CDG Question and QS not working

[circle360]

When you say that CDG is getting less use overall - is there a chance you might do away with that feature if there is not enough demand for it?

My interpretation

During the season. CDG doesnt get as much use as it does in the preseason

So Ray delegated resources to more pressing issues. See the date feed mixup that wasnt HQ's fault

I use CDG in preseason. I dont really use it much once the season starts. I bet a bunch of people do the same as well

[Snider]

When you say that CDG is getting less use overall - is there a chance you might do away with that feature if there is not enough demand for it?

[RAY@HQ]

Why do other issues supposedly get resolved and this one doesn't? .

Issues don't 'supposedly' get resolved, they actually get resolved. It's been a journey, but the site functionality is in a pretty good place now. Still some stuff to do, for sure, and I wish we'd been able to say that sooner, but if we can't agree that the overall trajectory is positive, I don't know what else to say.

As far as the CDG specifically: yes, I pulled resources away from it after draft season. The tool gets less use in-season, and we focused those resources on in-season tools. Besides the CDG overall getting less use, the number of users who depend on the OPS category (which I realize is important to you), or the Net Relief category (another that is still broken), within the CDG is even lower. So I focused the tech time on doing things that have broader impact.

Last week, I said I "hoped to get some eyes on it" that week. I didn't mean that to sound like an iron-clad commitment, because it wasn't. Stuff tends to pop up, like the issue with pitching stats in our data feed. Obviously I diverted our tech resources to address that, since it is much more impactful than the CDG issue you're waiting on.

I'm meeting with the tech team later today, I'll get a firm timeline from them and post it here.

[Snider]

Ray - Trust me I can read your posts and comprehend them. That said, this coming week from June 9th would have ended on June 16th. I did not bother you during that week. It is now June 18th and still no update. It still does not work right. Saying that you will update as soon as you have news with no estimated date after having it not work for 4 months is just not acceptable. I have no confidence that anybody is working on this. Why do other issues supposedly get resolved and this one doesn't? .

[RAY@HQ]

I shared an update last week (two posts up), that I hoped it would be fixed last week. That didn't get done... as you have perhaps seen in some other threads, we have had some data feed issues since late last week that required immediate attention, and pushed the CDG work back a bit. I am expecting several fixes to the CDG in next few days now. As I have promised all along, I will update here as soon as I have news.

[Snider]

Ray - I pointed out this issue on the CDG about a month ago. You had suggested there is something wrong when using OPS on your end. It worked just fine in previous years but when you decided to change back in February - it has never worked right since. Don't forget when many issues were brought up when the new and "improved" site was launched - you said give it a few weeks and things should be back to normal and working smoothly. it is now almost July and we have already had one draft season come and go and are nearly half way through the current season. This is a very valuable feature that cannot be used with our settings. It is truly frustrating when I read other people's issues that get resolved in a very quick and timely manner but this one does not. It leads me to believe with no updates from you that you are not even thinking about this issue until it is brought up again. Is this even on your radar screen? What do i need to do to get your attention that this is just unacceptable and really bad customer service. Why is this not fixed? Why have there been no updates without prompting as to a timetable when it might be addressed? For the life of me - I still do not see what benefit this new format has given us. You don't make it easy to be patient. As has been said by other subscribers who have had data and other issues - I am also losing confidence in this service.

[RAY@HQ]

Correct, it is not fixed yet. We have had our techies focused in some other areas. I'm hoping to get some eyes on CDG this coming week. As promised, I will update here when there is news.

[Snider]

So I was just trying to do a little analysis on the CDG to try and decide my FAAB bidding for the week. I used to do this every week in prior years. But as you suggested you are thinking that the OPS setting is making the data incorrect and a couple of weeks ago you suggested you would try and solve the problem. But the values are still unrealistic so I guess it is not fixed. Is the reason because it is really a difficult situation and your techies can't seem to solve the issue OR is it because it isn't a high priority for you and it hasn't been worked on? Nonetheless - it still is not working a couple of weeks after we started talking about this. It sure would be great to get this resolved. Thanks.

[RAY@HQ]

No progress yet. I promise I'll let you know when there is.

[Snider]

I know it was a holiday weekend. Any progress made on the OPS question as it relates to the CDG? Thank you.

[RAY@HQ]

Yes, will do for sure.

[Snider]

I understand there is probably no good answers on the Nardi situation. But thanks for working on the OPS situation. The numbers I see on my CDG are not believable and it's not just Ivan Herrera. Will you please let me know when you have the issue resolved? I would love to use this tool again.

[RAY@HQ]

Relievers are a very difficult problem in this exact scenario, because of the small sample sizes involved in their season. In a vacuum, you don't want the projection system to completely change its mind on a pitcher based on 19 innings. But for a reliever, that's a third of the season. On the other hand, Nardi's 3.73 xERA is a lot better than his actual ERA, so he hasn't pitched nearly as bad as his results, either. So how should the projections react to those factors? I don't think there's an easy answer to that. You can say we're under-reacting to his work so far... and I wouldn't disagree. But I'm not sure that's something that's easily remedied, either. I think it's just the perils of evaluating relief pitchers in small sample sizes.

Sorry, I know that's not a satisfying answer.

[Snider]

Thanks Ray. It would be awesome to be able to use the CDG with confidence again.

Here’s another somewhat related question. Andrew Nardi according to your CDG before the season started was ranked as the number 1 reliever according to the CDG. I had him ranked as a good reliever but not close to number 1. He got off to a very bad start and his YTD stats look bad. He has pitched better as of late. With Puk moving to the pen and Nardi moving down the food chain in the bullpen - his projected stats still call for him to be outstanding projected until year end as one of the main set relievers in the pen. At what point does BHQ recognize that maybe the preseason stats have to be altered to some extent during the season and the high level projected of him needs to come down to some extent? Or does BHQ really believe that his season will miraculously turn around and that his projection today is really what you believe after careful consideration of every projection that you make? Thanks

Edit - I didn't read the posts above my post addressing the timing of projection changes. But the question still applies to Nardi being in the top 5 relievers projected from now until the end of the season with our inputs. I just don't think that is likely. Thanks

[RAY@HQ]

Just based on my first look, I don't think it's anything you're doing. I think it's on our end with that OPS category. If you flip OPS to BA in your config and run it again, you get Herrera ranked where you would expect.