A good never-ending source of sports writing fodder is your run-of-the-mill "Which city has the worst fans?" debate. Philadelphia usually "wins", and given the Pistons-Pacers fight from last year, Detroit has been another popular choice recently. The general consensus on Cleveland is murky. After Bottlegate in 2001, pundits pointed to Browns fans (and the Dawg Pound in particular) as heinous examples of fans so passionate for their home team that they had run amok--thereby ruining the very thing they love. How ironic.

Thankfully, the furor has since died down but an opposing position on fan behavior has been gaining steam since the Indians began to rebuild. Jacobs Field, which once sold out entire seasons in a matter of hours, now stood largely empty as the Tribe painfully started over from scratch. The diehards berated the no-shows, "How could you? How dare you abandon this team, you fair weather fan!" Apparently, at this time, Cleveland had bad fans of another sort: ones who were apathetic and without loyalty.

All these criticisms raise a question everyone happily ignores: what makes a good fan? The answer probably seems pretty obvious, even though it's never spoken. But just for kicks, I attempted to divine a universal code of conduct for fans, one such that if followed, your city will never again show up on anyone's "Worst Fans" list.

1. Indiscriminately throwing away money no matter the potential return
2. Attending the entire contest, and during that time, paying attention
3. Being overwhelmingly positive and polite
4. Optional: Fostering a sense of brotherhood with the other fans

There are other factors that I don't list, such as being knowledgeable or rabidly following the team even when not in attendance, that in the end, I eliminated for brevity's sake (You know, brevity is very needy and demanding). Personally, I find Rule #3-4 to be good guidelines and it would be difficult (and probably anti-social) to mount an argument against calling being nice a good thing.

You probably saw this coming from the way I worded it, but I take exception to Rule #1. This guideline basically holds that fans owe it to the team to buy tickets, pay for stadiums, et cetera, et cetera. I confess I was inspired by Steven Goldman's hilarious article on the same topic from Baseball Prospectus. His writing is light years better than my own, but I'll still attempt my feeble summary: baseball, and other professional sports, are simply forms of entertainment. Teams should compete for the fans dollar with an entertaining product.

In this sense, fans owe nothing by ways of loyalty to franchises. Expecting Clevelanders to turn out for the 68-94 Tribe of 2003 because they were so awesome from 1994 to 2001 is as crazy as expecting people to buy tickets for The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D because Kill Bill: Vol. 1 was so darn good, and you know what, I really like Miramax.

I used to believe that the apathetic fans were not just reflecting poorly on Cleveland, but actually hurting the team itself. I hope we all agree by now that you don't need a $100M payroll to compete in the major leagues, but more money never hurt a team. Those lost ticket sales would really have helped the team out, but so it goes. In reality, I'm sure the Indians understood the effects a massive overhaul of the roster would have on attendance and cash flow--so this is by no means an indictment on the Indians for failing to entertain me, the fan. After last season's stretch run, I expect Jacobs Field to be crowded this season. The fans show up if you can please them.

I certainly can't say that neither good nor bad fans exist. Clearly, they do--but it's simply a matter of in-house behavior and self-control: cheering, good; throwing things, bad; booing, ambiguous. But a fan who refuses to spend money on an inferior product is definitely not bad, no matter how much I want Jacobs Field to be sold out every night. They just have their own system of judging the so-called "bang for your buck". Being loyal and being frugal are independent qualities.

Well, Alex and I did our best previewing the AL Central for the online radio show/podcast Sports Bloggers Live. It seemed to go by fairly quickly; I didn't get to say a quarter of what I thought I would. We were on right before noted sports expert Jon Lovitz (yes, that Jon Lovitz). Anyway, if you want to hear it, you can still listen to the whole show here, or you can hear just our segment here, or you can download an mp3 of the whole show by clicking here.

I think we'll probably have some kind of more interesting, in-depth Indians preview up on the blog sometime in the next week.

It appears that Alex and I will be on Sports Bloggers Live, an internet-based radio-type show, tonight (Monday) at 7:30 ET (or thereafter), participating in a discussion of some sort about the 2006 AL Central.

Therefore, if you would like to hear our silky smooth voices explaining why the Indians are better than the White Sox, go to Sports Bloggers Live at around 7:30 ET tonight.

In case Alternate Universe Rosters just wasn't enough, and inspired by the Browns' recent spate of free agent signings, here is one more trio of alternate universe rosters.

Cleveland Area Born-N-Raised Basketball All-Stars:

• PG: Earl Boykins
• SG: Ruben Patterson
• SF: LeBron James
• PF: Charles Oakley
• C: John Edwards
• Bench: Eric Snow, James Posey, Keith McLeod, Jawad Williams, J.R. Bremer

Just so you know, to make things most interesting, we've defined the "Cleveland area" as anything within a 2-hour drive of downtown (according to Google Maps), even though Alex and I have been known to joke to some of our Geauga County friends that the eastern boundary of civilization is Brainard Road. Thus, Youngstown is in play, but Toledo is not. As for the lineup of Cleveland-area hoopsters... well, with LeBron, all things are possible. But the team would have serious, serious frontcourt issues. We would even have to suit up a 42-year-old Charles Oakley. On the other hand, Cleveland seems to have been a breeding ground for point guards, with former Cavs Boykins and Bremer joining Canton McKinley alumni McLeod and Snow as point guard options.

