Jon Hollinger wrote of the Cavaliers-Bulls-Sonics mega-trade:

Answer me this: Would you rather have Hughes (12.0 player efficiency rating) or Szczerbiak (16.0)? Brown (8.5) or West (10.1)? Marshall (8.5) or Wallace (12.1)? Gooden (12.8) or Smith (17.4)?

What if the trade had been during last summer, rather than at the trading deadline? Hollinger would've used PERs from last season. So, answer me this: Would you rather have Hughes (12.1) or Szczerbiak (14.8)? Brown (7.5) or West (14.0)? Marshall (15.3) or Wallace (14.6)? Gooden (16.5) or Smith (13.9)? It's a lot closer this time. The Cavaliers still come out ahead, I think.

Hollinger's PER is a nice stat. Though adjusted plus-minus (from BasketballValue.com) is a little more nuanced and has the word "adjusted" in it. Here is a brief explanation from 82games. Using this new stat from this season, answer me this: Would you rather have Hughes (-14.09) or Szczerbiak (4.86)? Brown (N/A) or West (-11.49)? Marshall (N/A) or Wallace (-.52)? Gooden (1.97) or Smith (2.17)? It's not as clear-cut anymore. Obviously, Hughes was killing the Cavs. But other than getting rid of him, it's a wash.

You've undoubtedly heard that the Cavs made a big trade today. In general, I don't like to blog about what's in the headlines, nor do I like to deliver snap assessments of trades, but this one is pretty mesmerizing. It's got an extremely positive element (bye, Larry!) a few elements that I would generally consider negative (see below), and a few minor pieces and parts that are really hard to place in one category or the other. Basically, I have no idea how I feel about this news.

For starters, I thought it might be useful to look at the salaries being swapped in this deal. The Cavs are unloading their worst contract, but taking on both Chicago's worst contract and Seattle's worst. Click to enlarge:



All told, the Cavs are taking on some salary this season (and we shouldn't really care about that), but breaking even in 2009 and 2010. Some are speculating that this trade is an attempt to delay the clearing of the books to coincide with LeBron's contract year. But it doesn't look like much difference has been made. Szczerbiak comes off the books just as LeBron's re-up comes into play, but then, so would have Gooden and Marshall. It ends up being a wash.

Now, a final word about Larry Hughes. He was awful. Actually, let me re-phrase that. He was awful on offense. He took a ton of shots. He couldn't shoot. He was overpaid. And he was often injured. In short, I really, really, really, really disliked his play—and not just recently, when it was fashionable, but for years now. The simple likelihood that Larry's many shot attempts will be replaced by some combination of Gibson, Szczerbiak, and LeBron shot attempts is a very good thing.

On the other hand, the Cavs are also losing Drew Gooden. I may not be completely impartial about Gooden, because I absolutely love his persona (his watch with the calculator in it, his after-the-whistle highlights... you know what I mean) but he is a very good player with an extremely friendly salary. I am very sad to see Gooden go.

So what are we left with? Ben Wallace might be the most overrated player in the NBA. If you think Hughes was a liability on offense, you don't want to look at Wallace's offensive (get it?) stats (warning, NSFW):

        2008  2007  2006
eFG%    .373  .454  .510
FT%     .424  .408  .416
OReb%   .115  .129  .122
Usage   .102  .106  .112
O-Rating  98   106   112

Wallace's current eFG% and FT% are both the worst in the entire NBA by a significant margin. He's an effective rebounder overall (34th in the NBA in total Rebound Rate) but even in that area he lags behind such Cavs/former Cavs as Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Anderson Varejão, and yes, Drew Gooden.

Luckily, he has the second lowest usage rate in the NBA, so unlike Larry Hughes, his poor shooting will not directly affect the box score. Instead, it will indirectly affect the box score, by placing pressure on the other four Cavaliers on the court, who will essentially have to do the jobs of five men. Wallace may be great on defense (though his 2007-2008 D-rating of 101 is the worst of his career) but, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, "She'd have to be really vibrant."

