Helene has far and away the best take I've seen on the Pikula situation so far, especially by actively acknowledging the value of someone actively working to re-earn their position on the Pro Tour. (Also a much more proportionate, and therefore reasonable, call-out for Maro than some of the whinier pros.)
Who the hell is Abe Sargent and why is he so hillariously wrong on BFZ?
Like there's obviously a ton of subjectivity on this stuff, and I appreciate that he made the effort to list his exact criteria for selection, but BFZ is honestly such a complete and utter clusterfuck that it's hard to credit someone who misranks it the same way that I would someone who, like, overvalues SoM or something.
Homelands is better than 6 other sets and not purely because of flavour? Fallen Empires at 49 out of 78?
I can defend both of these. Homelands is a bad set but it gets a little benefit from being early (when standards are somewhat lower) and from mostly being bad due to being boring rather than raw terribleness. Like, that stuff doesn't take it that far but it's easily better than Saviors (complete absolute disaster of bad unplayable design), Prophecy (the set that hates you personally), and BFZ, and I'd probably put it ahead of Dragon's Maze as well.
Fallen Empires is a bit overrated at 49, but the basic case he makes is pretty solid. The set had a number of extremely powerful cards (Hymn to Tourach, Goblin Grenade, the Orders, High Tide, etc.) and was actually extremely influential to future design -- it invented the tribal theme, contained the first complex counter-based mechanics, made tokens the significant game component they are now, introduced Saprolings and Thrulls, and more. The hate for the set at the time was almost entirely driven by the overprinting that made the set worthless, combined with having the best cards at common.