Cleveland Area Born-N-Raised Baseball All-Stars:

• C: Paul O'Toole
• 1B: Damon Minor
• 2B: Matt Kata
• SS: Brian Bixler
• 3B: LeBron James
• LF: Bobby Kingsbury
• CF: Brad Snyder
• RF: Anthony Miller
• DH: Jim Leyritz
• SP: Brett Tomko, Jensen Lewis, Dave Mlicki, Clint Nageotte, Jeremy Griffiths
• RP: Andrew Brown, Matt Guerrier, Gary Glover, Marc Wilkins, Carmen Cali, Mark Malaska

Led by Indians prospects Brad Snyder, Jensen Lewis and Andrew Brown, this team would be unstoppable! All-world third basemen LeBron James would supply the power while wily gamers like Matt Kata and Damon Minor would lend invaluable clubhouse presence. If we could just coax Dave Mlicki and Jim Leyritz out of retirement, everything would fall into place. Seriously, though, I've never heard of most of these guys either. They're mostly single-A burnouts. The best player on the roster is probably Snyder or Brett Tomko. The only victory this team could hope for would be against, like, the South African national team. Then again, with LeBron, all things are possible.

Cleveland Area Born-N-Raised Football All-Stars:

• QB: Charlie Frye
• HB: Tony Fisher
• FB: Jerald Sowell
• WR: Chris Chambers, Lee Evans, Joe Jurevicius, LeBron James
• TE: Ben Hartsock
• C: LeCharles Bentley
• G: Jacob Bell, Rob Sims
• T: Orlando Pace, Tarik Glenn
• DE: Hugh Douglas, Rodney Bailey
• DT: Kenny Peterson, Omari Jordan
• MLB: Mike Vrabel, London Fletcher, Matt Wilhelm
• OLB: James Harrison
• CB: Nate Clements, Charles Woodson, Antoine Winfield
• S: Mike Doss, Kim Herring
• K: Jeff Wilkins
• P: Dave Zastudil

This team, inspired (and led) by recent Browns additions LeCharles Bentley, Joe Jurevicius, and Dave Zastudil, is absolutely loaded, and this time I am being serious. Cleveland is apparently a hotbed for wide receiving talent (we had to cut Drew Carter, David Givens, and Ted Ginn Jr. from the team, and that was even after including two more receivers than we'd planned). The area has also been a breeding ground for centers (we had to cut Andy McCollum, Browns signee Bob Hallen, and Alex Stepanovich) and defensive backs (we had to cut Keiwan Ratliff, Kelly Herndon, Donnie Nickey, and Anthony Mitchell). Perhaps the greatest strength would be the offensive line, with Orlando Pace and Tarik Glenn anchoring the tackle positions and Bentley in the middle. The linebacking corps is also particularly strong, with three credible starters at middle linebacker. And of course, with all-world wideout LeBron James, all things are possible.

Corey's comments regarding Orpheus Roye in the most recent edition of The Jersey Numbers, raise an interesting, yet confounding, question: Who has been the MVP of the first seven years of the New Browns? What makes this difficult to answer are the ungodly lows and lowly highs experienced by the team since 1999. I've been known to argue that Chris Gardocki has been the most valuable Brown of the past seven seasons. It just seems that anyone with talent or promise quickly becomes injured (Jamir Miller, Courtney Brown, etc.), and those that stay for an extended period of time can only be solid role players at best (Orpheus Roye, Tim Couch, etc.). Anyways, I'm curious to see if I can use the Football Outsiders' statistics in any way to help determine (at least) the greatest strength of the franchise since its return, and hopefully the MVP too.

Unfortunately, outside of skill positions, FO doesn't have individual player statistics. Let's take a look at how the three units (offense, defense, and special teams) stacked up each season, included are both their DVOA and respective rank among NFL teams:

      ODVOA Rk  DDVOA Rk STDVOA Rk
1999 -20.9% 25  18.4% 31  -7.3% 30
2000 -31.9% 30  11.8% 25  -1.7% 30
2001 -22.9% 30 -22.1%  2  -3.1% 26
2002  -6.4% 26  -1.2% 14   2.3% 10
2003 -12.7% 27  -4.0% 12   0.9% 15
2004 -11.9% 27   9.7% 24   2.3% 12
2005 -13.8% 25   6.1% 24   4.4%  5

The only real "strength" of the franchise has been steadily improving special teams and wildly fluctuating defenses. Therefore, I think we can now throw any offensive player right out of the discussion. No matter how consistent Kevin Johnson was, or how uh... many snaps Tim Couch took, the offense undeniably sucked in a Michael Stewart kind of way. Think of it this way, if the best player were on the offense, for the team rankings to be so low, the rest of the offense would have to have been magnitudes worse than what anyone has ever thought before. And that would be a tough pill to swallow.

