What to make of Tribe's hot start?

OK, so the Indians aren't going to go 160-2 or 159-3. Dan Haren blanked them on one hit Tuesday night, and the Angels managed a victory in the rubber match of the series last night on a sacrifice fly in the bottom of the 12th that would not have scored the run if it had been hit about 10 feet shallower.

Still, the Indians are off to a pretty darn good start. The obvious question is, is this really how good this team is? Or are they just on a hot streak? I received this email from Jeff Brown three days ago, when the Tribe was 7-2:

As I have reported previously, the Tribe has had many fast starts over the past 25 seasons which have been a "flash in the pan" -- they ended up being a big loser by the end of the season.

That's what's happening again this season -- an impressive 7-2 start will, before, long, fade into the woodwork and they will become big losers once again.

Mark my words, Steve -- the 2011 Tribe will finish 15-20 games under .500!

Well, I don't know about all that. Do I think these Indians are a playoff team? Probably not. But if you think they were fundamentally a 15-under-.500 team at the start of the season, then you must revise your expectations based solely on the fact that they're four games over .500 right now.

This morning, I had this from Jeff:

Once again, as in the past, the Tribe zoomed out to a fast start at 8-2, however their precipitous decline has already begun.

They've lost two in a row to fall to 8-4, and just watch, Steve -- they are on a race to the bottom, and it's only a matter of time until they are in last place again.

They stink Steve, and no smoke and mirrors are going to cover up that fact over 162 games.

I anticipate they'll be in last place in their division no later than May 29, and as I have stated, they'll finish the year 15-20 games under .500.

Are you with me on this one?

Well, no. Jeez, talk about reading too much into two games. We're talking about two losses by a total of three runs. And to predict they'll finish last is to predict not only that they'll finish behind the Twins and White Sox (which is pretty likely), and the Tigers (which is about 50-50), but the Royals. Come on, Jeff! You think the Kansas City Royals are going to finish ahead of us this year? Have you looked at their "talent"?

In any case, to fully examine whether the Indians are for real, you have to take a look at the reasons for their hot start. The starting rotation has been really, really good. Fausto Carmona laid an egg on Opening Day, but he's gotten his ERA down from over 10 to 6.11 since then, with two strong outings. He's the only starter without a win now. Carlos Carrasco has been serviceable, and the other three starters -- Justin Masterson, Mitch Talbot and Josh Tomlin -- all have ERAs under 3, after two starts each. Can they keep this up? ... Well, probably not. These are all young pitchers who have not tasted this type of success in the bigs before, and they will get banged around from time to time. But I don't think it's unrealistic to expect any or all of them to finish with ERAs around 4, and 12-15 wins. Fausto has been a 19-game winner before, and could do it again. I would expect that Carrasco will finish with an ERA around 5 (it's currently 5.03). If all that happens, this will be one of the AL's better rotations.

They're helped by a solid defense behind them, strengthened by the off-season additions of Orlando Cabrera and Jack Hannahan. Asdrubal Cabrera -- who unexpectedly leads the team with four home runs and 10 RBIs -- is a solid glove man at short too. And this team is going to have to win with pitching and defense, because they're not going to keep up the offensive numbers they've posted. Asdrubal is no power hitter. I've heard talk about how he's changed his approach at the plate, and bravo for him, but he's currently on pace to hit 54 home runs. You're not going to convince me that the guy who hit three dingers all last season is suddenly a primo power guy unless he proves it to me. And I don't see that happening.

Anyway, the Tribe's fast start is encouraging. When the season started, I felt I'd have been happy with about a 76-86 record. I felt that was a realistic goal. Now? I think .500 is a possibility. It's going to require people to stay healthy and play well all year, but it could happen. Sorry, Jeff. I think you're wrong.

Jeff Brown thinks the Cavaliers stink

Of Fair Hooker correspondent Jeff Brown weighed in with this today:

The Cavaliers had a nice little stretch there between Feb. 11 - Mar. 4, when they went 4-4, including two beatdowns of the Knicks.

Alas, they have reverted back to their old ways, losing four in a row by an average of more than 16 points.