Wally Szczerbiak is also ridiculously overpaid. He'll be relied on to shoot, and not much else. His current eFG% (.529) and TS% (.573) are not bad; each ranks him in the mid-40s among qualifying NBA players. His defense, meanwhile, is pretty bad (111 D-rating this season, 110 last season). In fact, Hughes was much better in that area.

I could go on to analyze Delonte West a little bit, but I'm tired and anyway, I don't know what to make of West. He gets a lot of hype (seemingly) and had a good sophomore season in 2006, but has gotten progressively worse since then.

So am I happy? No, definitely not. Am I upset? Not really. I don't know what I am. But I tell you what, I can't wait until the "new" Cavs have played enough games that we can start to compare offensive and defensive performance from before and after the trade. So you have that to look forward to.

Sometimes, I wonder whether I should even do this anymore. No one takes him seriously; do they? Still, though, I couldn't resist. It's back to the well: mocking Bill Livingston!

When the Cavaliers were awful and LeBron James was even younger, the gone but not forgotten Darius Miles hoisted a wild 3-pointer one night. Apoplexy ensued at the broadcast table.

I don't doubt that members of the press suffered cerebral hemorrhages from a Darius Miles three-pointer.

This season, one NBA player is shooting 30.5 percent on 3-pointers yet has tried the second-most on his team. Of the 281 players who have made 3s this season, he ranks 195th.

I'm going to ruin the surprise now. It's LeBron James.

Suppose, furthermore, that the player who is the answer (no, it is not Allen Iverson, despite his tattoo averring that he is just that) is shooting 70.9 percent at the line, nearly a career-worst, and that he ranks 256th in foul shooting while taking by far the most free throws on his team.

LeBron's "70.9 percent," which is actually "71.0" for those who know how to round properly, is nearly a career-worst. It's also nearly a career-best. In His rookie year, LeBron hit 75.4% of his free throws. To reach that magic number, He'd need to swap twenty-two misses for makes. And at the rate LeBron gets to the line (10.3 FTA per game), that's swapping one miss every two games. That's not too hard to imagine.

First of all, statistics can be misleading.

Benjamin Disraeli, who was a British prime minister and not a D-League player, lumped them with "lies and damned lies" in a famous quote.

At first, I thought Livingston was talking about Benjamin Disraeli, the D-League player. You know, this guy. Glad he cleared that up. Also, you're wrong.

Meanwhile, volume shooting at the foul line is a fine thing, unless the shooter is Shaquille O'Neal or Dwight Howard. Sending guys like that to the line is like forcing a turnover.

Actually, no. (If you have a rudimentary understanding of basketball, feel free to skip this section.) Forcing a turnover guarantees that your opponent gets no points that possession. Putting O'Neal or Howard on the line gives your opponent two uncontested opportunities for points. And as long as neither O'Neal or Howard shoots 0% from the line (which they don't), it's not like forcing a turnover. In fact, I'd call it the opposite of a turnover.

The worst 3-point shooter among the top 10 scorers? Stoudemire, with a small sample of only 20 attempts, shoots just 20 percent. Wade is a grim 26.4 percent, showing how much the losing has worn him down in Miami.

Here are Dwyane Wade's three-point shooting percentages, by season: 30.2, 28.9, 17.1, 26.6, 26.4. Clearly, the losing ways of the Heat this season are dragging down his shooting. (Seriously though, that took ten seconds to find. Bill Livingston doesn't have that kind of time?)

Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki is at 29.1 percent, which leads one to ask what in the world was he doing in the 3-point shootout? James is fourth-worst.

So, among the top-ten scorers—who should be pretty good shooters as a group—LeBron is sixth seventh? Is that really so awful?

Of course LeBron's outside shooting could stand improvement. Who wouldn't be excited to see Him add three-pointers to His offensive arsenal? The same goes for His free-throw shooting. But, as it stands now, LeBron makes enough threes to keep His defender honest and enough free throws to keep from being hacked every time down the floor. I'm satisfied with that.

