Cavaliers games are fraught with entertainment vying for your attention: the Cavaliers Girls, the Scream Team, the Q-Stix, Beefcake on the Lake, Puff Doggy, Ahmad and Nicole, DJ Mick Boogie, and of course, Moondog.

But lately another, new entertainer has been strutting his stuff at Quicken Loans Arena. An entertainer the likes of which has never been seen before. Even the keen-eyed observer could have missed his infrequent follies on the court, as Cavaliers management keeps this secret talent under wraps. Perhaps until the playoffs, who knows?

So I say: Move over, Cavaliers Girls. Take a hike, Scream Team (except you, LeBron Jr.). Drop dead, Moondog. Make way for Dog Ball!



Is it a dog? Or is it a basketball? It's both silly, because it's Dog Ball! The most wondrous and fantastical basketball that looks like a dog in the world! (Or is it a dog that looks like a basketball? I leave this to you to ponder.)

But how could such a biologic singularity come to exist? Of all the millions of billions of possible living organisms, a dog-basketball hybrid? How can that be? Take it away, official Cavaliers website!

A science experiment gone wrong, Dog Ball is the explosive combination of an over-inflated basketball and Moondog. After Animal Control feeds this dog a steady diet of t-shirts, the canine orb spits back to fans. We recommend washing the slobber off the shirts prior to wearing.

Now, I haven't seen Dog Ball expectorate t-shirts into the crowd yet, but those of you in Ira's Newblehood, I'd be warming up my vocal chords I were you. T-shirts, much like whales, are attracted to noise and I'm pretty sure Dog Ball could reach everyone's favorite Canadian town, Port Burwell, Ontario, if he wanted to, not to mention (C)Loudville.

And "explosive?" That's just incredible. He's a dog-basketball composite that can blow up! The possibilities are endless.



Take heart, Cleveland. We are truly living in a Golden Age of entertainment and science experiments gone wrong.

I'll admit it; I'm borderline obsessed with LeBron James Jr. He's so adorable and He's... the son of The Chosen One, for LeBron's sake! For this reason, it brought me great joy this evening, when LeBron Sr. decided to destroy the Knicks so throughly that FSN Ohio had no choice but to focus its cameras on The Chosen Son throughout the fourth quarter.

Pardon my crummy photography...



Watch out for your jobs, Scream Team!



"See, here's how you take a charge..."



"Stop lookin' at my lemonade!"



And lo, LeBron did reach out unto His son, and he did embrace Him. And he did convey to Him His strength and all of His awesome powers. And it was good.



Such court vision!

In response to my brother's recent post, A New LeBron James, loyal reader Roger commented:

Are there stats for where his shots were from (distance-wise)? That could at least tell if he's generally shooting from closer.

To which Alex responded:

That kind of information is available at 82games, but there isn't any way to split up the data. ESPN.com has shot charts for every game, but I don't want to take the time to record LeBron's shots for each of the sixty-eight games from this season, do you? Only Corey is crazy enough to do that much work on shot-location.

To which my response is... oh man, are you guys in luck. It just so happens that the last time I updated my Cavs shot selection spreadsheet (before now) was February 15, right before the first game of this alleged "New LeBron" period. Thus it's quite a simple matter for me to divide The Chosen One's shot selection into these two arbitrary segments that everyone seems so interested in all of a sudden ("first 52 games" and "last 16 games"). Take it away, spreadsheet!

                   first 52 gms     last 16 gms
                    pct.  eFG%       pct.  eFG%
3-point jumpers     19%   .503       19%   .507
2-point jumpers     47%   .367       43%   .351
close (eg. layups)  27%   .637       27%   .730
dunks                7%   .953        7%  1.000
tip-ins              0%    N/A        4%   .375

Now these data are rather approximate for a number of reasons; nonetheless, they suggest to me that LeBron's shot selection hasn't changed much--if anything, what's changed has been His shooting itself. Over the last 16 games, 34% of LeBron's shot attempts have been either "close" or "dunks" (in other words, what we might call "driving to the hoop"). This is exactly the same percentage that were in this category during the first 52 games. However, LeBron's eFG% on these types of shots has been much better during the recent stage than it had been prior. This, perhaps, is why people think LeBron is driving to the hoop more: he's simply finishing more of his drives with made baskets.

