ESPN Makes 28 Factual Errors in their Fantasy Guide

[HughHog]

Lmaoo this is awsum... some guy found 28 errors in ESPN's fantasy guide like listing players twice and calling Greg Jones "Greg Smith."

WalterFootball.com: 2008 ESPN Fantasy Football Magazine: 28 Factual Errors, Omissions and Illogical Statements

I expected more from ESPN, but I'm glad he pointed these mistakes out. Lollll

[Riggo44]

That's funny! How does that crap make it to print??

[MTK]

A blind editor?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I blame SmootSmack.


I am WAY too busy today to be on the Interwebs.

[saden1]

Doesn't their fantasy material come from Scouts, Inc? Those guys are awful, just awful!

Under quarterbacks, ESPN has Aaron Rodgers 17th and Jason Campbell 18th. I like Rodgers more than that, but whatever; I'm not really going to argue rankings.

But here's the weird part: They gave Rodgers 2,620 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 picks. For Campbell, they projected 3,410 yards, 194 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

Umm... what the heck does ESPN base its rankings on? Why rank Player B lower than Player A, if you're predicting better stats for Player B? We already knew that ESPN loves to hire people who can't use grammar correctly. Apparently, they've brought in some writers who are mathematically challenged as well.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Walter Football

Under quarterbacks, ESPN has Aaron Rodgers 17th and Jason Campbell 18th. I like Rodgers more than that, but whatever; I'm not really going to argue rankings.

But here's the weird part: They gave Rodgers 2,620 passing yards, 45 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 picks. For Campbell, they projected 3,410 yards, 194 rushing yards, 17 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

Umm... what the heck does ESPN base its rankings on? Why rank Player B lower than Player A, if you're predicting better stats for Player B? We already knew that ESPN loves to hire people who can't use grammar correctly. Apparently, they've brought in some writers who are mathematically challenged as well.

So, apparently there are no other stats than passing yards, TD's and picks? This really bothered me when he said this, it's not probable and I don't think it will happen, but those 2 could have those stats and it wouldn't be a statistical impossibility that Rodgers has more points for the season. Like I said, I don't think it will happen, but there are leagues where you can lose points for fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks.

That would mean that Campbell would have to lose about 32 points because of fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks. (that's based on my league) Will it happen? Probably not, but it's not impossible...@$$

All that said, just because they have projections doesn't mean that they don't consider things like upside, so maybe ESPN thinks Rodgers has more upside next season than Campbell.

I used to like this guy, but if you're going to correct people, you'd better be sure you're right. He makes his disdain for ESPN pretty clear before he gets into the article, but some of his points were a little weak.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by jdlea

So, apparently there are no other stats than passing yards, TD's and picks? This really bothered me when he said this, it's not probable and I don't think it will happen, but those 2 could have those stats and it wouldn't be a statistical impossibility that Rodgers has more points for the season. Like I said, I don't think it will happen, but there are leagues where you can lose points for fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks.

That would mean that Campbell would have to lose about 32 points because of fumbles, fumbles lost and sacks. (that's based on my league) Will it happen? Probably not, but it's not impossible...@$$

All that said, just because they have projections doesn't mean that they don't consider things like upside, so maybe ESPN thinks Rodgers has more upside next season than Campbell.

I used to like this guy, but if you're going to correct people, you'd better be sure you're right. He makes his disdain for ESPN pretty clear before he gets into the article, but some of his points were a little weak.

impossible you say?

what about rodger's 43 tackles, or campbells 14 fumbles?

improbable is more like it.

[mooby]

J.T. O'Sullivan a sleeper? Oh snap, that's amongst the most hilarious things I've ever heard.

[GusFrerotte]

ESPN's proof reader obviously didn't do his job, if they even had a proof reader that is. That tells me the guide was done hodge podge at the last minute. Just pure laziness.

[GMScud]

My guess was they used some half-assed computerized ranking system to order their players, and that same system to project stats. How else would a guy who's done for the year be projected to catch 21 passes? What a joke. I've always thought their fantasy magazine was a bunch of unreaserched fluff. This proves it. I know next to nothing about compiling, editing, and printing a magazine, but I would say the man hours that went into this one weren't very significant.

