Sloppy

So I was reading CNN at work yesterday and ran across this article on the upcoming hurricane season. As far as I can tell, no editor ever saw this. Compare these paragraphs:

The probability of a major hurricane making landfall on the U.S. coast this year: 74 percent, compared with the average of 52 percent over the past century, he said.

There were 10 named Atlantic storms in 2006 and five hurricanes, two of them major, in what was considered a "near normal" season. None of those hurricanes hit the U.S. Atlantic coast -- only the 11th time that has occurred since 1945.

So in the last 100 years the U.S. coast has been hit by a hurricane in 52% of the years or exactly 52 of them. Later on we learn that since 1945, our coast has been hit every year but eleven times. Let's see. 2006-1945 = 61. In those sixty-one years we've been missed eleven times. 61-11 = 50. That means the U.S. coast was hit by hurricanes exactly twice between 1907 and 1945. Somehow I don't think that's right.
We also get this gem:

[Explaining why last year's prediction was off.] A weak to moderate El Niño occurred in December and January but dissipated rapidly, said Phil Klotzbach, a member of Gray's team.

[Later in the article.] The Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to November 30, averages 9.6 named storms, 5.9 hurricanes and 2.3 intense hurricanes per year.

So, let me get this right. A weather effect that didn't occur until December or January dampened a hurricane season that started six months earlier? That seems a bit counter-intuitive. Even if it's right, the article hardly explains that. I'd have sent this back for a rewrite.