Today's Fantasy Rx

Click here to take another look at our criteria.

We conclude our Spring Magazine reviews with:

Street & Smith's Baseball 2002 and Street & Smith's Fantasy Baseball Guide

Since I have no idea when or even if Bill Mazeroski's preview will hit stores this year, I'm omitting it and any other future magazine from reviews, as all these magazines should be out by the time position players arrive in camp.

4/10 points for Presentation.
I'm reviewing the Baseball Preview and Fantasy Guide together because they were printed and sold together, and the Guide is only 16 pages long. For these 16 extra pages that wouldn't fit inside the regular book, they poly-bagged both issues together. One of they key issues in determining which preview you should buy is the logical ability to browse through the magazine in the store. Without this function of the presentation, I can't give them more than a 50% Presentation score.

Their decision is especially unfortunate considering this is one of the smartest looking and well-published guides of the spring. Full-color glossy pages all the way through both magazines make reading much easier on the eyes than some of the other books. My only real complaint is that they waste dozens of pages on full-page photos, one player from each team, and those pages could have been used to include the Fantasy Guide inside the rest of the book. While they do list a brief bio overlaying the photos with such tidbits as "Bet you didn't know that...Sammy [Sosa] met his wife at a San Pedro de Macoris disco when she was a dancer on a Dominican TV variety show." Unlike several of the other magazines, they also spend a full page printing the 40-man rosters in large type.

6/10 points for Table of Contents and included content.
I'm very impressed with most of this publication's content, although their separate Fantasy Guide fails to include either dollar values or projected statistics. All they do in the Guide is to rank players by position with a brief commentary on each listed player.

The main Preview includes some really neat features on mostly unreported stories like the next wave of Pacific Rim talent from South Korea and a listing and discussion of several ballplayers' music preferences for their at-bats. I'm more annoyed at an article of how much "the all-time greats would 'get paid' in modern terms". They run their calculations directly based off of a conversion of old-time numbers into today's game, and I find it to be especially ridiculous that they have the 1931 Lou Gehrig making $48.3M compared to the 1921 Babe Ruth at $47.9M. They also appear to be determining the calculations based on the Triple Crown numbers for position players (HR, RBI, and BA) and pitchers (W, K, ERA), a ridiculous gauge by which to rate and/or compare any player.

0/10 points for describing the league for their main rankings.
Once again, while they rank players, they provide no statistics, dollar values, or explanation for their rankings.

13/50 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.)

7/25 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.

3/5 points for Giambi. They covered aspects of #1, #2, and #4.

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.

1/5 points for Green. They sort of allude to #5, although they also state "the key to the offense is Brian Jordan".

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.

0/5 points for Hundley. They estimate "12-15 bombs" in the Fantasy Guide, and only say that "Hundley apparently has forgotten how to hit" in the regular section without additional explanation.

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.

2/5 points for Mientkiewicz. They hit on #1 and #2, although they waste a lot of space discussing players' 2001 statistics in the team sections. When I discussed stats in player reviews, I tried not to repeat anything listed above the blurb, instead adding information on underlying stats or historical performance. Street & Smith's is especially guilty of this problem, which Sporting News has nicely cleaned up over the past few years.

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. A minor hit on #1, they otherwise pretty much ignore him.

6/25 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. They appear to allude to #1, but most of their limited comments also make little sense.

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. Hits on #2 and #3.

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 hit on #3, ignoring all contextual evidence surrounding his performance.

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. They only cover #1, focusing on him never winning more than 13 games in a season rather than the far more important ERA information.

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. A hit on #3, but they spend significantly more space discussing Rich Garces than Urbina.

3/5 points for editing.
Using the wrong statistics for approximating the potential modern salaries of older players could have been corrected by an intelligent editor. Splitting out the Fantasy Guide was another inexcusably unacceptable layout decision that hopefully will detract from their overall purchases. However, other than these more underlying decisions, the specific editing in terms of players and grammar appears to be very good.

1/10 points for the accompanying website.
There's a website that appears to list very little information other than readily-available news stories. According to the book, the major intended features are to ease writing letters to their editors and to offer "ways you can reach us about how to find a copy of the current book (pass this to a friend who can't find one in his/her community)". I see no need for you to do this as nothing in this book appears necessary for probably almost all of our readership.

2/5 points for creativity and innovation.
There's nothing that really adds to either the fantasy game or my understanding of baseball in general. However, I really liked the article on music for players' at-bats. They also include back page book reviews of three different texts that each appear to be very worthwhile, if apparently expensive, texts to add to our bookshelf.

Overall ranking: 29/100 points.
By the time I finished this review I was completely disgusted with this purchase. I expected so much from S&S this year, between the gall to polybag, the breakout fantasy section, and the reported addition of BBHQ.com's Deric McKamey as their minor league expert. The fantasy section was horrible, and while the minor league reports are very good, and I'm fairly certain that they were written by Deric, S&S somehow failed to credit him anywhere in the book that I could find.