For what it's worth, the Cavs offense is playing quite well right now, but was playing slightly better right before the All-Star break. The highest offensive efficiency the team has averaged over any 9-game period this season is 111.0, which they averaged from Jan. 28 to Feb. 14. The team's more recent stretch of offensive success topped out during the 9-game stretch from Feb. 27 to Mar. 14, when they averaged 110.2 points per 100 possessions. (Why 9-game stretches, you ask? It's a completely arbitrary choice.)

So yeah, the Cavs are playing well right now. LeBron is playing His best basketball of the season. But this success did not develop suddenly, nor is it the first major run of success the Cavs have had this season.

Since [February 15] in L.A., it has been a different James reporting for duty and the Cavs—not coincidentally—have become bona fide. He has been attacking the basket, moving with motivation in transition and showing aggression at the defensive end. No longer does he wait for the ball to come to him in crunch time—he goes to get it. Seldom does he wait for a pick-and-roll to develop 25 feet from the basket at the end of the shot clock.

With these words by Brian Windhorst, I decided to take a look into the transformation of LeBron James.

It stands to reason that if LeBron really has changed, this change will be reflected in the numbers. So, I split this season's statistics into "Before" (the fifty-two games before February 15) and "After" (the sixteen games from February 15 and afterwards). All the counting stats you'll see are per 40 minutes.

         Pts  Reb  Ast  Stl  Blk   TO
Before  25.6  6.8  5.8  1.5   .7  3.2
After   31.8  6.5  5.7  1.7  1.1  3.2

The only categories with noticeable changes between the two periods are points and blocks. Though due to the small number of blocks LeBron gets per game, we could see big shifts from just one block-happy game. Actually, the increase since February 15 is only about six blocks over sixteen games.

At least offensively, LeBron hasn't uniformly stepped up his game—just how many times the ball goes through the net. Not that there's anything wrong with that. That leaves us to wonder, where did these extra points come from? As Windhorst suggests, perhaps LeBron is driving the lane more often and therefore getting to the line more often. Combined with improved free throw-shooting, that could easily lead to an extra six points per forty minutes.

         FT%  eFG%  FTA/FGA
Before  .679  .501     .433
After   .713  .541     .402

His free throw-shooting has improved, as has his regular shooting. While compiling these statistics, I tried out a few different random season splits to see whether LeBron's improvement was a lot of luck. Of course, I can't rule that out, but in the random splits, the only stat that I saw a noticeable jump in was free throw-percentage. I chalk this up to LeBron's wildly inconsistent ways at the line—depending on the games you choose, he could shoot 80% or 40%.

Moving along, what's this—LeBron has actually going to the line less than before? What happened to the more aggressive LeBron that Windhorst was talking about? It actually turns out that LeBron is getting to the line more times per game, but He just has a lower probability of doing so for every shot attempt. Why? Because LeBron has been hoisting up shots like there's no tomorrow.

        FTA   FGA
Before  8.5  19.7
After   9.3  23.2

Among qualified players, only Carmelo Anthony beats out LeBron's "After" rate of taking shots, with 24.5 field goal attempts per 40 minutes on the season.

These numbers don't tell us exactly what LeBron has changed since that fateful night in Los Angeles, but He truly has been a better player. He's scoring more and doing it more efficiently. However, it doesn't look like LeBron has completely remade his game and started driving the lane until the cows come home, as Windhorst suggests. Otherwise we'd see a huge jump in FTA/FGA.

I wouldn't go as far as Windhorst describing the revitalized LeBron—it looks like this New LeBron is just old LeBron taking (and making) a lot more shots. Which, as an offensive strategy, is probably the best thing the Cavaliers could do. For all the talk of LeBron being overworked or the Cavs offense screeching to a halt as everyone watches LeBron, He remains the best player in the NBA. And if He can increase the number of possessions He uses and His efficiency on those possessions, things are definitely looking up.

Baseball Prospectus has PECOTA; Football Outsiders has KUBIAK; Baseball Think Factory has ZiPS; Paul Hoynes has… well, something. And we here at the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times are nothing if not striving to one-up the competition, with the requisite appropriate one-up sound effect. Last season, we didn't really do an Indians season preview. So this year, we're taking it a step further.

