of .815, having just won 16 in a row, and showing no signs of slowing down.

Okay. Now... I'm here to say Fuck That. The 2009 Cavaliers have a Pythagorean win percentage of .872; they've not only been more efficient than the Celtics, let alone the hard-charging Lakers—the Cavs have been more efficient than any team ever. Michael Jordan must be rolling over in his grave.

Here are the top 10 in Pythagorean win percentage, dating back to the NBA-ABA merger, and updated as of this morning:

2009 Cavaliers .872
1996 Bulls     .850
1997 Bulls     .824
2008 Celtics   .818
2009 Celtics   .815
2009 Lakers    .804
1992 Bulls     .801
1999 Spurs     .782
1994 Sonics    .778
2007 Spurs     .778

Of course, this is hardly a fair ranking. For one thing, it's a lot easier to maintain an "outlier" statistic—like the best-ever team efficiency—over 25 games than over a full 82 games. So, of the three 2009 teams currently in the top 10, it's overwhelmingly likely than one, two, or even all three will regress enough in the coming months to fall off the list (the 1997 Jazz are sitting at home, sweating this out, I'm sure). If you're curious, over the season's final 57 games, the Cavs would need to post a Pythagorean of .840 or higher to hold on to the all-time record and edge the '96 Bulls (basically, they would need to score about 113 points for every 100 they allow). To remain in the all-time top 10, depending on what happens to Boston and the Lakers, the Cavs would need to post a minimum Pythagorean of between .734 and .737 (basically, scoring about 109 points for every 100 they allow).

That said, even if our claim is merely that the 2009 Cavs so far have been the most efficient team ever, there is another worthwhile objection. For all we know, the Cavs' success so far could be the result of a soft early schedule. By season's end, this variable will be all but washed out, but after only 25 games, it's common for NBA teams to have NFL-like strength of schedule fluctuations.

For that, we turn to a metric called Simple Rating System (SRS), refined, appropriately, by Doug Drinen of Pro-Football-Reference.com for analysis of NFL seasons. Long story short, SRS uses matrices to adjust every team's average point margin for strength of schedule. You can find SRS for NBA teams over at Basketball-Reference.com. Anyway, here are the all-time top 10 in SRS, once again dating back to the merger, and updated through this morning:

2009 Cavaliers 12.53
1996 Bulls     11.80
1997 Bulls     10.70
1992 Bulls     10.07
2009 Celtics    9.87
2008 Celtics    9.31
2009 Lakers     9.19
1986 Celtics    9.06
1994 Sonics     8.68
1986 Bucks      8.67

From this, it looks to me like the Cavs' schedule so far has been as tough or tougher than the Celtics'. At the very least, I am comfortable with the claim that the Cavs are the best team in the NBA right now, and that they've put in a performance so far that makes them the most efficient team in NBA history, based on all available information.

For what it's worth, the Cavs' current offensive efficiency (O-Rating) is 114.3 points per 100 possessions—that's the 14th-highest since the merger. However, it's not quite fair to compare offensive or defensive efficiency ratings across eras, since the league average efficiency changes so much over time (in the 80s, for example, offenses were generally more efficient than in the current decade, so an O-Rating of 110.0 in 1985 is not as impressive as an O-Rating of 110.0 in 2005). That in mind, I can tell you that the 2009 Cavs' O-Rating is about 7.32% better than the 2009 NBA average, and that suggests the current Cavs offense is the 5th-best ever. Here are the top 10 offenses, measured by percentage difference between O-Rating and league average:

                O-Rtg   lg avg   % ovr avg
2004 Mavericks  112.1    102.9     8.94%
2005 Suns       114.5    106.1     7.92%
2002 Mavericks  112.2    104.5     7.37%
1998 Jazz       112.7    105.0     7.33%
2009 Cavaliers  114.3    106.5     7.32%
1997 Bulls      114.4    106.7     7.22%
2004 Kings      110.3    102.9     7.19%
1996 Bulls      115.2    107.6     7.06%
2007 Suns       113.9    106.5     6.95%
1982 Nuggets    114.3    106.9     6.92%

On the flip side, the Cavs' current D-Rating is 99.7, which is tied for 60th-lowest since the merger. However, once again we need to adjust for era to discover that the Cavs actually have the 10th-best defense ever. Here are the top 10 defenses, measured by percentage difference between D-Rating and league average:

