Corey is the now the first person in history (probably) to attend a Major League Baseball game, buy a hot dog, take it home, eat it while watching said game on TV, and post pictures of the whole thing before the game is even over!

Quick—what was the best Indians team between 1954 and 1994?

"…1955?"

This was Corey's response when I posed the question to him earlier this week and it turns out he was right. The Indians finished just three games behind the Yankees that year, who lost to the Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series. The '55 squad's 93 wins was the best the Indians would accomplish for 40 years. They had one of the best pitching staffs of those teams and their league-average offense places them among the best Indians offenses from 1955 to 1993. But how did I come to these conclusions?

For each year in the sample, I gathered six statistics: wins and losses are self-explanatory, runs scored and allowed to calculate Pythagorean win percentage, team equivalent average (EqA) to measure the team's batting, and defense-adjusted earned run average (DERA) to do the same with the team's pitching. The great thing about EqA and DERA is that they're adjusted for era, so I could compare the 1899 Cleveland Spiders with the 1999 Cleveland Indians if I'd like, despite their radically different run environments and home parks. (Intrigued by writing that last sentence, I checked the '99 Spiders, and wow. A .226 team EqA?! That's like running out a lineup everyday of nine Neifi Perezs!)

Anyway, the 1955 Indians were really the only team that managed to have both good pitching and (relatively) good hitting. Every other squad that either had great pitching or better-than-average hitting completely sucked in the other department. Although, most teams were good at neither, which makes that 40-year pennantless streak not so surprising.

I wasn't alive for most of this period and found these little nuggets of information fun. So, for your enjoyment, here are the top-five pitching staffs by DERA from 1955 to 1993:

      DERA   EqA
1956  3.77  .246
1955  4.07  .260
1989  4.10  .244
1966  4.13  .246
1991  4.29  .246

Interestingly (or maybe not), a big reason for 1989 and 1991's appearance on this list is Tom Candiotti and Greg Swindell. So, um, kudos to them.

And the bottom five:

      DERA   EqA
1985  5.27  .252
1987  5.21  .254
1986  5.08  .267
1973  5.04  .246
1971  5.02  .234

There was something about those mid-eighties and early-seventies teams. Though you may be asking yourself, "Where's 1972?" Somehow that team ranked eighth in DERA over this period, at 4.33. From 1971 to 1974, DERA-wise, the Tribe went 5.02, 4.33, 5.04, 4.99. You can thank a dominant Gaylord Perry and surprising rookie performance from Dick Tidrow for the one-year blip.

How about the top-five EqAs?

       EqA  DERA
1986  .267  5.08
1993  .264  4.69
1992  .262  4.63
1959  .262  4.79
1958  .262  4.67

Those "bopping" '86 Indians fooled Sports Illustrated into an infamous cover. SI must've overlooked their atrocious pitching that actually allowed more runs than the team scored. Also, I wish I could remember the 1993 season better now, but I was too young. It must have been exciting to see the seeds sown for the Indians string of division championships.

The bottom five…

       EqA  DERA
1971  .234  5.02
1972  .236  4.33
1969  .239  4.67
1989  .244  4.10
1970  .245  4.33

If the '55 Tribe were the best, the '71 Tribe were undoubtedly the worst. They had terrible pitching and even worse hitting. They only won 60 games on account of it. The 1971 season cost manager Alvin Dark his job 103 games into the year, with the team 42-61. And if it wasn't for Graig Nettles, the team might've challenged for the title of "Worst of All-Time." He was electric with the glove and decent with the stick—the clear team MVP. The LVP… how about Steve Hargan, who made 37 pitching appearances including 16 starts with a 6.19 ERA? A 6.19 ERA in a league with a park-adjusted average ERA of 3.85, mind you. He also walked more batters than he struck out (56 to 52), keeping him decidedly below replacement level.

The seasons between 1954 and 1994 were mostly a sad, sad time. The bright spots, few and far between, weren't even that bright. The work of some of the team's actual stars, like Sam McDowell or Andre Thornton, were simply dwarfed by the massive ineptitude or everyone else. It's fascinating. I encourage you to look up the numbers.

For the unaware—which ought to be everyone—AOL FanHouse is running a series listing the top five athletes for major cities. And, for some reason, Ryan Wilson (who you may know from Football Outsiders) was assigned Cleveland, despite being a dirty Steelers fan. I know all this because Ryan sought Corey and my advice on the matter, which we were more than happy to give.

As for Ryan's final list, I've got no complaints. Although it's strange how much C.C. Sabathia looks like Ryan Pontbriand. Anyway, the article went online right after 11 on Thursday and shortly after an hour later Dstud216 commented, "wheres casy Blake?"