Sounding the alarm over LeBron's shooting or hinting that He's letting down his team because of these faults is ridiculous. That LeBron can be the best player in the N.B.A. in spite of poor shooting is just more evidence to His divine awesomeness. Without getting into it too much, LeBron is having the best year of His career. He deserves the M.V.P.

Career 3P% of Michael Jordan: 32.7
Career 3P% of LeBron James: 32.5

I'm just sayin'.

As you have undoubtedly surmised, Alex and I get a ton of reader mail. We do our best to respond to every inquiry, but with Alex's 13 jobs, my frequent business travel in Eastern Europe, taking care of Gomer (our secret black sheep younger brother), karate practice, surveying the Cuyahoga River watershed, and writing our first novel (a whodunit about the murder of a wealthy Cleveland-area striped socks baron), it can take years—even decades—for us to get back to everyone who writes in.

That's why we usually take time out during the Browns bye week, the MLB All-Star break, or, in this case, the NBA All-Star break, to reply to some letters en masse. Enjoy.

Dear Mistake by the Sports Sporting Times,

It's SO OBVIOUS the Cavs need to trade for a BIG NAME. Until they do that, they're going nowhere. I guarantee it.

S. Frenchman
Mentor, OH

Corey says: You're obviously not the only one who thinks the Cavs need to pull off a trade, Sid. But I feel compelled to point out a few things. One, the Cavs made the NBA Finals last year, with essentially the same roster. Now, that doesn't mean they're guaranteed to make it to the Finals this year, but at no point were they guaranteed (based on their roster or any other factors) to make it last year, either. My point is, the Cavs are capable of winning an NBA title with their current roster, just as they're capable of collapsing and missing the playoffs altogether.

You might argue that the Cavs' path to the Finals is tougher this year than it was last year, and you might be right. The Celtics are probably a tougher #1 seed this year than the Pistons were last year. But the East, as a whole, has gotten worse in 2007-08, and anyway, it's impossible to predict how anyone will fare in a small sample like a playoff series. No one thought the Cavs stood a chance against the Pistons last year, but they won convincingly. Are you prepared to say they have no chance against them again this year?

Finally, I don't equate "big name" with "good trade." For one thing, no one's going to take Larry Hughes off our hands. So what do the Cavs have to offer? Is Jason Kidd (say) substantially more valuable than Daniel Gibson (say)? Kidd might be slightly better right now (though even that is not a given), but Gibson is so much younger, so much more cap-friendly, and so much more likely to improve over the coming years. Jason Kidd is a lot more famous. I ask you: is that what's important?

Hey guys,

Am I the only one who thinks the Cavs are much better than their record suggests? I mean, look how they've come on in the last month or so. The Cavs are going to go far in the playoffs. I guarantee it.

Julie Davner
East St. Louis, IL

Corey says: You're right, Julie, in that the Cavs have clearly turned things around after an absolutely abysmal start, as evidenced by this season-o-graph (also known as a running point differential) (click to enlarge):



Of course, despite the Cavs' overall winning record, they still haven't climbed up into the black, point differential-wise. And in fact, they're currently in the midst of another mini-setback (probably the result of a sudden spate of injuries). Still, the turnaround is pretty obvious; it began sometime around the Cavs' December 25 win over the Heats (or "Heat"). I decided to try breaking up the season so far into two periods: Games 1-28 (or "Initial Plunge") and Games 29-52 (or "New Hotness," to borrow a phrase), in order to track the changes in the Cavs' offensive and defensive performance.

First the offense:

           Initial Plunge   New Hotness
Off. Eff.      103.2           108.4
eFG%            .478            .483
TO rate         .159            .142
Reb. rate       .280            .314
FT/FGA          .223            .220

By slightly improving their shooting efficiency, turnover rate, and offensive rebounding, the Cavs have been able to significantly improve their offensive efficiency. Would it surprise you to learn that the team also slowed its pace factor (from 92.0 during the Initial Plunge to 89.8 during New Hotness)?