               D-Rtg   lg avg   % ovr avg
2004 Spurs      94.1    102.9    -8.55%
2009 Celtics    97.8    106.5    -8.17%
2008 Celtics    98.9    107.5    -8.00%
1993 Knicks     99.7    108.0    -7.69%
1994 Knicks     98.2    106.3    -7.62%
2004 Pistons    95.4    102.9    -7.29%
1999 Spurs      95.0    102.2    -7.05%
2005 Spurs      98.8    106.1    -6.88%
2007 Bulls      99.6    106.5    -6.48%
2009 Cavaliers  99.7    106.5    -6.38%

Note that the 2009 Cavs are the only team to appear on both lists.

In conclusion, the Cavs are really, historically good. If you don't have a wicked case of Cavs Fever already, you better go catch it, and fast. Remember, with LeBron, all things are possible.

Why Have the Cavs Been So Good?

2008-12-12T21:18:00.001-05:00

Currently, the Cavs are second in the N.B.A. in defensive efficiency (points allowed per possession) and first in offensive efficiency (duh). That's amazing. It's especially amazing since, in recent memory, the Cavs have been a severely defensive-oriented team. Last season, they were eleventh in defense and twentieth in offense. And the year before that, they were fourth in defense and nineteenth in offense.

This begs the question, how have they turned things around on offense? Here's how the Cavs rank offensively in the Four Factors, both this season and last:

                2008  2009
      Shooting    26     2
     Turnovers    14     5
 O. Rebounding     2     5
Getting fouled    20     9

Looks to me like shooting did the trick—especially since it's the most important factor. It's nice to know that, but I wonder where the improvement is coming from. So let's look at who's been doing the shooting. Here's a breakdown of the percentage of shots taken the last two seasons:

                   2008   2009
    LeBron James  25.3%  23.9%
Maurice Williams     --  15.8%
    Everone else  74.7%  60.2%

LeBron has been shooting almost just as often this year (about one fewer shot per game), but the Cavs have replaced plenty of non-Jamesian shots with Williamsian shots. Could this be the reason for the shooting turnaround? Let's look at the effective field goal percentage for those same three in 2008 and 2009:

                   2008   2009
    LeBron James  51.8%  51.9%
Maurice Williams     --  53.4%
    Everone else  46.7%  52.6%

Oonce again, LeBron has been playing like Himself on offense. And Maurice Williams is a significant upgrade over the 2008 crew of Everyone Else. Additionally, perhaps because they don't have to carry as much of the load—or maybe it's just shedding Larry Hughes—Everyone Else has picked up the shooting slack, to Jamesian and Williamsian levels.

But has Everyone Else's improvement come from just cutting deadweight? It could also be other new talent joining the team in the off-season. Or how about the players leftover from last year just improving? Here's the eFG% of those three groups of players for the past two seasons (not including James or Williams):

                 2008   2009
former players  45.9%     --
      new guys     --  50.7%
familiar faces  47.5%  52.8%

It's all three! The old guys weren't too great and getting rid of them looks good in hindsight, the new guys have been doing very well for themselves, and the guys who've played in both seasons are playing better. However, since Williams is the only new player who's been making much of a contribution this season, I'm suspicious of how meaningful it is that the other new players have improved greatly over the guys who've left. So, one final table, the percentage of shots taken by those same three groups, still excluding James and Williams:

                 2008   2009
former players  34.3%     --
      new guys     --   5.2%
familiar faces  40.5%  55.0%

Looks like I was right to not trust that improvement so much, 5.2% is just a few shots per game. The guys who've struck around (and improved their shooting) are fortunately getting more shots. Then again, Hughes, Gooden, Marshall, etc. aren't around to compete with them for playing time.

Really, it looks like an across the board improvement. LeBron is still playing awesomely, but the addition of Williams has made a huge difference. And that's not all: the other players leftover from last season have shot much better, too. A lot of those shots have come from Delonte West, Ben Wallace, and Wally Szczerbiak. That Larry Hughes trade is looking better and better with each passing day.

Bored and Malaised on the Cleveland Browns

2008-12-05T23:48:00.001-05:00

Regular readers have surely noticed recently that there just aren't as many articles on our blog anymore. And when Corey or I write something new, it's often long past the arbitary deadline we had tried to impose. This has been most obvious in the case of "Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns"—a weekly football season tradition since 2004. We used to publish "Born and Raised" on the Monday after a game, but those days are obviously long gone.