Having narrowed the field a bit, let's get on with Tablemania! Here is a breakdown of the Browns defenses against the run versus against the pass:

       Pass Rk    Run Rk
1999  18.3% 28  18.4% 31
2000  12.4% 23  11.3% 27
2001 -42.7%  1   0.4% 21
2002  -6.5% 12   4.3% 19
2003 -11.7%  7   4.3% 22
2004   5.9% 21  12.9% 30
2005   1.4% 21  10.9% 27

Not once have the Browns defended the rush better than the pass, which doesn't surprise me. Outside of Jamir Miller's sack-wacky 2001, I can't remember the Browns having much of a defensive front seven presence. Right now, I'm a little tempted to name someone in the secondary, or maybe a linebacker as the MVP. Let's just get the breakdown of special teams out of the way now too (these are in DPAR however, not DVOA, and without rankings):

     FG/XP KICK    KR  PUNT    PR
1999   2.1 -0.1 -18.5 -10.5 -13.3
2000   0.3 -3.9  -2.8   6.9  -9.9
2001   3.7 -1.6  -6.7   0.0 -12.6
2002  -2.4  2.0   1.9   5.1   6.3
2003   1.9  4.3   0.4   5.9  -7.6
2004   3.3 -0.9  -4.9  17.0  -2.0
2005   5.1  4.3   8.8   6.3   0.2

Normally, I would launch into an ode to the greatness of Leigh Bodden right about now, but I'll try to hold back. Let it suffice to say that last year the Browns were good against the pass (especially #2 receivers) and in 2004, with Leigh as gunner-extraordinaire, the Browns punt coverage skillz were mind-bendingly amazing.

Here's the part where I tell you that these team-wide statistics are too blunt a tool to judge the best player on the team. Case in point: Orpheus Roye has been a consistent and dependable defensive lineman for six seasons now, yet the Browns have been consistently bad (if not awful) at what defensive linemen are supposed to do, stopping the run and pressuring the quarterback. (As an aside, I just cringed using those superfluous definite articles. Why can't we just say "stopping runs" and "pressuring quarterbacks"?) This might be, either because Orpheus isn't as good as generally believed, or the rest of the Browns front seven has been incredibly awful and the defense has managed its meager results only thanks to Orpheus. Personally, I lean towards the former. Sure, Roye has been better than the other options the Browns have had at DE and DT, but the fact remains that the Browns have been failing precisely at what Orpheus should be doing well. Nevertheless, he is still a good player (even to me) and I'm glad he's on the team.

To be honest, the best aspect to the Browns has been special teams; and the specialest team of special teams has been that of field goal and extra point kicking. It's been the most reliable source of positive value on the team since 2000. I hesitate to name Phil Dawson the MVP on this alone, for a couple reasons. Firstly, even if Dawson was the best kicker in the NFL (which he isn't), he'd still only be involved in a fraction of the plays non-special teamers are. Secondly, the FG/XP numbers are basically all Phil. No other player (save a bad snap, haha, yeah right) could believably screw up the kicking game. This makes Phil look good. But, other good players don't receive this same nice treatment. Say the team has one really good guard and the other four linemen are lousy. The rushing game will still stink, even though that good guard deserves a lot of praise--his good performance is masked by the stinkitude of the other four clowns.

This has been a lot of writing to basically say, I don't know who the Browns MVP has been. I'm pretty certain it's not an offensive player, and the defense hasn't been too impressive either. If you're comfortable with it, you might have to choose a player with a "high peak" over one with "longevity" to determine who has given the Browns the most value. Essentially, which is better: three years of Jamir Miller, or six of Orpheus Roye? I lean towards choosing the high peaking players like Miller, since the longest lasting New Browns have not been wildly talented. I haven't come up with anything close to being definitive, but I've at least clarified my own opinion on the matter a great deal. I now believe the top candidates to be Jamir Miller, Orpheus Roye, and Phil Dawson. Give me one more season of Leigh Bodden, and being the push-over that I am, he might have to be included on that list too. I hope this has helped you too at least sort through the possibilities.

Update: I foolishly originally overlooked Daylon McCutcheon as a possible MVP candidate. But thanks to the keen eye of loyal reader Matt, I can add Daylon into the discussion for Browns MVP. He is another in the Orpheus role, except Daylon receives even less praise than Roye does. However, Cutch plays in the secondary, the apparent strength of the defense. I think Daylon deserves to be mentioned, but is a lesser candidate compared to Miller, Dawson, or Roye.

Believe it--it's Part 10 in my 10-part series on jersey numbers and the Cleveland athletes who wear them. It's been an unnecessarily long journey (though this will not quite be the end of the series, since I'll probably write some kind of giant wrap-up sometime soon).