Next, the defense:

           Initial Plunge   New Hotness
Def. Eff.      108.3           104.8
eFG% allowed    .502            .496
TO rate         .147            .146
Reb. rate       .751            .763
FT/FGA allowed  .269            .223

The defensive improvement has been slightly less dramatic, and even during New Hotness, the Cavs are still nowhere near their defensive awesomeness from last season (101.3 in the regular season, 100.9 overall). Nonetheless, the Cavs have cut down on their opponents' shooting, rebounding, and foul shooting (some of that is that the Cavs' opponents are shooting lower free throw percentages, but some of it is that the Cavs are committing fewer fouls).

The 2007-08 has been a weird season so far. I'd say there are factors causing some people to overrate the Cavs, and other factors causing people to underrate them. If New Hotness continues over the rest of the season, the Cavs will be fine and your prediction will probably look pretty good, Julie. But the last seven games have seen the Cavs start to lose it again. Let's hope it's just the injuries.

Dear Mistake on the Sports,

I heard you guys are into word games or something. I've been wondering for a long time if there are any good anagrams to be made from the names of our Cavaliers. All I've been able to get is "I Know Berm" for Mike Brown. It's pretty weak, I know. Can you help me out?

Lanie Burx
Etched Vegan Hills, OH

Alex says: I'll try my best!

Any investigation into Cavaliers-related anagrams should surely start with LeBron James, Our Lord and Savior. Tired of saying "King James this," "King James that"? Well, next time, try "Elmer Banjos this," "Elmer Banjos that." I imagine Mr. Banjos as some kind of banjo-playing, mountain-man LeBron alter ego. And if we're going to discuss alter egos, what about Daniel Gibson's nom de plume, Linda Big Nose?

Anagrams don't just reveal a person's secret identity, though. They can unveil lurid tidbits. Take, for example, Drew Gooden. Ever wonder what kind of car Drew drives? Wonder no more! He's a Dodge owner. And with a mantra like "Score, win," we now know why Eric Snow drives the lane with such authority. Damon Jones clearly has a penchant for outside shooting, likely since he does non-jam—which is probably the reason he never dunks. And when he comes back from injury, keep an eye on Aleksandar Pavlovic. Insiders are saying he's nothing more than the Cavaliers' vodka plan.

What if we turn our attention away from the men on the court? At the announcers table, Fred McLeod, hastily brought over from Detroit, is a forced meld. Austin Carr, though, is just suffering from crania rust. The man that hired McLeod away from the Pistons, Dan Gilbert, may have thought twice about buying the Cavaliers back in 2005 if he knew that he wouldn't be raising a championship banner in Quicken Loans Arena any time soon. How do I know? Let's just say that purchasing the team might have resulted in a tabled ring.

And finally, much-maligned guard Larry Hughes only hurls long twos.

MBTL Times,

Speaking of Larry Hughes, he sucks. He's got to be the most inefficient shooter in the league, right?

Francis B.
Fond du Lac, WI

Alex says: I'm with you, Francis. But actually, Hughes is currently the fourth-most-inefficient shooter among qualified players, leading Sebastian Telfair, Quentin Richardson, Sasha Pavlovic, and Ben Wallace. For the uninitiated, I'm using effective field goal percentage (eFG%) as the measure of shooting efficiency, since it adjusts for the added reward of making a three rather than a two.

But not everything Hughes has been lousy this season. His eFG% on three-pointers alone (52.2) would place in him the upper half of the league standings. His eFG% on long twos (38.6), though, would only place him above Ben Wallace. How could Hughes actually improve by stepping behind the three-point line? Actually, he makes a higher percentage of his long twos versus threes (38.5% to 34.7%). It's just the bonus of making a three pushes the efficiency of his three-point shooting past that of his long-two shooting.