Why have things changed? I think the easiest and maybe truest explanation is that we simply don't have much to say anymore. That's not so say we're less opinionated about Cleveland sports. Instead, I think you need to understand why we ever started this blog in the first place. Almost four-and-a-half years ago, Corey and I were comparing our favorite Indians, Cavs, and Browns blogs. There weren't many on the list. And of those on the list, few had what we really wanted to see: statistically-informed and interesting analysis. There was a void in the marketplace, if you will, and we decided to try to fill it as best we could.

Today, the situation is completely different. There are many blogs and websites that have come along and they have plenty of things to say about the Indians or the Cavs or the Browns or all three. So when someone else skillfully expresses my opinion about Larry Hughes on their blog, instead of crowding on and saying the same thing in a different way, I would put down my pen and try to find something new to write about.

Corey and I have always wanted our blog to be a place where you'll find something you wouldn't see anywhere else on the web. More than a few times, I think we've really succeeded, and I'm proud of that. But—to give one example—now that Doug Farrar of Football Outsiders is writing a [supposedly] weekly DVOA-flavored Browns preview on the Orange and Brown Report (link goes to the Browns-Colts preview; it's not clear yet whether this will truly be a weekly feature), Corey is a lot less inclined to replicate the work in his weekly DVOA-flavored Browns preview, especially when enthusiasm for Browns coverage is at a low, relative to recent history.

So what does this mean for the future of the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times? We're definitely not shuttering the site; I'll say that right up front. And we're definitely not quitting. But the recent trend of infrequent posts will continue. I can't say how often we'll have something new on here, because that kind of deadline-centric thinking has made blogging seem less and less appealing. For the rest of the current Browns season (at the very least), we're probably not going to be doing any more "Born and Raised" recaps, nor we will publish DVOA previews unless something truly fascinating jumps out at us. Not all of our "regular" features will be gone forever (don't worry, LeBron Day is here to stay), but we're definitely going to be relaxing the rules we've imposed upon ourselves over the last four and a half years.

There's always a silver lining, however. As I see it, when Corey and I do have something to say, you can bet that it'll be unique and interesting—not the same rehashed and phoned-in comments about the Browns every week. We'll be returning to the truest sense of our unstated motto: to write things about Cleveland sports you won't see anywhere else.

Unfortunately, and undeniably, this will hurt our readership. People who regularly check the site will notice we haven't posted in a long time and will stop checking so frequently. Eventually, they'll stop checking at all. The solution, I believe, is one of the best things to have come out of the "blog revolution" or whatever you call it. Undoubtedly, many of you have already done this, but I know that some still don't: you don't have to check your favorite sites everyday, looking for changes. Instead, sites can notify you whenever there's something new.

Since this site will lie dormant for longer stretches of time, I highly highly highly suggest—nay, beg—that you subscribe to our feed. Feed readers like Google Reader and Bloglines are simple to use and free. And if you aren't totally sure what a feed is, or don't want to bother with a feed reader, you might consider signing up to receive e-mail updates whenever there's a new post. You won't get spammed (we promise!) and you can unsubscribe at any time.

You know what? That message is pretty important for the future of this blog, so I'll repeat it. Please subscribe to our feed or sign up for e-mail updates whenever there's a new post! There are even handy links to both options near the top of our sidebar.

I hope that you understand our decision to scale back our commitment to this blog. And I also hope that you continue to read what we have to say, whatever may come in Cleveland sports. Now, who's excited for the Dorsey Era?

Corey continues: I'm with Alex on everything he says here, but I just want to add my two cents about a couple of things. This was not an easy decision. If we felt comfortable discontinuing "Born and Raised" as soon as it stopped being fun for us, we would have stopped writing it months ago, maybe as soon as Jim Sorgi failed in his bid to bring pancake glory to Cleveland in 2007. But we truly felt an obligation to the loyal readers who have supported us over the years. It still amazes us that people value our opinions about the Browns, Cavs and Indians, and it breaks my heart to think that we may be disappointing some of them. That said, our lives have gotten busier since the carefree days when we started this blog, whereas our passion for blogging—and the feeling that we were doing something truly unique—has grown a bit stale.

