Justin Kubatko of Basketball-Reference.com has joined in on the playoff probability game with his own report. Unfortunately, it's a black box for now. But it makes for a good complement to John Hollinger's creation.

The Cavs' patience at the trading deadline not only bodes well for the team in the long-term (all of the rumored deals had the Cavs taking on more salary and longer commitments to overpaid players) but also, perhaps, in the short-term. Basketball-Reference.com currently has the Cavs as the favorite to win the Finals, at 33.8%. Hollinger has that a little lower, at 21.1%, but the Cavs are still most likely behind Boston. If the team is already the leading contender to win the championship, is it really necessary to sell the farm for that "last" piece?

That's a question without an answer, obviously. There are some deals that would benefit the Cavs, even if it meant bringing on more salary or losing Wally Szczerbiak's expiring contract. But you have to respect the front office for going with the team that has made them the best in the N.B.A.

Now these playoff odds aren't perfect. We can't assume that the Cavs have a near-50% chance of making the Finals because the model tells us so. I mean, both project the Wizards as mathematically eliminated from the playoffs when we all know that they're going to sneak in as the eighth seed, only to be destroyed by the Cavs in the first round. It's called fate.

Here's a comparison of the two systems, with today's numbers:

            Kubatko  Hollinger
Final W-L     64-18      63-19
Playoffs     100.0%     100.0%
Win div.     100.0%     100.0%
#1 seed       54.2%      41.3%
Make Finals   47.6%      32.3%
Champions     33.8%      21.1%

By now you're probably aware of the crushingly large amount of reader mail we receive here at the Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times. Truth is, it would really be impossible for us to try to respond to all of it. So for a few years now, it's been our brazen tradition to use the NBA All-Star Break, MLB All-Star Break, and Browns bye week as opportunities to answer a few Cavs, Indians, and Browns questions, respectively. Right now, it's the Cavs' turn, which is good, because currently, I don't think I'm capable of thinking about anything but Cavaliers basketball (well, Cavaliers basketball and cookies).

So here they are, world: your most pressing Cavs questions.

Hey cool guys,

In December, you pointed out that the Cavs were not only, in fact, the best team in the NBA, but on pace to become the greatest team in league history. However, while they've continued to play well, they haven't been able to keep up their incredible pace of the first 2 months. Are the Cavs still the best in the league? Are they still one of the best ever?

Ramón
Hunting Valley, OH

Corey says: Good question, Ramón. The short answer is that the Cavs are still objectively the best team in the NBA this year (still mostly thanks to their incredible first 2 months), but are no longer on pace to be the best team ever. Here are the top 10 all-time in Pythagorean win percentage and SRS (Simple Rating System, designed to account for strength-of-schedule issues):

               Pythag.
1. 1996 Bulls   .850
2. 1997 Bulls   .824
3. 2008 Celtics .818
4. 2009 Cavs    .808
5. 1992 Bulls   .801
6. 2009 Celtics .795
7. 1999 Spurs   .782
8. 1994 Sonics  .778
9. 2007 Spurs   .778
10. 1997 Jazz   .777

                 SRS
1. 1996 Bulls   11.80
2. 1997 Bulls   10.70
3. 1992 Bulls   10.07
4. 2009 Cavs     9.50
5. 2008 Celtics  9.31
6. 2009 Celtics  9.29
7. 1986 Celtics  9.06
8. 1994 Sonics   8.68
9. 1986 Bucks    8.67
10. 1991 Bulls   8.57

So the Cavs are no longer the most efficient team ever, but they're still in historic territory. It's clear they've slowed somewhat from their early pace, but what kind of slowdown are we talking about? Here's a graph showing the Cavs' running point differential so far this year (click to enlarge):



So things have slowed, but it's hardly time to start worrying. The Cavs are still a team blazing new trails. By the way, to give you some perspective on that graph, here it is again, but with the Cavs' 2006, 2007 and 2008 running point differentials included too (click to enlarge):



Just comparing this year (red) to last year (yellow) is enough to warm any Cavs fan's heart.

Hello Mistakes of the Lake Times,

How are the Cavaliers doing on their SCHOENE projections?

Papa Geno
Sarastros Burg, Austria

Corey says: Ah, another good question. You are referring to the SCHOENE projection system that was introduced this past offseason by Kevin Pelton of Basketball Prospectus as an NBA version of Nate Silver's famous PECOTA. Before the season started, we commented on SCHOENE's projections for the Cavaliers, which seemed pretty rosy at the time. Here's a scatter plot comparing SCHOENE's projected Player Win Percentage for each Cavalier with the actual numbers so far (click to enlarge):



Tossing aside the obvious small sample size anomaly of Darnell Jackson (and by the way: why the heck did SCHOENE project him so favorably?), it looks like SCHOENE did a fantastic job forecasting the 2009 Cavaliers. Even though the Cavs have outperformed even the loftiest of expectations, it hasn't been because any single player has broken the mold; rather, the team as a whole has managed to be a little better than we thought, without any weaknesses. The only Cavaliers whose PW%s don't measure up to SCHOENE's baseline projection are Mo Williams and Daniel Gibson, but even their numbers are extremely close to the projection.