And how do I know all these numbers? I made a super cool spreadsheet, of course. In a previous post, I wrote about mining shot chart data from NBA.com. Well, I've scaled up a few degrees. I'm now tracking the shots of every Cavalier automatically for the rest of the season. I even went through the trouble to produce some charts, which I won't bother to discuss:







Don't mind the horizontal scale going above 100% on that last one. For all of its bells and whistles, Google Spreadsheets won't let you mess with the axes. Anyway, remember what I said about Larry Hughes sucking at long twos? Unfortunately, Hughes shoots the highest percentage of his shots from this distance of any Cavalier. Of course, things aren't as simple as telling Hughes to stop shooting long twos and maybe, just maybe, taking one step backwards and trying from there. But it couldn't hurt.

Dear Lake Sporting Mistakes,

Who's the second-best Cavalier?

Linda B.
Independence, OH

Alex says: Linda, hello. Thanks for coming. Let's get right to it. You may recall, ten seconds ago I sent you a link to my super cool Cavs spreadsheet. Though it only contains shooting data, I think it'll make for a useful first pass through the possible answers. Your question could have a few interpretations, so I'm going to answer "Who's been the second-best Cavalier this season?" Now, this player definitely should be a good shooter. So I used season eFG% (which is graphed above) to eliminate the losers, leaving Daniel Gibson, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Damon Jones, Dwayne Jones, Ira Newble, and Anderson Varejão.

Right away, it's not too hard to eliminate a few more. Neither Jones, Newble, and Varejão has played enough minutes to merit consideration. So we're down to Gibson and Ilgauskas—it's hard to find two more dissimilar Cavaliers. Gibson has been the more efficient scorer and passer. Ilgauskas is better on defense and rebounding. Though Ilgauskas either has the advantage or trails closely in most per-thirty-six-minute stats. To wit (from Basketball-Reference.com):

            2P   2PA   3P  3PA   FT  FTA
Ilgauskas  6.3  13.4  0.0  0.0  3.2  3.9
   Gibson  1.9   4.1  2.5  5.4  1.7  2.1

           ORB  DRB  AST  STL  BLK   TO   PTS
Ilgauskas  4.3  6.9  1.8  0.5  1.9  2.2  15.9
   Gibson  0.6  2.1  2.9  1.0  0.3  1.6  12.9

As much as I love Gibson and totally intended to write this section about how he's been the second-best Cavalier so far, Z has actually edged him out by a hair, in my book. Ilgauskas has scored efficiently, grabbed rebounds, and blocked shots. Gibson has only been an unbelievable shooter. That's fine, though. He still rocks hardcore—an eFG% near 60, are you kidding me?

Dear Alex and Corey,

When will the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times be announcing its endorsements in the presidential primaries? I need to send in my absentee ballot, like, soon... and you guys are leaving me hanging.

Chad
Clam Gulch, AK

Corey says: Okay, okay. I gotta tell you, Chad is hardly the only person to have written us about this. We've put off an announcement for long enough. After weeks of intense discussion, research, and personally interviewing each candidate, Alex and I are prepared to announce that the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times is officially endorsing [PORTIONS OF THIS ANSWER ARE BEING CENSORED BY THE MISTAKE BY THE LAKE SPORTING TIMES'S PARENT COMPANY, GLOBOCLEVE MEDIA, INC.] for President of the United States of America. We feel very strongly that with his or her fresh perspective and/or wealth of experience, America will be in the right hands.

Well, that pretty much seals it. Better luck next time, other candidates!

Without a single exception, it's every football fan's absolute favorite event of the year: the Pro Bowl! Now, personally, I was under the impression the Pro Bowl got cancelled about eight years ago, but apparently now it's back, and better than ever!

And what, you might ask, made them decide to re-make this forgotten TV classic? Why, the plethora of fine Cleveland Browns players on hand to appear in the game, of course! By my recent, admittedly unofficial tally, the AFC Pro Bowl roster this year is 74% Browns. Which is, you know, a lot.

