There have been a lot of questions about PECOTA in 2010. Here’s what we’re going to do to resolve them.
There are two concerns that we are currently working to address, and they apply to most of the questions people have asked. The first regards the fitness of the 2010 PECOTA projections. Clay Davenport posted some analysis that he did of them in an Unfiltered post on February 13. To summarize Clay’s work, there do not appear to be problems with the 2010 PECOTAs. The PECOTAs have changed since then, and we want to provide comprehensive analysis, so Colin Wyers will be repeating and expanding the tests that Clay did and we will report his findings.
The second concern is of the fitness of the ten-year projections which were released as part of the beta PECOTA hitter cards late Friday. As several commenters on the beta release announcement have noted, there are problems with the ten-year projections. Most of us saw those for the first time at about the same time you did, in our rush to get the cards released, and we’ve not yet gotten to the bottom of the issue. We will be getting help from our old friend Nate Silver on these, and will provide updates as we have more information. In the meantime, we’ll be prominently displaying a link to this post on the beta PECOTA cards.
PECOTA is currently in a state of flux as it moves from Nate Silver’s old Frankensteinian STATA/monster Excel spreadsheet process to a more automated, easier to maintain, easier to execute environment. We’ve pushed this along as fast as we were able, but we’ve plainly still got some work to do. I apologize again for the issues we’ve had with this transition, and I hope you will bear with us a little longer on this. I fully expect us to give you the best long-term projections we have ever generated soon.
We’ll have much more on these topics, but I wanted to get this information out as soon as I could. Thank you for your patience.
To make up for it, all fantasy customers who signed up on or before February 26th (when the issues occured) have had their fantasy subscriptions bumped up to full subscriptions, giving them access to all of the premium features that come with it.
I am stumped why people want this post hidden, or do not feel it’s up BP’s standards. I am merely calling attention to the historical precedent for BP’s customer service dealing with PECOTA problems.
I realize last year’s response was unpopular with some premium subscribers, but I suspect many fantasy subscribers felt better about the money they handed over for content to aid their draft prep only to find that content unavailable come prep and draft time.
Anyway, I think last year’s response was top notch customer service. It would be great to see BP do something like this again if the bugs are not corrected in a timely fashion (I’ll note that last year they seemed to think 2/26 was too late in game for PECOTA issues).
That said, fixing the broken parts of PECOTA and restoring customers’ confidence remains priority number one. And to that end I think the BP staff has done a commendable job over the past week of addressing its customers’ concerns, which I feel has gone a long way in restoring customer confidence.
You guys are held in such high-esteem that everyone expects perfection immediately. I'm sure you guys will get this fixed soon and I know I look forward to when all these kinks are worked out. Despite the issues, BP is still second-to-none in its baseball coverage and projection system. Keep up the great work and I'm sure everyone will reward you guys with praise when it's pristine.
I'm sorry but this is absurd. Please stop being hasty and take the time to do things right. Fair or not, we all have the feeling at best a cursory glance was given to the 10 yrs. This is the second time a release with a critical flaw was missed. Love ya but c'mon!
I find it a little unsettling that this community clamored to have PECOTAs early, even if in rough form as long as they are labelled "Beta," yet, now that they've answered our request, we rag on them for offering a projection set containing errors. Betas exist only for those that are ok with errors and want a hand in helping to peer-review it for quality. If you don't want to see errors, don't look at the beta. If this were labelled "final" or "published," then I'm with ya, but this is about as clearly labelled "Beta" as something can get.
I for one appreciate the openness on this matter, and the additional insight into what goes on behind-the-scenes in preparing these projections.
People are "clammoring" for them because people have drafts coming up and there's a pay option for just the PECOTAs. (Granted, that's not me, I'm a full year guy drafting towards the end of the month but its a very valid complaint.) Honestly, I'm not sure I understand why testing is still going on. Was the new build started too late or is the build/test really a 12 month job?
I think the issue is not that they aren't perfect, but that they are basically unusable.
Now if the issue was a few numbers that didn't add up, or a few odd looking comps and projections, I would be irritated as hell if everyone was complaining. But when the ten year comps seem this screwy, it doesn't really feel like "Beta".
To put it another way, we would be fine if we got a rough draft of an essay with a few spelling errors, but we've been given one with paragraphs out of order and no conclusion.
