Today's Fantasy Rx

Hopefully I'll be able to review next year's Sports Illustrated Baseball Preview while its still on the stands. I'd hoped to get to this over two weeks ago, but between projections and our drafts, we just ran out of time.

Nevertheless, I wanted to complete our list of previews so that we'd have a reference for discussing next year's annuals. So I'm going to spend a couple of days on the SI and TSN previews in the weekly issues, as well as the second Fantasy Sports baseball issue.

I forgot to mention that I still plan to run out AL Tout Wars' draft review at some point, so we're likely on target to start discussing stats in about two weeks or so. Only Ken Griffey owners should really be scrambling at this point for a cheap power source (grab Brady Clark if he's available), and we really need at least three weeks of stats before we can determine any actual trends.

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 continue our Spring Magazine reviews with:

Sports Illustrated 2002 Baseball Preview

7/10 points for Presentation.
While it's the same presentation as virtually every other SI issue, at least they omitted the free noxious odor samples often found in some of their "special" issues. The magically reproducing subscription reply cards remain quite annoying, and we have to wade through an excruciatingly long MLS preview that lasts the better part of two pages, as well as several pages of something called the "NCAA". However, the actual baseball section is relatively nicely designed, aside from content errors like their stubborn insistence of listing only 4x4 stats for batters and wasting space by separating Wins and Losses into different columns.

5/10 points for Table of Contents and included content.
The TOC in the front only lists page numbers for six separate sections, with all the scouting reports grouped under the listing prediction page instead of separate numbers for each team as in true annuals. While this doesn't detract from the organization of the issue at all, it creates minor difficulties as teams are grouped by predicted finish in each division rather than by alphabetical order.

SI chose an interesting compilation of stories for this year's issue. An extended hitting discussion is intriguing to some extent, but then they ruin it by listing a chart of hitters "who most often have finished in the Top 10 in both batting average and home runs during the same season". The sabermetric revolution appears to have completely passed over SI.

A photoshoot of different players and their bats, which they obviously titled "Me and My Bat", adds nothing but extra pages, although the following story on maple bats brings more attention to Bonds and his maple bat.

For the individual previews, they again offer "Enemy Lines: an opposing team's scout sizes up the [insert team name here]" section. Last year, some anonymous scout blamed all of the Rockies' problems on Larry Walker, and this year they also listed some knee-slappers:

"Toronto is taking a hell of a chance by playing Felipe Lopez every day at shortstop. He has good hands, a strong arm and a good first step, but I don't know if he's ready to play every day for a contender." If this scout thinks the Blue Jays will be contenders this year, he's practically alone with that opinion; they'll be a good team and hopefully finish above .500, but there's no reason for them not to break in Lopez this year with the goal of winning next year.

"Bobby Higginson is a plus player defensively, but Robert Fick will be a risk in rightfield. He's definitely an offensive guy who will get some protection in the lineup from Wendell Magee." I'm not quite sure how this scout defines "protection", so I'll assume that inserting Magee's name is a typo.

"There's no way Jamie Moyer can keep winning 20 games. One pitch is 79 mph, the next is 83 mph. You just can't fool guys forever." SI's been hiring from the Captain Obvious School of Scouts again. Moyer won 20 for the first time in his career last year at age 38, three more than his next best year. Of course he won't keep winning 20 games, but instead of taking a moment to commend a consistent veteran who landed on a team with a great offense and defense, they take this undeserved cheap shot.

"Jeff Cirillo is a nice upgrade over David Bell at third. Cirillo's automatic: a .300 average, 80-90 RBI and 15 homers. If he drops to .299, he'll go home, beat his dog and swing in the backyard until his hands are rough. He's a pro's pro." Someone should really tell the ASPCA about Cirillo.

"Don't forget about Benji Gil. He swung the bat well last year, so they had to put him in the lineup. He could find himself in the number 2 spot." Forget about who? I hope this scout isn't referring to the same utility infielder that has never cracked a .675 OPS in any extended major league time prior to last season's fluke.

"Manager Jerry Narron is a classy professional, but he's been given a huge dog to walk. He'll be walking it some, and the dog will be walking him some." Sounds like Narron should keep Cirillo away from the Rangers.

"[Atlanta] is still pitching-strong. If I could take one of their starters, I'd take Jason Marquis. He has tremendous stuff. He'll climb the rotation fast - even this rotation." Yes, I know I always prefer a completely unproven young arm over two Hall of Famers.

"I've never been a Fernando Tatis fan. He's a dog. He can hit a fastball, and that's about it. He had one dream season, and the rest have been true indicators of what he can do. It never seems like he wants to be out there." What's with all of the dog references?