Dear Joe,

I'm your biggest fan! I'm sure you hear that a lot. I love listening to you for every game (I don't have a TV; I'm also blind). I feel like you're a member of the family after all these years. I have a silly question, hope you don't mind. What's your favorite food? Thanks for your time.

Your biggest fan,
Julie Davner
North Duxbury, VT

Alex says: Hey Julie, that's a fantastic question. Although I'm pretty sure you meant for your letter to be delivered to Joe Tait instead of Corey and me. Don't worry, it happens all the time. And this one, I'm pretty confident, I can answer on Mr. Tait's behalf.

Joe's favorite food has got to be DiGiorno pizza. During every game, when it comes time to shill for DiGiorno, he goes above and beyond the call of duty. He doesn't simply promote their frozen pizza. No, he vows that DiGiorno is his manna from heaven, his ambrosia, his elixir of life. He crosses the line from pitchman to congregant in the First Church of DiGiorno Pizza.

Among other DiGiornio-related anecdotes Corey and I have heard on the air over the years, Joe had a conversation with his producer expressing surprise that he had purchased over one hundred DiGiorno pizzas on a recent trip to the grocery store; Joe told us about his family's Christmas dinner, which (he swore) consisted of only DiGiorno pizza; Joe regaled his anger at his family upon finding another brand of frozen pizza in their freezer; you get the picture.

So Julie, and all you other Tait's Mates, if you want to be like your hero, go out there and buy some DiGiorno pizza. And if you find yourself with too much, you can always crash some famous rapper guy's house party by pretending to be a delivery man with your DiGiorno.

Mistake by the Cleveland guys,

Whenever LeBron gets a triple double, we always hear about Oscar Robertson and how he averaged one over a whole season. But that was a long time ago and I know basketball was a different game then. How would LeBron have performed if he were in Robertson's shoes? Could he have averaged a triple double too?

Walter
Versailles, OH

Alex says: That's a very interesting question. In the 1961-1962 season, playing for the Cincinnati Royals, Robertson averaged 30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, and 11.4 assists per game. No one has come close to that since. One reason is that Robertson was one of the best players of all-time, playing in his peak, and on a one-man team.

Another reason is that professional basketball was a very different game back then. The worst scoring team in the league then averaged 110.9 points per game. This year, the best scoring team manages 108.7 points per game. It's not because players have forgotten how to shoot or that defense has become radically better. That may play a part, but the real culprit is pace. Meaning that games were much faster in the sixties. Possessions were shorter, leading to more shots in forty eight minutes and more scoring per game.

Using team data from the 1973-1974 season to 1978-1979—the only seasons before the three-point line was introduced for which we have possession data—I found an equation to predict a team's pace by it's points per game total. It's a crude tool, but it's the best I could do without investing a week to this. So, my best guess is that the 1962 Cincinnati Royals averaged 112.9 possessions per game (compare that to the 2009 Cavaliers' 89.2).

Now if LeBron averages 28.5 points, 7.5 rebounds, and 7 assists in a 89.2-possesion-per-game environment, how would he do in a 112.9 one? Translating His stats, you'd get an astounding 36 points, 9.5 rebounds, and 8.6 assists. As good as that is, color me surprised. I fully expected LeBron to surpass Robertson. Even if you look at LeBron's best year from a points-rebounds-assists perspective (last season), He still comes up short, with a translated 37.5 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 8.9 assists per game.

This should put Robertson's achievements into perspective for you. LeBron's been a better scorer relatively, but may still have yet to match Robertson's diversity of skills.

Hey fellas,

What is a "catch phrase"?

Austin C.
Cleveland

Corey says: I am glad you asked, Austin. Different people have different standards about what qualifies as a viable catchphrase (obviously). For example, I know (of) this guy—lets call him "A.C."—who watches a lot of Cavs basketball and talks about the Cavs a lot, but in reality he only knows about 5 or 6 distinct sentences. I guess you could call these "catchphrases." For example, if a Cavs player hits a three-point shot, without fail, he says "Deep! At the [name of arena]." Problem is, this is apparently the only thing he is capable of saying following a three-pointer, and he must say it after every three-pointer. It's gotten really bad this year, and I'm starting to wonder if A.C. is going senile.