Beta is a software term. Typical software in beta testing has relatively few show stopping bugs, or at least they are fairly obscure. If the PECOTA card pages had errors on them like problems with graphing/display, etc. I would have no problem with that, in fact I was under the impression that was the "beta" designation was referring to, as it seemed it was the new PECOTA cards design that was holding up the release.
However, the concept of a "Beta" version of data seems a reach. Data is much more binary right or wrong than a piece of software. You might say well what if there was a bug with demographic data like height or weight, who cares ? But those are inputs into a system like PECOTA, there really is no room for data errors if you want the outputs to be correct. Garbage in, garbage out. In summary, I am dismayed and concerned that at this late stage it seems like the presentation of the data(the new PECOTA card pages) seems to be in better shape than the data itself. The cart is literally in front of the horse.
While I can understand frustration with how late in the calendar year the system is still in beta, I think you misunderstand "beta"... despite Google's massive misuse of the term, there isn't much that's implied by being in the beta stage other than that the system runs without major crashes. Betas can and often are released with known issues, even ones that may include outright data corruption. The definition of beta is simply that it's the first release that's stable enough to be released to the public for testing, whether that be to assess the stability of the calculations or the UI.
In other words, that we're finding these issues during beta testing should be seen as a triumph of the approach rather than a failing.
Perhaps a solution is as dianagram suggests below: offer a closed beta first to people who understand what they're getting into. Then an open-beta later on once these types of issues have been worked out. That way if you don't want to see it, you don't have to.
I disagree, beta releases, by and large should work. There may be occasional crashes and bugs, but generally the software works. PECOTA right now doesn't work.
There's a huge difference between a typical beta release and a beta version of PECOTA and it's shelf life.
For example, Google tagged Gmail as beta for years, and no one cared, because it worked great and functionality continued to be added, as it continues to be added now. The shelf life on Gmail is either eternity or until some brilliant soul surpasses Google, so we have all the time in the world to enjoy a beta version.
The shelf life on PECOTA is short, one year tops, but condensed often to a handful of weeks by the demand of users who want to get their ducks lined up for fantasy drafts.
BP is a business that needs to grow. A lot of its name-brand recognition is negative in the he-never-played-the-game crowd, who love to hear BP's preseason predictions, chirp about how poorly their team was treated by PECOTA, and chirp more if their team exceeds PECOTA's projections. When PECOTA is released and changes repeatedly it gives that crowd more ammo to chirp and less reason to come sip the Kool-Aid. A firm, de-bugged, fully-proofed PECOTA that the authors are 100% committed to standing behind is imperative, and, because a lot of people are paying for it for fantasy drafts, it's also imperative that it's timely. I hope the brand can continue to grow to the point that BP can hire more full-time staff and writers to ensure they're able to deliver this by next February.
@tb: Given that PECOTA has an 8 year history, it was not unreasonable for the release to have been labeled a beta -- to the extent that the BP staff regarded the changes as largely technical rather than substantive. Unfortunately, there were more problems than they realized with the first release (which was amplified by the fact that it wasn't even labeled as a beta). But the use of the "beta" term was suggested here, from many of BP's readers. Now you can't turn around and beat BP over the head with a baseball bat because they followed our advice.
Not if the release included a total rewrite of the PECOTA code, which it apparently did. Read the piece from last year linked to at the top of this thread. Rewriting an entire code base to better automate it is not a trivial technical task, in fact it is practically the ultimate in substantive changes.
Would BP have listened to us and published this data if they KNEW it was wrong or bad ? Of course not. I'm not criticizing them for trying to meet our demands or expectations. I'm criticizing them for the lack of self-knowledge that led them to think what they had was releasable or useful.
The lack of QC is their fault, not ours for simply wanting the product we paid for. As I've said before I like BP, and I think they'll fix this, and I suspect they in general agree with me. Customers apologizing for bad service doesn't help the company improve or solve the problem.
I trust BP will eventually get it right and it'll be better off for the long term, but yea I'm planning on using CHONE or Marcel (or a mix of the two) this year.
I still appreciate the work you guys are doing though, it's just getting pretty close to opening day, all things considered.
I love hearing that Colin is getting involved and have a lot of faith in his testing. I'm excited to see his results. Again, a great add to BP and I expect PECOTA will be just fine with his help.
I don't understand all the consternation over a Beta release. I'd rather rummage through all the cards then wait another week for tweaked 2018 projections.