And of course, prior to their 4-4 stretch, they had lost 26 in a row, meaning they are a mere 4-30 over their past 34 games! (a winning percentage of .117 !)

Steve, don't allow yourself to get seduced by a short 8-game streak in which the Cadavers managed to eek out a .500 record!

I'm wanting to protect you from too much disappointment and overblown expectations -- you see, Steve, the Cavaliers still really stink.

What do you think?

Well, yes. Of course they do.

Oh, sure, we've got some useful players -- J.J. Hickson, in particular, has shown real flashes of brilliance from time to time, and Baron Davis has done well in his limited Cavalier action. But in terms of building a successful team down the road, there aren't many useful pieces here. Anderson Varejao has been hurt most of the year, but he's a fine player. Outside of that -- well, let's see, Christian Eyenga might develop, and fellow rookies like Samardo Samuels and Manny Harris could become nice players too. But not one of the guys listed here is a cornerstone-type player. We're going to have to hope we get one of those in the 2011 draft.

The good news? We'll probably have more lottery balls than anybody else.

The prolific Jeff Brown

Today's post is courtesy of my good friend Jeff Brown, who has been bombarding me with e-mails the last few days about how bad the Cavaliers are. I've meant to respond to each, but before I get a chance, he hits me with another one. So I am forced to post each message, one after another.

From January 9, under the subject line "Didn't quite work out like Cavaliers fans hoped, Steve":

You might recall that on December 2, 2010, LeBron James and his Miami Heat visited Cleveland for his first game in an opposing uniform.

The matchup was highly anticipated, and was an opportunity for the Cavaliers to send a message that they were still a good team even without LeBron.

Well, Steve... it didn't exactly work out that way, did it?

The punchless Cavaliers got shellacked by LeBron and the Heat, who have now won 20 of their last 21 games (20-1).

On the other side of the coin, the Cavs are now the joke of the NBA, supplanting last year's New Jersey Nets as the worst team in the Association.

The Cavaliers have lost 19 of their last 20 games (1-19), and at the rate they're going, they might not even reach 20 wins on the season!

That, my dear Steve, proves one point in flawless fashion: Namely, that the Cavs success was entirely to do with LeBron after all.

Not that everyone didn't know that already on some level.

However, the degree to which that statement is true is exponentially more than even I could have imagined.

With LeBron, they win 61 games and a first seed in the playoffs.

Without LeBron, they slip to a laughingstock team that loses 19 of 20.

Steve, the Cavaliers of 2005-10 were the classic definition of a "one man band" or a "one trick pony."

If it wasn't for David Stern rigging the draft lottery that enabled the Cavs to draft LeBron, Cleveland might not even have an NBA team any more.

Do you agree?

Well, no. First, I don't believe David Stern rigged the draft lottery. Remember that no one had more balls in that lottery than the Cavaliers that year, courtesy of a 17-65 season in 2002-03. Second, I don't think it's likely that the Cavaliers would have moved. Possible? Sure. You never know. Likely? Doubtful. And with a later pick, the Cavs might have gotten Carmelo Anthony, or possibly LeBron's new teammate Dwyane Wade, who might have shown Cleveland more loyalty than LeBron did if he'd happened to land here.

From January 12, under the subject line "Steve's known Jeff a long time":

You've known me a long time (longer than most people I still know), and I imagine you've noticed an occasional tendency toward exaggeration.

So perhaps you thought I was exaggerating a few months ago when I wrote and told you that the Cavaliers were going to be an absolutely atrocious team.

And perhaps you felt I was being a little bit too hard on them lately.

Well now, they've hit rock bottom, and they're trying hard to drill down even further: a 112-57 loss where if the Lakers would have made one more basket, they would have literally doubled the Cavs scoring!

* The Cavs have lost 21 of their last 22 games
* Franchise record-low scoring of 57 points
* starters combined for a measly 23 points against the Lakers
* leading scorer was Alonzo Gee (who the (heck) is that?)
* worst record in the NBA (has any team ever gone from "First to Worst" like this?