Allow me to proudly introduce Estimated Statistical Projections Indexed to Normalized Output Zone Averages, or ESPINOZA—our new supercomputer. I had it simulate the Tribe's 2007 season, and in the interest of space, I'll only post the projected final scores, but ESPINOZA actually generates full box scores and play-by-plays too. Though I shouldn't really say "projected" because this is what's going to happen.

(Asterisked games will go extra innings)

1. 4/02, at CWS, 3-9
2. 4/04, at CWS, 5-4
3. 4/05, at CWS, 7-4
4. 4/06, vs. SEA, 8-7
5. 4/07, vs. SEA, 8-3
6. 4/08, vs. SEA, 6-5
7. 4/09, vs. SEA, 8-7
8. 4/10, vs. LAA, 2-9
9. 4/11, vs. LAA, 4-7
10. 4/12, vs. LAA, 7-1
11. 4/13, vs. CWS, 0-3
12. 4/14, vs. CWS, 3-5
13. 4/15, vs. CWS, 1-0
14. 4/17, at NYY, 2-8
15. 4/18, at NYY, 4-5
16. 4/19, at NYY, 7-10
17. 4/20, at TB, 6-8
18. 4/21, at TB, 2-0
19. 4/22, at TB, 7-6*
20. 4/23, at MIN, 6-8
21. 4/24, at MIN, 6-14
22. 4/25, vs. TEX, 3-7
23. 4/26, vs. TEX, 2-5
24. 4/27, vs. BAL, 5-7*
25. 4/28, vs. BAL, 6-4
26. 4/29, vs. BAL, 11-9
27. 5/01, vs. TOR, 6-0
28. 5/02, vs. TOR, 2-9
29. 5/03, vs. TOR, 2-5
30. 5/04, at BAL, 8-9
31. 5/05, at BAL, 5-2
32. 5/06, at BAL, 3-4
33. 5/07, at BAL, 5-7
34. 5/08, at LAA, 1-7
35. 5/09, at LAA, 12-4
36. 5/10, at LAA, 9-6
37. 5/11, at OAK, 1-8
38. 5/12, at OAK, 7-3
39. 5/13, at OAK, 2-4
40. 5/15, vs. MIN, 9-3
41. 5/16, vs. MIN, 4-6
42. 5/17, vs. MIN, 8-2
43. 5/18, vs. CIN, 7-3
44. 5/19, vs. CIN, 7-2
45. 5/20, vs. CIN, 9-0
46. 5/22, at KC, 7-0
47. 5/23, at KC, 2-0
48. 5/24, at KC, 4-8
49. 5/25, at DET, 6-8
50. 5/26, at DET, 8-4
51. 5/27, at DET, 5-2
52. 5/28, at BOS, 7-5
53. 5/29, at BOS, 3-9
54. 5/30, at BOS, 2-1
55. 5/31, vs. DET, 6-3
56. 6/01, vs. DET, 11-2
57. 6/02, vs. DET, 7-6*
58. 6/03, vs. DET, 9-0
59. 6/05, vs. KC, 6-0
60. 6/06, vs. KC, 6-9
61. 6/07, vs. KC, 1-9
62. 6/08, at CIN, 8-0
63. 6/09, at CIN, 6-0
64. 6/10, at CIN, 8-4
65. 6/12, at FLA, 0-4
66. 6/13, at FLA, 1-8
67. 6/14, at FLA, 5-4
68. 6/15, vs. ATL, 2-5
69. 6/16, vs. ATL, 8-14
70. 6/17, vs. ATL, 7-3
71. 6/18, vs. PHI, 8-7
72. 6/19, vs. PHI, 2-6
73. 6/20, vs. PHI, 4-2*
