Today's Fantasy Rx

Today's review is the last of fourteen magazine reviews this spring. I've posted the twelfth and thirteenth reviews over the last two days. If you're interested in the summary article covering the previous ten reviews, please click here. The Major League Baseball 2002 review is archived here.

We conclude our Spring Magazine Reviews with:

Fantasy Sports, May 2002

3/10 points for Presentation.
They again published with 18 pages of color glossy, 96 pages of matte black and white. I really wish they'd put some of their projection information in front instead of burying it in the middle. Seven of the 18 color pages were also devoted to ads, and while that likely increases the revenue for the publication, it doesn't help the readers at all.

5/10 points for Table of Contents and included content.
The TOC remains on page 4 behind two pages of ads, but it remains very descriptive, including position-by-position page references.

While the meat of this preview is very similar in style to the April issue as much of the individual player reviews are identical, they've also modified almost every single one to some extent. They updated the dollar values and commentary to reflect recent changes and also added specific projections for most players.

Perhaps the most interesting addition to this issue is the complete rosters and draft breakdown for the Krause Publications Experts League Draft. It's a 4x4 mixed straight-draft league that picked their players in early February, so it's one of the shallowest formats in which to draft. They also plug commissioner.com as "innovative and highly-popular", while the latter may unfortunately be correct, we really dislike comm.com compared to a site like TQStats. Our biggest objection is that comm.com doesn't let you view all offensive free agents at once, so it creates a major headache for anyone with limited time for transactions.

Based on the "experts" involved in this league, perhaps the article should be titled "Anyone can be an Expert." In 4x4 mixed draft leagues, your focus should be on drafting as much offense as possible, especially at positions with overall less talent like catcher and second base.

Although there's no need to take a starting pitcher for the first ten rounds, and taking more than just a staff ace strikes me as very excessive, nine of these twelve "experts" violated this rule. CBS Sportsline's Scott Engel wasted his first two picks on Pedro and Schilling, and Rotoworld's Matt Pouliot spent three of his first five picks on Maddux, Garcia, and Vazquez. While I have little objection to perhaps grabbing Schilling or Vazquez, there's no reason to ignore your offense while grabbing pitchers who only truly contribute in one category. Anyone can assemble a solid staff in a 4x4 mixed league, but only great offenses will normally allow you to win.

To add more perspective to this draft, Mark Kotsay and Carlos Pena were not drafted until Round 23, while A.J. Pierzynski, Arthur Rhodes, and David Eckstein all fell to Round 22. The latter three are each in the Top 10 at their positions, while Kotsay and Pena offer four-category potential that makes them useful in any league.

I often find that the best way to evaluate "experts" is to judge the quality of their drafts. ESPN.com's Eric Karabell, Fantasy Sports' Greg Ambrosius, and BBHQ.com's Jeff Howard were the only owners that didn't draft pitching early, and not coincidentally, I expert them to finish 1-2-3 in some order barring several injuries.

1/10 points for describing the league for their main rankings.
I gave them a 2 here for their last issue, and I'm quite disappointed that they didn't fix the errors. As my previous comments still completely apply, I'll just repeat what I said last time:

The only time they mention league format is in the draft day cheatsheet dollar values, where they comment that "dollar values are for AL-only Rotisserie Leagues, based on eight categories", along with a corresponding NL announcement. They even have 3 pages of rankings for points' based leagues without telling us the exact formula used. Actually, I was going to give them a 4 since they at least made an attempt, but what does "based on eight categories" mean. Either you're using 4x4 or 5x5, and if you don't know which for certain, you shouldn't be printing a fantasy publication.

13/50 points for specific player analysis, 5 points for each player as follows.

8/25 points for Position Players:

1. Jeremy Giambi, Outfielder, Oakland Athletics:
  1. Only now entering his peak years.
  2. Most of his averages have been trending upwards for the past few seasons.
  3. He's better at his age than his brother Jason.
  4. Injury questions: He's never had more than 2001's 371 AB in a season.
  5. Playing time question: The Athletics have several other quality 1B/LF/DH.

0/5 points for Giambi. Unbelievably, they again failed to include any description of him, although they find space for Olmedo Saenz. While I'm not a big Olmedo fan, I also can't believe anyone would tell you that he deserves a write-up more than a starting leadoff hitter.