Given the ridiculousness of these comments, I really don't want to give them more than a 4 here, but I'm very impressed by one small detail of their evaluations. For every starting position player, they list them as either a "Golden Glover", "Good Leather", or "Iron Hands." Now as they list guys like Nomar, Tanyon Sturtze, and Adam Everett as 'Golden Glovers", the designation has nothing to do with winning actual awards, so they're going strictly by opinion. Derek Jeter only gets a "Good Leather" rating, and despite a couple dozen other questionable labels, I have to give them some credit for somehow finding a way to avoid labeling him a "Golden Glover.

4/10 points for describing the league for their main rankings.
While they don't list either dollar values or projected stats, they do rank the top 400 hitters and the top 350 pitchers. They're very specific in using traditional 4x4 stats, so while they didn't actually discuss fantasy baseball, they provided a better list for straight drafts than most official fantasy previews. Despite gross errors like listing Juan Pierre and Shannon Stewart behind Carl Everett and Reggie Sanders, and ranking Glendon Rusch as the 94th best starter, behind such luminaries as Denny Neagle and Jim Parque, at least you know the relevance of this list for your league.

4/50 points for specific player analysis, 5 points for each player as follows.

1/25 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. No specific mention other than ripping on him for his non-slide against the Yankees.

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 implied #5, but I'm not unimpressed by the scouting report: "Green is a star, but he's going to miss Gary Sheffield in a serious way. Green doesn't have the protection anymore, so all those fastballs he saw will disappear".

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. No specific Hundley comments.

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.

0/5 points for Mientkiewicz. They mention his Gold Glove, but the only offensive comment is "Will [Mientkiewicz] stay in a disciplined-aggressiveness mode or start playing fancy-Joe baseball?"

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.

0/5 points for Ortiz. From the scout report: "Ortiz is undisciplined at the plate. He's real rough around the edges, and some of the people in the organization are disappointed by the lack of progress offensively. Defensively he's not quick enough turning the double play."

3/25 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. Major score on #1: they even listed the exact number(7.15 RPG).

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. "Getting the ball to Matt Anderson and Danny Patterson will be a project. Anderson is as much improved from a year ago as anybody." I'll give them credit for #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.

0/5 points for Schilling. "Curt Schilling is driven to repeat last year." While they discuss why Arizona needs Schilling to repeat his 2001 stats if they're to succeed in the playoffs again, they don't ever mention they specifics required.

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. "Jason Schmidt has 20-win stuff, which leads to the question, Why doesn't he win 20 games? He's got a power breaking ball and a 94-to-96-mph fastball with sink. But it seems like he's content to go 15-14." While this gets them credit for #1, they spent the meat of the article on Shinjo and Livan, even relatively and inexcusably ignoring Bonds.

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. No specific UUU coverage.

4/5 points for editing.
Some censorship of the scout reports certainly would have helped improve the quality of the analysis, but SI usually never prints the egregious name misspellings that plague some other publications.

6/10 points for the accompanying website.
While we check ESPN and Yahoo! Baseball every day, we only visit CNN/SI about once every month or two unless we see a reference to a particular story on a site like Baseball Primer. They certainly provide a decent amount of content, but we just don't believe the add much to what we regularly see on less graphic-intensive sites elsewhere on the web.

2/5 points for creativity and innovation.
Perhaps the best segment of the magazine is a review of the Ruben Rivera incident by Ball Four author Jim Bouton on page 25. The scouting reports, although dramatically flawed, still offer a useful nugget about once every two teams, and their defensive ratings at least pay some attention to defense.

Overall ranking: 32/100 points; F on 46% (32/70) ranks them 9th between Fantasy Sports and Major League Baseball yearbook.

They could have finished significantly higher if they'd just provided more player commentary, and SI should really consider a baseball-only annual like TSN. I have a feeling that they'd gain a significant market share off of their brand name alone, so I'm somewhat uncertain why they've held off so far.

For only $5.99, SI probably produces the best inexpensive preview on the market. While only available for one week in late March, they offer solid reporting, acceptable writing, and a higher level of editing than almost any other sports' magazine. Although this book isn't a better desktop resource than something like either of the TSN annuals, it may be the best product for the casual sports fan, regardless of their level of fantasy participation.

Today's Fantasy Rx: Don't forget to rotate your pitchers weekly to insure you maximize 2-start weeks for starters and 7-game weeks for relievers. You'll gain a decided advantage over the course of the year, and we believe this strategy to be especially useful in leagues with higher transaction fees, as some owners may not be willing to expend the cash necessary to keep their team in the hunt.