First, here are links to the previous 9 installments, in case you need a refresher:

1. The Jersey Numbers: 0 to 9
2. The Jersey Numbers: 10 to 19
3. The Jersey Numbers: 20 to 29
4. The Jersey Numbers: 30 to 39
5. The Jersey Numbers: 40 to 49
6. The Jersey Numbers: 50 to 59
7. The Jersey Numbers: 60 to 69
8. The Jersey Numbers: 70 to 79
9. The Jersey Numbers: 80 to 89

For now, we are left to ponder that most neglected of jersey number segments. In Indians history, no one has worn a number in the 90's. Likewise, only one Cavalier has ever donned a number this high (Drew Gooden). And since NFL regulations only began to allow these jersey numbers around 1979 or 1980, we don't have many players to choose from. You'll just have to bear with me on a few of these.

Ladies and gentlemen, here are your honorees:

#90 - Rob Burnett

Browns, '90-'95

One of the strengths of the Belichick defense of the early 90's, Rob Burnett tallied 40.5 sacks in six seasons before the franchise left town. In 1994, with 10 sacks, he was one of six Browns to make the Pro Bowl. As a Raven, Burnett's sack totals suffered a drop-off, although his playing time remained constant. Despite a career high 10.5 sacks in the fluke Super Bowl year of 2000, he managed only 26.5 sacks in six seasons in Baltimore. Must've been something about that Cleveland air.

Runners-up: Edgar Jones (Browns, '46-'49): teamed with Marion Motley to form the "dream backfield" of the AAFC years. Drew Gooden (Cavaliers, '05-'06): has been one of the best rebounders in the NBA in his two seasons in Cleveland.

#91 - Sam Clancy

Browns, '85-'88

Probably the only athlete whose road to the NFL took him from NCAA basketball to the CBA (after being drafted by the Phoenix Suns), then to the NFL as a tight end, then to the USFL as a defensive end, then, finally, to Cleveland, where the Browns employed him during the height of the Kosar era. In four seasons (backing up and then splitting time with DE Reggie Camp), Clancy had 14 sacks. And no, he has not finally made it to the NBA some twenty-five years late as a power forward for the Trail Blazers; that's his son.

Runners-up: Henry Bradley (Browns, '79-'82): started at nose tackle for a couple seasons.

#92 - Michael Dean Perry

Browns, '88-'94

If Michael Dean had been the Perry brother to be named after a popular kitchen appliance, few would remember William. Michael Dean was probably the superior player. Certainly, he was better in the pass rush, totaling 61 sacks (to Fridge's 29.5), 51.5 of them as a Brown. In Perry's 7 seasons in Cleveland, he made the Pro Bowl roster 5 times. I don't know the exact rankings for making-the-Pro-Bowl percentage among Cleveland Browns, but Perry's 71% has got to be near the top (behind Jim Brown's 100%, of course).

Runners-up: Tom Colella (Rams, '44-'45, Browns, '46-'48): was a key member of the 1945 NFL champion Cleveland Rams, but didn't don #92 until joining the Browns the following year in the AAFC.

#93 - Stalin Colinet

Browns, '99-'01

No, this is not a joke. Stalin Colinet, onetime namesake of the "Stalin Colinet Memorial Obscure Brown of the Week" award, is the greatest Cleveland athlete ever to wear the number 93 on his jersey. Who can forget his legendary 2000 season, in which he appeared in 16 games! Or his memorable follow-up campaign, in which he appeared in 5 more games before being traded to Minnesota! Colinet's greatest achievement, though, was being named after a dictator. Said Stalin in a July 2000 interview, "My father said they used to refer to Stalin as the man of steel. He didn't worship him or anything. We weren't Communists."

Runners-up: Michael Myers (Browns, '03-'04): was a backup on the defensive line for a season and a half. Jerry Ball (Browns, '93, '99): had a 3-game return stint in Cleveland in the last season of his long career.

#94 - Gerard Warren

Browns, '01-'04

Hey, now we're talking! Sure, Big Money underachieved while he was in Cleveland, but isn't the important thing that he became the best Brown ever to wear #94? He even went on to try to repeat the feat wearing #61, but his pursuit of Mike Baab was cut short by a trade. Seriously, though, Gerard may not be too popular among Browns fans, and his seeming success so far in Denver can only add salt to the wound, but the fact remains, even in mediocrity he was more valuable to the Browns in his four seasons than any of the obscurities who wore #94 before him.

Runners-up: Bill Johnson (Browns, '92-'94): backed up at DE and DT for three seasons. Elvis Franks (Browns, '80-'84): played defensive end in the early 80's.

#95 - Jamir Miller

Browns, '99-'01

The candidates for MVP of the first seven seasons of the New Browns are not entirely self-evident. Jamir Miller figures into the discussion somewhere, though I don't really think he's the guy. Despite a high peak (ie: being the only New Brown to make a Pro Bowl, in 2001), his tenure was brief. Miller, of course, was cut down in his prime by an injury--and I do mean prime, as his 13 sacks in 2001 was more than double his previous career high. Jamir had us all going banoodles! Who knows where the Browns defense would be today had Miller been able to contribute in 2002 and beyond? For now, he'll have to be content with this prestigious honor.