2. Shawn Green, Outfielder, Los Angeles:
  1. He should stay above the 40/110 level regardless of a Sheffield trade.
  2. He's capable of a 45/35 season if given the opportunity.
  3. He just entered his peak power years.
  4. He almost never misses a game, so you can count on high counting number totals across the board.
  5. Los Angeles expects him to anchor their offense despite a career .353 OBP.

3/5 points for Green. Hits on #1 and #5, and I'll give them credit for #2 since they still come closer than most other publications.

3. Todd Hundley, Catcher, Chicago Cubs:
  1. Expect 30+ HR if he can find 400+ AB.
  2. Don't expect him to find 400+ AB unless he starts off strong.
  3. He should reach at least 80 RBI hitting behind Sosa, McGriff, and Alou.
  4. Don't expect him to exceed a .260 BA.
  5. He's young enough to rebound into a typical catcher's late-career power spike.

1/5 points for Hundley. Hit on #4, but they don't really make any other complete predictions.

4. Doug Mientkiewicz, First Baseman, Minnesota Twins:
  1. He's 27 and entering his third full season; expect a more impressive breakout than 2001.
  2. His RBI will increase as Rivas and Guzman's OBPs increase.
  3. His runs will increase with probable improvements by Ortiz, Jones, and whomever earns the RF job.
  4. He'll be lucky to hit .300, but .290 is quite reasonable.
  5. With Tom Kelly gone, he's the unquestioned starter for the next couple of years.

2/5 points for Mientkiewicz. Allusions to #4 and #5 score them two points.

5. Jose Ortiz, Second Baseman, Colorado Rockies:
  1. He's receiving his first uncontested full-time job going into Spring Training.
  2. His 2000 MLEs were outstanding, even for the Pacific Coast League.
  3. He's only turning 25 this year, so he's likely to post great 5x5 numbers in the future.
  4. Colorado wants to bat him 2nd, decreasing his RBI opportunities, but potentially increasing his runs scored ahead of Helton and Larry Walker.
  5. If he struggles, they might give Brent Butler a shot at the job.

2/5 points for Ortiz. Even though he's been dropped in the order, they still get the point for #4, as well as a reference to #2.

5/25 points for Pitchers:

1. Paul Abbott, Starting Pitcher, Seattle Mariners:
  1. He had 17 wins because he received the most run support in the majors in 2001.
  2. He's allowed over 20 HR in each of the last two seasons in under 180 IP both years.
  3. Since he's already 34, he's now on the downside of his career.
  4. His K:BB has been quite bad at a combined 218:167 over the last two years.
  5. Seattle has a cadre of young pitching soon to replace him.

1/5 points for Abbott. Hit on #1, but I don't agree with most of their other comments.

2. Matt Anderson, Closer, Detroit Tigers:
  1. Aside from one bad April outing, his ERA would have been well below 4.00.
  2. He pitched quite well as a full-time closer last year.
  3. There's little competition in the Tigers' bullpen.
  4. He doesn't appear to be an injury risk.
  5. The Tigers have a weak offense and weak starting pitching, decreasing his potential save opportunities.

1/5 points for Anderson. They cover #2, but attribute his high ERA to overall road difficulties instead of his one bad outing.

3. Curt Schilling, Starting Pitcher, Arizona Diamondbacks:
  1. He's unlikely to reach 20 wins again in 2002 because of a probable downturn in Arizona's offense.
  2. He led the league in HR, so his ERA could rise if his OOBP ever slips.
  3. He's 35, but appears to be aging nicely like his fellow ace and World Series MVP.
  4. While he's only broken 190 strikeouts three times in his career, he struck out over 290 batters in those other three years. Expect another season of close to 300.
  5. While he appears recovered from past injuries, he could hit the DL quickly, so monitor his pitch counts for overuse.

2/5 points for Schilling. Hits on #1 and #3, but they wimp out on #4, projecting an unlikely 277 strikeouts. I also highly doubt that he'll reach the 20 wins that they predict for him.

4. Jason Schmidt, Starting Pitcher, San Francisco Giants:
  1. He has $20+ potential when healthy.
  2. He appears to be both healthy and secure after signing a long-term deal with the Giants.
  3. He struck out almost a batter per inning last season.
  4. He's never finished the year with an ERA under 4.07, which he's reached twice.
  5. The Giants have a deep and talented bullpen, so he won't need to pitch deep into games.