When Braylon Edwards and Josh Cribbs were named Pro Bowlers, Alex and I shared a bottle of '75 Cattier. Later, when Joe Thomas, Derek Anderson, and Kellen Winslow were named to the squad, we took a celebratory trip to our winter home outside of McMurdo Station. But when Ryan freaking Pontbriand was revealed as the AFC's Pro Bowl long snapper, we knew we had to bring you the first ever "Born and Raised on the AFC". Enjoy!

Play of the Week

Alex says: When our beloved boys in red 'n' white took the field for their first drive of the game, I held my breath in anticipation of what fabulous highlights the six Browns Pro Bowlers would unleash that afternoon. Fortunately, I didn't have to wait long. Peyton Manning found Braylon Edwards streaking across the field for a thirty-one-yard gain on 3rd-and-5. Edwards was ruled out at the one, but if the referees bothered to use instant replay at the Pro Bowl, it would've been a touchdown. Clearly, the Browns were off to an awesome start and couldn't be stopped. After that, though, there weren't any other Browns highlights, so I just kind of cherished that one catch for the rest of the game.

Corey says: I, too, will go with Braylon Edwards' fantastic 31-yard catch that set up the first AFC score. You know a receiver is top-notch when he can make Peyton Manning look good out there.

Player of the Week

Alex says: I would like to say that I love Joe Thomas. I wish he wore #77, but that's more Kevin Shaffer's fault than Joe's. That a team could be stupid enough to draft Jamarcus Russell over Thomas is, just, wow. I don't know what to say. He was just as dominating in the Pro Bowl, lining up against guys like Aaron Kampman or Osi Umenyiora (I didn't even have to look up the spelling) every down, as he was during the regular season.

Corey says: Joe Thomas did indeed have a great game, but so did Ryan Pontbriand, who not only snapped the long ones, but played on the kickoff, kickoff return, and punt return teams as well. Is there anything that guy can't do? Obviously the answer is no.

Quote of the Week

Alex says:

"One of the cool things about the Pro Bowl, Darryl, is the players get to wear their own helmets." —Kenny Albert

It's hard not to agree with Kenny here. Just think about it. Do the players in the N.B.A. All-Star Game get to wear their own helmets? No! How about the M.L.B. All-Star Game? Not a chance! What I assume is called the N.H.L. All-Star Game? Well, maybe. I don't know. But that the league office allows Pro Bowlers to wear their own helmets, rather than forcing them to wearing some lousy off-the-rack thing, is a true mitzvah.

Corey says:

"The whole week has been a blast so far and I'm sure that'll only continue. I'm going to remember this whole experience. If I don't, I'm going to be upset with myself." —Ryan Pontbriand

See, that's what makes Ryan Pontbriand such a master artisan of the long snap. He holds himself to such a high standard. I'm definitely going to remember that next season when I'm watching the Browns special teams. And if I forget, so help me God, there will be hell to pay!

Ryan Pontbriand Honorary Special Teams Moment of the Week

Alex says: On the opening kick of the second half, Devin Hester seemed poised to take it all the way to the house! And by house, I mean the end zone. It's a fairly common phrase. Anyway, Hester was going to score, because the guy's got a 100 speed rating in Madden for Christ's sake! He's just unstoppable. But then, at the sight of three Browns (Cribbs, Pontbriand, and Winslow) barreling down on him, Hester choose to trip on his own feet rather than face the destructive wrath of a Browns-triple-tackle. Officially, Cribbs got credit for the tackle, though that's just a formality.

Corey says: I feel that Josh Cribbs did a pretty decent job on his various kickoff returns (ironically, the NFC did not punt in the game), considering that he was running behind a cobbled-together patchwork of special teams novices (plus Ryan Pontbriand). Unlike Devin Hester, who seems content to run every which way in a confusing display of tackle-shedding, Cribbs tends to prefer the "straight path to the endzone" method, which really requires a well-crafted scheme of blocks on the part of the other 10 guys on the field. That said, Cribbs broke one pretty impressive return, a 41-yarder in the first quarter. Woo!

