MAC Tool gone?

[patnkeren]

Those of us who miss MACK are probably the older generation, so we are dwindling away and will soon no longer be anyone's problem! I must have "missed" that site analytics poll, so that's on me. Yes, I do like the HQ writers and the HQ "unique" look at stats, which I don't get at any other site. MACK was where I could get a bird's eye view of all of my teams, so I really don't understand how it became too difficult to keep on HQ. Can we pay $5 extra for it?...

[Lion]

I applaud BHQ for its transparency and allowing us to complain. The Forum is valuable to me, and your willingness to allow contrary opinions is courageous. Thank you.

[Buccos]

The site changeover timing- during draft season- and the lack of continuity and formats of the CDG and the discontinuation of MACK were a poor read by whoever made the decisions. Sometimes there are features that get less usage and if you measure the importance of those features and tie them to loyalty you get a different picture and additional decision criteria.

The current league MACK is unusable. All of my leagues run on CBS and Fantrax which I'll guess account for two of the top three league sites (ESPN being the other and maybe NFBC is up there). To not have a connector to either of those sites renders league MACK useless. BBHQ's response sounds like hallow corporate positioning- maybe a sign of the influence of USA Today vs. the original BBHQ staff (or at least one can hope). Glad I spent so much updating all my teams in Mack just a few weeks before it got eliminated

[Howie M]

A lot of mistakes WERE made, and I have no interest in having any particular person/s called out here.

but yes, as much feedback as we have gotten - and it has indeed been extensive - I think we're still one post short in terms of something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we did not ever expect to drive on that road all the way into mid-April. and yet, here we are." (unless I missed it.)

that said - swallowing that bitter pill, if we're being totally honest, would be very difficult for just about any of us to handle. and that's why I mostly have "held my powder."

only seemed fair to let HQ folks get through "the five stages." even more difficult when, I assume, many upgrades have been successful along with the swing and misses.

[deeswright]

The fact that no one from BBHQ has even acknowledged people’s frustrations about this other than, “Sorry, if you don’t use the 4 services that lets you synch, you are pretty much SOL. We are working on the other websites. But, there is no ETA.”
Here is a wise business decision: Until you know that the other companies will synch with your new system, don’t release the product until then! And, leave well enough alone(the old MAC tool) and keep that for now.
And, people making excuses for them. They were too busy with the Forecaster book? Are you serious? How is that our problem? That Forecaster book is pretty useless once the season starts anyways.
I would suggest the powers that be at BBHQ admit that the ball was dropped this season and figure out ways to keep your customers for next year. Like, offering people who can’t use the new MACK tool a significant discount for next season or even offering a free year because this is ridiculous!

[aikman72]

I can understand peoples frustrations and that is no slight to Ray and Brent and the entire HQ team. I’ve been a subscriber since 2012 and may not return next season. The roll out was rough and not sure why anyone thought rolling it out in Feb and March was a good idea. November/December would have made much more sense regardless of someone saying the forecaster was more important. The league syncs was a huge disappointment as to not have the biggest sites available yet rotowire and fantasy pros have them available. I still have to disable my ad blocker to access the site which frustrates me. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion in a respectful way. HQ isn’t cheap compared to other sites, so therefore the expectations should be higher, but and hopefully they can do something to restore their trust in their customers once the dust settles.

[KingGeorge]

Just adding on to say that I also really, really miss the old MACK. I use CBS, so the new one isn't an option. I took Ray's recommendation a while back to set up an ESPN league mirroring my main league. The problems with that are, unfortunately, many. It's very hard to keep up with roster moves, etc. But even when I do all of that, the new MACK is still very difficult to use. For example, I like to sort by $$ on the projection tab, and this function doesn't work. It thinks $-21 is better than $-2. Also, I really really miss the ability to pick a group of players and directly compare them. I used to that with FAs I was interested in along with players on my team I'd think of dropping. From what I can tell, you can only directly compare players on your own team in the new system.

Please, please, scrap the new system next season and bring back the old MACK. It was invaluable for in season management. I've been a subscriber for nearly 20 years, but have to agree that I will likely not renew if there is not a suitable option next year for ALL users.

[RAY@HQ]

I've said it before, I've said it again... the level of attachment to the old MACK is definitely the most surprising development, and thus our biggest miss, in the upgrade process.

But that's where we are now. Our focus now is to make LeagueSync a better MACK replacement, both in terms of making it accessible to all users (not just those who use the four currently-supported sites) as well as making LeagueSync a better tool for those who are using it.

I don't want to announce any specific plans or timetables, but we are making plans on both of those paths, and I think those plans as written lead to a place where all former MACK users are happy with LeagueSync. Now we just have to go from written plans to reality. That's going to take some time... but for now, I can at least say "we hear you, MACK fans".

[Howie M]

I really needed to hear that, Ray - and obviously I am not nearly alone - so thank you !

[Howie M]

so I'm looking at projected totals for Neris v Morton for a possible trade.
I go to Player Values
Neris is said to have been worth $14 so far in 11-team NL-only 5x5. plausible.
HQ understandably is skeptical about Neris.
yet his projection rest of season is $15 - really?

so if I play along, then his projected total is - either $14 or $15, obviously.
nope, its $0 - which I find ALL THE TIME in Player Link.

so MACK Team Tracker is gone, there is no good alternative, and Player Values also is often useless.
have been told that CDG might be good. but I looked for Neris in vain after several minutes, and gave up.

[RAY@HQ]

I wrote a guide to dollar values across the site in our Memorial Day update:

Dollar value standardization

Even before this year’s site transition, we’ve always had some confusion about how to distinguish the various dollar values around the site. Then, in building the new site, we admittedly got a little sloppy about what dollar values we were showing where. (Truth be told, just as it was confusing for readers over the years, in the transition the tech team got confused as well.)

We have that sorted out now, and here’s the definitive “what dollar values are shown in which place” guide:

• The values on the General tab in Playerlink are 12-team AL or NL-only values (depending on the player's league). R$ is 4x4 and 5x5 is (of course) 5x5 values. Those values should match the AL or NL-only projection files if you download those.
• The values on the Historical tab in Playerlink are the mixed-league 4x4 and 5x5 values. Two reasons for this: we don’t keep historical record of a player’s team/league for each season, and those historical dollar values are best for player-to-player comparison and multi-year trending. Mixed-league values are best for those purposes.
• The mixed league projection files show 12- and 15-team mixed league 5x5 values. AL-only and NL-only projection files show the AL-only and NL-only 4x4 and 5x5 values. (Those match the General tab from Playerlink).
• The 2024 Projections datatable shows the 12- and 15-team mixed 5x5 values as well.
  Important: it still shows mixed-league values even if you change the filter on that projections page to AL-only or NL-only.
• Finally, the Custom Draft Guide is always available to give you values that are tailored to your specific league format.

Hopefully, this explanation provides some clarity moving forward.

I don't understand the comment about the $0 values in PLink, that's not the case. Here is Neris' PLink page:

Neris.png
As you note, his YTD value is $17 in 4x4, $14 in 5x5. (top circle)

His rest-of-year projected value is $18/$15 (lower circle)... because he's still projected to get 70% of the saves. His projected value is NOT $0. The only $0 here is the projected +YTD total/last line in the table (below the second circle). We've never derived proj+YTD values as a single number (we can't do that across two completely different data sets), even on the old site. (It was a --- instead of a $0 there, maybe we should change back to that.) Think of that as just an empty cell.

As far as the CDG: if you want to look up a dollar value quickly there... go to the grid view, check the 'show $' box at the top, then just search the player name in your browser. Good way to quickly find a value without having to actually find the guy in the data table views.

[Howie M]

just a 'O' would be mildly confusing.

'$0' - that's trying to tell me something, but you say that it isn't.

---- would be a big improvement, actually, if there is no better alternative.

[Whistler]

I've been reading the MACK comments and have a question. I used MACK years ago and liked its ability to load my team, sort the categories and $ values, and look at alternatives. But I never took the time to load all of the leagues teams. Since I started using Rotolab years ago, I have not felt the need to use MACK, as Rotolab serves all of my needs and more, especially since it is easy to load all players on all teams at the draft, and to keep up with them through the various adds, drops, and trades. Can sort on needs during draft, and during the season. And with the FA list. Of course, all dependent on HQ projections and stats.

I guess I can understand someone not wanting to pay the $39 for RL, but quite honestly, I could not play the game without it, in what I hear similarly from MACK aficionados. I would be curious as to what MACK features are superior to RL? I haven't used LeagueSync, as it does not sync with websites I have teams in, but neither did MACK.

So my question for the out-of-luck MACK users is, benefits of MACK vs Rotolab, as opposed to MACK vs Leaguesync. Since I went to Rotolab, cant say that I've missed MACK.

[RAY@HQ]

---- would be a big improvement, actually, if there is no better alternative.

It's changed to a '-' now.

[Howie M]

thanks !