* UCI WorldTour


Author Topic: Archive (as in, trash bin)  (Read 20446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pimmen

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 302
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Ajax:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2012, 09:27:09 AM »
about keeping riders, I would like that, although I think a maximum of around 5 would be good. As for their salaries, I propose using the CQ ranking for that.

F.e.  Minimum Salary = CQ points / 2

and if you want to keep them longer you have to offer more.

F.e. this would mean Gilbert's minimum salary is 1,58M, and if you want to keep him for two seasons you'd pay the normal 2M. Contador would cost atleast 1,19M, Andy Schleck 580k, etc.

It's just an idea, but I think it's a reasonably fair way to determine a minimum price for keeping riders. Afterall the person playing for BMC should DEFINATELY pay A LOT if he wants to keep Gilbert, Evans and Hushovd f.e. According to my proposal this trio would cost atleast around 3M.

Tell me what you think of it, and of course we could tweak the numbers to make it better  :thumbsup:


Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2012, 09:45:46 AM »
Welcome aboard :toast:

F.e.  Minimum Salary = CQ points / 2

It's a solid idea for sure. The 2 reasons why I'd prefer the actual real-life salaries (make sure to take a look at the other thread) are:
1. it's more natural (as in, the contract that somebody actually gave him IRL),
2. won't some guys have a low CQ after a slightly off-year? (Nibali is 22nd, Gesink 36th, Anton 63rd, Boonen 100th)
Skype: stefek-burczymucha
Leagues I run: Advanced NBA, Cycling, All-Europe Football

Offline Jevo

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 121
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2012, 10:52:51 AM »
I agree with Garfield, there is some holes in the idea e.g. Sicard had an off year last year and scored 0 CQ points, he would be free with this system. (Not that I would complain though).

Offline pimmen

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 302
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Ajax:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2012, 02:49:39 PM »
We could also choose for the highest amount of points in the last two or three years to avoid that.

F.e. in 2009 Boonen scored 1377 CQ points. That would put his minimum price at 690k.

As for the real salaries, if you can find them all I'm all for that, but since I think that will be very hard to accomplish it's kind of a half measure imo.

@Garfield: and not all contracts are 'natural' there are some seriously overpaid and underpaid guys out there  :thumbsup:

Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2012, 08:00:49 PM »
We could also choose for the highest amount of points in the last two or three years to avoid that.

Better! Still, e.g. even though Gilbert dominated last year, I would never say he deserves so much more money than everybody else (him 3168, Contador 2nd at 2373). That would make keeping him a mistake actually.

@Garfield: and not all contracts are 'natural' there are some seriously overpaid and underpaid guys out there  :thumbsup:

Well, you won't keep the overpaid ones, and if a rider was silly enough to sign for three years and break out a week later, that's his fault entirely, isn't it? ;-P I guess what I mean to say is that both systems are imperfect, that's clear. Yours is more of a statistician's transparent point of view, and mine slightly more historically justified. But it's not like I insist anyway. Would be cool to hear what other people think too!
Skype: stefek-burczymucha
Leagues I run: Advanced NBA, Cycling, All-Europe Football

Offline Flu

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 314
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2012, 08:49:18 PM »
About the auction mechanics:

Given it some thought, but I'm not sure. Personally, I think I'd prefer the original method. Mostly from the squad-building pov though. Just seems like a more involved way of trying to put together a team, and one with which you have more control and a better view on who you'll get/won't get/might get etc.
If you don't like how the bidding is going on one rider, you can give up on him and start focusing on an alternative target. In the other method, you might end up with too many riders within a certain price range, or none at all.

Also not sure if all the "pros" are really pros.

- it's a little more realistic, but not all that realistic either. Realistically it's probably a bit of a mix between the two, where it might start with a round of blind bids, but it quickly evolves into "re-negotiations" with the agent trying to get a better deal from teams who might not initially have made the highest bid. And the rider may not even pick the highest bid either, but obviously that part is impossible to implement here.

- is it really much quicker? I dunno, seems to me that for this method to be "less frustrating," you'd have to start with batches of, like, 3 riders, and gradually work up to batches of 10 or so. Which would take quite a while. In the other method, individual auctions might last a bit longer, but there'll be more auctions going on at once.
But the numbers you mention (5-10 x 18) would indicate batches of like 100 riders.
In a batch like that, there could be 20 riders you're interested in, of which you really want/need to sign 4 of them. But you could end up with 8 of them, or you could end up with none.
(And this aspect of it would make it less realistic - and not necessarily less frustrating - as well. In reality, you don't suddenly lose 20 potential signings on the same day. You might lose one or two, and then decide to redouble your efforts on another rider.)