Runners-up: Marlon Jones (Browns, '87-'89): appeared in 25 games as a backup defensive lineman.

#96 - Reggie Camp

Browns, '83-'87

Honestly, I don't know what I can tell you about Reggie Camp, a four-year starter at left defensive end in the 80's, other than he was probably better than Kenard Lang. There is not a single mention of Camp in any of my usual sources; all I have are his career sack and games played totals. And unfortunately I'm just not quite old enough to remember the guy. Realizing that sack totals are a terrible statistic to judge an entire career by, I'm going with Camp over Lang because, in 70 games rushing the passer for the Browns he compiled 35 sacks (not missing a single game in his first four years), while Lang, in 62 games as a Brown, has compiled only 22.5 sacks. It's not much, but it'll have to do.

Runners-up: Kenard Lang (Browns, '02-'05): has been adequate-to-good so far as a lineman and linebacker. James Jones (Browns, '91-'94): played defensive tackle during the Belichick years.

#97 - Ryan Kuehl

Browns, '99-'02

You probably thought a long snapper could never be named the best anything... but you forgot, this is Cleveland--where long snappers reign like kings! Before there was Pontbriand, there was Kuehl--possibly the NFL's greatest long snapper (I mean, who would know?). Though he dabbled as a defensive lineman in Washington (thus the jersey number), by the time he joined the Browns he was basically a pure special teamer. He is notable for, uh... not being notable, which is what a long snapper strives to do.

Runners-up: Robert Banks (Browns, '89-'90): played backup end for 30 games in the late 80's. Alvin McKinley (Browns, '01-'05): remains surprisingly anonymous despite five (going on six) seasons served.

#98 - Anthony Pleasant

Browns, '90-'95

With apologies to the true greatest #98 in Cleveland sports history, John "Big Dawg" Thompson, I'm going with an actual player on this one (not that I wasn't tempted...). Anthony Pleasant teamed with the aforementioned Rob Burnett and Michael Dean Perry for just about his entire time in Cleveland, forming an excellent front line for Bill Belichick's defense. Pleasant had probably the best season of his long career in 1993, when he had a career-high 11 sacks and recorded the only safety of his career. He ended up playing for 5 more teams after the Browns disbanded, retiring a Super Bowl champ with the Patriots, but his best years undeniably came in Cleveland.

Runners-up: Ebenezer Ekuban (Browns, '04): played one passable season before being traded to Denver.

#99 - Orpheus Roye

Browns, '00-'05

With apologies to the true greatest #99 in Cleveland sports history, Rick "Wild Thing" Vaughn, I'm going with an actual player on this one (not that I wasn't tempted...). Orpheus Roye, like Jamir Miller, is a legitimate candidate for MVP of the first seven years of the New Browns. Certainly, he's a candidate (if not the frontrunner) for defensive MVP of the New Browns. While Orpheus has certainly shown himself capable of performing as both a tackle in the 4-3 alignment and an end in the 3-4, my favorite aspect of his game has always been his ability to block the occasional kick on special teams. That, and being named Orpheus, of all things.

Runners-up: Bill Boedeker (Browns, '47-'49): joined a host of stars in the backfield during the AAFC years. Keith Baldwin (Browns, '82-'85): lined up at end for a few seasons in the early 80's.

I am loving the World Baseball Classic. Loving it! Alas, all Cleveland Indians have now been eliminated from the tourney, with Cuba's unlikely defeat of the Belliard-led Dominican Republic in the semi-final. Here's a quick survey of how the five participating Indians performed:

                  PA   H  2B  3B  HR  BB   opp.
Belliard, D.R.     8   3   1   0   0   1   81.3
Martinez, VEN     20   3   0   0   1   5  105.2
Perez, P.R.        5   1   0   0   0   1   92.2

                  IP   R   H   K  BB   opp.
Betancourt, VEN  1.2   0   0   1   1   88.6
Cabrera, P.R.    3.2   0   1   4   1   92.5

"Opp." is a quick 'n' dirty assessment I have made of strength of opposition. It's an average, on a per-at-bat or per-third-of-an-inning-pitched basis, of the quality of teams faced, using the translations from Clay Davenport's WBC preview a few weeks ago (Part I, Part II, subscription required). Thus, while Victor Martinez and Ronnie Belliard both performed excellently, Victor (105.2) probably faced tougher pitching than Ronnie (81.3).

I thought it might be interesting to know which Indians or Indians prospects would have been upgrades to their countries' rosters had they participated in the WBC. We all know C.C. Sabathia was scheduled to pitch but opted out at the last minute, prompting Team USA to select Al Leiter. While C.C. is statistically not quite as good as any of the team's three starting pitchers (Jake Peavy, Dontrelle Willis and Roger Clemens), he is certainly better than Al Leiter, so in that sense we can say that he would have been of use to the United States.