I guess I'm funny that way, when I pay for something I expect to receive it in a timely manner and for it to work.
Most businesses would love to have a customer base as passionate as BP's is, this is a good problem for BP to have. I have to believe that BP knows this, their track record has been outstanding. I suspect this whole PECOTA problem is just an anomaly and will be worked out soon, but I'm not doing BP any favors if I am really dissatisfied with them and don't express it. From their perspective the worst thing that could happen is that everyone who is unhappy says nothing and then cancels their subscription or doesn't renew, at least by sharing our opinions and dissatisfaction we are giving them a chance to make things right.
Perhaps a way to circumvent problems like this in the future would be for BP to establish a group of Beta-testers, members who would be willing to put the latest projection, updates and stats packages through their paces, PRIOR to its being released to the public at large?
I'm all for a "Beta Test Team" approach, but I think it needs to be part of a well-planned approached (as opposed to a "deadline beater" approach). For example:
1. Aggressively continue the current "PECOTA Bug Hunt" until the BP Powers that Be are assured that all that can reasonably be done has been done.
2. Sometime in the upcoming months - shoot for July 2010 - run a batch of "BetaPECOTA Cards" based upon season-ending 2009 data.
3. Set loose the "Beta Test Team" for 30 days in an effort to turn up any possible remaining bugs.
4. Run another set of "post Beta Test Team" PECOTA Cards in September, and again set the "Test Team" loose.
5. Shoot for a "PECOTA is 99.99%" by November 2010.
6. After step 5 is complete, DO NOT CHANGE A THING!
7. Run the 2011 PECOTA Cards in December 2010/January 2011 at the latest.
If new and exciting PECOTA ideas present themselves along the way, begin toying with them AFTER the successful 2011 cards are published. Then return to step 2 (above) in mid 2011.
What's the deal with the zero-value pitchers? About 100 pitchers were given no projection whatsoever (zero appearances). While all of these players are either fringe major-leagues or low-minors prospects, there seems to be little rhyme/reason as to which players got projections and which didn't. At least in past years, all players got projections, whether they were expected to appear in the majors or not.
Dave, et al, thanks for the transparency. My guess, professionally (building databases to automate manual processes), is that the weeds were taller than you anticipated when you got into them. Sure, I'd love my data to be correct going into my draft, and I'm guessing by late March it will be. If it isn't, there are free projections out there I can pull into my calculations that come close (per Nate's and others at BP's analysis) enough to build a team upon. While I don't know exactly what you're up against, I'm sure it's not dissimilar to what I have happen several times a year, and I'm certain you'll work through it. Thankfully, for my sake, I'm not supported by a bunch of folks that each pay 35 bucks a year for the product and whine like my 5 and 3 year-olds when they can't have it *NOW*. If you'd like, you're welcome to borrow my Whaaaaaaa-mbulance to cart them off.
Let me get this straight. I am a whiny baby because I only pay $35 a year for the product. Are you aware that we as customers don't set the price ? Maybe I would have paid $50 or $100 ? In your omniscience at what price point do my complaints warrant being taken seriously ? Why do you feel the need to apologize on behalf of BP when you haven't any idea what the problem really is ? Good for you though that your business is in such good shape that you apparently don't have to give a crap about the customer, and if they don't like it they can leave because you don't need the revenue.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Yanks, I followed your line of thought - it was concise and you didn't feel the need to belabor the point - certainly the feeling that due diligence wasn't done has some merit here.
Tb, it's clear you feel free to vent your feelings on this matter. I guess I can do the same. I claim no omniscience regarding this situation or the pricing structure chosen at BP, merely some empathy for the folks working on this problem. My job is similar in nature and I've learned that when others don't necessarily understand the specifics or difficulty involved in what, from the outside, appears to be a straightforward project or process, it doesn't change the fact that people are working hard and thanklessly behind the scenes to bring along a great product. Your frustration has been duly noted and replied to by the guys on the site (to most of us, that would constitute "being taken seriously" as you say), yet you persist in your complaining. If you'll take a moment to re-read my post, you'll see that (a) I'm grateful to be working for a going concern that doesn't judge my performance on a job-by-job, customer-by-customer basis (not, as you assume, that I don't "give a crap"), (b) I'm showing support for a group of people that are in a tough spot - my 35 bucks and message board privileges allow me to do that, just as yours grant you the opportunity to vent, and (c) I never referred to you as a "whiny baby" - I only pointed out similarities between your constant stream of complaints and the occasional behavior of a preschooler and a kindergartner, both of whom can read, write and count - that's much further along the developmental spectrum than a baby. Although, they do seem to accept explanations and apologies more readily than you. I make no assumptions regarding you, though you're clearly comfortable doing so where BP, it's readers who support the staff's efforts, or myself are concerned. I'll make this part more clear, so you don't have to assume. I'm done with you.
