Today's Fantasy Rx

Click here to take another look at our criteria.

We continue our Spring Magazine reviews with:

Athlon Sports Baseball Edition 2002

9/10 points for Presentation.
Glossy, color pages all the way through. The only problem is that they rely especially heavy on high-profile advertisements compared to the other magazines, and this both detracts from the readability and adds to the necessary page-flipping to finish articles.

6/10 points for Table of Contents and included content.
My biggest disappointment of any of this year's issues was that Athlon failed to provide their annual humorous predictions on specific and plausible though unlikely events for the following season. Our favorite from the past had the Cubs playing the White Sox in a seven-game World Series in 2000 that can't be completed because hell freezes over. We might just have to run an article or two with our own faux 2002 predictions.

The TOC is buried behind a letter from the editor and six pages of ads, but they also spread it out over two pages to accommodate both blurbs and the page numbers for each team. Each team only gets two pages but they still manage to list the 40-man roster, probable batting order and pitching staff, as well as a full page of position-by-position analysis.

Probably the best remaining features are the funniest blurbs, quotes, and minutiae from 2001, as well as a handy reference schedule in the middle of the book, as well as complete season and career stats for most starters from last season and even a games played' listing by team. I've always found Athlon to provide a very interesting magazine reference in lieu of occasionally looking something up on-line or in one of the Stats' books.

All their fantasy section provides, as always, is a ranked list of players by position. I'm quite unimpressed with most of their ratings as no sane publication would list Paul LoDuca as the fourteenth best fantasy catcher for 2002, behind guys like Marrero, Varitek, and Charles Johnson. Even worse was listing Cory Lidle as the 78th best pitcher behind guys like Carlos Hernandez, Jon Garland, and Josh Towers when Lidle could finish as the 78th best overall roto player this year; listing Rick Ankiel at 43 is even more indefensible.

0/10 points for describing the league for their main rankings.
No dollar values and no descriptions equals no points.

23/50 points for specific player analysis, 5 points for each player as follows.
(As long as a magazine discusses part of each detail, we give them a full point.)

I'm somewhat annoyed as they list in player comments in three different places (team preview, lineup comments, and fantasy bio), but I'm giving credit for whatever these magazines print.

11/25 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.

2/5 points for Giambi. Decent hits on #1 and #5.

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. Solid hits on #1, #4, and #5.

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.

2/5 points for Hundley. Acceptable references to #4 and #5.

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 RBIs 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.

1/5 points for Mientkiewicz. A hit on #5, Athlon also fails to discuss much besides his defense.

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.

3/5 points for Ortiz. Hits on #1, #3, and #4.

12/25 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.

0/5 points for Abbott. They even seem to think he'll maintain or improve on his 2001 numbers.

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.

4/5 points for Anderson. They managed to cover most of everything but #5.

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.

3/5 points for Schilling. They touch on #2, #3, and #5.

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.

2/5 points for Schmidt. Acceptable hits on #1 and #2.

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.

3/5 points for Urbina. They adequately cover #2, #3, and #5.

2/5 points for editing.
They have several little mistakes that detracted from my reading enjoyment, including such glaring errors as "youngster Willie Banks" as well as general inconsistency, like predicting Marcus Giles to start and hit second in the book while ranking Furcal as a second basemen in the fantasy ratings under an assumption of Betemit starting.

5/10 points for the accompanying website.
There's nothing overly special or additional material at athlonsports.com/section_id/6, but I was mildly irked to discover that they have an abbreviated version of the magazine available FREE on the website. It includes quarter page summaries of each team with interesting tidbits like "Heart of the Brewers: Geoff Jenkins" and other fun information like that along with projected batting order and rotation. They even provide the top 10 fantasy player bios at each position, along with much of the reference information cited above like schedules and statistics. I highly recommend that you check out their site, and while you likely shouldn't need to visit them during the season, strongly considering downloading their "2002 Baseball Notebook" as either an alternative or supplement to purchasing this magazine.

1/5 points for creativity and innovation.
They're still one of the most enjoyable reads due to the random funny comments from last season up front, but dumping the humorous predictions costs them a few points here.

Overall ranking: 46/100 points.
I'm not really surprised that they tied TSN's Baseball Preview for the current third place ranking since I've jointly considered these two magazines the "must buys" for the last few seasons. They provide a different viewpoint than Sporting News, but I find myself turning to Athlon especially for their handy and readable season schedules in the middle of the magazine. If you don't want to buy more than one baseball preview, you're probably better off purchasing the two TSN books, although Athlon is still a respectable publication. Please check out the website and on-line handbook of you want a better idea of what you're purchasing.

Since Street & Smith's includes both a team preview and separate fantasy guide, I'll deal with that publication and overall ratings tomorrow, while concluding today with:

Lindy's Baseball Scouting Report 2002

6/10 points for Presentation.
They somehow managed to keep the color glossy paper all the way through the magazine this time. The layout isn't quite as bad, but they still have a ton of ads, including the very unsavory ones from the first magazine. All the players are only organized by team, apparently according to projected finish, and position, and there's no handy reference guide to quickly find a specific player.

