HQ customer service

Here's the typical response anytime anyone dares ask a question that could be construed as critical to anything HQ:

1) A collective "gasp" from the subscribers.

2) A verbal whipping by Ron or one of his cronies.

3) An immediate apology from the questioner.

What kind of customer service is this? No other company I know of can stay in business for long when their response to customer's problems is, "You're lucky you're even allowed to use this product."

A month or so ago I asked the question, "How did HQ's '03 projections do compared to prior seasons?" A simple question I think, but no one had the guts to answer it. It wasn't to be critical either, just an honest question from a person who just started using HQ in the past year and was wondering if this was a normal season for HQ.

Because of the lack of responses, I started digging deeper in the '03 projections. I took the ones that were pulled right before the '03 season started and used as many objective test I could think of to find out how well the projections were. My conclusions? The projections did, at best, no better than random chance.

Now, I am sure HQ or one of the other lemmings will respond with, "Well, it's not the outcome that is important, it's the process." What? The only other place I've heard this type of nonsense is when liberals are explaining their policies. The outcome is how you decide whether the process is correct. You know the saying, "Garbage in. Garbage out?" What would you say if you bought a cookie from a bakery and spitted it out because it was so bad but the baker says, "We followed the recipe?" Unless Ron's the baker, you say, "Well, you got a bad recipe there, buddy."

Is this frustration talking? You bet. Didn't someone last year question the accuracy of xba and get ripped to shreds by Ron or am I mistaken? But low and behold, this year's Forecaster comes out and admits there is a flaw, but where is the apology? I just find this stuff to be very rude and stiffling of ideas that could make this site better. And all this abuse heaped upon the "heretics" could instead be changed into explanations that could appease the doubters. This would be more helpful if you ask me.

I don't care if I piss off Ron. Do I care if I piss off Compaq if I call them with a problem? Only on HQ are you supposed to worry about what the management thinks and not the other way around.

Alright, Ron, blast away.

[Doc]

Im not really sure about the projections from last year. I have them and will look at them and try to go through them one by one using R$, I guess. I don't know if your beef is only with the projections or the customer service. I don't really rely on "projections" esp not doller values. I use the BPI's and other indcators to draft my team and I won 3 out of 4 years I used this site.

As for customer service, I can see how you and others could get upset with the "lashing out" of Ron or other BBHQ'ers. They are pretty passionate about their jobs and what they produce here. I personally like that and can understand some possible "defensive" positions taken. In my profession, I tend to get many others who think they know better than me about a certain procedure or what not. I only went to school and trained for 10 years and practiced for 5 more, what would I know about my profession.

I follow the forums closely, so I do know what you are talking about in regards to Ron. I compare it to the Soup Nazi, or any other successful person I know. If you want the really good soup you have to deal with the Nazi. I find customer service atrocius everywhere. From Dunkin Doughnuts to Utilitiy companies. But, If an individual is good at what they do or considered good at what the do, by the masses then they prob. don't care if one or a few people don't like it. They can just say get lost. If I were you, they only way to really stick it to the BBHQ and Ron is just don't renew.

The preceding message in no way reflects the views of this site or Ron himself on my own humble opinions

[WMR]

I have a problem with both, Doc, and the reason I was so harsh was because of the frustration of not being able to question anything HQ without being ignored or verbally berated. If I had gotten a good and decent answer to my other post we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this right now.

And I do not hold HQ accountable for it's projection accuracy. As they point out in the Forecaster, you should judge them on whether they are pointing you to the right players or not and that is the standard that I use. In that, I find them lacking.

And are you looking different BPI's than HQ? Or are you just able to decipher them better than HQ? If your success is based on the BPI's then HQ's ability to project should be impecable because they rely on the same set of numbers.

And I got to tell you that you have a case of "Ron Awe" something fierce. I met Ron and he's a good man. Smart. I can't say enough good things about him. And probably the smartest thing he ever did was starting this business when he did and putting James' principals into play with fantasy baseball. Still, it does not mean his principals are correct or that he's any better than you or me. I do not view Ron as my "superior" in any way. When I want to jostle with someone when I have a question I'm not going to shy away because of his stature. I give people respect and I expect the same from others. I don't think Ron does the same.

[WMR]

I forgot this part. I still am an HQ subscriber because I like it. Just because I am critical of something doesn't mean that I don't find it useful. This is a great service he provides, but there's a couple aspects of it that I would like some answers about without being treated like a insubordinate kindergartner.

[Doc]

Of couse I have some awe for Ron. Not because he has God-Like abiltiy to project statistics, but he has and is making a living on fantasy sports. I mean I have tons of respect for someone who makes money from nothing. Ten or twenty years this was barely an industry, now apparently people can actually make enough money to live on. I feel the same for the inventor of Post-its.

As far as which BPI's. I bascailly rely on eye, px/Sx, ct%, bb% not necessarily in that order. I am trying to evaluate them over a 3 year period. Looking for consistencey. I also don't even bother with them unless a player has at least 300AB or preferable 400AB in a given year. I wouldn't even begin to project values for players in their 1st or 2nd seasons. I don't have to. I just don't draft those players. I willing to bet that many of those "blown" projections are from players like these. As well as pitchers. Let's face it pitcher projections by anyone are a joke. Right now I am attempting to find some pattern over a 3 year period using these pitcher BPI's CMD, K/9, Hr/9, OOB, and IP at certain benchmarks. I will post whatever I find out.

As for why here. BBHQ and Ron seem to be the only site that uses these stats to project most of their projections. I can't find stats like Hr/9 or batting eye anywhere else very easily, and I LIKE using these indicators. I feel it gives me and advantage over other players in MY league. Maybe your league has many, super owners where a small edge like I feel BBHQ offers doesn't overcome the normal luck that could GM's bring.

[WMR]

All true, Doc. HQ's an invaluable treasure of information, that is why I'm here.

[Tom_T]

WMR, a few comments...

First, can't we keep the boards civil? You went from asking a question about projections directly to "I'm pissed off" and name-calling. Isn't there a middle ground somewhere? Also, I don't recall any recent conversations where "lemmings" attacked "heretics". My impression is that the boards have been getting better in all respects.

Second, your question about projections was early in December. On December 12th, Ron's weekly article was about a year-end review of some projections from various services, and explained that HQ does not do a comprehensive "how did we do" review. Sure, someone could have posted a response pointing you to the article, but the information was out there. Saying that "nobody had the guts to respond" is simply untrue.

Third, you say that Forecaster's projections were "no better than random chance." What does that mean, exactly? 50/50? And what criteria do you use to determine if a forecast is "good" or "not good"? There's a Forecaster article that discusses this exact point. If HQ predicts 30 HR for someone, and the player hits 27, is that good? What if he hits 25? 20? 50? What if a player gets hurt? Or plays hurt? Or simply has a bad year? Or shocks everyone by having an incredible year? Who can predict these things? Is there anyone out there who predicted Javy Lopez's season? Does that mean the process is "bad"?

There is no process in the world that can correctly predict the future. The HQ process is to give you enough statistical and other data to let you make better decisions. Everyone clamors for forecasts -- heck, recently some people complained that there was no forecast for Jon Lieber, who hasn't pitched in over a year -- but nobody has a crystal ball, and there's nobody in the world who can say "my forecasts are 75% accurate", or whatever percentage you wish to choose.

Finally, you make it sound as if every HQ staffer bows to Ron in all respects. That is not the way it is. In December I wrote a MarketWatch column in which I was less than optimistic about a player who got a pretty positive review in the Forecaster. Did Ron call me up and yell at me for disagreeing with him? Of course not. Different people look at the numbers and the players and reach different conclusions; nobody's right and nobody's wrong. As long as you've got a cogent argument, then all views are welcome.

If Ron truly knew everything, he could drop this business and show Pete Rose how to really make money betting on baseball.

[WMR]

Ah, a response. Thank you very much.

I apologize for being abrasive, but like I said I was a bit peeved about the lack of response to my post and general treatment towards dissenters here at the Cafe. The "lemmings" comment was uncalled for, I admit, and I should use a better term like irate instead of using bodily functions. Your point is well taken. It did serve it's purpose, though, which was a response from HQ.

I did read the piece about the sample testing of projections you showed here. I don't think it proved anything, however, due to its small sample size. I also noted the statement about you not doing a comprehensive "how did we do" review, does this mean you have no clue whether your product is actually good or not? I mean, how can you tell whether it is if you don't test it? And how can you ever improve on it if you don't know what needs to be improved? I must say that if you had a tangible product you were selling you'd be out of business a long time ago.

I did say that I don't hold HQ responsible for accuracy in their projections. It is an impossible business to really be correct on. But I do hold HQ responsible to the criteria stated in the Forecaster, which is whether or not they point to the correct players and steer you away from those who aren't. I believe in the Forecaster they used the example of if a player earns $25 but the HQ projection is $15, that is all you need if everyone else has that player at $10. I can buy that.

What I did at first was take the final values of the players in '03, the projected HQ values I pulled from HQ last March, and TSN's Fantasy baseball projected values from '03 and used them as the "everyone else" in the example from above. I also immediately took out the injured players such as Johnson or even Green (who was hampered by an injury all season) because I do not hold you responsible for these types of things. I then went through all the players who were considered everyday players and most starting pitchers (closers I left out) and tallied whether they were more accurate in pointing to the right players and away from the wrong ones better than "everyone else", which was the stated goal in the Forecaster. In this, I found HQ a bit worse than "everyone else" in pointing out these players.

I also did another experiment going through a couple drafts of mine but they were less comprehensive than this one but the results were about the same.

I realize HQ avoids stressing the projections, but a cynic would say that that was only because the projections were not very good. That would be a good point because I am sure if they were good you'd be stressing them to near the breaking point, no?

Every point I make you may be able to prove wrong, but I wanted to open a discussion on this for the sake of everyone knowing what we have here. You got a great product and I'm just trying to make it better. I am a result driven person, and since I find the end results of your "process" flawed I feel I must put in question the "process" itself. I am sure these posts made "irate" a person or two and but I feel that could not be helped. Criticism is not given to tear down something, but is instead meant to make it better. Make of this what you will, but I think it would be a benefit to you if you looked at my points to see if they are valid.

[WMR]

I just noticed that I never said I was "pissed off". I just said that this may "piss off" Ron. I shoudn't use that term though, so I will never again after this post.

[Tom_T]

Glad we can talk calmly.

First, I want to preface my statement by pointing out that I am a new HQ staffer, and not involved in creating forecasts or BPIs. So I'm not one of the HQ "oldtimers"; my perspective is one who has been an HQ subscriber for three years and is now on the "other side of the fence." I certainly am not speaking for Ron or anyone else.

Forecasts are not the HQ product. BPIs and intelligent analysis are the products. I'm not sure that HQ's forecasts are any worse than anyone else's; does your analysis, using one service, one season, and one set of criteria, really allow you to make a conclusion? I don't agree that if HQ's forecasts were the "best", that we'd be trumpeting that fact; Ron is the first one to say that forecasting is a very iffy proposition, since there are so many unknown variables (including things that have YET TO HAPPEN); and indeed, it's very hard to even select the criteria that one might use to evaluate a forecast.

This is why it's meaningless to do an end-of-year review. What could it possibly show that would lead one to "change the process"? Think of all the things that can happen during a season: players gets hurt, or play hurt, or get into a mental funk, or get traded, or the manager changes their roles, and on and on. Or maybe a player does better because he's going to be a free agent (like Javy Lopez.) Or maybe a player starts to press because he's going to be a free agent. Or maybe a player just shocks everyone and plays great, or a great player simply has a bad year. Or maybe someone just doesn't develop as expected, or develops faster. A million things can happen.

I think we have to accept the fact that forecasting is not something HQ or any service can hang a hat on, and any service that tries to do so is misleading people. Any time I used an HQ forecast (or another service's forecast) as gospel at the draft table, I often got into trouble. The best approach is to use the HQ data, analyses, current events, and just plain old gut feelings, when deciding who you want on your team.

You said that HQ's an invaluable source of information. Well, that's the product, and I think we agree it's a pretty good one.

[WMR]

I really have to apologize for a very annoying personality trait that I am putting on display here. I tend to be iconoclastic by nature, which leads me to question things that others tend to accept without question. I drove my professors nuts in college with this, but it did usually lead to better understandings in most cases.

A couple notes before I start in on this:

1)"I'm not sure that HQ's forecasts are any worse than anyone else's." I did not say that they were, and I agree that that my little test was not conclusive; however, I don't know if they are any better either, which is partially why I made that long ago in the first place. Your quote is not a ringing endorsement for your company's product, by the way.

2) "Forecasts are not the HQ product." Funny since your book is called the "Forecaster." Even if that is true, it is "a" HQ product, and it is prominently displayed for all to see (second to only "analysis") on the search engines, so shooing it away when someone questions it I don't think is very constructive.

3) "This is why it's meaningless to do an end-of-year review. What could it possibly show that would lead one to "change the process"? " That is how you improve any product, Tom. All of those things happen, but every projection out there deals with the same realities. If you did a review of your projections and found them lacking against a review of other projections, then you can go about correcting it. With your logic we'd still be giving weather forecasts by using the Farmer's Almanac and looking at beaver dams.

The issue that is really sticking in my craw is that, overall, if your projections are bad how can I know that your product which, in your words is "BPI's and intelligent anaylsis," is worth a damn? Afterall, your projections are the final product of your "BPI's and intelligent analysis," no? And like I said, every service out there works under the same rules, so I don't see how you can exonerate yourself from your own projection inadequacies. It is like mutual funds. All of them work under the same market factors, but if your mutual fund is lagging against the other same types, you know something is wrong. I don't think explanations like you're giving me would be enough to satisfy any investor.

Let's face it, when someone posts that they were going to trade a player but decided against it because of your projections (which happens all the time), do you ever warn him that your projections shouldn't be taken seriously? In your little competition with other projection services, why didn't you beg out because your product is "BPI's and expert analysis"? And you sure seemed to pat your back on the ones you were fairly close on I have to point out. It sure seems to me you are easy to accept credit when your projections are right, but I think it's only fair that you accept criticism of them as a whole from a person like me.

You know, Tom, I don't really know how to counter your argument that the projections are not an indicator of the worth of your BPI's and expert analysis. It just doesn't sit right with me, I guess because if your BPI's and expert analysis were worth a damn it'd be displayed somewhere in your projections. I can already tell there can be no resolution to my issues, so I will stop pushing it. Thanks for your responses though.

[hqforums]

Several of my other writers asked if I was going to respond to this thread and I told them that I was going to wait to see whether I needed to (allocation of scarce resources), but since Tom has responded and this discussion continues, I'll contribute just a few additional points from my perspective.

For starters, the litmus test as to whether any set of projections is good (note that I do not say "accurate") is success in fantasy baseball leagues. That is why 98% of you subscribe to this site. Given that the projections we produce, in tandem with the strategies we've developed, has yielded consistent fantasy league success, then I deem the process, and the result, a success. No matter what the individual numbers say. The numbers are ancillary to the goal. The projections are NOT the product, as you assert -- winning leagues is the product, and that is how I judge success.

So, are we successful? Six straight years of national expert league titles, overflowing pages of testimonials (with hundreds that I've yet to get around to posting), and a subscription renewal rate of over 90% says yes. Perhaps others may need another type of concrete evidence, but those are the measuring sticks that I use. Do the numbers work? In context, THEY MUST because everyone keeps coming back.

So yes, the ends justify the means... and the ends are good, and the means are good, and if we were to step back and take a holistic look at the whole thing, we'd likely say, "I can't always explain it or I might not always agree with it, but I know there is a logical basis and I keep winning, so that is good enough for me."

As for not responding to your post, let me explain my philosophy on that, acquired over 18 years in this industry... Tone is everything. If someone legitimately wants to have a dialogue, you can determine that by the tone of his post. However, the problem with attempting to create a dialogue with an abrasive post is that, in most of the cases, it ends up becoming a pissing match, which needless to say, I have no interest in participating in. About 49% of the people who make posts like this are just looking to get into a good argument (remember Monty Python's Argument Clinic?). The next 49% are just inherently irritable people whose opinions are not going to change no matter how much evidence is put in front of them. The remaining 2% -- the group you may well be a part of -- are those who are looking for a legitimate dialogue. And to that 2%, clean up the tone and then I will gladly respond. I know plenty of iconoclasts who present cogent arguments without nitpicking every minor phrase.

I was much less of a cynic 15 years ago when I had a few hundred subscribers and unlimited time. These days, I can choose to spend my time writing responses like this, or spend it working on the new player database engine, already three weeks behind schedule.

I guess I've made my choice for this afternoon.

RON@HQ

[Doc]

Can I get an AAAMMMMEEENNNN brother. lol

[WMR]

Ron,

Problems with customers is nothing new or just unique to you, Ron. It comes with running a business. I had legitimate questions, in which Tom handled very well by the way, and I had already stated I was going to let it drop. That was until you wrote.

My initial post last month was not confrontational. I was lacking context since I was only using HQ for one season. If one of your staffers simply gave me a one word answer it would have been finished. Because no one responded I was forced to find out for myself just how you did not compared to other years but compared to others services. This, Ron, took time. Maybe my time is not as valuable as yours, but it is time that I will never get back.

I will say this, though, you cannot use subscriber championships as a gauge for how good you are. Everyone here is a fantasy baseball nut because only a nut would spend this type of money on something like this. And the nuts are the ones who spend much of their time thinking about this stuff and, consequently, win championships. It's like energy bars taking credit for a marathon runner winning the race. We "nuts" would win with or without you. It's the same reason rich people are driving Lexuses (Lexi?) instead of Toyotas even though they do the same thing. HQ is the Lexus, Ron, and we like it, not need it.

This is your business, Ron, and you run it as you see fit, but I think you are taking this projection business for granted. Yes, you are making money hand over fist and the subscribers are happy, but that doesn't mean you cannot improve. I see reasons why you are missing on so many of your projections but you wouldn't listen to me if I told you. In fact, I've been doing projections for years and I'd bet they'd beat the snot out of yours without using any of your BPI's or expert analysis. I know you guys win all these expert leagues, but looking over your drafts from last season, do you pick who you recommend? Please don't get upset over that question.

Well, Ron, I've vented my spleen. It sounds like you already have your mind made up about my motives and I think that that is too bad. I only had the best intentions at heart whether you believe it or not. Now go back to whatever the project you are on and stop wasting time!

[Rob]

I will say this, though, you cannot use subscriber championships as a gauge for how good you are. Everyone here is a fantasy baseball nut because only a nut would spend this type of money on something like this. And the nuts are the ones who spend much of their time thinking about this stuff and, consequently, win championships.

While I think WMR's tone is needlessly confrontational, THIS is a very good point. In statistics I believe it's called something like "selection bias." That said, Ron's renewal rate of 90% speaks volumes--that most of us "nuts" find the content worthwhile by some criteria.

I see reasons why you are missing on so many of your projections but you wouldn't listen to me if I told you.

OK... then tell the rest of us.

In fact, I've been doing projections for years and I'd bet they'd beat the snot out of yours without using any of your BPI's or expert analysis.

Isn't this Merriam-Webster's definition for "throwing down the gauntlet"?

Let's define some parameters. How would you define one projection "beating the snot" out of another? After we've defined that, why don't you provide us all of YOUR past projections, and Ron will provide us with HIS past projections, and we'll do a peer review. If your projections are indeed superior to Ron's (and they may well be--I'm open minded about this), then many of us would like to use them in our fantasy drafts.

Alternative sources of good projections would be very valuable to me. In some of my leagues there are a number of people using Ron's projections (dubbed Shandler-bots) which can be a source of amusement, but just as often a source of frustration. Makes it hard to get that competitive advantage.

So, WMR, talk is cheap. Let's see some numbers.

Regards,
Rob