74. 6/22, at WAS, 7-6
75. 6/23, at WAS, 1-9
76. 6/24, at WAS, 7-6
77. 6/25, vs. OAK, 5-1
78. 6/26, vs. OAK, 5-0
79. 6/27, vs. OAK, 4-5
80. 6/28, vs. OAK, 11-6
81. 6/29, vs. TB, 5-7
82. 6/30, vs. TB, 9-6
83. 7/01, vs. TB, 7-5
84. 7/02, vs. TB, 7-6
85. 7/03, at DET, 2-4
86. 7/04, at DET, 11-10
87. 7/05, at DET, 8-10
88. 7/06, at TOR, 9-8
89. 7/07, at TOR, 8-15
90. 7/08, at TOR, 0-9
91. 7/13, vs. KC, 1-0
92. 7/14, vs. KC, 0-11
93. 7/15, vs. KC, 4-2*
94. 7/16, vs. CWS, 7-5
95. 7/17, vs. CWS, 9-6
96. 7/18, vs. CWS, 20-4
97. 7/19, at TEX, 6-0
98. 7/20, at TEX, 4-2
99. 7/21, at TEX, 2-4
100. 7/22, at TEX, 5-7
101. 7/23, vs. BOS, 2-1
102. 7/24, vs. BOS, 2-4
103. 7/25, vs. BOS, 11-6
104. 7/26, vs. BOS, 4-5
105. 7/27, vs. MIN, 4-2
106. 7/28, vs. MIN, 7-15
107. 7/29, vs. MIN, 3-8
108. 7/31, vs. TEX, 9-10
109. 8/01, vs. TEX, 6-0
110. 8/02, vs. TEX, 6-7
111. 8/03, at MIN, 9-10
112. 8/04, at MIN, 1-7
113. 8/05, at MIN, 9-10*
114. 8/06, at MIN, 5-3
115. 8/07, at CWS, 7-3
116. 8/08, at CWS, 9-0
117. 8/09, at CWS, 9-3
118. 8/10, vs. NYY, 1-0
119. 8/11, vs. NYY, 8-9
120. 8/12, vs. NYY, 3-8
121. 8/14, vs. DET, 4-2
122. 8/15, vs. DET, 8-2
123. 8/17, at TB, 5-8
124. 8/18, at TB, 7-3
125. 8/19, at TB, 8-6
126. 8/21, at DET, 1-0*
127. 8/22, at DET, 7-0
128. 8/23, at DET, 2-8
129. 8/24, at KC, 6-0
130. 8/25, at KC, 5-6
131. 8/26, at KC, 3-2
132. 8/28, vs. MIN, 7-5
133. 8/29, vs. MIN, 5-1
134. 8/30, vs. MIN, 0-14
135. 8/31, vs. CWS, 3-2*
136. 9/01, vs. CWS, 8-0
137. 9/02, vs. CWS, 5-1
138. 9/03, at MIN, 0-4
139. 9/04, at MIN, 6-5*
140. 9/05, at MIN, 2-3
141. 9/06, at LAA, 5-2
142. 9/07, at LAA, 0-5
143. 9/08, at LAA, 11-1
144. 9/09, at LAA, 1-6
145. 9/10, at CWS, 3-5
146. 9/11, at CWS, 4-3
147. 9/12, at CWS, 5-9
148. 9/14, vs. KC, 10-0
149. 9/15, vs. KC, 3-5
150. 9/16, vs. KC, 11-2
151. 9/17, vs. DET, 3-7
152. 9/18, vs. DET, 7-8
153. 9/19, vs. DET, 8-2
154. 9/21, vs. OAK, 1-10
155. 9/22, vs. OAK, 6-4
156. 9/23, vs. OAK, 8-0
157. 9/25, at SEA, 5-6*
158. 9/26, at SEA, 3-0
159. 9/27, at SEA, 6-7
160. 9/28, at KC, 0-7
161. 9/29, at KC, 10-2
162. 9/30, at KC, 5-6