Jamir Miller Memorial Obscure AFC Guy of the Week

Alex says: Derek Anderson, the AFC's third-string quarterback, got plenty of playing time in the second half. I don't really understand why, though. When he first came in, the team only led by a point. So, it came as little surprise that the team lost. What were you thinking, Norv Turner? Anyway, Anderson didn't have much of a game (2.23 adjusted yards per attempt) but there were signs that he might one day develop into a useful player. Anderson is a definite project at this point, but probably one of the best emergency quarterbacks in the league already.

Corey says: I'm going with backup tight end, #80, Kellen Winslow. Kellen is in his fourth year out of Miami (of Florida), and though he didn't make much of an impact on yesterday's game, his middle name is Boswell. Which makes him a winner in my book!

Fashion Item of the Week

Alex says: Undoubtedly, Pro Bowl jerseys are ugly by definition. All those clashing colors is too much to handle. I always wonder, why not just let the players wear their actual jerseys, like in the M.L.B. and occasional N.B.A. All-Star Games? The A.F.C. players could wear their whites and N.F.C. could wear their colors. It would be a neat sight to see a line made up of a purple, brown, green, blue, and red jersey. Some would argue that all the different colors would be confusing and lead to chaos on the field. And they're probably right. But hey, it's the Pro Bowl! Who cares? Why not try it out and see if it works?

Corey says: Let's ride the bullet train, shall we?

• The Pro Bowl jerseys, even without helmets, are hideous. That said, I don't think any helmet goes worse with one of those red AFC jersey than the Browns'. Can't they mix up the color scheme every once in a while?
• Did anyone else notice that the Browns logo on Derek Anderson's shoulder was attached incorrectly, so that the facemask on the helmet pointed straight down? This really bothered me, and almost—almost—ruined the Pro Bowl for me.
• Thank God somebody remembered to honor Sean Taylor, the greatest American ever to have lived. Seriously, I have nothing against the guy, but enough already! I cannot wait until next season, when (we can only hope) the #21 decals will be a thing of the past.
• This is not really fashion-related, but the TV broadcast made it seem like only one of the Browns' four mascots (TD) was in attendance. This hardly seems fair. TD's entire oeuvre depends on the presence of CB, Chomps, and Trapper. I am going to write the NFL about this.

Idiot of the Week

Alex says: Look, I'm contractually obligated to name Ray Lewis my Idiot of the Week. At this point, my feelings on Lewis should be well-known to any regular reader.

Corey says: I think if most Cleveland fans had been told, a year ago today, that six Browns would play in the 2008 Pro Bowl, the general reaction would be something like "What?!?!? You mean they snubbed Eric Steinbach?!" Yes, for all the excellent, excellent Browns that appeared in yesterday's contest, I say there weren't nearly enough. Where was Joe Jurevicius? Leigh Bodden? Lawrence Vickers? Nick Sorenson? Mason Unck? Wali Rainer? I'm confident that next year, there will be at least 15 Browns on the Pro Bowl roster. If there aren't, we'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the evil Pittsburgh ketchup lobby has infiltrated the NFL.

Number of the Week

Alex says: This isn't a number per se, but it has to do with numbers. I'd been vaguely aware that Derek Anderson wasn't playing up to snuff by the end of the season, but Tony Grossi's latest article kind of alarmed me. I decided to check it out, and tracked both Anderson's adjusted yards per attempt and passing DPAR per attempt every week (I don't have DPAR for Week 17, though). Here are a couple charts:





These numbers don't factor in the weather, so the decline may be due to the cold weather. Anyway, Anderson doesn't look quite as savior-y as he did circa Week 9, but he's still young and productive. It'd still be the smart thing to try to resign him for a reasonable contract. If the contract demands are too large, cut him loose and take the draft picks. No need to worry for now.

