I agree. Woof. Well-- you take the good with the bad. Two rounds ago, I came close to an Exacta. This time, I wasn't far away from an Inverse Exacta. I blame myself, partially. I wouldn't have thought that I'd have to go through over a decade's worth of "with/withouts" to demonstrate that Gadsby's a better choice than Salming- but a price has been paid for my laziness.Ugly results and ugly adds.
I'm a little surprised that Lach got waved through in second place his first time eligible while Fedorov wasn't particularly close in his second appearance.
Is this Fedorov's 2nd appearance? For some reason i thought it was his 3rd.
I'm happy Hull was voted 1st. Obviously to me he should have been way before - but the majority has seemed to disagree for a while.
My ballot was late and rightfully discarded. But it had named a unique first place getter...
My ballot was late and rightfully discarded. But it had named a unique first place getter...
Right team...
That porkchop was not in my top 5 though...
Since we're down to the final 10 now - any appetite to including more nominees next round? I know we were going to do it for position #100 anyways - maybe it would be worth it to open it from 90-100 to give more players a chance to get their case heard and slot among the top 100?
Upcoming aggregate point totals:
723
707
703
681
646
645
608
597
591
574
568
562
552
541
512
506
502
475
470
Where do you propose we have the breaks instead?
It's not tough - between 645/608 and between either 552/541 or 541/512
This strikes me as a means to apply the "natural breaks in the aggregate" concept into the Project- but in a belated and selective manner. I didn't mind the idea of the 'breaks-in-aggregate' proposal when it was floated in the Preliminary Thread(s)- but the entire Project has been conducted under a different framework. To change the framework at this late date is probably not going to do any lasting harm-- but I don't think it's a particularly good look now...
Upcoming aggregate point totals:
723
707
703
681
646
645
608
597
591
574
568
562
552
541
512
506
502
475
470
Where do you propose we have the breaks instead?
Anyway, at this point, I almost wonder if there's a point
Don't sound so defeatist, most of your favorite players leapfrogs the field when appearing anyways.
So I was thinking- my math has it that the next Round will be the last Round where the new nominees will be more likely than not to make the Final List. Does that check out?Upcoming aggregate point totals:
723, 707, 793, 681.
646, 645, 608, 597, 591.
574, 568. 562, 552, 541, 512, 506, 502, 475, 470.