It was always in the area of Browns football where I felt like we had the best opportunity to carve out a "niche" for ourselves. Football Outsiders is blazing a lonely trail in a field that many consider to be an impossible quagmire: making sense of football data. I'm really proud of the fact that we've been a small part of their movement, and of the relationship we've developed with Aaron Schatz as a result.

That in mind, I understand if many of you feel it's high time we shift our focus to Cavs basketball, not just because the well of Browns football seems to be drying up, but because the Cavs seem to have embarked on a historic season. It's true that the Cavs will certainly be on our minds in the coming months, so to the extent that we do have blog posts to present, they will more than likely be about the Cavs. But I don't want anyone thinking that we'll be able to pour anything like the time and energy we spent on writing "Born and Raised" into Cavs coverage. We were already over-extending ourselves with Browns content, and I can't stress enough how important it is to us that anything we publish be something unique, of which we can take full ownership. This may seem like a cop out, but we've never been able to just "drum up" Cavs content (and we only managed to force ourselves to "drum up" Browns content—often weak Browns content—thanks to the arbitrary rules of the "Born and Raised" format). Our enthusiasm for the Cavs is on an upswing right now, but that alone doesn't mean we can promise to have unique insights. All my favorite posts of the last three years or so were things that just popped into our heads one day, and I honestly can't predict when the next big idea will hit us. Could be tomorrow, could be next month.

In closing, thank you so much to every loyal fan of "Born and Raised" and of our blog in general. This is not the death of "Born and Raised"—with the pressure now off, who knows—it might be quite fun to resurrect the feature some day, especially if the Browns become good again (I know, ha ha). I hope you'll continue reading our much-less-frequent but hopefully just-as-interesting musings, starting with some Cavs coverage just as soon as inspiration strikes (or on LeBron Day 2008, whichever comes first).

With much love,
Corey and Alex

Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns: Week 12

2008-11-28T00:48:00.018-05:00

I hope you all had a lovely Thanksgiving, as we did. I stuffed my face with mom's famous vegan turducken, Alex got into a huge political argument with Marxist Uncle Leopold, and Cousin Ahtyba reprised last year's puppet show about the first Thanksgiving (now with laser effects!).

Anyway, this will be another short "Born and Raised," but then, it was a game we all want to forget as quickly as possible. Take it away, hermano:

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: My biggest problem with Romeo Crennel this week—besides the fact that on every single play, it seemed that every Texans receiver was open—is his decision to bench Brady Quinn and reinsert Derek Anderson as the starting quarterback. If it had been a matter of Quinn's finger injury, that'd preclude all of my complaints and I'd have to find something else to complain about. But no, during the post-game press conference, Crennel came out and said it, he thought playing Anderson would give the team their best chance at winning.

If that's true, and Crennel really did believe Anderson would give the Browns a spark, he knows less about football than I'd ever imagined. He may know even less about football than me. To think that changing quarterbacks in the middle of a game can inspire a team to completely remake itself is to get all of your football knowledge from SportsCenter and Remember the Titans. There is so much more complexity and nuance to why teams win; it's simply astonishing to hear supposedly one of the thirty two best football coaches in the entire world say that he thinks going back to Derek Anderson would lead to victory.

(And if it's not true, then I can't help but question Crennel's absolute lack of judgment. Why lie like that? Just come out and say Quinn was injured, for God's sake! It would save you a heap of trouble.)

It's obvious that Crennel knows his job is on the line and that he's doing everything in his power to keep from losing it. Crennel has a bunch of levers in front of him and he's started pulling wildly on all of them to see which combination works best. This will only become more exaggerated as the season mercifully draws to a close. Unfortunately, Crennel doesn't seem to see the actual, significant levers right in front of his face. He's going to town on the ones that an unsophisticated football mind would think matter. And he's ignoring the ones that could actually matter—hence another week of both disgusting offensive and defensive performances. That's not change. That's more of the same!

How else could someone think that going back to Derek Anderson was the solution? The city of Cleveland had very recently seen Anderson quarterback the 2008 Browns for eight games and the verdict was unanimous: he stunk. That's why it was so great (and so un-Crennel-like) when Anderson was replaced by Quinn in the middle of the season. So when Quinn is having a bad week and the offensive is spinning its wheels, you mix up some other aspect of the offense. Maybe it's not a personnel issue. Maybe you try attack more vertically. Maybe you throw to your running backs more often (an actual team strength). But going back to the very same guy who put your job in jeopardy in the first place... that's not change. That's more of the same!