Corey says: 2, or the number of times Derek Anderson handed the ball to a running back. Compare that to his 26 passes attempted, and I have to wonder: does Norv Turner have a crush on Anderson? I mean, I can't say I blame him for wanting to keep the ball out of Willis McGahee's Baltimoronic hands, but a 26 pass/2 rush mix, in a game you were actually leading (albeit by a slim margin), with a QB who didn't exactly have his best stuff, is a little extreme, even for me.

Next week (or so): The AFC travels to Shanghai, China, to take on the... uh... wait a minute. They don't?! Well, I guess the season's finally over, then. Looks like it's time for Alex and me to bring you our very special Season Wrap extravaganza. Whaddya say, mon frère?

You probably missed it, but last night Fox broadcast the "Super Bowl". I'd never heard of it either. But apparently, it's the championship game of the N.F.L. Don't get your hopes up—the Browns weren't playing. In the end, the white team beat the blue team (even though the white team had blue helmets and the blue team had gray ones). It was very exciting.

As I watched the game, I thought to myself, "Boy, wouldn't it be really cool if the Browns won this Super Bowl?" Maybe you've had thoughts like that yourself. Then I realized it'd be cool if any Cleveland team won their respective Super Bowl. But what are the odds of that happening?

Looking around for betting odds, I found a site that lists the odds of the Cavaliers winning the 2008 N.B.A. Finals, the Indians winning the 2008 World Series, and the Browns winning the 2009 Super Bowl. They're 22-to-1, 10-to-1, and 30-to-1. It doesn't seem that any of them are a particularly good bet, at least according to odds makers.

What about, though, the odds of any of the teams winning a championship this year? Well, in 2008, the Browns' chances are zero (see first paragraph), the Cavaliers' chances are 22-to-1 or 4.3%, and the Indians' are 10-to-1 or 9.1%. That means the probability of a Cleveland team bringing home a championship in 2008 is approximately 13%.

And what about 2009? The Browns are listed at 30-to-1, or 3.2%, though we don't know about the Indians or Cavs. In any season, a random N.B.A or M.L.B. team's odds of winning the championship should average 3.3%, or 1-in-30. Why? Because each league has thirty teams. So, for 2009, I'll take the Indians' 2008 chances (9.1%) and regress them to the mean (3.3%) by half, to get 6.2%. I do the same for the Cavs, and get 3.8%. That means, all in all, the chance of any team winning in 2009 is 12.7%. And the chances of any team winning in 2008 or 2009 is 24.1%.

Things don't seem so bad now. It's actually hard for me to believe that there's an almost 1-in-4 chance the Indians, Browns, or Cavs will win it all by the end of next year. And if I keep repeating the same process (regressing the teams' chances to the mean by half for every year), I get this spreadsheet. You can understand the columns this way: the year; the Browns' chances of winning that year; the Indians' chances of winning that year; the Cavaliers' chances of winning that year; the odds that any team won't win that year; the odds that any team won't win a championship between 2008 and that year.

You might notice a couple things. First, the teams' chances get to the mean pretty fast. By 2020 onwards, they stay pretty much identical for each team. This makes intuitive sense. There's no way to predict whether the Indians' will have better or worse than 1-in-30 odds of winning the World Series in twelve years, let alone thirty. Second, those cumulative odds add up kind of fast, too. This model predicts that by the end of 2036, there's a 95% chance Clevelanders will have celebrated a championship. And by 2064, the one-hundred-year anniversary of Cleveland's last championship, the odds are nearly 100%.

Granted, 2036 is a long way off. And 2064 is even further. Most of you will probably be dead by then. Also, a 95% chance isn't a sure thing. Neither is a 99.9% chance. But take solace in the less sure things: there's a better than one-half shot that we'll have a championship before 2014. That's not too bad, right?