They won 61 games last year Steve, and they're on pace to LOSE 65 games this year! (and the way they're going, they'll lose 70!!)

Steve, this team makes the Ted Stepien-owned teams of the early 80s look like champions.

I'm starting to remember Keith Lee, Ben Poquette, John Bagley and the crew with fondness compared to these guys.

How many wins do you predict the Cavs will have this season?

Well, they've already got eight, so I'd say maybe 14 or 15. They'll manage to squeak out a few that we don't expect them to win. Every team does, even a team as bad as this one. Regardless, it's likely that these Cavaliers will threaten the team record for futility. The expansion 1970-71 Cavaliers went 15-67, and the 1981-82 team matched that record.

From January 15, under the subject line "Oops! Antawn Jamison sticks both feet in mouth":

Remember way back on October 27, 2010 when the Cleveland Cavaliers opened the season by defeating the defending Eastern Conference Champion Boston Celtics?

Well the Cavs were proud and confident. Here's what team leader Antawn Jamison said that night:

"This was for the city. It was for the fans to let them know the Cavs will survive and this is a place where you can still watch good basketball. And most of all, you can watch a team that wins."

"Guys in this locker room believe. We've been listening to what people are predicting for us. We're going to let our game do the talking. It's probably going to take a month or so for people to realize, 'Hey, this is a team that can win and compete for the playoffs."

Even owner Dan Gilbert was still under the illusion that the Cavs could do well post-King:

"Not a lot of teams have the quality of Antawn Jamison and Daniel Gibson coming off the bench," he said. "When you think of it in that sense, and having the kind of quality coach we have, anything can happen."

--

Uh, well... Steve, you know what's happened since.

I wonder if Jamison still feels the way he did after their first game, Steve.

The Cavs showed their true colors, which is simply that the were the Cleveland LeBrons and not the Cleveland Cavaliers all those years.

Without LeBron, they would have sucked all those years.

Before LeBron, they sucked (17-65 the season before he arrived, which the King promptly turned into 35, 42, and 50 wins the next three seasons)

After LeBron, they suck (8-31 and losers of 22 of their last 23 games.

That's a lot of sucking, Steve, so Cavs fans ought to be grateful the King spent seven seasons turning a truly (crappy) team into a contender.

Let's face it, Steve -- the reason Cavs fans are so bitter toward James is because they know, deep down inside, that he alone is what gave them hope and enjoyment about pro basketball in Cleveland for seven years.

Him and him alone.

It wasn't the coach. It wasn't the complementary pieces. It wasn't the new arena. It wasn't the free agent acquisitions (remember Larry Hughes?)

It was one thing and one thing only -- LeBron James singlehandedly made basketball relevant in Northeast Ohio.

Now, what's left is the ruins of a departed superstar, the likes of which the Cavaliers will never, ever see again.

I ask Cavs fans to be grateful for what they had.

Do you agree, my good man?

Grateful for what we had? Perhaps that's the healthiest way to look at it, but it's hard to get past the bitterness. And regardless, LeBron didn't deliver what he promised. He literally promised us a championship. And we had reason to expect multiple titles. None of that happened, in part because LeBron turned out to be no Jordan when push came to shove. And of course because he left without finishing the job.

The next one is not Cavaliers-specific, but about the city in general. From Saturday, under the heading "It's official, Steve -- Cleveland 1/2 the city it used to be":

It's official, Steve -- Cleveland, Ohio is now less than half the city it used to be.

The fine city peaked in 1950 with a population of more than 914,000.

Today's estimate is 431,000, a mere 47% of what once was, my good man.

That ranks as the 43rd largest city in these fine United States, whereas at one time it was the sixth-largest.

No wonder the sporting teams in Cleveland haven't won a championship since 1964 -- that's 47 years and counting.

It's difficult to win a championship when you're not only dealing with the oppressive weight of the "Curse of Rocky Colavito," but also the generally grim and dim situation in the city in which you play for.

Adding insult to injury the recent foreclosure crisis hit Cleveland much harder than the typical city, resulting in thousands more vacant homes littering the city and an increase in the homeless population.

What is next for Cleveland, Steve?

