ESPN Magazine and HQ

[The Q]

Not sure where to post this, but will Ray and Ron be writing for ESPN the magazine's fantasy/baseball special this year? Will they be using HQ projections as well?

No real reason, just curious. Although, I do think Tristan Cockroft regurgitates HQ material on his posts and pawns it off as his own intuit.

[RAY@HQ]

I've got a small piece (not much bigger than this forum post) in the ESPN Mag coming out this weekend, covering offseason player movement.

Ron could better speak to the other questions... I do believe we're going to be contributing regularly to their "Fantasy Page" when that page is focused on baseball content, but I don't know (yet) what ESPN's plans might be for their big preseason fantasy issue, where we had that big contribution last year.

[RON@HQ]

As Ray noted, the plan is for us to anchor ESPN Magazine's regular fantasy baseball coverage during this season, but I have not yet received anything formal from them. As for their special fantasy preview, I have not yet heard what our contribution will be there either.

[Auction It]

Espn

Not sure where to post this, but will Ray and Ron be writing for ESPN the magazine's fantasy/baseball special this year? Will they be using HQ projections as well?

No real reason, just curious. Although, I do think Tristan Cockroft regurgitates HQ material on his posts and pawns it off as his own intuit.

Although I enjoy seeing Ron and HQ get the pub and recognition for their work, I do not believe that ESPN the Mag should be using you guys for their own magazine. I don't really enjoy seeing Matt Berry in there for Football either but if that is ESPN's call.


I really doubt that Mr. Cockcroft would use HQ material and post it as his own. If you actually read his articles, you will see that his views are not the same as HQ's. There is a lot of common ground in fantasy projections so that comment may be a tad harsh.

[Dylan@HQ]

Although I enjoy seeing Ron and HQ get the pub and recognition for their work, I do not believe that ESPN the Mag should be using you guys for their own magazine. I don't really enjoy seeing Matt Berry in there for Football either but if that is ESPN's call.


I really doubt that Mr. Cockcroft would use HQ material and post it as his own. If you actually read his articles, you will see that his views are not the same as HQ's. There is a lot of common ground in fantasy projections so that comment may be a tad harsh.

I agree. Cockroft's views are not really geared for the HQ reader. He seems to be focusing on more of the general knowledge base rather than the specific. I also don't recall seeing him use any like metrics.

I personally think it's very wise for ESPN to hire Ron and Ray. Nothing against Cockroft and Karabell, but there is a difference of style and philosophy that HQ brings to the table. Also, any good publicity/visibility can only help HQ grow.

[RAY@HQ]

I personally think it's very wise for ESPN to hire Ron and Ray.

Just in the interests of accuracy, it's not me personally that's been hired by ESPN. Ron's cut an agreement between ESPN and HQ, and I've just been the one lucky enough to do most of the writing so far. I'm sure a whole bunch of other familiar HQ names will appear in ESPN pubs this season.

[Auction It]

But...

Just in the interests of accuracy, it's not me personally that's been hired by ESPN. Ron's cut an agreement between ESPN and HQ, and I've just been the one lucky enough to do most of the writing so far. I'm sure a whole bunch of other familiar HQ names will appear in ESPN pubs this season.

Trist and Eric's writings have to be general. I mean they get anywhere from the guy who never played fantasy before to the hard core fantasy player. It has to be easy enough for anyone of them to read and understand.

HQ is for the HARD CORE...Ron and staff have worked all the angles to give us their best analysis on how to make wise decisions that would help us win our leagues. But we pay a lot of money to get this information. And by having HQ's info in ESPN magazine and available for cheaper prices just waters down the value of being a full year member. I understand that HQ wants to grow but we the players suffer in the long run when everyone uses Ron's site and everyone has all his info. What would be the benefit then? You get too diluted with guys who usually read ESPN and Rotoworld to get their information. And if your a shark like me, I make my money off those type of guys EVERY YEAR. I don't want to change that.

[RAY@HQ]

Believe me, if you saw my 250-word "footnote" in ESPN Mag this week, you know that we're a long, long way off from "everyone having all (Ron's) info". We're just looking to whet some appetites with that content, and we barely have enough space to do that.

[The Q]

Trist and Eric's writings have to be general. I mean they get anywhere from the guy who never played fantasy before to the hard core fantasy player. It has to be easy enough for anyone of them to read and understand.

HQ is for the HARD CORE...Ron and staff have worked all the angles to give us their best analysis on how to make wise decisions that would help us win our leagues. But we pay a lot of money to get this information. And by having HQ's info in ESPN magazine and available for cheaper prices just waters down the value of being a full year member. I understand that HQ wants to grow but we the players suffer in the long run when everyone uses Ron's site and everyone has all his info. What would be the benefit then? You get too diluted with guys who usually read ESPN and Rotoworld to get their information. And if your a shark like me, I make my money off those type of guys EVERY YEAR. I don't want to change that.

I use to think the same thing, but now I don't so much anymore. And the reason is valuation. HQ has taught me and painfully (wince) that Dan Johnson's upside is meaningless without valuation perspective. So last year during the draft when a competitor was reading ESPN the Magazine and drafted Dan Johnson in an early round, I was pissed. I wanted him based on the Forecaster blurb. As it turns out, my competitor didn't appreciate the perceived market value, drafted him too early, watched him get sent to AAA, and ultimately lost out on a more reliable player at that draft position. All of these circumstances are things I learned from HQ not HQ in ESPN the Magazine. And while some of this stuff may appear in the magazine (and I think a few words about this did last year), there is not nearly enough info to develop theories on how it should be done. Plus, the general public wouldn't delve into it too much anyways. All people want are rankings and projections.

[DougD@HQ]

The audiences are dramatically different, but Tristan and Eric know what they are doing~~both are very solid and have a great understanding of traditional roto 4x4 and 5x5.