Now that Quinn is done for the year with a broken finger and the Browns are stuck with Anderson as their starter, Crennel has no choice but to find some other levers to mess with. It's still possible he'll find the right combinations and the team will start clicking. But even if that happens, it's clear beyond a shadow of doubt now that Crennel isn't just overly cautious when it comes to coaching, he's just not good. In fact, I'd say he's pretty bad, and incompetent to boot.

Other, and Lesser, Idiot of the Week

Alex says: Normally I would let my Crennel rant stand alone for rhetorical power, but I can't forgive Rich Gannon for making the most unforgivable (and in this case, stupidest) sin of statistics: confusing correlation for causation. CBS threw up a graphic early in the game that any reasonable person should immediately have recognized as ridiculous. It showed that, since 2006, Jamal Lewis's team was 20-1, or something like that, when he had twenty or more carries in a game. I had always assumed that these kinds of stats were whipped up by someone in the graphics department who doesn't actually know anything about football, so thegraphic's idiocy was forgivable. But, later in the game, when Gannon suggested that the Browns just needed to give Lewis the ball more often to win, I was hoping Kevin Harlan would slam Gannon's head into the desk for saying something so idiotic. There is no such thing a "magic number" of carries for a running back. I shouldn't even have to explain why; in fact, I refuse to do so on principle.

Corey adds: You can't explain it; it's a magic number! You hit that 20th carry, and maaaagiiiic occurs! (But seriously, read that article Alex links to. You won't regret it.)

Something Else of the Week

Corey says: The Browns have had a serious problem with receiver depth this year, as we all know, but this week, I felt like I was taking crazy pills (especially in the secondhalf) as they forced pass after pass in to Braylon Edwards, not even looking for any other open guys. Quinn's first interception, for example, was just a horrible decision; Braylon wasn't even close to being open, whereas other men (Heiden and/or Harrison, maybe?) seemed to be wide open. Between Quinn and Anderson, Edwards was targeted 16 times, accounting for exactly half the Browns' pass attempts. If Edwards were having much success, that would be okay, but he only caught 5 of those 16 passes, and was the target on all three intercepted passes.

Not to suggest that Quinn and Anderson are blameless in this, but to me, it's another example of poor coaching, weather the blame rests with Crennel or Rob Chudzinski. Sure, Donte' Stallworth, Syndric Steptoe and co. have been awful as receivers this year, but so has Edwards. Receivers are hardly as interchangeable as running backs, but in a good system, they are somewhat interchangeable. Stallworth may stink, but if he's wide open, pass to him. Anyway, it's not like the Browns don't have some alternatives. I pointed out in last week's Browns preview that while the Browns are the worst in the league when passing to their wide receivers, they're the best in the league when passing to their running backs, and as if that weren't enough, Houston is also the worst in the league at defending passes to running backs. Sure enough, on many of the cringe-worthy Edwards incompletions, Jerome Harrison or Jamal Lewis was open in the flat. All told, the Browns only targeted their running backs on 4 passing plays.

On balance, I feel the Browns' coaching problems are much more urgent when it comes to the defense than the offense. During the Chudzinski era, the offense has been more good than bad (and way better than previous Browns offenses). But this was one game in which the offensive coaching stood out as especially bad, and that's with the defense playing about as poorly as they've played all year. It's definitely past time to get rid of Crennel. But I don't think it's time to start calling for Chudzinski's head. Yet.

This Week on Josh's Cribbs

Josh and teammate Mike Adams partake in the predictable, if noble, pro athlete tradition: showing up at less fortunate people's houses to deliver Thanksgiving dinners. Adams has the screen presence of a jelly doughnut, but still, I'm intrigued by his pitch for the next reality show on Fox Sports Ohio: The Adams Show (Josh promptly suggests The Adams Family; Mike gets a little too excited over that idea, realizing that would be a better title, but oh snap, it would have to spelled with only one 'd' instead of two...). Anyway, this might have been the most boring Josh's Cribbs of the season; I'm all for charity, but there just wasn't much going on in this one.