Totals: 90 wins; 72 losses; 871 runs scored; 796 runs allowed

All in all, not a bad season for the Indians. Ninety wins might be enough to get them into the playoffs, but we can't be sure until I run ESPINOZA for the rest of the AL Central. You see, the funny thing is that right after I ran it for the Indians I kind of accidentally deleted the Excel spreadsheet that comprised ESPINOZA. And I didn't even notice it until I was writing up the projections a couple days later. I tried everything, with no luck. So, unless someone can reverse-engineer ESPINOZA for me, we can't know for sure if the Indians will make the playoffs.

[For those interested in reverse-engineering it for me, here are some of the variables considered by ESPINOZA: strength of schedule, opponents' strength of schedule, home stadium outfield dimensions, ferocity of mascot, batboy dexterity, foul pole tensile strength, number of mustachioed players, and intangibles.]

Now, I have full confidence in whatever ESPINOZA says but Corey is a regular technophobe. Apparently, he doesn't care much about "objective" predictions no matter how "perfect" they are. So I asked for his take on the '07 Indians and he said,

I predict the Indians will go 71-20, to finish in first place in the AL Central, albeit in an alien-assault-on-Earth–shortened season.

Both sets of predictions have their strengths and weaknesses, clearly. We may not technically know what's going to happen in 2007 (although I'm sure it'll be what ESPINOZA says), we'll just have to sit back and see. Opening Day is fast approaching, and I can't wait!

Will Carlos Boozer finally jump into the proverbial lion's den this coming Saturday, March 17, when the Cavs take on the Jazz, after several years of "unfortunate" and "coincidental" "injuries" that kept him from traveling to our fair city?

I say the odds are still against it. The guy's got six days to come down with something, after all. Here's a rundown on the odds against some of the potential mishaps that could befall ol' Carlos between now and 7:30 PM Saturday.

• Strained nosehair: 24-to-1. Don't scoff; have you ever had a strained nosehair? They burn.
• Suitcase gets mud on it: 20-to-1. NBA players are very particular about their traveling gear.
• Previously unknown "Great Lake" allergy: 18-to-1. Sure, Boozer's already been to Detroit, Milwaukee, and Chicago this season, but allergies are unpredictable, you know?
• Chest hair catches on fire: 6-to-1. How this hasn't happened to Sasquatch already, I really don't know.
• Ovarian cancer: 5-to-1. It can creep up on you awfully fast.
• Existential life crisis: 4-to-1. I imagine Carlos' life is one giant existential crisis, but you never know when something like that can push you over the edge.
• Boozer receives a sudden, slightly larger contract offer from another team, causing him to jump out of the Jazz team plane en route to Cleveland, as dollar bills scatter in his wake: even. Don't worry; he'll have his agent go back to pick up the dollar bills later.

Call me a cynic, but if Boozer somehow does manage to narrowly escape all of these terrible fates, I think he'll find that the Cleveland fans haven't forgotten what happened three summers ago, time passed or no. See you at the game. On Saturday. At 7:30 PM.

Ladies and gentlem— oh, who am I kidding?

Gentlemen, our worst fears have been realized. Jamal Lewis will be a Brown.

I may harbor resentment against Lewis for setting the single-game record for rushing yards against the Browns and generally kicking the Browns' ass more than a few other times in the past, but these events in no way influence my judgment when I say: Jamal Lewis sucks. A lot. Like mega-super-sucks. And he's not getting any better.

On the positive side though, he's put up gaudy numbers. Lewis's 2,066 rushing yards in 2003 will be remembered for a long time. (2,000 is a nice big number, after all.) But those yards came with a steep price. I'll take a look at Jamal Lewis's performance year-by-year since his rookie season in 2000, along with the other running backs on the Ravens who accumulated more than 20 carries. From left-to-right, the statistics you'll see are carries, Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement (DPAR), Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA), and success rate. Long-time readers should be familiar with these terms, but all of them are better explained by the good people at Football Outsiders.

2000

         Car   DPAR    DVOA  Suc
Lewis    309   28.2    5.5%  50%
Holmes   137   15.7   12.5%  52%

Not a bad start for a rookie—although historically there hasn't been much of a learning curve for rookie RBs in the NFL. Maybe I should coin "There Is No Such Thing As A Running Back Prospect," though TINSTAARBP doesn't have much of a ring to it. Anyway, Lewis was outperformed by backup Priest Holmes, but you can't fault him for that. I'd say things are looking up for Lewis.

2002

         Car   DPAR    DVOA  Suc
Lewis    308   16.0   -1.7%  49%
Taylor    33    2.0    1.5%  N/A

Jamal was coming off a serious knee injury that forced him to miss the entire 2001 season, so his lack of improvement from his rookie year here isn't surprising. He may have been bettered by Chester Taylor, but that was only in 33 carries—hardly a meaningful sample.

2003

         Car   DPAR    DVOA  Suc
Lewis    388   30.4    3.4%  45%
Taylor    63    0.8  -11.6%  N/A

Career year, anyone?

There a few things that are worrisome about Lewis's 2003. (1) Even though it is undoubtedly the best year he'll ever have, Lewis still couldn't break a 50% success rate. (2) Regardless of his Offensive Player of the Year Award from the AP, Lewis was only a few percentage points away from league average. All of his value came from pure volume. Hence, (3) 388 carries. 388 carries. 388 carries.