Really? Casey Blake? That Casey Blake? Him?

Casey had a 26-game hitting streak, which is impressive. I guess. Only true baseball greats like Joe DiMaggio, Ken Landreaux, Willy Taveras, and Jerome Walton have bested him. But should we pronounce him among the best in town? I don't think so. Mr. Hitting Streak may be having a career year in 2007 but, according to Baseball Prospectus's Wins Above Replacement Player, Blake's 2007 ought to be equal to the worst year in the career of Victor Martinez as a regular, who also didn't make the cut.

Now, I'm not too proud of myself for going after a silly commenter. I enjoy a spot of Blakeball now and again. But really... him?

Against my better judgment, I've made a habit of reading Bill Simmons's writing. And, as the Cavaliers advanced through the post-season, he's turned Mike Brown into his whipping boy. In recent weeks, Simmons has written, "I'd tell Mike Brown to go back to the drawing board, but that would insinuate the drawing board exists," called him an 11.8 on the "Deer in the Headlights" scale and one of the worst coaches in N.B.A. Finals history. This final charge is especially disparaging—compared to his fellow coaches, Brown's completely inept! I see it however in a slightly different way. Isn't reaching the Finals itself an impressive accomplishment?

It would be easy to label me a homer and disregard my reasoning at this point. After all, Simmons is a prominent columnist and public sentiment is on his side. And given the performance of the Cavaliers' offense, sometimes it's hard not to want to replace Mike Brown. But Simmons's insult spurred me to consider it's opposite: Which is better, the worst coach to ever reach the Finals or the best coach never to reach the Finals? The candidates for the latter include Don Nelson, Doug Moe, Cotton Fitzsimmons, Kevin Loughery, and Flip Saunders.

That Mike Brown has accomplished something some distinguished coaches never have, and only in his second season, is fantastic. I'm not ready to anoint him a coaching prodigy—the offense needs significant retooling and Brown's lineup shuffling often is ineffectual—but I'm also not ready to anoint him a coaching disaster. Mike Brown is young and clearly a wizard with defense. And everyone has been overlooking the most important responsibility of the Cavaliers coaching staff: deferring to LeBron and keeping Him contented, which is something Brown does quite well. Basically, he had to be doing something right to get here.

As for the Finals themselves, I don't have much else to say. It's painfully clear the Spurs are the better team and that's something I already knew. The Cavaliers gave it the old college try in Game 3 and still couldn't prevail. It's just not meant to be, I suppose. Not this season.

You know the drill. In hopes of streamlining the relaying of data to you, for each of the Four Factors and starters, I'll present a small table with the relevant statistics for the two teams or players and their league-wide rankings during the regular season, where applicable.

Cavaliers offense vs. Spurs defense

• Shooting

  Tm   eFG%  Rk
  CLE  .484  22
  SA   .471   2

  San Antonio's shooting defense is tough to beat—only Houston held their opponents to a lower effective field goal percentage. Unfortunately, the Cavaliers have been struggling even more in the playoffs to make shots, as I've pointed out before. I don't have a solution to these woes, but an easy way to start is to move shots away from low-percentage scorers like Larry Hughes or Sasha and towards more efficient scorers like Zydrunas and, of course, LeBron.
• Turnovers

  Tm   TO-r  Rk
  CLE  .152   9
  SA   .155  20

  Ah, the Spurs' one defensive weakness. Although I'm not really sure how to exploit this. Be loose with the ball? Try risky passes? I think San Antonio doesn't cause many turnovers because the team philosophy stresses help defense over going for steals. They're too busy forcing bad shots to get steals, anyway.
• Offensive rebounding

  Tm   Reb%  Rk
  CLE  .297   3
  SA   .757   3

  Strength on strength, here we go. The rebounding battle could turn out to be pivotal. Since the Cavs are going to be missing so many shots, second chances will be important. Only Tim Duncan has particularly gaudy rebounding numbers for the Spurs, perhaps a two-headed rebounding of Drew Gooden and Z can overwhelm the Spurs on the offensive glass. Here's hoping.
• Getting to the foul line

  Tm  FT/FGA Rk
  CLE  .223  24
  SA   .201   1

  If the increased aggressiveness of LeBron James and the increased playing time of Daniel Gibson at the the end of the Pistons series are to carry over in the Finals (and they should), the Cavaliers FT/FGA should tick upwards. However there won't be easy. The team can't give up on driving the lane since they won't go to the line often, but will have to make a concerted effort to be strong in the lane and draw contact.