Others who would have been upgrades:

• Jhonny Peralta is probably not as good right now as Miguel Tejada, the Dominican Republic's starting shortstop, but he is certainly better than Tejada's backup, Jose Reyes. At the 2010 World Baseball Classic, Jhonny Awesomestix ought to be one of the Dominican's brightest stars.
• Grady Sizemore, had he been offered a spot, would have been Team USA's second best outfielder, by 2006 PECOTA weighted mean projection. Seriously.
• Travis Hafner wouldn't have had any defensive value to Team USA, but his bat off the bench would have been vastly superior to that of, say, Randy Winn, to name one (of many). Even as a starter, Travis would have been a far better DH than, say, Chipper Jones, who DH'd a couple of times. If the Dominican Republic could find use for David Ortiz, the United States should have found use for Hafner, who is nearly the same player.
• Jason Michaels--yes, Jason Michaels--is better than Matt Holliday, who made the U.S. squad as a backup outfielder. I'm not saying Michaels would have (or should have) made the team if it had consisted of the best possible choices, but he would have been more useful than Holliday.
• Andy Marte would have been a far better backup to Adrian Beltre of the Dominican Republic than Pedro Feliz was. Like Peralta, Marte ought to be starting for the 2010 Dominicans.
• Franklin Gutierrez is no stud, but he's a better player than Endy Chavez, who started in center field for Venezuela, according to PECOTA. Center field was probably Venezuela's weakest position.
• Fausto Carmona, I kid you not, would have been the Dominican's second best reliever (behind Francisco Liriano). Only 4 pitchers on the Dominican roster (including starters) are projected for better 2006 weighted mean WARPs than Fausto: Bartolo Colon, Daniel Cabrera, Odalis Perez, and Liriano.
• Guillermo Mota, too, is better than some of the Dominican Republic's lesser relief pitchers (guys like Robinson Tejeda, Salomon Torres, and Eude Brito). The Bisons' Francisco Cruceta is probably also better than Brito.
• Kaz Tadano, as I understand it, was snubbed by all of the Japanese pro teams before coming to America, so maybe he's not welcome on Team Japan; I wouldn't know. Regardless, I believe--though I cannot offer strong statistical evidence--that Tadano would have been an upgrade over, at the very least, Team Japan's worst pitcher. As best I can tell from Clay Davenport's WBC preview, Japan's worst pitcher is 33-year-old Soichi Fujita, whose 5.83 Defense-Adjusted ERA over the last 3 seasons is inferior to Tadano's 4.78 career major league DERA.
• Edward Mujica of the Aeros, while unproven, is probably good enough to crack Venezuela's bullpen depth chart over guys like Ricardo Palma and even Carlos Hernandez. No PECOTA projection is available for Mujica but his stats compare favorably to those guys'.
• Einar "Use Your Brainar" Diaz is no longer good enough for the major leagues, but he is better than three of the four catchers carried by Team Panama (all but Carlos Ruiz). Certainly he could have been useful for his uncanny ability to get hit by a pitch.

My Flip Murray rant of two weeks ago has begun a heated argument in our comments section. There are plenty of other topics I'd like to write about right now, but I simply can't let this Flip Murray thing go. There are a few more points I'd like to make about the Cavaliers and statistical analysis in general.

First of all, I don't think I need to dissect Murray's individual statistical profile any further. It's clear enough that "sabermetric" NBA statistics, whether you trust them or not, show Flip Murray to be horrendous, while eyewitness observation and the general consensus around Cleveland hold him to be a positive contributor. This conflict of opinions raises a worthy question. Do sabermetric stats "work" in basketball like they do in baseball?

Each and every one of us, including you, reader, whether you admit it or not, uses statistics to make our judgments about players in sports. A majority of sports fans use more traditional statistics like field goal percentage, yards per game, batting average or whatever. Many of them probably don't even do this consciously; maybe they make their judgments based indirectly on the judgments of, say, ESPN analysts--who, if you notice, use statistics (albeit primitive ones) pretty exclusively in furthering their arguments. If you are willing to admit that sabermetric NBA stats, at the very least, do a better job of judging players than traditional stats, then you must be willing to trust the judgments they pass. (And if you still think that traditional stats do a better job of analyzing the game than sabermetric stats, perhaps you should e-mail me and we can have a more in-depth conversation.)

As to the question of whether sabermetric NBA stats can analyze the game more accurately than we ourselves can by watching the games--the answer is neither yes nor no. Sure, there are things we might perceive with our eyes--that player X is freaking amazing at setting picks, for example--that no statistical analyst has yet been able to quantify. But there is also a degree to which our eyes can deceive us. In baseball, I believe the degree to which our eyes can deceive us far overshadows the small collection of things that have yet to be quantified by statistics. In basketball, because the events of the game are intertwined in a more complex manner, statistics will not be able to describe the game as absolutely as they do in baseball. That does not mean that statistics are without merit.