2004

         Car   DPAR    DVOA  Suc
Lewis    235   17.3    3.5%  46%
Taylor   160   14.4    8.4%  41%
White     27   -3.0  -43.0%  N/A

Lewis kept chugging along at his same high-volume low-efficiency pace. Notice that backup Chester Taylor is coming into the picture, and outshining the starter. Taylor doubles Lewis's DVOA and almost racked up the same amount of DPAR in 70 fewer carries.

Oh Jamel White.

2005

         Car   DPAR    DVOA  Suc
Lewis    270  -12.9  -25.2%  41%
Taylor   117    2.5   -8.1%  42%

Warning! Warning!

2006

         Car   DPAR    DVOA  Suc
Lewis    314    3.8   -9.9%  42%
Anderson  39    6.0   18.0%  N/A
Smith     36    1.7   -6.0%  N/A

Despite hovering near or below replacement level for a second-consecutive season, Lewis managed to suck up most of the carries for Baltimore. Backup Mike Anderson was fantastic in limited action, but for some reason couldn't make it onto the field. That Jamal's backups routinely outshine him is particularly alarming. These guys are afforded the same opportunities as Lewis (the same offensive line, the same quarterback selling the play-action fake, etc.) and are supposed to be worse players, yet beat the pants off of Lewis.

Say what you will about his rushing yardage totals or yards per carry. These statistics are almost meaningless without context. Throw in the context (which is what DVOA and DPAR do, by the way) and Lewis looks no better than Ron Dayne or a thousand other scrubs.

In 2005, the Arizona Cardinals had a terrible offensive line and terrible running backs. Not surprisingly, their running game stunk. In 2006, the Cardinals had a terrible offensive line and a star running back. Their running game still stunk. In 2006, the Cleveland Browns had a terrible offensive line and terrible running backs. Their running game too stunk. Of course, the two situations aren't identical: Edgerrin James actually had a track record of success before signing with Arizona. Fortunately, whether the Browns offensive line will stink in 2007 is not set in stone. A lot depends upon the upcoming draft. However, the Browns troubles in running the ball are not solved; they're not even reduced. In fact, I think they're worse.

Frankly, I don't care what Lewis gets paid in 2007. Unless it's somehow less than or equal to $0, it's money flushed down the toilet. I'd rather have an unknown undrafted rookie free agent than Jamal Lewis at this point. With the rookie, there's a chance that—at the very least—he could turn out to be league-average. With Lewis, however, that ship has sailed. It'll be a cold day in hell when Jamal Lewis is significantly better than replacement level.

This evening I watched a re-broadcast of The Comeback on SportsTime Ohio. Talk about good television! This experience got me thinking about a few things (other than "What was the f'ing deal with Marty Cordova that year?", of course). First, one of the inherent problems with the money-making Regional Sports Networks that have become so common in baseball today is that you have to come up with some kind of programming to fill the 8264 hours of the year that aren't occupied by your local team's regular season games. This is especially difficult in the offseason. The STO solution seems to entail a combination of going off air and covering things like the Cleveland Auto Show or "Ohio Fight Fest", whatever that is. This is the TV programming equivalent of punting, I guess.

However, STO has also spent the offseason showing the occasional vintage Indians game. This is an elegant solution if ever there was one. I could watch random Indians games from yesteryear 'til the cows come home. I don't care if it's a game the Indians lost, in a year they didn't contend, in which nothing out of the ordinary happened; something about the time travel experience of it all appeals to me.

Now I'm not sure what restrictions, if any, there are on the games STO is able to get the rights to. However, I have already tuned in to re-broadcasts of games that originally aired on a number of networks, including ESPN, so I suspect the folks at STO can have their pick. Off the top of my head, some of the games I remember seeing on STO in the last few months include:

• The Comeback, 8/5/01.
• Bill Selby walk-off grand slam vs. Mariano Rivera, 7/14/02.
• The Billy Traber game, 7/8/03.
• Jim Thome sets a franchise record for home runs in a season, 9/27/02.
• Joe Carter hits 3 home runs, 5/28/87.