[djnemo65]

This is the Emmit Smith mock draft guy? I love that guy, I'll never forget the Chiefs taking Tim Tebow at 5. Hilarious.

And I think his larger point is that this draft guide is kind of hastily and sloppily thrown together, which is a shame if true.

[SmootSmack]

It’s always fascinating the depths to which some people out there in the blogosphere will go to rip on ESPN, yet of course it’s the first place they go to get their sports fix. First off, “28 factual errors” is incorrect, so the thread title is inaccurate. Yes there are mistakes, just like he makes mistakes, but he exaggerates quite often. Let’s look at it item by item

1. Editorial oversight. Mistakes happen, still no excuse
2. Ditto
3. Ditto
4. What’s wrong with this? This is Walter just trying to find something that isn’t there.
5. Bit of a stretch by ESPN, not so much a factual error though
6. He shouldn’t make assumptions about what ESPN’s principal demographic for fantasy sports is, because he don’t know.
7. See 1-3 above
8. This is the danger of man meets computer. A definite flaw in the system where projections are strict calculations and fail to take into account variables (new team, different QB, injuries)
9. It’s definitely frustrating when any magazine (save for SI, they wait until after the final preseason game) release Fantasy and NFL Previews so early. It’s great because you get the news soon, but it sucks because things change
10. That’s a shame
11. Like people reading this magazine really care about parallelism
12. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Imagine if we just took a bunch of posts from everyone here and slapped into a magazine and had no one edit it together, or have each of the mods edit it on their own. Attempts to present as many views as possible often backfire when trying to present a compilation of information.
13. Haven’t read the article, but don’t know that this is a huge deal. Not as huge as Walter is making it out to be.
14. Nothing wrong with this statement by Joyner, again Walter looking for something that isn’t there.
15. Whoops
16. Slaton won’t exactly be pining for playing time. Walker and Taylor will.
17. See #8
18. See #12

And now the “Illogic”
1. Yeah I can’t agree with ESPN there
2. Jdlea’s already addressed this
3. What's the problem here? O'Sullivan is, as of yesterday, probably the favorite to win the backup job behind a shaky Shaun Hill. Not to mention his offensive coordinator is Mike Martz who had a bit of success (all the way to the Super Bowl) with another sleeper QB about a decade ago. Sure JT hasn't put up big numbers this side of the Atlantic yet, but that's kind of the point of "sleeper"
4. His long term success is tenous at best, but right now Delhomme is healthy (and supposedly having a strong camp) and there really is no one seriously threatening his job right now.
5. Again, Walter looking for something that isn’t there. It’s a perfectly legit statement by Hoge. Remember he’s presenting his opinion.
6. This is an opinion of Hoge’s I definitely don’t agree with
7. More complaining
8. Pretty obvious, and therefore seen as dumb, statement by ESPN. But that's what happens sometimes when you have to write something about nearly every player. Still, nothing wrong with the statement. It's true.
9. Can’t defend this
10. Andre Johnson won’t last so many rounds, Walter is right there. He’s missing the point about what Joyner is saying about Roddy White. He’s saying even with bad QBs White puts up decent numbers (but it’s overlooked). As for Justin Gage…with Vince Young throwing to him anything is possible

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It’s always fascinating the depths to which some people out there in the blogosphere will go to rip on ESPN, yet of course it’s the first place they go to get their sports fix. First off, “28 factual errors” is incorrect, so the thread title is inaccurate. Yes there are mistakes, just like he makes mistakes, but he exaggerates quite often. Let’s look at it item by item...

Thank you! I considered doing this when I got to work today, I get sick of people spouting off about ESPN, especially when their web site sucks! It just aggravates the hell out of me. If you don't like it, turn it off and keep making predictions like Tim Tebow to the Bears as the #9 overall pick next year.

I'm not in love with ESPN and there are plenty of things I disagree with, but they've got the best thing going, so until you can produce something better, why don't you just stop? Stop trying to find issues with things just so you can try to generate some page hits to your weak ass web site.

Oh, and your web design skills are garbage!