Well, I don't know what's next, but this is the obvious result of a dying local economy, fueled by moron politicians who continue to be elected by moron voters. That's the way I see it, and I can't see any change in that trend on the horizon.

Also from Saturday, under the line "First to worst -- one comparison for Cavs":

OK, so I did some research Steve and found out this (which I kind of remember now that I see it again):

The 1995-96 San Antonio Spurs were 59-23

The 1996-96 San Antonio Spurs were 20-62

That's a reduction of 39 wins, Steve. (David Robinson only played 6 games that season)

Here's the problem, Steve -- the Spurs lucked out and got Tim Duncan the next year and were back up to 56 wins in 1997-98 and won the NBA title the year after that in 1998-99.

That ain't gonna happen with the Cavaliers. Even if they get a high draft choice in the lottery, whoever it is won't be enough to drag the Cavs out of the doldrums.

I remember that Spurs team too. Losing Robinson for most of the season was the best thing that ever happened to that franchise, because it allowed them to draft Duncan. The next few years, they had Robinson and Duncan together as twin towers, and since Robinson's retirement, Duncan has carried that team to continued success. Since drafting Duncan, the Spurs have won four titles, two of which were without Robinson. Duncan has to be considered one of the 20 or 30 greatest players of all time. I disagree with Jeff to this extent: If the Cavaliers get somebody who turns out to be as good as Tim Duncan, he will drag them out of the doldrums. He might not carry them to a title, but a player like that can turn a bad team into a playoff team in a hurry.

Finally, from late last night (technically early this morning), under "Actually, Steve's Cavaliers are improving":

Well, since the NBA situation in our hometown is so dim lately, I'm choosing to celebrate some recent improvements with the Cavaliers, Steve:

In the past two games, they have only lost by 22 and 28 points, respectively...

...whereas three games ago, they lost by 55 points!

So they've only lost by 50 points the past two games, which shows rapid and impressive improvements in their game.

Do you agree this is cause for celebration, my good man?

Why the heck not. Break out the champagne.

Have the Cavaliers shamed Cleveland?

Today's post originates in the old mailbag, courtesy of our friend Jeff Brown:

Barely seven months ago, your hometown heroes otherwise known as the Cleveland Cavaliers were the toast of the town.

They had the megastar, LeBron James.

They had just won a team-record 61 games and were cruising through the playoffs by crushing the Chicago Bulls (a pretty good team themselves) 4-1 in their first-round series.

They were up 2-1 against the Boston Celtics, and then the bottom fell out and basketball in Cleveland will never, ever be the same:

* They proceeded to lose three consecutive games by an average of 17 points to lose their playoff series.

* The best player in Cleveland basketball history signed as a free agent in Miami (and punked the City of Cleveland with his infamous one-hour TV special).

* Future first-ballot Hall of Famer, Shaquille O'Neill, also packed his bags and went to another title contender.

* The most popular player in recent franchise history also signed with Miami (Z), still bitter the Cavs used him as trade fodder in mid-season to acquire Antawn Jamison. ('Z' gave his heart and soul to the franchise, and the best they could do is use him as fodder).

* The starting guard, Delonte West, got messed up with the law and also departed.

* Their owner angrily fired back at LeBron and proclaimed that the Cavaliers would win a championship before LeBron would.

Steve, what's left is a disastrous display of basketball, with the team recently experiencing a 10-game losing streak and shaming the fine fans of the Cleveland Metropolitan Area.

Do you agree with Dan Gilbert that the Cavs' are going to win a championship before LeBron does?

Do you think the Cavs will EVER win a championship?

Do you think that ANY Cleveland sports team will EVER AGAIN win a championship?

Help me, Steve...

Jeff makes some good points, though I think he overstates things a bit. It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out that's due to a lifetime of rooting for teams that have never EVER climbed the summit, at least not in his memory (or mine).

First, we'll address Jeff's direct questions. No, the Cavaliers will not win a title before LeBron James does. He's part of a great collection of talent in Miami, including one player who's been the top star on a team that's won a championship, in Dwyane Wade. The Cavaliers don't have one player to build around right now; Miami has three. Gilbert's assertion was ridiculous on its face, borne purely of anger and frustration.