8/10 points for Table of Contents and included content.
These reports are just terrific. I usually begin reading these publications with a scan of any letters from editors or publishers, and more importantly, the writers employed by a specific magazine. Lindy's four "contributing writers" are Baseball Weekly's main features' and rumor writer Bob Nightengale, as well as Baseball America's Jerry Crasnick, John Manuel, and Alan Schwarz.

The TOC, while placed after a couple pages of ads, is placed on a right page and provides an accurate and useful reference to specific teams and articles. Of the features, the most interesting is easily "Flakes, Foosball Stars & Players You Wouldn't Want to Meet in a Dark Alley." That story provides an alternative look at several of your favorite players. However, I'm docking them one point for only listing Bill James 4th on their list of potential "Off-Field Hall of Famers" after Sandy Alderson, Pat Gillick, and John Schuerholz. While the work of the latter two has been admittedly fantastic over the last two decades, James deserves enshrinement before any other excluded player or "executive", except for perhaps HOF inner circle members Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Rickey Henderson, all of whom will remain ineligible until at least 2008.

Continuing their patronizing, under James' entry they list "Laugh if you want"; if anyone reading this column seriously believe Bill James doesn't belong in Cooperstown, you either don't know anything about him, or don't know anything about baseball. I don't mean to be completely harsh with all of my wonderful readers, but James is responsible for almost every significant advance in our understanding of the game for the last two decades, including such creations as Minor League Equivalents.

They lose the other point for the opening article "Aces High", underlined by the phrase "Home run hitters are the game's glamour guys, but they don't win championships." Among their completely anecdotal evidence, they somehow ignored the emergence of a singles' hitter from Seattle as one of the most recognizable players in the game, and the only one that photographers actually wanted to see naked in the locker room. For contradictory anecdotal evidence, they also somehow forgot that the last World Series was won by a hitter besting the best reliever in post-season history. I can't believe they wasted space on such an unsupported myth.

0/10 points for describing the league for their main rankings.
They do actually reprint all their projections on the last two pages, but they don't include any dollar values or even rankings as the players are listed by alphabetical order, an admittedly handy compilation.

17/50 points for specific player analysis, 5 points for each player as follows.
(As long as a magazine discusses part of each detail, we give them a full point.)

9/25 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.

2/5 points for Giambi. They touch on #1 and #2 but mostly seem to rip on his lack of ability and interest on defense.

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.

2/5 points for Green. Hits on #1 and #3.

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.

3/5 points for Hundley. They touch on the skills behind #1, #2, and #4.

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 RBIs 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.

1/5 points for Mientkiewicz. They cover #2, but they also think "he's a legitimate .300 hitter", a notion that his plate discipline simply doesn't support.

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.

1/5 points for Ortiz. An acceptable hit on #3.

8/25 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.

2/5 points for Abbott. They discuss the underlying causes of #2 and #4.

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.

2/5 points for Anderson. They touch on #2 and #4.

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.

1/5 points for Schilling. They only really cover #3.

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.

2/5 points for Schmidt. They touch on #1 and #3.

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.

1/5 points for Urbina. They briefly cover #5.

0/5 points for editing.
Since I don't feel this falls under presentation or content, I'm going to blame the horrible inaccuracies in the scouting reports on editorial decision. First, they provide no explanation for the pitcher rankings of "stuff, control, change speed, mound presence, and competitiveness." The firsts three are somewhat obvious, but what do the latter two mean?

If "mound presence" is command of the mound, how can the cerebral Miguel Batista only rate a 55 instead of the maximum 80 (on a standard scout's 20-80 scale) and Mariano Rivera only manage a 70. Conversely, if "mound presence" means intimidation of batters, how can Randy Johnson only score 65, Kerry Wood only pull the same 50 as Jason Bere and Juan Cruz, and Pedro, despite a comment of "he has no fear. He's a stone killer out there", only rate a 75. The "competitiveness" ranking makes even less sense for similar reasons.

For offensive players, how can Ken Griffey and Adam Dunn only earn 75 power after the former's history and the latter's dominance last season. Every scout quoted by a major media publication after Dunn's arrival said something like "He has at least 80 power", so I just fail to see how either of these guys fail to qualify at that level. Juan Pierre will challenge for .400 in the next couple of seasons, and he only gets a 60 for "hit for average".

Speaking of Colorado, despite excellent written comments, Larry Walker only receives a 70 for "hit for power", field, and throw. When he's healthy, Walker's still widely considered the best five-tool talent in the game, so these ratings shock me. I'm also surprised that Alomar and Jeter, both mentioned in any discussion of both speed and "smartest" baserunners, only manage a 70 for "run bases".

All these ratings show us is that the five-tool model is a completely archaic way of rating anyone above the amateur level. Even John Sickels' Seven Skills, which add plate discipline/strike zone judgement while splitting "run bases"/field into offensive speed, defensive range, and fielding utility (ability), appears somewhat outmoded in ignoring factors like intelligence, competitiveness, or injury risk.

While the actual written scouting reports are fascinating, you should do your best to ignore most of the actual ratings and grades, since they won't enhance your understanding of these players' abilities in any meaningful way.