There's also the minor issue of "what the hell do I offer these guys?" I have no clue what these guys earn or should earn. Though I suppose that'll become a bit more clear once the wage of the keepers is settled.
Still, the "whole lotta auctions" method seems to give a bit more control, making it less likely that you end up with a team of 14 riders and no more budget, or a "missed all the good ones, now I have to pick up the scraps" situation.

(Then again, maybe I'm misjudging a bit how this new method would work out in practice and I'm worrying too much. Dunno.)

Offline pimmen

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 302
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Ajax:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2012, 08:48:24 AM »
Better! Still, e.g. even though Gilbert dominated last year, I would never say he deserves so much more money than everybody else (him 3168, Contador 2nd at 2373). That would make keeping him a mistake actually.

Well, you won't keep the overpaid ones, and if a rider was silly enough to sign for three years and break out a week later, that's his fault entirely, isn't it? ;-P I guess what I mean to say is that both systems are imperfect, that's clear. Yours is more of a statistician's transparent point of view, and mine slightly more historically justified. But it's not like I insist anyway. Would be cool to hear what other people think too!

We could ofcourse put in a maximum price for the 'keepers'. F.e. 1 million per year. In that case everyone who got 2000 or more points in the last 3 years will be at this maximum of 1m (per year). This way everyone can just look at CQ and decide very easily who they want to keep.

It's indeed very transparent, but also very easy. We don't have to find salaries and such. We could in fact start immediately when we have 18 players  :disco:

I think we don't have to overdo it. CQ is a very reliable and steady ranking, and since we'll never reach perfection my vote goes to simplicity.

As for the auction part: I agree with Flu here. Both ways have their pro's and con's when it comes to fairness and frustrations. But when we have an open auction we can atleast plan better. When someone overbids you on a rider, you know exactly what your available remaining budget is, and you can react immedately by either overbidding again, or changing your focus to another rider.

For myself I can say I'll survive the frustrations of last minute overbidding. It's part of the game and I find participating more important than winning  :thumbsup:


Offline Fus87

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 546
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2012, 12:26:10 PM »
Good points all around. You've done some thinking.

I agree with pimmen about using CQ for determining the salary for the keepers. And to reduce the impact of an off-year, you'll have to take the highest amount of CQ points from either 2009, 2010 or 2011, and divide by 2 (actually, you multiply by 500 - and you're supposed to be a statistician, pimmen...).
So, to keep Peter Sagan (I did get Liquigas, didn't I?), 798k per year.
However, the salary should increase if I keep a rider for more than just one year; 15-25% per extra year (max. 3 years in all) maybe? If there'll indeed be a maximum price as pimmen suggested, those that hit this maximum can only be signed for one year - otherwise the guy who has BMC will just sign Gilbert for three years...
Or, to adress the Gilbert "problem" mentioned by Garfield, take the average points from 2009-2011 as base. That could create too low salaries for neo-pros though; Peter Sagan's salary would drop to 435k with this method. Maybe we could drop 2009 from the base (Sagan's salary would then be 631k), and just accept that riders who only started getting results in 2011 are slightly cheaper.

After reading Flu's and pimmen's arguments I'm also thinking that open auctions will work better.
To keep some reasonable timeframe, we could limit the overall time for an auction to, say, two weeks (just a suggestion). And if a bid isn't overbid within 48 hours it wins as well.

I also think we can all agree that we won't manage to get this running by the Tour Down Under. No big deal, it's not the greatest race anyway; and then we have the rest of January and all of February to hold the auctions.
And that way, some early impressions may influence the bidding - that'll be interesting too: Contador was hopeless in San Luis, but do you put your trust in him anyway? Goss won all the sprints in the Tour Down Under, but was that only a fluke?

Now I'll have to think about which 5 riders (yes, I think you should be able to keep 5 from your team) I'll want to keep...

Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2012, 04:35:44 AM »
Thanks guys for chipping in!