As for whether the Cavaliers will ever win a title, that I cannot say. There's no reason to suspect they've got the makings of a championship team right now, but I would remind you that many of these players were here last year and formed much of the nucleus of a title-caliber team. The only major difference is LeBron, and while LeBron is a great talent, there are other comparable players out there. We don't have one now, but that doesn't mean we'll never get one again.

And yes, a Cleveland team will win a championship someday. Of our three teams, the one that appears closest to a champagne celebration is the Browns, which is of course a depressing thought given that they're currently 5-9 and likely to finish 5-11 for a second straight year. But they've got a promising group of players, and things can turn around in a hurry in the NFL. Nevertheless, unless Cleveland continues to die off and our teams start moving, we'll see a title someday. The laws of probability almost guarantee it.

One thing I must take issue with is Jeff's assertion that the Cavs' recent 10-game losing streak "shamed" their fans. This is something that I see from a lot of fans, the idea that their team's performance is a reflection on them somehow. This past Sunday, we had a birthday party at our house for my eldest stepdaughter, who just turned 17. It started at 4, so most people arrived after the Browns game but during the Steelers-Jets game that followed it. My brother-in-law's fiancee's oldest son is a big Steelers fan, and was flapping his gums the entire game about how great the Steelers are. People called him a front-runner (correctly, in my view), and he thanked them for saying the Steelers were great. I don't quite understand how people take compliments or criticism directed toward their team so personally. The Steelers have never won a game because of him, any more than the Cavaliers lost any of those 10 games because of me.

Tribe attendance problems?

We're dipping into the mailbag this morning, courtesy of Of Fair Hooker's second-most faithful reader (after my lovely wife), Jeff Brown:

Yes, the Tribe won their baseball game [yesterday] 3-2 against the ChiSox, however we have a major problem shaping up: this was a Saturday game, traditionally the day of the highest attendance across MLB, and the Tribe drew a grand total of 12,885 fans (barely 1/4 of the capacity of Jacobs Field).

This, Steve, is not a good sign when our hometown heroes draw a measly crowd like that. It's downright embarrassing, humiliating, and cause for starting the argument that the Indians might move out of Cleveland to greener pastures.

I mean, how can you justify continuing to function when you draw that kind of a crowd on a sunny Saturday afternoon, Steve?

I'm not sure if Jeff is employing hyperbole here, but taking his comments at face value, let's examine that attendance figure. Obviously, the Indians would be happier with a number much closer to the capacity of Progressive Field. But first of all, while the sun may have been out, it was cold yesterday. I don't know what the mercury hit in downtown Cleveland, but here in Windham, it never broke out of the 40s.

Second of all, the game started at 4 p.m., in order to accommodate the Fox network; exactly one hour after the Cavaliers started their first-round playoff series against the Chicago Bulls right across the street from the Indians. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say a lot of people who might have gone to the Indians game went to the Cavs game instead, but I will suggest that a number of Tribe fans chose to stay home and watch the Cavs on TV.

Don't misunderstand me: The Indians' attendance figures HAVE been down in recent years, and that IS a problem. But I think to point to one game and say that game's figures are cause for sending the Indians to Portland or Las Vegas is a bit much.

Speaking of yesterday's game, it was the Indians' third straight victory, after Asdrubal Cabrera's homer off Jake Peavy tied it in the eighth, and Shin-Soo Choo's RBI double off Matt Thornton gave the Tribe a 3-2 lead that would be the final score. Chris Perez, who had been so bad his last couple of outings, pitched an uneventful ninth for his third save. (And he might not be getting any more save opportunities for a while, as Kerry Wood appears close to returning.)

It was also the third straight game in which the Indians gave up exactly two runs. Jake Westbrook didn't go the distance like David Huff and Mitch Talbot the previous two days, but he was pretty good for seven innings, and this win was more his doing than the guy who got the win, Jensen Lewis.

At 5-6, the Tribe is now alone in third place, 3 1/2 behind the Twins.