Since the website is the same for both publications, I'm going to reprint this section of the review from the other Lindy's article:

0/10 points for the accompanying website.
There's no baseball information on www.lindyssports.com right now, with the site instead focusing on football and basketball. Even the "Miss TFN" (The Football Network) picture in a Santa suit doesn't earn them a point. The word "baseball" only appears on the homepage in an article slamming the MLB playoff format.

5/5 points for creativity and innovation.
Attempting a magazine of scouting reports is both ambitious for the publisher and fascinating for the reader to digest. Their execution leaves much to be desired, but this publication is a welcome alternative from the other, relatively similar baseball previews and fantasy guides. While the Stats "Scouting Notebook" provides more detailed information in terms of actual skill breakdowns, there's just more contextual information available in this short magazine that provides actionable help for fantasy owners.

Overall ranking: 36/100 points.
Considering that they don't even discuss fantasy baseball, this score is relatively solid with definite potential to improve in future years, especially if they can find better advertisers and more consistent rating scouts. While they finish just behind Lindy's fantasy guide in terms of fantasy potential, this is book is significantly more useful for fantasy players than anything besides TSN and Rotowire. I definitely recommend Lindy's Baseball Scouting Guide as a welcome additional to the bookshelf of most of our readers.

Today's Fantasy Rx: I've been avoiding most potential figure skating comments, but with the Ladies' Free Skate scheduled for this evening, I need to add my two cents now. If you really have no intention of watching, I suppose you can skip the rest of the article, but since Today's Rx is "watch the Olympics tonight", I hope you keep reading.

Figure skating is the only sport that sustains our interest throughout the games. We'll even only turn in for the hockey final if we have time, and we only care about speed skating or skiing when Americans are competing.

However, we spend some late hours on the phone during our engagement watching the events from Nagano in 1998, and while we're happy to ignore the sport during the intervening years, we watch at the Olympics.

Four years ago, Tara Lipinski beat out Michelle Kwan for the gold medal because Tara's program was more exciting and technically interesting. Judges may or may not realize that the abilities of shorter skaters can look far more impressive because even if everyone jumps to the same height, shorter skaters clear more distance in proportion to the length of their bodies. The ladies, and to some extent the pairs and ice dancing competition, always appear more visually interesting than the men's event because of this perception distortion.

I firmly believe that Tara deserved the Nagano gold for karmic reasons as she lived in the athlete's village, marched during the Opening Ceremonies, hung out with sumo wrestlers, and played video games in the commons' arcade. Michelle Kwan skipped the Opening Ceremonies to rest, arrived late in Japan, lived apart from most of the American team, and then skated two technically proficient but lifeless "artsy" programs.

Despite Kwan's more eager participation in the Salt Lake Olympic experience, I certainly feel that she's setting herself up for another failure. She's even talking about returning to Turin, Italy in 2006 since she's enjoying competition with a reduced practice schedule and no coach. The blithering idiot announcers certainly don't help matters when they keep proclaiming "what a champion" every time they realize that they live in the same hemisphere as Kwan. Todd Eldredge, despite half a dozen U.S. and World titles, never won an Olympic medal. Even with silver in Nagano and a win tonight, Kawn should not be remembered as a true Olympic great like Tara or Kristi Yamaguchi.

With a relatively successful Salt Lake City Winter Games retaining some of the spirit of the Sydney Games from 2000, we need an American ladies' champion with more chutzpah than Kwan. Sarah Hughes certainly has the ability to triumph from fourth place, but she's also the tallest of the top four skaters and lacks the others' artistry.

While we'd almost prefer that Irina Slutskaya win instead of Kwan since at least her short program was more interesting, our pick to win is, of course, Sasha Cohen, who handed her cell phone to President Bush at the Opening Ceremonies so he could say "hi" to her mom. Tara exemplified this same spirit four years ago, and all Sasha needs to do tonight is win the long program, and she'll bring home a deserved gold medal.

She's even seriously considered attempting to land the first quad jump of any woman in competition, although she stated slightly prior to the Olympics that she wouldn't try to attain this feat. If she changes her mind and lands it, she easily wins the gold.

Without that added technical mastery in her program, she'll need to at least tie Kwan on the presentation elements. Sasha skates to "Carmen" tonight, a program that we felt should have enabled her to finish first at the recent U.S. Nationals over Kwan. You may remember Katarina Witt skating to Carmen at the 1988 Calgary Games to win her second consecutive gold medal, although Witt was several years more mature than Cohen at the time.

Sasha Cohen appears to have the temperament to give us an uplifting gold medal instead of giving us an undeserving "champion" like Michelle Kwan, who could have won in Japan but failed to live up to the Olympic motto "Citius, Altius, Fortius". Literally "Faster, Higher, Braver" but commonly known as "Swifter, Higher, Stronger". Tara Lipinski skated faster, jumped higher, and thoroughly embraced the Olympic spirit four years ago, and tonight will be Sasha Cohen's opportunity to skate swifter, jump higher, and show more strength of will, emotion, and character than her rivals and fellow competitors. Go USA.