Correcting ESPN The Mag, Part 2

On page 75 of ESPN The Magazine’s fantasy football preview, Ken Daube argues that owners drafting late in the first round should take WRs with their first two picks. Generally, I agree with the theory, but a few of the assumptions that Daube made appear to be incorrect. Here’s what I wrote on his fan wall at ESPN

Hi Ken, I was reading “The Turn Is No Place For Running Backs,” and while I agree in principle with the strategy of going WR/WR with your first two picks at the first turn, I have a couple of questions.

1) In the second table, you show team #2 getting a 1-5 WR in the third round while team #4 gets a 6-10 WR. In round four, teams #1 and #3 get a 11-15 RB, while team #2 gets a 16-20 RB. Why the inconsistency?

2) Team #1 and #3 get an 11-15 RB at the start of the fourth round, but from ESPN’s live draft results, only guys in the 18+ range are available there.

3) Team #2 gets a 1-5 WR at the end of the third, and team #4 gets a 6-10 player, when only 12+ WRs are available there.

When I recalculate the totals to account for these problems, team #1 finishes with 1050 points, team #2 with 1011 points, team #3 with 1039 points and team #4 with 976 points. The theory still stands, but the execution is confusing.

I’m assuming that this is a 12-team league, which appears to be Daube’s assumption since he mentions pick #12 in the opening paragraph.

Does anyone else have this issue handy? If so, are you seeing the same things I’m seeing?

I’ll update this post if Daube responds.

Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.

Correcting ESPN The Mag, Part 1

Regular readers might be familiar with my occasional posts — “Correcting Bill Simmons” and “Correcting Rick Reilly” — where I try to help out my better-paid, less-informed counterparts by pointing out when/where they’re wrong. This time, I’m going to tackle ESPN The Mag as a whole. I know I’m going to hear some guy at the sports bar regurgitate this “analysis” as his own opinion and I won’t have the wherewithal to call him on it.

Let’s start with everyone’s favorite blowhard — and I doubt he’d take that as an insult given his commentary stylings — Stephen A. Smith. In his “Up Front” column, he criticizes Oscar De La Hoya for not knowing when to give it up.

Help, someone! Pretty Please!

It would be really nice if someone could muster some plausible explanation as to why a fighter like Oscar De La Hoya, beyond his prime for quite a while before the Manny Pacquiao bout, still chose to step into the ring and get his brains beat out. The mismatch was so obvious that Oscar’s wife, Millie, was screaming for him to quit before he had the common sense to do it himself.

It’s really easy to knock De La Hoya after the match is over when it’s clear that he shouldn’t have fought the fight. But one quick look at the pre-fight odds (-165 Hoya / +135 Pacquiao) reveals that this fight fooled a LOT of people, not just the Golden Boy. According to the betting public, De La Hoya was the clear favorite in the fight, so why would Oscar think that he was about to step into a beatdown? The betting public clearly doesn’t know everything, but it’s a pretty good gauge of public opinion and if the public is fooled, why would De La Hoya — who has an ego of a big-time fighter — know any better?

If Smith writes this column before the fight, I’d give him props. But this is classic kick-’em-while-they’re-down writing.

Let’s move on to Mike & Mike (Golic & Greenberg) who answer “The Big Question” — if the best players in college sports don’t make any noise in the pros, what’s their legacy?

Read the rest after the jump...

Related Posts