We may disagree about whether a player is shooting well or not, but the degree to which his shots (and the points they either produced or failed to produce) either helped or hurt his team is entirely quantifiable. In this sense, True Shooting Percentage is a perfectly valid, reliable, and yes, accurate depicter of the shooting aspect of a player's game. So, whether you like it or not, Flip Murray is a poor shooter. Now, maybe he's doing something else out on the court that stats aren't capturing, but even if he is (emphasis on "if"), at the very least, that other, unquantified thing is going to have to be pretty freaking amazing to overcome the lack of shooting ability. Shooting is, after all, one of the most important skills in basketball, probably the most important.

What, then, is that thing that Flip Murray does that we can perceive with our eyes but that no statistic can yet capture? Our readers--those that have challenged me so far--cannot seem to come to a consensus on that. It has been suggested that Flip plays with more confidence. This may be true, it may not. I don't think it can be measured by statistics or watching the games. Maybe a psychologist could tell us whether Murray has confidence, but as far as I know, no psychologists are either working with or covering Cavs basketball. At any rate, no correlation between confidence and success has ever been established. How do you know, for example, that Vitaly Potapenko isn't the most confident player in the history of the NBA? I mean, it's possible. And even if confidence does correlate to success, that success will show up in something the player does that is quantifiable. He will make more shots, for example. Or his teammates will.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you don't believe sabermetric NBA stats can help you evaluate individual players. You would still be willing to use statistics to evaluate overall team performance, would you not? Stats like Offensive and Defensive Efficiency give us very straightforward, objective, and all-encompassing measures of team offense and defense. They tell us how many points a team scores or allows per possession (actually, per 100 possessions). These metrics are boundlessly superior to points scored and allowed per game, for evaluating team performance, because those stats are very much at the whim of a team's pace factor. Portland, for example, allows 97.3 points per game (to rank 17th in the NBA) while Phoenix allows 101.3 (to rank 25th). But the Suns allow only 104.7 points per 100 possessions (to rank 7th in the NBA) while the Blazers allow 113.1 (to rank 28th). It's clear that the Suns have the better defense; it's simply that they play at a much faster pace and thus their opponents have many more possessions.

If Flip Murray's presence is helping the Cavaliers' offense, then, in any conceivable way, it means they are necessarily averaging more points per possession (or are more likely to score on any given possession). If, as many have claimed, the Cavs have gotten better by replacing so many of Damon Jones' and Sasha Pavlovic's minutes with Flip Murray's, then the team as a whole should have gotten better:

                    games  O-Eff   D-Eff
Larry                 28   112.4   105.7
post-Larry/pre-Flip   26   106.6   104.9
Flip                  10    98.9   106.4

That's quite a severe drop-off, on offense at least. The worst offense in the league this season (Charlotte) is scoring 102.3 points per 100. The gap between the league's top offense (Phoenix, 113.3) and the Bobcats' is only slightly wider than the gap between the "post-Larry/pre-Flip" Cavaliers and the "Flip" Cavaliers.

Of course, I realize that 10 games is way too small a sample size to reflect a team's true level of ability. But unless you used to be an avid watcher of Sonics games, those of you who make your judgments based on eyewitness observation are judging Flip Murray based pretty much on these 10 games alone. And you're telling me that in those 10 games the Cavs have been better off than they were during the 26 games when either Damon or Sasha was getting those minutes? I'm sorry, the facts don't lie--in those 10 games, the Cavs have played slightly worse on defense and terribly worse on offense.

Now, there are a million reasons why these last 10 games could have been suddenly worse that have nothing to do with Flip Murray. Maybe LeBron has fallen into a horrible slump that coincidentally began when the trade was made. Such a slump is not exactly evident in LeBron's statistics, but whatever, it's just an example. I, for one, am not willing to make the assumption that the whole thing is a coincidence. The sudden downturn of the Cavs' offensive performance, plus the fact that, in 193 games prior to his trade to Cleveland, Flip Murray was shown to be demonstrably horrible by meaningful, objective, sabermetric statistics, are enough to convince me that he is hurting this team.

In conclusion, we all agree that the best thing that could happen for the Cavaliers would be to get Larry Hughes back as fast as possible. But until that happens, the Cavs would do well to restore some of Sasha's and Damon's minutes. Please note that this rant is not a way of saying that Jones and Pavlovic are necessarily good players. All I'm saying is that Ronald Murray is even worse than either of them, and not by a slim margin.

I'm not sure if this is a coincidence, but the Cavaliers have local star LeBron James, the Browns now have local star LeCharles Bentley, but who do the Indians have? I searched through the current rosters of each of the Indians affiliates, plus the team's 40-man roster, and the non-roster invitees to Winter Haven this spring with no luck. Then, I looked through each of the team's draft picks from the last 10 years. In this case, the only candidate I found was Levi Laughlin: last season's 35th round pick from Connors State College in Warner, Oklahoma. Laughlin didn't sign with the team, which is okay, he doesn't even spell it "LeVi" anyway.

The next step was to search every player to ever make a plate appearance or get on the mound for the Tribe. Strangely, there again was only one candidate (unless you want to spell Len Barker "LeN Barker"): Leron Lee. He was an outfielder for the Indians in 1974 and the first half of 1975—he was released in May of that season on account of sucking. Three things keep him from being the Indians representative in the Le- contingent: (1) he's Leron, not LeRon, (2) he's not a local star, he's from Bakersfield, CA, and (3) he retired 30 years ago.