Thankfully, for my sake, I'm not supported by a bunch of folks that each pay 35 bucks a year for the product and whine like my 5 and 3 year-olds when they can't have it *NOW*. If you'd like, you're welcome to borrow my Whaaaaaaa-mbulance to cart them off =
a) I'm grateful to be working for a going concern that doesn't judge my performance on a job-by-job, customer-by-customer basis
or
b) you apparently don't have to give a crap about the customer
I have been critical of BP over the last few days, but never personal, unlike you. I have no doubt that the BP staff is working their tails off. However, the perception obviously exists or existed that BP failed to grasp the gravity of this situation to their customers, as evidenced by the multitude of responses(mostly unhappy and concerned) to the recent Unfiltered postings about PECOTA. As to whether the BP staff works thanklessly I don't believe that is true as each of us posting has paid an annual subscription. As customers that's pretty much the only way we have to express our thanks and support in any meaningful way.
Thank you for the kind words, bmcgehee, but to everyone who thinks we shouldn't have released the cards without checking them more closely: I agree, and would probably feel the same way in your place. We made a mistake, and we're working to fix it.
It's the miss that is frustrating, not the fact that something was wrong with the data - hopefully I am explaining the nuance correctly.
There would have been little or no bad press if BP released something AND was up front about any errors or omissions. Carelessness in a pay for product is the issue.
Thanks Dave, I think many of us are happy to have the cards available (even with suspect data) while you work out the kinks.
On that note, will we soon start this process with the pitcher cards or are you hoping to iron out any issues first? As you well know, for many of us, this data has a hard date where its usefulness drops considerably.
So what makes PECOTAs so special that they both cost money and take the longest to come out? These are totally useless to me since I could look at them and three days later "whoops, we forgot to include park factors". When a big part of the subscription is getting access to the projections, I feel ripped off when the projections don't mean a damn thing.
Hi Dave, I'm not sure if this is a "bug" or not, but the PFM is showing Mariano Rivera's ERA to be 3.25 this year. He's never had an ERA that high, it's a full run above his career number. Is PECOTA foreseeing a demise or is there something else going on?
Him and Posada are heading into the end of the line in the computer's viewpoint, I bet. I've loved betting the over on those two the past two years. Even when I was wrong with Posada two years back, it was a cheap gamble.
In short, it wouldn't surprise me if cracks start showing in Rivera's armor this year, but I can see how his historical uniqueness would lead us to believe he'll never decline.
A couple of other comments... merely to help with the troubleshooting. I realize these are beta cards and that BP is likely aware of these issues already.
1. All of Tony Abreu's first few comps are against players who were 20yo. Tony is 25yo. As a result Elvis Andrus ('09) appears as one of Abreu's top comps.
Even if Abreu were in fact 20yo I'm not sure why Andrus ('09) would even be available as a possible comp since there would be no going-forward data on Andrus (i.e., there is no post-2009 data yet) that could be used in determining Abreu's projection.
2. Griffey Jr. ('92) is Justin Upton's #3 comp. Nothing wrong with that, but Griffey Jr. ('91) is Upton's #10 comp. And Griffey Jr. ('93) is Upton's #96 comp. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that comps had to be matched up by age. Can the same player appear multiple times as a comp?
Again, this is just to help with the troubleshooting... good luck.
Incidentally, in the previous string discussing PECOTAs a few people cited Justin Upton's mere mortal-like future projections as evidence of an underlying issue with the 10yr projections. In particular, Upton's 50% TAv projection shows a slight declining trend, rather than following the upwards slope that most might expect.
