New Scaratings

The matching round has been quite a bit better the last couple of weeks. I was getting tired of those where you have a group of relatively obscure career statistics (for example number of doubles, hockey goals, pitching ERA, etc) and attempting to matching them to certain players career stats. I dont mind tough, but with those questions I was typically getting only about 2 out of 5. I didnt think they were that doable. These last couple of weeks possibly a slight bit too easy, but I would rather keep it the way its been lately then going back to those kinds of matches.

Forgot to mention SIQ is now on the Premium Games HOF Buzztime page.

_________________
Mitch (MTCHWF/WLFFLY)

Co-Home Bar: Buffalo Wild Wings Edwardsville, IL and Time Out in St Louis, MO

You spoke too soon, as matching the basketball player to their middle name is one of the worst, and laziest, questions that I have seen in a while.

I agree. Not sure what lunkhead in the editorial department signed off on that one, but that is one of the worst questions I have seen in awhile. Thats not even a sports question. I was trying to decide if I wanted to write in and complain about that one after my post last week, so Im glad Jethro beat me to it. That was really a bad question, and not just because I took an oh-fer on it. Even if I had guessed my butt off and managed a 12 it still would be a horrible question. Other than that it was a well writtten game. Pretty challenging and very fair. The only other error is that KC Chiefs no longer train in Wisconsin, but there was no other answer that it could have been, so it was still a doable question but an error nonetheless.

Actually incorrect, there was another error, although not with an incorrect question, but more with an impossible question. Not that I would have known anyway, but they gave a first clue of "Tony Trabert wins US Open." Nothing wrong with that or their answer of 1955, except that he also won it in 1953, and there was no possibly way to discern from that first clue which one they wanted.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that they just randomly pick the years to ask about, then do the research, like choosing 55 then looking up who won the US Open that year, with no regard for the fact that he also won in 1953. Similarly, the fourth clues that do absolutely nothing to narrow it down are ridiculous. For example, the one which asked about Albert Pujols NLCS MVP, we could not remember if it was their 2004 or 2006 pennant, so we were on 2006. The final clue was "Roger Federer wins Wimbledon." That is literally no different than not having a fourth clue at all, especially with the inclusion of the decade (although in this case the decade is given by default since it is 2000s). But you will see a lot of those "Michael Jordan NBA Finals MVP" type clues for the fourth clue, which are completely useless.

Agreed. Guessed at the middle names, got zero.

Absolutely agree. When I saw Pujols, I said to Cloudy "Which one ?"