There have been a bunch of others; I just didn't get a chance to watch them. Most of them have been of a very recent vintage; I'm talking 2003-2005. Nonetheless, of the ones I've listed, the first three are obvious, excellent choices. The Jim Thome one is notable, I guess, though not much else happened in that game. The Joe Carter game is a bit of a head-scratcher; the Indians didn't contend in 1987, nor did they win the game. I can give you loads of examples of an Indian hitting three home runs in a game in the last 20 years, so your guess is as good as mine. Still, I like the seeming randomness of it. It was fun to hear Joe Tait call an Indians game.

All this is to say that I'm really glad STO is showing old games during the offseason, but I wish they would expand their repertoire a little bit. The period 2002-2005 had its fair share of great games, but I remember them. I'd love to see more of the random exciting things that happened in years I didn't get to experience the first time around. If the 2002 and 2003 Indians--who sucked--enjoyed such great moments as Bill Selby's grand slam or Billy Traber's one-hitter, I can only wonder what long-forgotten highlights were experienced by all the oh-so-sucky Indians teams of the 70's and 80's.

I'd be happy to hear your suggestions for games STO should re-broadcast.

If there is one thing you should've learned over the years, it's that this is not a socks 'blog. If there was a second thing to be learned, it's that this isn't a Paul Hoynes-analysis 'blog, but things seem to be shaping up that way. Truly, I didn't intend to write about Hoynes again for a long time, but did you see this Sunday's edition of "Hey, Hoynsie"?

Hey, Hoynsie: According to Bill James' Pythagorean W-L system, the Tribe should have won 90 games last year. I'm curious if you put any stock into that and if you considered it when you predicted the Tribe to finish fourth? I'm not one to criticize one's preseason expectations because anything can happen, but the Tribe seemed to suffer from bad luck last year more than anything. - Erik Beatty, Flanders, N.J.

You're really asking for it, Erik.

Hey, Erik: Nothing against Bill James, but when I see the word Pythagorean, my ears start to water and my eyes start to ring.

Either some copy editor isn't doing their job or Paul Hoynes has the strangest eyes and ears I've ever heard of. Or possibly this is a Gilbertian attempt at humor.

I always thought covering baseball was about talking to players, managers, general managers, agents and fans - not doing advance math calculations.

If you incorporate numbers into your reporting, you're not talking about baseball anymore. You're doing math! And it'll be a cold day in hell before somebody makes Paul Hoynes do math. No matter how simple it is or how much greater insight into the thing he is paid to cover it would give him.

I picked the Indians fourth because that's where they're going to finish.

I'm convinced.

Seriously though, this is the best justification Hoynes could come up with? He could've said "I picked the Indians fourth because Josh Barfield has that fourth-place kind of look in his eyes. His guilty, guilty eyes." Now, that's a pretty stupid reason, but at least it is a reason.

As for luck, the Indians went 41 years between postseason appearances from 1954 to 1995. If luck, fate or playing the odds had any sway during that period, the Tribe should have made the postseason at least once.

It didn't happen because, for the most part, the Indians were a bad franchise, poorly financed and poorly run. You don't win by accident in pro sports. You win because you have a better organization, more talent and more money than the other guy.

According to Hoynes, the Indians should've made the playoffs at least once between 1955 and 1993 because luck be doing some crazy things. But, in that time span, what did it actually take to reach the playoffs?

Between 1955 and 1968, when the AL had only one division, a team needed on average a winning percentage of .621 to take the division. The closest the Indians came Pythagorean-wise was in 1956 when they had an expected wining percentage of .592. Between 1969 and 1993, when two AL teams made the playoffs each season, it took on average a winning percentage of .595 to do so. The Tribe never even came close in this period: their highest expected winning percentage was only .500 in 1976. The Indians really were just a bad team for an incredibly long stretch of time. Not unlucky, bad.

Sometimes teams lose because they suck; sometimes teams lose because they're unlucky; sometimes, a little of both. But because Hoynes didn't bother to check any of this, he conflates all losing teams. So, because a bunch of bad teams didn't make the playoffs for 41 consecutive years (which isn't that unlikely, by the way), Hoynes says there is no such thing as luck in professional sports.

The Indians weren't unlucky last year. They were bad. I think there's a difference.

Here's all the ways the Indians were a bad team last year: 2nd in the AL in runs scored, 4th in OPS, 6th in team ERA, 4th in K/BB, etc.

Surely, they didn't deserve to win the division, but bad team? Are you kidding me?