Recognizing that these are betas and the data is being worked on, I thought it was interesting to see the part of Upton's player card that shows his 80%/50%/20% TAv (formerly EqA) for the next 10 years:
The 20% column is very interesting in that it appears to project a 1 in 5 (or greater) chance that Upton will be out of baseball by Age 27, or at least that he misses the entire season. That seems suspect. Sure there is a small chance that Upton is OOB by Age 27 or misses the season due to some catastrophic injury, but the odds would be far lower than 20% for a player of his ilk. Even if we eyeball his Top 100 comp list (Kaline, Juan Gonzalez, Griffey, R. Sierra etc.), while many fall short of Griffey'esque greatness, there appear to be very few, if any, who did not play in their Age 27 season. Certainly not 20% or more of them.
It did strike me, however, that if one was trying to determine what Upton is going to do at Age 27, certain of the comps in his Top 100 obviously need to be excluded from the projection since they have not yet played their Age 27 season (and there will therefore be no data for the Age 27 season). I assume that in past years these "null sets" were excluded by PECOTA. Have they been this year?
Specifically, twenty-three (23) of PECOTA's comps for Upton (>20%) are guys who have not played their Age 27 season yet (Miguel Cabrera, Adam Jones, Jeff Francoeur, Delmon Young, Jay Bruce, etc.). It struck me that IF the current iteration of PECOTA was including the null sets for these players' not-yet-played Age 27 seasons, rather than excluding them from the calculations, this might explain why Upton is projected to have a >20% of having a .000 TAv in his Age 27 season.
In other words, it's not that the young Upton actually has a greater than 20% chance of not playing at Age 27, it's just that of his Top 100 comps, over 20% (23 to be exact) have no stats compiled for their Age 27 seasons (since they haven't yet reached that age).
For whatever it's worth, one also notes that the 20% TAv projections for Upton that I listed above show a steady downward trend decreasing to zero (at Age 27) while the exact same column on Upton's player card last year demonstrates an upward trend (from .267 to .283 in year seven).
Last year's upward trend is more in line with what we would intuitively expect for a good young player like Upton. In fact, it's probably more than mere intuition since our expectations are also based on what we have read about MLB players' aging/performance curves here on BP (from JC Bradbury and others) and elsewhere.
I want to apologize for posting this question so late in the game but I would assume that the issues with PECOTA adversely impacted the numbers in the book. I just got it from Amazon yesterday and after reading all of the posts I have to wonder if the projections in the book are also imperfect. Thanks!
Quoting from the Unfiltered post above: "To summarize Clay’s work, there do not appear to be problems with the 2010 PECOTAs. The PECOTAs have changed since then, and we want to provide comprehensive analysis, so Colin Wyers will be repeating and expanding the tests that Clay did and we will report his findings."
So, the PECOTA projections in the books were the same excellent PECOTA projections that it has developed in the past. The latest version on the website has been tweaked and finetuned, but apparently the 10-year projections are buggy (to my inexpert eye, it looks like the extremes are overweighted, and the middle-of-the-road projection trends too low).
But we're still being told that the 2010 projections are accurate. I agree that it would be great to get solid confirmation of this from Colin and Clay after they re-run their analyses, and also to get re-confirmation that the PFM is also running at its accustomed 110% "deadly accuracy."
You should understand that the PECOTAs in the book are (a) the earliest version of several, and (b) not adjusted for lineups/depth charts, or, more generally, for later information about expected playing time at the major league level.
The later versions of the PECOTA spreadsheets contain corrections for trades, lineup changes, and expected playing times. The PFM figures (and later spreadsheets) as well as the PECOTA cards thus take more information into account than the first release that is basically what's published in the book.
This has always been the case: multiple iterations of the PECOTA estimates right up to opening day.
You should understand that the issues with PECOTA have nothing to do with estimates on playing time/lineups/depth charts or any other factor that could reasonably be expected. Your condescending reply has irritated me since I first read it. The continued failure of the BP staff to reply to this issue and the worsening output from PECOTA should make it clear to all but the most foolhardy apologists that the system is broken and the folks at BP do not find their subscribers worthy enough to even address the matter in a forthright fashion.
A lot of the platoon split info on the player cards seems wrong. Seems to compare some LHB to switch hitters and other glitches. I hope this gets dealt with cause one of the best things about last years player cards were the projected platoon splits.
Any updates at all on the PECOTA issue since we were told the investigation escalated? Crickets serenading the masses hardly qualifies as customer service here folks.
So let me get this right, a week later there is still no update on this imperative issue and still no pitcher cards. IT IS MARCH folks and the majority of drafts are happening over the next two weeks.