It's indeed very transparent, but also very easy. We don't have to find salaries and such. We could in fact start immediately when we have 18 players  :disco:

Note that the way the system is designed, we don't need 18 teams. We're 9 and more would be fun, but I'm not desperate.

You got me pretty convinced about the old-fashioned auction.

However, I'm still not buying the CQ thing. I will of course implement it if I stay heavily outvoted, and indeed I like the highest 2009-2011 year to count. (All kinds of averages ruin the value of riders like Jelle.) I have in fact updated the rules to double-check if this is what you meant, but refrained from the ceiling for now to keep some space between the Contadors and the Voecklers.

However, I don't believe a rider scoring 1000 points should earn half of what Gilbert and Contador do. I believe those things are much less linear IRL, and also should be much less linear if we only score UCI WorldTour races. In these rankings, the top 3 earn almost triple points when compared to the 20th rider in the ranking.

I'd limit keepers to 1 year. Simpler, and helps recruiting more people next winter.

3 or 5 keepers? Every vote counts!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 04:38:51 AM by Garfield »
Skype: stefek-burczymucha
Leagues I run: Advanced NBA, Cycling, All-Europe Football

Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2012, 05:53:37 AM »
To follow through on my above argument, I propose instead best of the last 2 WorldTour years x2000: check out the 2011 and 2010 rankings, and let me know what you think.

In any case, I would introduce a flat bottom salary for a keeper (say, 200k for riders below 100 points?) to avoid fishy moves and make sure everybody keeps major players, as the main idea behind keepers is in fact keeping your team's identity. Objections?

(Obviously, you can change your keepers once the final rules are agreed.)
Skype: stefek-burczymucha
Leagues I run: Advanced NBA, Cycling, All-Europe Football

