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.

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?

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.

1. 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).
   
   
2. 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...
   
   
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.
   
   
4. 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.

1. 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).
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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!

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?

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.

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.

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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%).
   
   
4. 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:

1. 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%).
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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!

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)

¹ Smith 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.

² I 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.

⁴ Al 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.

⁵ This 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'."

⁶ I'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...").

⁸ I 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.

¹⁰ Jawad 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!

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.