This is absolutely absurd as there is still no confidence in the hitter cards and god only knows what will happen when pitcher cards are released. You guys have seriously dropped the ball and should be dedicating every waking hour to this. This is your business and this is why people pay!
Do you not see the responses here and realize you have a crisis on your hands? Maybe you should pull back on the book touring to realize this!
Maybe it is only the league in which I participate, but off-season trade activity is a staple for our long-term keeper league. Would be great to have the information, for which I have paid, informing my choices. Once my premium sub expires, no longer will I support BP with my dollars given the complete disregard the staff has shown - this year in particular but also the late release and terrible performance for PECOTA last year.
Best of luck regaining the confidence of the fantasy public.
I feel duped. I actually re-upped when subscription expired on Monday because it appeared BP was beginning to take this seriously. Since then not a peep out of them. Once can only surmise that PECOTA is seriously broken at this point. If the problems were minor why not roll out the pitchers cards like the hitters cards ? Why no updates ? Can I get a refund ?
Similar here. I was the first to post a comment in appreciation of their work...ELEVEN days ago. I was floored to check in here over a week and a half later and see no update and no pitcher cards to speak of. In the meantime, I stumbled on a new fantasy girlfriend...the Forecaster at Baseball HQ. It might be love.
The problem I note above on Marson has gotten much worse. See my comments on the Depth Charts. Clearly, no one is reading these comments who is looking at PECOTA. (The alternative - that they were aware of the issues and still put out a seriously broken update - seems worse.)
Anyone competent who looked at the last release would have seen it was broken very quickly (it took me two minutes.)
At this point, I believe someone has to know the degree of the breakage, and they believe admitting that will damage their standing with unsophisticated users more than not revealing will damage their standing with sophisticated users. When you can't do a weighted mean right, it's time to go home.
I welcome contrary views. I do not welcome assertions that everything is fine with PECOTA 2010. Because it is impossible to be marginally mathmatically competent and assert that.
I'm offended and angry, in case it doesn't come across. A broken update with no commentary and no sign that anything will be fixed should make people angry. Trying to hide the ball should make people angry. PECOTA is broken. PECOTA is broken. PECOTA is broken. Say it!
Completely agree with the above - in tone, in fact and in disgust at the lack of response from BP. Now we have a new update that is ridiculous at best. And nothing but trite responses or denial from anyone involved. I can hardly believe how far and how fast BP has fallen in both quality and integrity and will not hesitate to express this opinion in any/all forums in which I see BP referenced as an authority on the sport.
Since I took the time to email BP about the issue and received a reply from customer service (for whom I have great sympathy and nothing but positive feedback) I figured I would post their reply to me -
Our crew has been hard at work fine tuning and improving the PECOTA long term projections. We're sorry if there is any appearance of disregard for your concerns. We stand behind the PECOTA projections that have been published so far (both in the BP annual book and the PECOTA Weighted Means spreadsheet and PECOTA player cards.) Our work this week has involved testing and improvements for even greater accuracy. Baseball Prospectus is giving you the best information and we hope you'll see the value within your fantasy league this season.
You'll see an update from our staff shortly. We are sorry for the delay in our communication and we hope you'll reconsider renewing your subscription later this month. Thank you for sharing your comments.
61 comments have been left for this post.
Re-reading Nate and Kevin's Spring 2009 message has helped keep the current PECOTA conversation in perspective for me...
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8653
BP's still a phenomenal business at its roots.
This was a nice touch:
To make up for it, all fantasy customers who signed up on or before February 26th (when the issues occured) have had their fantasy subscriptions bumped up to full subscriptions, giving them access to all of the premium features that come with it.
Let's hope they do it again.
I am stumped why people want this post hidden, or do not feel it’s up BP’s standards. I am merely calling attention to the historical precedent for BP’s customer service dealing with PECOTA problems.
I realize last year’s response was unpopular with some premium subscribers, but I suspect many fantasy subscribers felt better about the money they handed over for content to aid their draft prep only to find that content unavailable come prep and draft time.
Anyway, I think last year’s response was top notch customer service. It would be great to see BP do something like this again if the bugs are not corrected in a timely fashion (I’ll note that last year they seemed to think 2/26 was too late in game for PECOTA issues).
That said, fixing the broken parts of PECOTA and restoring customers’ confidence remains priority number one. And to that end I think the BP staff has done a commendable job over the past week of addressing its customers’ concerns, which I feel has gone a long way in restoring customer confidence.