In fact, if I had the technological skills, I would almost certainly put together an A.C. soundboard for the amusement of our readers (so if you want to help me out with that, let me know). I'm quite confident one could piece together an entire game's worth of credible A.C. commentary using only 10 or 12 prerecorded soundbites, starting with:

• after a 3: "Deep! At the [name of arena]."
• after a dunk: "Throw(in') the hammer down!"
• after a driving basket: "[name of player]... to the hoop!"
• after a block: "Get that weak stuff out of here!"
• after LeBron scores: "The Elllllllll-train!"
• after an "and 1" is called: [Long rambling literal description of what just happened, capped off by...] "Opportunity for a three-point play." (This one is always verbatim, and clearly not intended to be a catchphrase. I really think A.C.'s brain is simply incapable of forming new sentences.)
• after Fred McLeod says anything: [nervous giggling]

Again, I would have less of a problem with these if A.C. didn't feel the need to say them at every single possible opportunity and if they weren't the only things he ever said.

While we're on the topic of less-than-deserving catchphrases, am I the only one who finds it weird the way Mike Brown ends every one of his pre-game Joe Tait interviews the exact same way? It's always: "Iiiiiiiii'll SEE ya!" Come to think of it, Joe Tait himself is guilty of making catchphrases out of things that in no way warrant it; for example: "Operators... are standing by," during his ticket sales promos, or "Have a good niiiight, everybody!" at the end of every broadcast. Is there something in the water down there?

Dear Alex and Corey,

Did Mo Williams deserve to be an All-Star?

Amber Rondo
Louisville, KY

Corey says: Well, according to seemingly everyone in the mainstream media, it's preposterous to even ask that question, because apparently, before he became the second guy to make the squad due to injury drop-outs, Mo was going to go down in history as the biggest All-Star snub ever. I'm not so sure, however. For one thing, I don't accept the argument that a team's win total must in some way be proportional to the number of All-Stars it has. There are a lot of different ways to build a winning team. One way is with four All-Star-level players and a weak bench (the Celtics). Another way is with the greatest basketball player in galactic history, surrounded by a deep roster without a glaring weakness, but no obvious other All-Stars (the Cavaliers).

I realize this sounds like blasphemy to some Cavs fans, who probably don't agree with that description of the 2009 Cavs' makeup (they think Mo has been All-Star-caliber), but the reality is that, while Mo's been solid, his contribution to the Cavs' success has been pretty much equivalent to the contributions of about four other guys. The addition of Mo Williams to the roster has turned out spectacularly well, but that has as much to do with the subtraction of Larry Hughes and the reduction of a few other players' minutes than anything Mo's done. It's just really hard to argue that Mo's done better than Devin Harris, or Jameer Nelson, or even Rajon Rondo. Here are the top 12 Eastern Conference guards, ranked by 2009 PER:

                        PER
1. Dwyane Wade, MIA    28.1
2. Devin Harris, NJN   22.7
3. Jameer Nelson, ORL  20.9
4. Vince Carter, NJN   20.4
5. Jose Calderon, TOR  19.3
6. Rajon Rondo, BOS    18.8
7. Andre Miller, PHI   18.5
8. Michael Redd, MIL   18.4
9. Joe Johnson, ATL    18.3
10. Mike Bibby, ATL    17.7
11. Ray Allen, BOS     17.6
12. Mo Williams, CLE   17.0

Granted, PER is far from perfect. For one thing, it doesn't take playing time into account. For another, its methodology, while objective, can sometimes seem arbitrary. So here are the top 12 Eastern Conference guards in total win shares accumulated so far:

                         WS
1t. Dwyane Wade, MIA    8.0
1t. Ray Allen, BOS      8.0
3. Rajon Rondo, BOS     6.9
4. Jameer Nelson, ORL   6.2
5. Andre Miller, PHI    5.8
6t. Vince Carter, NJN   5.7
6t. Devin Harris, NJN   5.7
6t. Mo Williams, CLE    5.7
9. Mike Bibby, ATL      5.0
10t. Jose Calderon, TOR 4.7
10t. Joe Johnson, ATL   4.7
12. Michael Redd, MIL   3.5

Taking both these lists into account, I feel there are 5 guards that have to be considered ahead of Mo: Wade, Allen, Harris, Rondo, and Nelson. I then count three others who should at least be in the conversation, along with Mo, for the sixth guard spot (Johnson, Carter, and Miller). Let's be optimistic and say Mo is the sixth-most deserving Eastern Conference guard. That means he probably does deserve a roster spot. Of course, if we're indulging the fans their totally deranged wish to see the utterly undeserving Allen Iverson start at point guard, then perhaps Mo did not deserve to be among the initially-announced reserves, after all (though Rondo definitely did, ahead of Joe Johnson). Even then, taking Jameer Nelson's injury into account, Mo would've made it back in. Long story short, Iverson screwed everything up, and no, Mo was never on the verge of becoming the worst All-Star snub in history, or even in 2009. Thanks for writing, Ms. Rondo!