Next week:

The Browns welcome the Indianapolis Colts to town for the 2007 AFC Pro Bowl Offense Ten-Month Reunion party, followed by a quick football contest. We'll recap all the action (eventually), on the next "Born and Raised"—don't miss it!

Browns vs. Texans Preview

2008-11-21T23:20:00.000-05:00

Oh, hello, didn't see you there. I was just previewing this Browns game. Care to join me?

En tant que toujours, the stats in this preview are taken from Football Outsiders; click here to read about how DVOA works.

Browns offense vs. Texans defense:

           CLE offense  HOU defense
total DVOA    -0.5%        26.9%
passing       -2.3%        28.6%
rushing        1.4%        25.4%

The Browns offense took another positive step last week, and now ranks 22nd (22nd passing, 18th running). So far, Brady Quinn's passes (4.1% DVOA) have been more efficient than Derek Anderson's were (-7.0%). Meanwhile, not a single Browns WR or TE has a receiving DVOA above average, whereas not a single Browns RB has a receiving DVOA below average. Check out this pass-catchin' posse and tell me if you detect a pattern:

player    pos  passes  rec. DVOA
Harrison   RB    11      59.2%
Lewis      RB    20      41.5%
Vickers    FB     8      32.3%
Wright     RB    14       8.8%
Heiden     TE    27      -4.1%
Winslow    TE    73      -5.9%
Edwards    WR    86     -19.3%
Cribbs     WR     7     -21.4%
Stallworth WR    24     -40.7%
Steptoe    WR    27     -42.7%

The Houston defense, it should be pointed out, sucks. They rank 30th overall; 27th against the pass and 32nd against the run. Yes, they're the worst run defense in football, and they're also very consistent in their suckiness (they rank 2nd in defensive variance, with 2.2%) but the best news—and the reason I showed you that table of individual Browns receiving DVOAs—is that Houston ranks dead last in defending passes to RBs (47.0%). Now I say the Browns better try to exploit this, dagnabbit. Otherwise, why am I even writing these previews? Advantage: Browns

Texans offense vs. Browns defense:

           HOU offense  CLE defense
total DVOA     8.9%        13.1%
passing       11.1%        19.6%
rushing        6.2%         7.6%

A mixed performance in Buffalo has the Browns defense ranked 24th in DVOA, up one spot from last week. They rank 22nd against the pass and 23rd against the run. And they won't have it so easy this week, as the Texans rank 12th in offensive DVOA; 15th passing and 8th rushing. Quarterback Matt Schaub is very efficient, holding the 4th-highest completion percentage (68.8%) among qualified QBs. A large portion of his passes are going to go to WR Andre Johnson, who has been targeted 107 times, the 2nd-most of any player in the NFL. But Johnson, with his receiving DVOA of 18.1% (to rank 13th among qualified WRs) isn't even the most efficient pass catcher on the team. WR Ken Walter (21.6%, targeted 61 times) and TE Owen Daniels (20.4%, targeted 67 times) are equally dangerous. Also, here's an interesting fact from Football Outsiders' weekly Numbers Crunching column:

Houston throws up the middle 33 percent of the time, more often than any other team. Cleveland's defense faces passes up the middle 31 percent of the time, more often than any other defense in the AFC.

That's the kind of thing the Browns defensive game planners are supposed to know (from studying game film, if not from looking at numbers—that would be too much to ask). But we'll see. Advantage: Texans

Special teams matchups:

                        Browns    Texans
total DVOA                6.2%      3.9%
FG kicking                7.8       4.3
CLE kickoff vs. HOU KR   -3.3      -6.9
CLE KR vs. HOU kickoff   10.1       6.6
CLE punt vs. HOU PR       6.4      11.3
CLE PR vs. HOU punt       2.0      -1.2

The Browns took a big hit in this week's special teams rankings. They now rank just 3rd in overall special teams DVOA, and their legendary kick return team now ranks just 4th. Meanwhile, the kickoff team took the biggest plunge; they now rank just 24th. The field goal kicking of Le Fils d'Awesome continues to impress; the Browns have risen to 2nd in that category. Also, the punt team has risen to 4th. Meanwhile, the Texans are quite solid on special teams (5th overall), all thanks to a 2nd-ranked punt return team and a tied-for-3rd kickoff team; of course, those two units will have to face a pair of the Browns' strongest units. Advantage: Browns

The Browns edge the Texans in overall team DVOA (-7.4% to -14.1%) and in overall weighted DVOA (-4.5% to -12.5%). That plus the home field advantage means the Browns should rightly be expected to prevail in this one. Enjoy, everybody!

Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns: Week 11

2008-11-20T22:48:00.001-05:00

That was an ugly game. It's late, Corey's next preview will be dropping soon, so let's just get to it, right? Great!

Play of the Week

Alex says: How about Brady Quinn's ~~interception~~ incompletion late in the fourth quarter? Thankfully replays made clear that the nose of the ball touched the ground, because otherwise I would've thrown my TV out the window. Challenging that call may have been Romeo Crennel's most inspired coaching moment of the week. That the Browns then went on to do absolutely nothing on that drive and and punted only 1:31 later and then the Bills immediately and easily drove for a touchdown shouldn't cast a shadow on that wondrous challenge.

Corey says: Mercifully, there's a handful of plays that could qualify for this honor, but predictably, I'm going with the obvious one: Jerome Harrison's 72-yard touchdown run early in the fourth quarter. Normally on a long running play, I would endeavor to assign most of the credit to the various blockers who cleared the ball carrier's path, but this run only really required two blocks (from Steve Heiden and Charles Ali), and both of those were at the line of scrimmage, and anyway, I'm not even positive that both of them were necessary for Harrison to reach the open field. Rather, what made the long run possible was the fact that much of the Buffalo defense was focused on the other side of the field, either because of misdirection or just bad planning on Buffalo's part. Either way, it was an awesome play, and maybe it will convince the Browns coaches to give Harrison a slightly larger role in the future.

Player of the Week

Alex says: We all knew he'd be Rubin of the Week when he snatched up a fumble in the second half, but who'd have thought Ahtyba Rubin would be Player of the Week, too? I mean Obscure Brown of the Week, sure, but just happening to be in the right place at the right time during a mildly important play... that's not Player of the Week material. Except this week! Save one badly underused running back (who Corey covers), there wasn't much individual accomplishment this week. Benefitting from others' mistakes, that's how we Rubins do it!

Corey says: Several Browns had good games, albeit with limited opportunities. I would go with Phil Dawson, whose field goal kicking continues to dominate beyond our wildest predictions, except that a few of his kickoffs were embarrassingly short, wind or no wind. So I'm going with Jerome Harrison, even though he only got four touches, because three of those touches resulted in highly successful outcomes: a 9-yard run, a 72-yard run, and a 21-yard catch. All in all, a highly efficient performance for Harrison. While he doesn't have enough carries this year to qualify for the main RB rankings, Harrison's rushing DVOA of 91.3% is now the highest of any RB in football, and his receiving DVOA of 59.2% is pretty awesome, too.

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: Right before Rian Lindell's potentially game-winning field goal attempt, I'm sure most Browns fans were feeling pretty pessimistic—or at the very least anxious. But not me, because I knew that the Browns have excellent field goal defense. And I'm not just talking about just blocking them—as Shaun Rogers did against Jacksonville—but also creating an atmosphere of missing. Which is precisely what they did on Sunday, and of course Lindell missed. I only have the number updated through this week's game, but the Browns now rank third in special teams DVOA. If you include things like "opponent field goal efficiency, opponent kickoff length, and opponent punt length" then they would rank first!

Corey says: All things considered, this was probably the worst special teams performance the Browns have had all season, especially for the kickoff and kickoff return units, but even so, the Browns didn't the lose the overall special teams battle by much, thanks to Phil Dawson's amazing field goal kicking and the yeoman's work done by the punt team. My Special Teams Moment of the Week is the Browns' second punt of the game, a 65-yarder (!) that Mike Adams gracefully downed at the Bills' 1-yard line (!). If you had to pick the most perfect punt of Dave Zastudil's career (independent of context, of course), you'd be hard-pressed to do much better than that.

Damion Cook Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week

Alex says: As is my wont, I'm going to fudge my Obscure Brown this week. Donte, excuse me, Donte' (seriously, what the hell?) Stallworth has made such a miniscule impact this season as to be relegated to Obscure Browndom. Symbolically, at least. He played absolutely Stallworthian this week: losing four yards on an end around and catching none of the three passes thrown his way. And like most great OBs, he's got an extensive official website.