To my untrained eye, the Cavaliers seemed particularly effective on offense with a lineup of LeBron and multiple three-point shooters, like Daniel Gibson, Damon Jones, Donyell Marshall, or Sasha Pavlovic. Unfortunately, this puts the team at risk defensively, especially with Jones or Gibson. I know that Gibson was effective at forcing turnovers from Chauncey Billups in the clutch, but I think San Antonio will have picked up on his steal-happy tendencies and exploit him. Otherwise, he's not a strong man-to-man defender. (Remember, Billups had forced Gibson all the way under the basket before Gibson stripped the ball. He shouldn't have been down there in the first place.)

Then again, when a mediocre offense (105.5 points per 100 possessions, 18th in the N.B.A.) goes against a spectacular defense (99.8, 2nd), what do you think will happen?

Cavaliers defense vs. Spurs offense

• Shooting

  Tm   eFG%  Rk
  CLE  .480   7
  SA   .521   2

  The Spurs are brimming with efficient scorers, from Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili all the way to Brent Barry and Fabricio Oberto. Bruce Bowen is the closest thing they have to a Larry Hughes, and even then he's dangerous from the corners. The Cavs will have to work hard to keep the Spurs to a low percentage from the field, starting in the post with Duncan.
• Turnovers

  Tm   TO-r  Rk
  CLE  .163   9
  SA   .150   6

  Personally, I think it's more important for the Cavs to stay at home and force bad possessions and shots rather than go for steals. Not that the Spurs would turn it over much if they don't. A player missing on a steal attempt usually leads to open shooting opportunities and San Antonio has various shooters who'll knock them down.
• Offensive rebounding

  Tm   Reb%  Rk
  CLE  .758   2
  SA   .242  27

  A strong defensive-rebounding team with poor offensive rebounding usually signifies a team willing to forgo second shots in order to prevent fast-break points. I'm pretty sure this is what the Spurs do. Nevertheless the Cavaliers need to exploit this advantage—allowing Spurs' second chances are a luxury they can't afford.
• Getting to the foul line

  Tm  FT/FGA Rk
  CLE  .243  14
  SA   .235  20

  I don't have much interesting to say here, except watch out for Ginobili. He and Duncan are the biggest threats to beat a path to the line.

San Antonio's strong offense (109.3 points scored per 100 possessions, 5th in the N.B.A.) stems directly from shooting a high percentage. They're not especially strong in the other three factors. The Cavaliers try to play like the Spurs and have succeeded on a team-level, defensively (101.3, 4th). Thus the battle between San Antonio's offense and Cleveland's defense will rest largely on the Cavs' ability to make the Spurs miss shots. It sounds stupid, but it's a skill.

Starting lineups

• Point guard

              PER  O-Rtg  D-Rtg
  L. Hughes  12.1     98    103
  T. Parker  21.4    112    102

  Parker's defensive abilities are overstated here, thanks to his team's dominance, but the match-up remains a big win for San Antonio. Parker is one of the best offensive point guards today and even Hughes might need help against him. Parker is weak defensively, but unfortunately Hughes isn't good enough to capitalize.
• Shooting guard

                PER  O-Rtg  D-Rtg
  A. Pavlovic  12.1    103    103
  M. Finley    13.7    108    103

  I'd call it a push, but what do I know? Pavlovic is big for a guard and has trouble on defense against quicker opponents. Fortunately, Finley is on his last legs and isn't the same player anymore. Still, though, he's a good jump-shooter and great free throw-shooter.
• Small forward

             PER  O-Rtg  D-Rtg
  L. James  24.5    112    100
  B. Bowen   7.1    101    103

  Bruce Bowen is always trotted out the textbook example of how basketball statistics are flawed. I don't buy into that much. We've all heard great defensively, but the Spurs could do better. Not that it'd matter. Total domination.
• Power forward

              PER  O-Rtg  D-Rtg
  D. Gooden  16.5    107    100
  T. Duncan  26.1    111     94

  Duncan is more of a center, but whatever. He's hands-down one of the best defenders in the league and will give the Cavaliers driving the lane fits. Gooden proved valuable with his baseline jumpers against Detroit and needs to keep hitting those off LeBron kicks.
• Center

                 PER  O-Rtg  D-Rtg
  Z. Ilgauskas  18.0    107     99
  F. Elson      11.2    100     97

  I'd like to see Zydrunas play more out of the post, spotting up for jumpers near the top of the key. It could extend San Antonio's big men more than usual, and open driving lanes. As for Elson, he is like all Spurs big men besides Duncan: useful role player but not much else. They're only effective because of the other stars around them. Fabricio Oberto has amazing stats this playoffs, but no one is crazy enough to build a team around him.