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • indiansnation: to many eird losses today
    October 14, 2019, 01:43:37 AM
  • indiansnation: shure hell didnt think dallas was going to loose to jets
    October 14, 2019, 01:43:57 AM
  • Brent: Lots of individuals on Dallas.  If they pay Dak the $40M/yr that he wants,that will be the end of them.
    October 14, 2019, 01:45:58 AM
  • Yeagg: Dak has been playing well
    October 14, 2019, 01:49:03 AM
  • indiansnation: i agree with brent he is good but not worth that kind of money
    October 14, 2019, 01:53:50 AM
  • Brent: He's not $40M/yr good.  they they will have 20% of their cap tied up in one position.
    October 14, 2019, 01:54:56 AM
  • Yeagg: Honestly idk BooYah! about football. I just play fantasy football for fun
    October 14, 2019, 01:56:44 AM
  • Yeagg: I'm still trying to figure out how I have Dak Prescott, LeVeon Bell, Austin Ekeler, Phillip Lindsay, DeAndre Hopkins, Michael Thomas, Mike Williams, AJ Green, Darren Waller, Nick Bosa, Josh Allen, Khalil Mack, and Blake Martinez on one of my fantasy teams and I am 3-3
    October 14, 2019, 01:59:13 AM
  • indiansnation: yeagg wait till aj green comes back he will help your team so much
    October 14, 2019, 02:01:04 AM
  • indiansnation: u got a very good team yeagg
    October 14, 2019, 02:01:28 AM
  • Brent: Same concept especially if you consider NFLC.  The NFL salary cap is the same as our $188.2M year.  The difference is RL football you have to pay offensive lineman and most teams carry 6-8 with left tackle being about the highest paid non QB position.  That was until recently, but they still get paid.  So if you pay your QB $40M/yr, your LT $15M/yr and the rest of your line a total of about $25-35M year, that could be $90M on 6-7 players.  You still have to field all of your skill positions and defense for the other $100M.
    October 14, 2019, 02:01:46 AM
  • Yeagg: I should be better than a .500 team
    October 14, 2019, 02:02:00 AM
  • Brent: Yeah, I have a couple redraft leagues where I should be better than I am.
    October 14, 2019, 02:02:36 AM
  • Yeagg: Isn't that where drafting comes in handy
    October 14, 2019, 02:02:49 AM
  • Brent: Exactly
    October 14, 2019, 02:03:34 AM
  • Yeagg: I was referring to the cap space comment in case you didn't know
    October 14, 2019, 02:04:38 AM
  • indiansnation: i think its harder guessing what yound guys will produce in nfl than baseball
    October 14, 2019, 02:05:31 AM
  • Brent: The Cowboys got lucky with La'ell Colllins.  He was 1st round talent, but fell out of the draft to UDFA due to false allegations that he was cleared of. So they got one of if not the best OT from that draft for peanuts.  Eventually he will need to be paid.
    October 14, 2019, 02:06:28 AM
  • Brent: Yeah, the draft is huge and also hitting on UDFAs.  Teams have to develop and then keep their own talent or they'll go broke and end up in salary cap hell.
    October 14, 2019, 02:07:09 AM
  • Yeagg: So basically just like baseball
    October 14, 2019, 02:17:10 AM
  • indiansnation: yep nfl u gotta watch how much u pay look at browns they are going to have that problem in 2021 they have alot of good tallent thats going to need to get paid.
    October 14, 2019, 02:17:13 AM
  • Yeagg: And no way Brian. Baseball has 40 rounds and still most of those guys never even sniff the MLB
    October 14, 2019, 02:17:33 AM
  • Yeagg: More 1st round picks are bust than even play a full season
    October 14, 2019, 02:18:02 AM
  • Brent: They also have between now and then to figure out who will be resigned and who will be replaced and don't they still have quite a few 1st round picks between now and then?
    October 14, 2019, 02:24:21 AM
  • indiansnation: Hey if u have a top notch gm with a great scouting staff u can make any player u draft be great. Look at Boston their minors sick why is that because they suck at drafting. Know look at Tampa and indians and miami they have pretty dang good minors especially I diane look at who they had pitching this year bauer got traded, and they lost 2 of their sp most. Of the yr
    October 14, 2019, 03:45:28 PM
  • Thecliff: :agent: Buckets Of Dimes (BOD) webpage on the Internet [link] ENJOY  :toth:
    October 14, 2019, 10:30:44 PM
  • Brent: Brian, I was talking football.  I think you were talking baseball.
    October 14, 2019, 10:35:26 PM
  • Thecliff: :judge: Remember THE LEAGUE? well, that league is doing great at fantrax and has many members here are still GM of teams [link]
    Yesterday at 03:58:12 AM
  • Geezer66: What’s up Fellas! Any football teams with openings?
    Yesterday at 09:15:38 AM
  • Brent: Yes, NFLC has quite a few openings.  I'll PM you.
    Yesterday at 09:18:29 AM
  • Brent: NFL Countdown
    Yesterday at 09:19:08 AM
  • blkhwkfn: Might be a couple in The Gridiron and Title town (4 sport league)
    Yesterday at 09:19:56 AM
  • Brent: blkhwkfn, it's Saints vs Bears this week.
    Yesterday at 09:22:54 AM
  • Geezer66: Ok thanks! Let me know for the Gridiron also
    Yesterday at 09:58:58 AM
  • Brent: Geezer, I sent you a PM.
    Yesterday at 10:04:19 AM
  • indiansnation: Morning guys
    Yesterday at 10:13:30 AM
  • indiansnation: Welcome to site geezer
    Yesterday at 10:13:49 AM
  • Vik: Welcome Geezer
    Yesterday at 10:52:17 AM
  • indiansnation: Vik whats up
    Yesterday at 01:41:20 PM
  • indiansnation: Geezer pm
    Yesterday at 01:41:29 PM
  • indiansnation: Flashg
    Yesterday at 01:44:14 PM
  • indiansnation: Flash pm
    Yesterday at 01:44:22 PM
  • Vik: Not much Brian, just griding at work
    Yesterday at 01:48:53 PM
  • Daddy: Today was a good day. Hopefully more good then bad are on the horizon.
    Yesterday at 10:23:34 PM
  • Daddy: @Brian our teams made a trade together like it was you and I trading.
    Yesterday at 10:25:27 PM
  • indiansnation: Browns didnt want him on team so atleast we got a pick for him. We were talking about cutting him
    Today at 12:30:39 AM
  • Thecliff: :judge: 1stG completed wepage updates to present date [link]
    Today at 02:29:18 AM
  • Daddy: Yeah raised a red flag for me to get one of your olineman but since we played him i guessed we knew what we were doing.
    Today at 10:16:32 AM
  • Daddy: You think the Browns want the other 4 starters or do they want to cut them too?
    Today at 10:20:11 AM
  • indiansnation: The guy u got wasnt working out for us thats all
    Today at 05:46:04 PM