So, what do we have? Sadly, not much. Unless some little known Greater Cleveland high school senior explodes onto the scene this spring and the Indians draft him this summer and somehow he rockets through the minors only to be an Indian by 2008 or so, it's inconceivable for the trifecta to be complete. Then again, LeBron could decide he wants to both play baseball and basketball, or what about LeTravis Hafner?

Loyal readers may remember Corey's look at Zydrunas Ilgauskas's tip-off–winning abilities. For such a light-hearted and only once used statistic, Corey had to pour through hundreds of games of play-by-play data. On that note, I e-mailed Roland Beech, purveyor of 82games, about creating a tip-off win percentage of sorts. His response, frankly, showed a deep misunderstanding of the benefits of meaningless statistics that make for useful fodder:

We could create some tip win% stats, but frankly they would not be meaningful -- particularly at the start of the game there is little motivation to win as the teams simply alternate possession at the start of each quarter, and I think a number of players are 'very casual' about the opening tip.

Not meaningful, Roland? Then what do you call this?! The first insult is crediting this so-called "sros0303" character, instead of me. The second insult is, well, there isn't one. But the first one was pretty big.

Looking through the data, we see that Z is near the top in the league, but is falling off his game. Pulling numbers from Corey's original post, here are his year-to-year tip-off winning percentages (I apologize that the data is incomplete, we did our best. Also, I subtracted "live" jump balls—only tip-offs count here.):

Season Wins Tips Pct.
 2002   17   21  81%
 2003   52   63  83%
 2004   69   81  85%
 2005   52   67  78%
 2006   39   59  66%

It's crystal clear that Zydrunas ain't what he used to be when it comes to winning the tip, but who can blame him? He's a 30-year old with foot problems. Still, though Ilgauskas will always have height going for him (he's still the second-tallest starter in the NBA, and third-tallest player). With that natural advantage, despite Z's downward trend in recent years, I don't expect him ever to be worse than 50-50 when it comes to winning tip-offs.

As a slight postscript, 82games aggregates its data by team; and as a postscript of my own, let us note that Cavaliers Basketball Presented by Cub Cadet is currently fourth in the NBA in jump ball winning percentage. Woo, go team. Also, DeSagana Diop is 9th worst in the league among players with 20 or greater jump ball opportunities.

The fan bases of the Indians, Browns, and Cavaliers largely overlap. While you have varying degrees of fanaticism among Clevelanders, it's rare to find a person who, for example, is a die-hard member of the Dawg Pound but is indifferent to the LeBrons. Yes, they're out there, but they're few in number. With largely the same group of people attending all three teams' games, it's strange that seemingly, each team caters itself to a different market.

The Indians, it seems to me, try to appeal to a wealthier "hip" audience. Their in-game music selections are pretty eclectic (for a sports team), and recent additions to the Jacobs Field culinary options like Johnny Applestix and Ballpark Sushi are a clear venture into uncharted waters, Cleveland-wise. Also, the Tribe is now focusing on cornering the family-friendly market with "Kids Day", "Mother's Fun Day", "Summer Camp Day", and of course, Slider.

The Browns try more to appeal to the "working class" constituent of Greater Cleveland. I think this is pretty ironic, considering Browns tickets are the most expensive of the three teams. Popular music at Cleveland Browns Stadium includes AC/DC, Metallica, and, um... AC/DC. Hey man, "Thunderstruck" rocks. Also, the team's flagship station is WMMS, our very own hard rockin' radio station. If memory serves me, a lot of Browns giveaways involve orange pick-up trucks, rather than say, orange hybrids.

The Cavaliers try to appeal to, well, no one particularly. During the short Gilbert Era we've seen a shift towards a more "urban" game experience, with Ronnie Duncan, non-stop music, and the Scream Team. Personally, I think this is stupid for two (related) reasons: (1) how many urban families do you think can afford to drop upwards of $300 for one basketball game at Quicken Loans Arena? and (2) with the smallest capacity of the three major venues, Quicken Loans Arena still has a sizable portion of seating dedicated to loges, baseline boxes, courtside seats, club seats... basically stuff for rich people. Alienating this big part of your crowd isn't advisable.

I am far from an expert on the differences between the East and West Sides, but given the target audiences of the three teams, I wonder whether the West Side fans skew towards the Indians and Browns while the East Side would skew to the Indians and Cavaliers. My own expectation is for this to be a half-truth, at best. I find it hard to believe anyone in Cleveland less interested in the Browns—-we loves the football. Personally, I was Born and Raised on the Cleveland Browns, but more importantly, that birthing and raising was done on the East Side. And, predictably, I like the Indians marketing efforts the best.

Is either Side's fan base distorted? What kind of effects do the Indians', Browns', and Cavaliers' efforts to target certain groups have? To those of you experienced with Cleveland's bisideual culture, drop some knowledge, son.