Corey says: This week, Romeo Crennel accomplished the impossible: making me, the Obscure Browns guru, think to myself, "Who?" while perusing the starting lineups. That's right, Obscure Brown Travis Daniels was listed as the starter at cornerback in place of the recently-demoted Brandon McDonald. It's rare that a real, live Obscure Brown gets the start at an offensive or defensive position, let alone a player that I only vaguely recall having heard of before, and who had to have played pretty well, since his name hardly came up during the game itself. Congrats, Romeo!

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: It's hard to believe that there are Browns fans who read this blog yet haven't heard about this yet. Not to pile on, but seriously, fuck the heck?

Something Else of the Week

Corey says: Like most of you (I suspect), I was thrilled to watch the Browns grab three interceptions early in the first quarter, but later dismayed to watch the same defense surrender long runs (and runs after the catch) to Marshawn Lynch and co., due to what looked like an inability to execute basic tackling. With those three early interceptions, the Browns basically took a large chunk of the Bills' playbook off the table (so to speak), as Trent Edwards showed he was going to limit himself to short, safe passes. (I was reminded of last year's Browns-Bills game, when the blizzard conditions caused Buffalo to impose essentially the same restriction.) This should have been a much greater advantage for the Browns defense than it turned out to be, and it makes the second-half tackling woes all the more frustrating.

That said, I'm not [as] convinced [as most Browns fans] that "lack of fundamentals," e.g. proper tackling, is the real root of the Browns' problems on defense. The Browns defense has been ineffective since the start of the Crennel era, and it hasn't always been possible for us to point to missed tackles as the culprit. A truly great NFL defense makes those tackles in the open field when such is required, sure, but more importantly, a great defense doesn't allow its opponent to get the ball in the open field in the first place. And I think this has more to do with game planning than with personnel. At the least, it has a lot to do with designing a gameplan (or scheme) that fits the personnel on hand. Ultimately, I think Romeo Crennel and his defensive coordinators have failed to design a scheme that works, and they've failed to show signs of adaptability. When the Bills came out with their watered-down, no-interceptions offense, the Browns defense should have adapted better, taking away all of those short dump-offs to Marshawn Lynch; forget about tackling him once he gets the ball in the open field.

Numb3r of the Week

Alex says: 30.8%, or—surprisingly enough—the Bills' success percentage on passes to a running back. A success, you should remember, is 45% of needed yards on first down, 60% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs. My impression immediately following the game, and all the way until I compiled the numbers, is that the Browns defense was absolutely butchered by Marshawn Lynch and Fred Jackson in the passing game. Turns out Jackson was targeted just once, on a play that was nullified by penalty, and that only four of the thirteen passes to Lynch were successful in the end. Shows what I know. Still though, there were some near misses, like three yards on 2nd-and-6, and the successes were really brutal, like first downs on 3rd-and-10. I definitely don't want to compliment the defense, but we may be able to step away from the brink a bit.

This Week on Josh's Cribbs

Corey says: This week, Josh visits the Lake Erie Monsters' training facility in Strongsville, where he's given a crash course in all things hockey. Josh is amazed to learn that minor league hockey players have to prepare their own equipment, which apparently includes doing something to their sticks requiring a saw and a blow torch. Later, Josh is "privileged" to hitch a ride on a Zamboni machine. Later still, they let Josh suit up in his own #16 Monsters jersey (plus about 145 pounds of pads) and head out onto the ice. Josh doesn't don skates, however; he walks out on the ice in his regular footwear (supposedly to avoid an ankle injury). The Monsters players good-naturedly rib Josh for his absolutely pathetic stick skills. Then Josh puts on a few goalie pads and casually deflects a couple of slow-moving pucks. Finally, in an attempt to humiliate Josh even further, the Monsters players (or possibly the Josh's Cribbs producers) grab a young figure skater who happens to be practicing at the other end of the rink, and tell her to attempt a few shots on Cribbs' goal. Sufficed to say, neither the figure skater nor the Pro Bowl kick returner comes out looking especially good.

Next week:

The Houston Texans return to frozen Cleveland, Ohio as the Browns once again feast on the one team in the N.F.L. they've been able to consistently beat since 1999. (Besides Cincinnati, but they're not technically in the N.F.L.) We'll be here, copying and pasting bits from our Week 12, 2007 post in the next zany edition of Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns!