HQ customer service

[PD@HQ]

Originally posted by WMR
My favorite (excuse) was the "no way to judge the accuracy of projections." Come on, if they can find a way to judge figure skating, I think there's somehow an objective way to judge forecasting.

I can say with certainty that our forecasts are more accurate than the French judge at the Olympic pairs.

[RAY@HQ]

This whole issue could have been over early on if HQ's customer service was worth a damn (my original point).

WMR,

I've followed this thread since it's inception without comment, but at this point I do feel the need to interject... respectfully.

I'm sorry your initial post went unanswered. I'm one of the people who saw it, and chose not to respond. I did not have the answer to your question at my fingertips, and in pre-holiday rush did not have the time to research it... although I did find it interesting. I think Patrick Davitt did a good job of providing the quick-and-dirty numbers in his recent post. The BP study also contributes to the discussion, but as has been discussed in several posts here, that study has its limitations as well. (For instance, BP does not project RBI or runs... which severely limits the roto applications of their projections. But sure, if you study the projections using OPS as they did in their comparison, you can hide that shortcoming very nicely.)

But at this point, you've gotten the proprietor of this web site to comment multiple times in this thread, as well as four of his staff members (if I count correctly). The forums were a very quiet place this past December, but as you have undoubtedly noticed, things are picking up since the New Year.

I'm one of the staff members assigned to provide forum coverage, so I'm lurking around here fairly regularly. My personal opinion is that the level of discussion is high, and the HQ coverage is well-spread over the various reader forums. Sure, that may be a biased opinion... but I honestly don't think you can scroll through the numerous open/active threads at any given time and reach a different conclusion.

[LongDuckDong]

This certainly is a lively thread...

As I said in my previous post in this thread, it is unfortunate that the title of this thread is "HQ Customer Service".

What this thread comes down to very quickly is a two-part issue.

1. Does the HQ approach allow us to get more accurate projections?

2. How do we measure the accuracy of the projections?

The answer to #2 is exactly as Davitt (I think its Patrick?) puts it - correlation of R$ projected vs. actual. I'd submit that it should only be done on players who had something like 150-200 plate appearances, and the average error should be the average of the absolute value of the difference. Others may differ and thats not really the best discussion for the current moment. I'll trust Davitt's numbers and say that the results seem reasonable.

The answer to #1 is a LOT harder yet really quite important.

Last season I averaged the projections of three sites for the purposes of creating final projections. These 3 were HQ, Notebook, and Mastersball. What I found was that 9/10 times, the projections weren't significantly different for any of them. So I looked at the outliers.

The two players who stuck out the most in my mind from Ron's toutings were Fullmer and Sabathia.

I would say Ron was on the right track with Fullmer, though I don't think he would have reached the projected numbers, I dont know it for fact, and he was clearly outproducing the consensus out there. On Sabathia he was dead wrong, as CC was a double digit starter for the year, and performed in the range of the projection of the consensus if not even a little better.

So lets say they batted 50% there.

So after all of this I have come to the following conclusion - which is that the only projections that the general public are going to see as bad are the ones where the projector goes against the consensus and they end up being incorrect. Because say the consensus and Ron all agreed that Jeremy Giambi would hit .300 for the Sox. If we argue about the projection, HQ can easily say "look, there was nothing that indicated he would tank". And they'd probably be right. Now say Ron projected him to hit .200. Unless there were a damn good reason to project it, we probably would have blown it off. Yes some of the believers would have scratched him off their lists but for the most part, such a wild projection without substantiative reason would be viewed as crazy. Yet after the season we would have seen Ron as a genius.

Would Ron have been a genius? No if he was just guessing, yes if he had a quantitative or qualitative documented reason.

Coming to this conclusion changes the way I perceive the argument (and Im a little embarassed because I only came to it by writing these thoughts down here). In reality, my recommendation for all those reading this would be to note that where HQ earns their money is where they can consistently use their analytical tools to find where the consensus is wrong on a player, good or bad.

And maybe thats what WMR is really getting at behind the gruff exterior - what insights did the BPIs tell us before the season, and what actually happened?

Note that this doesn't change the importance of the projections but it does give them proper context.

I do understand why it is so difficult to really grade projections, though. If Ron just made sure all of his projections were within the range of all the other published sources none would ever be considered "bad" projections. Its only going out on a limb that puts his abilities at risk. As such it is essential that we the users understand 100% why Ron is going out on that limb and then utilize it if we agree.

So Im back to square one. I agree with WMR that the results need to be scrutinized somehow so that we the users have confidence in the process, but at the same time I concede that finding a good way to do so is somewhat needle in a haystack.

[WMR]

Originally posted by LongDuckDong
This certainly is a lively thread...

As I said in my previous post in this thread, it is unfortunate that the title of this thread is "HQ Customer Service".

What this thread comes down to very quickly is a two-part issue.

1. Does the HQ approach allow us to get more accurate projections?

2. How do we measure the accuracy of the projections?

The answer to #2 is exactly as Davitt (I think its Patrick?) puts it - correlation of R$ projected vs. actual. I'd submit that it should only be done on players who had something like 150-200 plate appearances, and the average error should be the average of the absolute value of the difference. Others may differ and thats not really the best discussion for the current moment. I'll trust Davitt's numbers and say that the results seem reasonable.

The answer to #1 is a LOT harder yet really quite important.

Last season I averaged the projections of three sites for the purposes of creating final projections. These 3 were HQ, Notebook, and Mastersball. What I found was that 9/10 times, the projections weren't significantly different for any of them. So I looked at the outliers.

The two players who stuck out the most in my mind from Ron's toutings were Fullmer and Sabathia.

I would say Ron was on the right track with Fullmer, though I don't think he would have reached the projected numbers, I dont know it for fact, and he was clearly outproducing the consensus out there. On Sabathia he was dead wrong, as CC was a double digit starter for the year, and performed in the range of the projection of the consensus if not even a little better.

So lets say they batted 50% there.

So after all of this I have come to the following conclusion - which is that the only projections that the general public are going to see as bad are the ones where the projector goes against the consensus and they end up being incorrect. Because say the consensus and Ron all agreed that Jeremy Giambi would hit .300 for the Sox. If we argue about the projection, HQ can easily say "look, there was nothing that indicated he would tank". And they'd probably be right. Now say Ron projected him to hit .200. Unless there were a damn good reason to project it, we probably would have blown it off. Yes some of the believers would have scratched him off their lists but for the most part, such a wild projection without substantiative reason would be viewed as crazy. Yet after the season we would have seen Ron as a genius.

Would Ron have been a genius? No if he was just guessing, yes if he had a quantitative or qualitative documented reason.

Coming to this conclusion changes the way I perceive the argument (and Im a little embarassed because I only came to it by writing these thoughts down here). In reality, my recommendation for all those reading this would be to note that where HQ earns their money is where they can consistently use their analytical tools to find where the consensus is wrong on a player, good or bad.

And maybe thats what WMR is really getting at behind the gruff exterior - what insights did the BPIs tell us before the season, and what actually happened?

Note that this doesn't change the importance of the projections but it does give them proper context.

I do understand why it is so difficult to really grade projections, though. If Ron just made sure all of his projections were within the range of all the other published sources none would ever be considered "bad" projections. Its only going out on a limb that puts his abilities at risk. As such it is essential that we the users understand 100% why Ron is going out on that limb and then utilize it if we agree.

So Im back to square one. I agree with WMR that the results need to be scrutinized somehow so that we the users have confidence in the process, but at the same time I concede that finding a good way to do so is somewhat needle in a haystack.

Wow, nice posting there, Dong.

I got to make a point here, though. Every projection set I've ever seen, HQ included, goes out on a limb on a few players so they can advertise the crap out of it for the next season when they are correct. Overall, though, they are wrong just as often as they are right in those outside the norm picks. I don't like this method, which I posted once before in this long, long, thread. I do believe there's a better way, but I'm not about to post about it again.

Alright, fellas, this horse is dying. I'm ready to let it die in peace.

[maisany]

If Ron Told You To Jump Over A Cliff...

Originally posted by WMR
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."

Is it too late? Are all the lemming parts already taken?

[WMR]

Re: If Ron Told You To Jump Over A Cliff...

Originally posted by maisany
Is it too late? Are all the lemming parts already taken?

That's what is good about being a lemming. There's no limits on how many can jump off the cliff.

I did apologize for the comment, but the truth was there were very few who'd back anything that could be construed as negative to HQ, due mainly to not wanting to suffer the wrath of Ron. Hopefully, this is one thing that has changed because of this thread.

[ackermaj]

Sorry, but I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I can't hold back anymore.

WMR, you really are quite fond of yourself, aren't you?

Thank you SO much for paving the way, making us all see the light, we can question ANYTHING now! And its all because of you.

I feel so free...

Again, thank you.

[WMR]

Originally posted by ackermaj
Sorry, but I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I can't hold back anymore.

WMR, you really are quite fond of yourself, aren't you?

Thank you SO much for paving the way, making us all see the light, we can question ANYTHING now! And its all because of you.

I feel so free...

Again, thank you.

You are quite welcome.

[Apple Pie]

Re: Re: If Ron Told You To Jump Over A Cliff...

Originally posted by WMR
"...due mainly to not wanting to suffer the wrath of Ron."

I've also been following this one closely and am compelled to respond. The reason I rarely question the HQ information or staff isn't because I'm intimidated by Ron. To imply that, WMR, is an insult to your fellow subscribers. I have no fear of his wrath, nor should he of mine (unless I take my dollars elsewhere, and even then I suspect the HQ growth over the last few years makes my subscription a drop in the bucket). I rarely question HQ because I find the analysis here insightful and valuable. When I want to troll I hit usenet...

[WMR]

Re: Re: Re: If Ron Told You To Jump Over A Cliff...

Originally posted by Apple Pie
I've also been following this one closely and am compelled to respond. The reason I rarely question the HQ information or staff isn't because I'm intimidated by Ron. To imply that, WMR, is an insult to your fellow subscribers. I have no fear of his wrath, nor should he of mine (unless I take my dollars elsewhere, and even then I suspect the HQ growth over the last few years makes my subscription a drop in the bucket). I rarely question HQ because I find the analysis here insightful and valuable. When I want to troll I hit usenet...

I don't care how it offends anyone, it is true. I never would have opened my mouth now if I hadn't gotten riled up about something; otherwise, I would have been quiet as anyone else. No one wants to upset someone they respect. It's human nature. You can think of me as an ass if you wish, but at least I'm an honest one.

[roto rooter]

WMR: I'm curious why you copy every previous post into your own reply in their entirety?

BTW, I agree that you appear to be both honest and an ass

[PD@HQ]

Re: Re: If Ron Told You To Jump Over A Cliff...

Originally posted by WMR
That's what is good about being a lemming. There's no limits on how many can jump off the cliff.

Unless the water below is very shallow and they pile up past the lip of the cliff.

[WMR]

Originally posted by roto rooter
WMR: I'm curious why you copy every previous post into your own reply in their entirety?

BTW, I agree that you appear to be both honest and an ass

Two reasons. One is to show what I am responding to. Two, I'm too lazy to disect it only to the parts I'm responding to.

I am more of an ass than I am honest. I am not beyond lying like satan himself to save myself from the teeth of my angry wife. The thought of it makes me shudder. Otherwise, I an honest as can be.

[maisany]

Re: Re: If Ron Told You To Jump Over A Cliff...

Ahh...I was going to start this a little earlier but "Get Shorty" was on Showtime and I just love that movie. It's all about artifice and people pretending to be something they're not. Quite appropos for the discussion at hand, don't you think?

I was going to sort of let this all trail off after my witty one-liner but I see that WMR et al. are enjoying themselves so much that I felt I would've been negligent if I hadn't jumped in, whole-lemming as it were.

Originally posted by WMR
That's what is good about being a lemming. There's no limits on how many can jump off the cliff.

I did apologize for the comment, but the truth was there were very few who'd back anything that could be construed as negative to HQ, due mainly to not wanting to suffer the wrath of Ron. Hopefully, this is one thing that has changed because of this thread.

Okey dokey. This is where you seem to get into a lot of trouble, WMR. As in the above statement, you seem to make a lot of assumptions. How do you know that anyone is motivated by "not wanting to suffer the wrath of Ron"? Do these people actually write this in their posts? "I am replying favorably because I fear Ron's eternal damnation"? Or is this an assumption on your part? Because unless you can produce evidence to support this statement, that's all that it is.

I note this because as I've looked over this thread and your posts in particular, I noticed this pattern in your postings. For example:

Originally posted by WMR
Every projection set I've ever seen, HQ included, goes out on a limb on a few players so they can advertise the crap out of it for the next season when they are correct.

And how do you know this is their specific motivation? I suppose in BBHQ's case, you probably read it on the back cover somewhere, but personally, I've never heard or read any fanalytic tout admit that they specifically set out to distort their projections so that they can gain some promotional value from it the following season.

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

It sounds like you already have your mind made up about my motives and I think that that is too bad.

Based on what? I haven't read a single post from anyone, least of all anyone at HQ, who stated specifically they were rejecting your analysis or fanalytic philosophies, just your bad manners.

So what seems to be your problem? Well, from what I can gather, you're peeved because nobody gave you a personal response you a question you posed on the board a couple of months ago. How do I arrive at this conclusion? Well, let's take a look at the video tape:

Originally posted by WMR
This whole issue could have been over early on if HQ's customer service was worth a damn (my original point).

If one of your staffers simply gave me a one word answer it would have been finished.

Well, I doubt that but I guess we'll take your word for it.

If you read the "Rules of the Forums"(you did read the rules before posting, didn't you?), rule number five clearly states:

"We do not guarantee that an HQ writer will contribute to every thread or answer every question. "

Since this point was evidently not clear to you the first time, let me expand upon it. This is a discussion forum, not a customer service forum. This would indicate to most people reading the rules that there may be times that we might post a comment or a question when conceivably, we might not get any responses, in spite of what you might think. How do I know what you think? Well, let me refresh everyone's memory:

Originally posted by WMR
This is what should have been said:

"We here at HQ are always trying to improve our products. In one area is found lacking we shall work until it is improved to our subscribers' satisfaction. We may not always agree with our subscribers' complaints, but we do take them seriously."

But what do we get? A litany of excuses. I'll tell you too, they're pathetic.

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.

There is also the title of this thread, as well as several other passages already quoted above where you erroneously surmise that the purpose of this forum is for customer service and that the purpose of HQ staff responses here is to provide some sort of customer satisfaction feedback. Well guess what? It's not.

Now I will refer back to our original premise which was that you seem to love to make rather wild, unsubstantiated leaps of logic, clearly emanating from some deep-seated sense of neglect. How do I come to this conclusion? Based on statements like these:

Originally posted by WMR
I give people respect and I expect the same from others. I don't think Ron does the same.

Why, because he doesn't respond to every single questions posted in the forums? I guess based on this criteria, he really can't stand most of us.

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.

Again, how are you (or anyone else for that matter) being "treated like an insubordinate kindergartener"? Because you didn't get a response to a post as quickly as you would've liked? The only reason why you're being castigated in any way is because of your rudeness. It's not because you asked a question; it because of how you asked your question.

On the back of the Forecaster you claim to have the best projections, so I think it's within our right as paying customers to ask you to prove it.

And he does. He has been for many, many years. He publishes his projections. He publishes his analyses. He competes in expert leagues using his methodology every year. He gives after-the-fact analyses of his previous year's projections against actual outcomes, something I see very few if any other fanalytic sources doing on a consistent basis.

You complain because noone, either at HQ or one of us "lemmings" responded to your original post. Well, perhaps you were missing some things from your original post that would've made it worth replying to:

Originally posted by WMR
The biggest flaw, since you asked, is the premise that once a player displays a skill he owns it.

This is a point. Could've been responded to.

My informal research shows me that hitters who achieve a $5 increase in value over their norms one season have a 67% chance of losing that $5 or more in value the following season.

Looks like another point. Also might've gotten some interest.

I found in my research that a player who loses $5 in value under his norm one season has a 72% chance of gaining the $5 or more back the following season.

Wow WMR, you actually can stick to the point when you try

In short, I think HQ punishes too harshly for a bad season and awards too lavishly for a good one.

And finally, an all-encompassing conclusion. There's just one problem:

none of these were in your original question that you were so irate about not getting a reply to.

...to be continued (yes racing fans, there's more lemming-ing to come)

[maisany]

Cliff Jumping, Part Deux

Now, I don't think anyone is saying or has said that there were parts of some of your posts that did not raise some debatable points. But I do believe that you have thus far done a rather poor job of substantiating any of your positions or claims. To wit (not to be confused with "twit"):

Originally posted by WMR I do believe there's a better way, but I'm not about to post about it again.

Why not? Is it because this "better way" is like a magic trick, better left to the imagination? Have you been getting projections from the Penn and Teller Fanalytic Baseball site?

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.

Worse how? By what criteria? How many players were they "off" on? By what percentage? How "worse" was HQ than anyone else? In order to arrive at this conclusion, I'm assuming that you did the same thing with "everyone else"?

TSN's Fantasy baseball projected values from '03 and used them as the "everyone else"...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.

Well, if taking one competitive service and comparing them to HQ is what you consider "comprehensive", at least we have some guage of your standards as to what constitutes a "valid comparison". And you have the gall to site HQ for making a case based on "small sample size"? Sounds like a case of sample size envy to me.

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.

And you're paying $89 just so you can see how much better your projections are?

I do not think we can compare my projections from prior seasons with HQ's because I never had it on the Excel until these '04 ones. Up until now they've been so scratched and scribbled upon that I cannot decipher most of it.

Yes WMR, most of us have had our dogs eat our homework too on occasion but if you're going to be so vehement about HQ response being without substance, you might've actually brought some tangible evidence to support your positions, if not for Ron's sake, then for everyone else's.

Well, I'm a computer idiot. The only reason why I did it on Excel this year is because my wife made me. She said I was wasting too much time so she set it up for me. She was right, of course.

Well, at least half right.

Now, several other responders have already tried to explain to you that in spite of your repeated protestations to the contrary, achieving the "perfect" projection is not nor has ever been the purpose of BBHQ or the Forecaster. They've tried to explain to you that they don't really sweat over whether they correctly predicted A-Rod would hit 47 HRs or whether the Forecaster said Carlos Delgado would bat .302 and he actually batted .297. If you read any of the review articles you would see that even those are really just ways of examining the methodologies espoused every day on BBHQ, not some sort of fanalytic "pi**ing contest. All this seems superfluous to you, as you respond with such witty comments as:

Originally posted by WMR 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?

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 know you guys win all these expert leagues, but looking over your drafts from last season, do you pick who you recommend?

My favorite was the "no way to judge the accuracy of projections." Come on, if they can find a way to judge figure skating, I think there's somehow an objective way to judge forecasting. Besides, didn't you use that little competition between other sites from last season (with players such as Contraras that you proudly did a review on just a month ago) as proof of your prowess? The grading scale was simple -- whoever was closest wins. After all, isn't that the purpose of projections?

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 on and on and on...

Now if you're point is that Ron and HQ's approach to fanalytic analysis and strategy are not valid, fine, present some of your own. However, instead of presenting any hard evidence to support your complaints, we get comments like this:

Originally posted by WMR 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.

This has to do with validating BPI's how again?

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.

We would except you seem reluctant to make any points that anyone might rightfully be able to validate.

Funny since your book is called the "Forecaster.

So would that mean that if Ron called the book "The Baseball Bible" it would mean that we should look for quotes from the Old Testament with each projection?

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.

Actually, you'd probably prefer to pick a fight with the mutual fund rating services. I guess by your standards, if they not only can't pick the top funds but also predict exactly how they'll perform for the year, Morningstar and Standards&Poors would be hearing from you on their discussion forums?

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.

And exactly who from BBHQ tracked you down and forced you into doing this? Are you trying to imply that by not responding to your original inquiry, Ron forced you to do all this unnecessary work?

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.

So are yo saying that HQ really tastes good or that it corners really well?

Certainly, if you were making women's shoes wouldn't you like to be told that they were causing blisters?

So the Forecaster is causing blisters for you? Perhaps if you didn't clutch it so tightly?

Alright, alright, my tone of me second post was very harsh, but it seemed like the only way to get HQ's attention. I tried to be nice with my first post and it was totally ignored, and judging by the length of this thread I got my desired reaction with my second. Plus, originally I was more irritated with the lack of responses, so customer service was my primary gripe.

Which brings us back to the crux of this whole thing: that you feel somehow that you were owed a response to your original post (again, see Rules of the Forums, point 5) and failing that, you have the right to blindly vent your ad hominem venom in any way you see fit.

Its funny but I just got through participating in another thread very much like this on another discussion forum, having nothing to do with baseball (as this does not), and the issues were strikingly similar. Rude people always seem to fall back on the argument that it is "their right" to behave boorishly if they so choose. This may be true, but in public, we would hope that discretion and good judgement would preclude people from exercising these "rights" without regard to others.

Perhaps WMR, if you made your points with more statistical evidence and less insulting rhetoric, you might get better responses to your postings.