But DM raised some interesting points, last month and again this month, which I agred with.
The problem is that when I first raised the subject last month because it seemed like it might be really close, and then again this month for the same reason, it seemed as though you started to equivocate and waver about exactly what the criteria for winning was.
AFAIC, the citeria for winning - which is what it always has been and which I have no real need to change (I was only suggesting alternate methods because you seemed unhappy with the method you were using, hence your equivocation, and I thought that altho the way we were doing it was OK, there might be a better way - and so did DM) - is as follows:
Win two out of three categories. If no one wins two out of three, then the tiebreaker is Batting Average.
Just tell us for sure that that's the way we're doing it, and it's the last you'll hear from me on the subject.
Look at the race between me and DM this month.
If I know for sure that batting Average is the tiebreaker, I might sit out and force him to catch me .
He's at 35-82, .427. I'm at 40-91, .440
If I play and go a simple 0-4, and he plays and goes a simple 2-4, DM passes me in batting Average, as I drop to .421 and he goes up to .430
But if I sit out, then he needs to go 6-10 or better to pass me.
What should I do? Play or not? It looks like it will be much harder for him to catch me if I don't play, right?
That's why I have to know for sure what the scoring system is.
Surely you can't think I'm being unreasonable here, can you?