My best suggestion regarding this book is to buy it for any younger members of your family if they want to see dozens of pictures of their favorite players, while potentially learning a little about baseball. Okay, so maybe they'll find more enjoyment from playing with the polybag, which even lacks a "keep away from small children warning", so I assume that they've tested it with small children and no one suffocated.

2002 Spring Baseball Magazine Review Comparison & Conclusions

Here's a listing of the 10 reviewed magazines for easy reference and/or your shopping list.

The Sporting News Fantasy Baseball Owners Manual easily outpaced the field with a 70/100 score. Since this would only be a C- on most letter grade systems, I'm going to recompute each magazine's score as a percentage of TSNFBOM's 70 points. Some grade inflation is certainly appropriate, and although TSN certainly isn't perfect, it's the best magazine this year and our most enthusiastic recommendation. While we don't agree with all of their dollar values, we fully expect they'll be used by thousands of owners at drafts this year.

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

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

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

I'm keeping the following on my desk for reference, although most people can easily get by with just the first four books: TSNBOM for average player values, Rotowire for player analysis, TSNBP for easy team reference, and Athlon for easy schedule reference and games' played. I'll keep Spring Training around at least until the regular season starts for reference to stadiums and other specific places in Arizona and Florida, and while not a fantastic resource for every owner, I definitely endorse Lindy's Baseball Scouting Reports as a welcome supplement to Stats' "The Scouting Report".

For budgetary purposes, the first four books will run you a total of $26.96. Athlon comes in at $5.99, a dollar cheaper than the other three. Both Spring Training and Scouting Reports are $6.99, so your total will vary between $26.96, $33.95, and $40.94 depending on how useful you found my recommendations.

I hope you found these reviews a helpful aid in your purchasing decisions, and I'd certainly welcome any suggestions to modify my reviews, as I'll likely run a similar series next season.

Today's Fantasy Rx: Tomorrow we're attending the First Pitch-Chicago panel Q&A sponsored by baseballhq.com. I'll post a report on that for Sunday, and then next week I want to try a different sort of review. While some of you have asked for spring book and fantasy site reviews, those can likely wait for another week or two. Plenty of people are still finalizing their 2002 leagues, including ourselves, so per reader request, I'm going to spend next week reviewing different fantasy games around the web. Obviously ESPN and more commentary on the Baseball Weekly Challenge games will be first on the list, but I'll at least provide a brief review on any game that someone suggests. Please write to tell me where you want me to look, and I'll go bouncing around the web this weekend to look at different on-line games.

For a non-baseball Rx, we face Russia in hockey today twenty-two years to the day from the "Miracle on Ice". In 1980, we had also beaten Germany two days before on Wednesday. Coach Herb Brooks is the main connection to that great moment in American Olympic history, and you can watch the follow-up tonight at 5:15 PM Central on NBC.

Final thoughts on figure skating: We both thought that Sarah Hughes skated a gold medal performance after she finished. While we were still rooting for Sasha Cohen, Hughes easily deserved the win and title. Our problem was that we felt that since Kwan's fall was slightly worse than Cohen's, Sasha's overall performance deserved to finish 3rd tonight, and therefore third overall.

For the short program, we were relatively comfortable with the order although we probably would have placed Cohen second ahead of Slutskaya. Considering that the free skate is weighted 2-1 over the short program, this becomes a simple mathematical exercise, where the lowest score wins. We'll use the judges' scoring from Tuesday and our opinion of last night's performances. The scoring is calculated using a "factored placement" formula, where a skater's finish in the long program is added to her finish multiplied by .5 on the short program. The better free skate result breaks all ties.

Sarah Hughes, 4th on Tuesday & 1st on Thusday:
4*.5 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3.

Sasha Cohen, 3rd on Tuesday & should have been 3rd on Thursday:
3*.5 + 3 = 1.5 + 3 = 4.5.

Irina Slutskaya, 2nd on Tuesday & 2nd on Thursday:
2 * .5 + 2 = 1 + 2 = 3.

Michelle Kwan, 1st on Tuesday & should have been 4th on Thursday:
1 * .5 + 4 = .5 + 4 = 4.5.

Therefore, Hughes and Slutskaya should have tied for first with Cohen and Kwan also scoring equally for the bronze, and the former skater in each pair should have won for their superior artistic performance on Thursday.

Our final order would have been:
Gold : Sarah Hughes, USA
Silver: Irina Slutskaya, Russian Federation
Bronze: Sasha Cohen, USA

Now back to team sports on ice: After Canada finally won a gold medal last night in (women's) hockey, it's time for the U.S. men's team to sweep to the gold over Russia and then probably Canada, although it seems foolhardy to count out Belarus again after their great upset on Wednesday.