Before I go, I have a couple of notes. Firstly, I'm intrigued by the battle between Anderson Varejão and Manu Ginobili to see which sixth man is the floppiest flop who ever flopped. Secondly, the biggest way this preview could be misleading is that the Cavaliers, more than any other team, have "turned it up" during the playoffs. They have played much better these last 16 games, especially on defense (which was great to begin with).

And so, I'll make this brief: the Spurs are hoping they can contain LeBron. They're hoping the national media's campaign of "the rest of the Cavaliers suck" rings true. The Cavaliers, meanwhile, are hoping they can slice up the Spurs' mighty defense and force bad shots. San Antonio is rightly the favorite here, but then, anything is possible with LeBron. Amen. Go Cavs!

During the regular season, the Cavaliers averaged 105.5 points scored and 101.3 points allowed per 100 possessions. That gave them the thirteenth-worst offense and fourth-best defense in the N.B.A. So far in the playoffs, to the best of my calculations, the Eastern Conference champion Cavaliers are averaging 104.5 104.8 points scored and 99.8 98.1 points allowed per 100 possessions. Looks pretty similar.

The difference between the regular season and playoff numbers are miniscule, mere percentage points. A particularly good or bad game could swing them significantly. But, just for kicks, I decided to take a look into the components of these numbers—the Four Factors I've been writing so much about in the series previews: shooting, turnovers, offensive rebounding, and getting to the foul line.

Cutting to the chase, I found that the Cavaliers have been getting to the line more often and have cut down on turnovers. Their shooting has suffered, though: Their regular season eFG% of .484 is down to .462 in the playoffs. On defense, they are forcing fewer turnovers, yet still playing at an elite level. Opponents have been ending more possessions with shot attempts yet paradoxically are ending fewer possessions with made field goals. Chalk that one up to good defense, I say.

The Factors, as a whole, have changed slightly and will move once again come the Finals. This surprises me, but as indicated by their offensive and defensive efficiencies, the Cavaliers have been playing just about as well in the playoffs then they did in the regular season (albeit against tougher competition). Who thought, watching this team in the winter, that they were to be the Eastern Conference champions? And rightfully so, not by some fluke?

I don't believe the Cavaliers to be the same team that we saw all those months ago; much has changed. But they have played remarkably similar. More so than I would've guessed off the top of my head. I thought their offense had been pretty poor so far, but it turns out I hadn't been adjusting for their slower pace of nearly five fewer possessions per game. Basically, I think we're all anxious for Thursday night.

And finally, if you don't enjoy my headline, I suggest you imagine Jim Mora reading it aloud.

I think we can all use a quick refresher:

I live in an apartment at Euclid and E. 12th. The Cavs clinched the Eastern Conference Championship—I say, the Cavs clinched the Eastern Conference Championship—over an hour and a half ago, and the nonstop stream of car honking, motorcycle engine revving, "Detroit sucks" chanting, and now, "Fuck Detroit" chanting outside my window has not shown a single sign of dissipating any time soon. If anything, the noise has gotten louder in the last fifteen minutes.

I don't know what else to say. You have five days to sober up, Cleveland.

In executing His most recent divine miracle, LeBron has effectively guaranteed that the upcoming Cavs offseason will be the shortest in Cleveland sports history:

team                offseason               length
Cavs    6/4/07 or later to about 11/1/07  <153 days
Indians        10/26/97 to 3/31/98         156 days
Cavs           5/18/76 to 10/22/76         157 days
Indians        10/28/95 to 4/2/96          157 days
Cavs           5/29/92 to 11/6/92          161 days

Hey, the less time we have to spend without LeBron, the better. In case you're curious, the longest offseasons in Cleveland sports history are:

team          offseason         length
Browns   12/13/59 to 9/25/60   287 days
Browns   12/16/56 to 9/29/57   287 days
Cavs      4/30/98 to 2/5/99    281 days
Browns   12/12/76 to 9/18/77   280 days
Browns   12/15/74 to 9/21/75   280 days

If you're like me, you have often wondered how the world would be different had J.S. Bach been a Cavs fan. (If you have never wondered that, then obviously you're not like me.) Either way, following the great miracle we have all just witnessed, I can't not share this with you (yes, I am a dork—deal with it):



Obviously, I'd rather post a recording than a score. Anyone want to get together and sing this mother?

In closing, praised be LeBron.