1/5 points for Schmidt. A definite hit on #2, but they again irk me by risking a 3.99 ERA projection without discussing #4.

5. Ugueth Urbina, Closer, Boston Red Sox:
  1. He appears fully recovered from his arm troubles.
  2. Posted a 2.25 ERA and a 32:3 K:BB after his trade to Boston.
  3. The Red Sox want Lowe to start, eliminating his primary competition.
  4. He'll be a free agent after this season, so the Red Sox are open to trading him under the right circumstances.
  5. He can dominate when healthy, and the Red Sox have a good team surrounding him.

0/5 points for Urbina. They even state that "Urbina is no longer a dominant fantasy closer", and really don't touch on any of these points.

1/5 points for editing.
Perhaps they just don't have time to edit, but they have some laughable mistakes every single time.

Baltimore: Singleton is listed as the starter in CF on the field, but Matos is listed in the lineup. Jose Mercedes is listed as the fifth starter when he hasn't been with the organization since fall.

Chicago White Sox: Danny Wright is listed in both the bullpen and rotation.

Detroit: Luis Pineda, dealt to Cincy with Encarnacion is listed in the bullpen.

Houston's "C.J. Nowitski".

Philadelphia non-tendered John Wasdin after acquiring him from Baltimore. He signed in Japan. He's still listed in their bullpen.

Pittsburgh: Jose Silva, traded to Cincy months ago, is still listed in the bullpen. Ryan Vogelsong, out for the year with arm surgery, is listed as the #3 starter.

San Francisco: Tim Worrell is listed twice in their bullpen; Aaron Fultz isn't mentioned.

I'm not sure if this falls under editing, but they list Morgan Ensberg behind Kearns, Crede, and Jason Hart under "rookies who have the best opportunity to earn playing time heading into Opening Day". No decent minor league writer should ever make a statement like this as it clearly shows no respect for each team's depth chart. Ensberg is a potential Rookie of the Year while the others will be lucky to see more than 100 AB each this year, and nothing has really changed regarding any of these four player's situations since Hart was traded to Texas a few months ago.

1/10 points for the accompanying website.
They still list fantasysportsmag.com, which forces you to go to collect.com first, then directs you to http://ownerscircle.krause.com/, and that still requires you sign in before you can see anything. Most of the magazine articles are listed on-line, while the only additional information appears to be Greg Ambrosius's review of his LABR team and draft.

1/5 points for creativity and innovation.
I suppose shallow "experts" drafts do benefit some people, and at least they provide analysis similar to BBW's LABR review in their annual fantasy issue. Even ignoring the previous month's issue, I find very little else in here to be worth my time.

Overall ranking: 26/100 points; F on 37% (26/70) ranks them 13th, just behind the TSN Baseball Preview Issue and solidly ahead of Major League Baseball 2002.

I didn't find either of these particularly useful, and thanks to a polybagged Earthlink 5.0 CD, I wouldn't have even been able to just read the industry news in the store. While I may check out their website every month or two to see if they have anything else of interest, I'm going to try to remember not to purchase this publication in the future unless they make substantial upgrades.

2002 Spring Baseball Magazine Review Summary

1. A+ on 100% (70/70) for The Sporting News Fantasy Baseball Owners Manual

2. C on 73% (51/70) for Rotowire Fantasy Baseball Guide

3(tie). D on 66% (46/70) for Athlon Sports Baseball Edition

3(tie). D on 66% (46/70) for The Sporting News Baseball Preview

5. F on 54% (38/70) for Spring Training Baseball Yearbook

6. F on 53% (37/70) for Lindy's Fantasy Baseball

7. F on 51% (36/70) for Lindy's Baseball Scouting Reports

8. F on 49% (34/70) for Fantasy Sports, April 2002

9. F on 43% (30/70) for Major League Baseball Yearbook

10. F on 46% (32/70) for Sports Illustrated Baseball Preview Issue

11. F on 41% (29/70) for Street & Smith's Baseball

12. F on 39% (27/70) for The Sporting News Baseball Preview Issue

13. F on 37% (26/70) for Fantasy Sports, May 2002

14. F on 27% (19/70) for Major League Baseball 2002

Today's Fantasy Rx: Don't bother with most spring magazines. Rotowire, Athlon, and perhaps the two Sporting News' annuals are good references, but I remain quite unimpressed with the other ten publications, and you can probably find all of this information somewhere on-line.