* UCI WorldTour


Author Topic: Archive (as in, trash bin)  (Read 20445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fus87

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 546
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 08:49:51 AM »
Speaking of Voecklers: Is there any point trying to sign non-WorldTour riders? After all, ProConti riders like Voeckler, Rujano or Pozzato will only have the opportunity of riding a WT event if their team is invited, making them somewhat less valuable (unless of course they perform good enough to off-set that).
It could of course make signing these riders a gamble: Do you believe in Pozzato's Paris-Roubaix abilities enough to sign him, even if he won't get you many points (or none at all) elsewhere?
Opinions on that?

I object to the flat bottom salary for keepers - I want to keep neo-pro Agostini for 19500 a year. ;)
Or rather, I object to the high level of the bottom: 100 CQ points times 500 is only 50k. Unless of course you're talking about WT points...

I see the logic behind using the WorldTour rankings, after all that's what the score in this league is calculated after. Looking at CQ only could even lead people to keep riders that score a lot in Continental races, but only little in the WorldTour (an example would be Viviani: 532 CQ points overall in 2011, but only 98 of them from WT races).
Pro: The spread in salary between top riders will be bigger.
Contra: Many riders, especially younger ones, didn't score WT points at all. And with the top riders, the WT ranking makes the problem of a rider underperforming (or being injured) and not scoring many points even bigger.
But overall, I'm not opposed to this. Using the WorldTour ranking will also make me look at these rankings for the first time in years - which just shows how irrelevant they have become.

Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2012, 09:33:28 AM »
Speaking of Voecklers: Is there any point trying to sign non-WorldTour riders? After all, ProConti riders like Voeckler, Rujano or Pozzato will only have the opportunity of riding a WT event if their team is invited, making them somewhat less valuable (unless of course they perform good enough to off-set that).
It could of course make signing these riders a gamble: Do you believe in Pozzato's Paris-Roubaix abilities enough to sign him, even if he won't get you many points (or none at all) elsewhere?
Opinions on that?

That's a good analysis, and for me also the reason why including them is fun, while obviously their market price won't reflect their real value. Also, you can sign a 2-year deal and hope that the guy signs with a WorldTour team next year!

I object to the flat bottom salary for keepers - I want to keep neo-pro Agostini for 19500 a year. ;)
Or rather, I object to the high level of the bottom: 100 CQ points times 500 is only 50k. Unless of course you're talking about WT points...

Yep, those were WT points. Still too low? 50 points and €100k then?

Pro: The spread in salary between top riders will be bigger.
Contra: Many riders, especially younger ones, didn't score WT points at all.

Thus the bottom limit...

But overall, I'm not opposed to this. Using the WorldTour ranking will also make me look at these rankings for the first time in years - which just shows how irrelevant they have become.

Precisely. Nobody really cares about the WorldTour ranking, and we'll use it as the scoring (as there is no other choice methinks). Thus, using it for keepers is the first step towards people actually noticing it.
Skype: stefek-burczymucha
Leagues I run: Advanced NBA, Cycling, All-Europe Football

Offline pimmen

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 302
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Ajax:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2012, 10:34:01 AM »
I would rather not use the WT rankings. They are skewed as hell  :o

You simply would run into too many riders that would have salaries that make no sense at all I think...But I'll leave that to you guys.

For our own soring method it's another case, and here it would ofcourse make sense to use the WT points.

About keeping riders: I would say lets put in a maximum (not an obligation) of 5 riders. I chose Vacansoleil for a reason afterall  :thumbsup:

Offline Flu

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 314
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2012, 10:52:32 AM »
I rarely ever look at any ranking at all, so I'm mostly leaving this discussion to those who know what they're taking about. :)

However, since the gist of the matter seems to be that no ranking perfectly translates to wage, how about something like this:
We figure out a base formula which generally gets it "close enough." Once everyone sent in their keepers, the list - with wages - gets published on the forum. Then we all get 24 or 48 hours to object/discuss certain specific cases which seem off a bit, after which we can leave it to Garfield's discretion to make some adjustments.

(agree about maximum, no obligation for keepers, by the way)

Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2012, 11:00:14 AM »
We figure out a base formula which generally gets it "close enough." Once everyone sent in their keepers, the list - with wages - gets published on the forum. Then we all get 24 or 48 hours to object/discuss certain specific cases which seem off a bit, after which we can leave it to Garfield's discretion to make some adjustments.

That sounds cute, but might be a bit problematic in case of guys you keep not because you like them, but because in fact you like their salary. The question is: should the latter even take place?

Anyway, we're a bunch of brothers here, so I have no doubt we'll figure it out one way or another :toast:

Re number of keepers: min 3, max 5 seems to be the prevailing opinion. I might end up fixing it at 3 for simplicity, in which case you just win your 4th and 5th guy in an auction a week later, thus again no biggie. Keep sending them in!
Skype: stefek-burczymucha
Leagues I run: Advanced NBA, Cycling, All-Europe Football

Offline Fus87

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 546
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #45 on: January 09, 2012, 03:39:40 PM »
That's a good analysis, and for me also the reason why including them is fun, while obviously their market price won't reflect their real value. Also, you can sign a 2-year deal and hope that the guy signs with a WorldTour team next year!

Or that his team becomes WorldTour...
...and signs a certain Namibian after his surprise top-10 finish at the Olympics...

That sounds cute, but might be a bit problematic in case of guys you keep not because you like them, but because in fact you like their salary. The question is: should the latter even take place?

What if you're deciding to keep a yet unproven rider (therefore with a low salary), hoping that he'll break through this year? If he doesn't, you wasted a spot (and probably a lot of money) - if he does, your gamble pays off. I can see it could be a tiny bit fishy, but not so much as to forbid it.


pimmen raises a very valid point: Using the WT rankings, keeping Hesjedal or Dan Martin would be more expensive than keeping Andy Schleck... :rool:
Should whoever picks Garmin be punished for having another guy deliver big time each year?

But it also has to be said that any system will always have its problems, and weird results. We're only trying to find some way to determine the keepers' salaries, not inventing the wheel. And it's only for the first year, after that riders will be traded and auctioned (if they're free agents), right?

My suggestion would be to give Garfield dictatorial powers to decide on one system (of those proposed here) that's then used to determine the salaries for riders we choose to keep.
I think a bottom salary of 100k for riders with less than 50 WT points is OK. You have 88 and 89 riders with >50 points in the 2010 and 2011 rankings, which is roughly 5 per team (in an ideal world, where every team was equally good). That way, the smaller teams don't have to keep some riders for a salary that isn't justified.
And while using the WT points would give a winning machine like Cavendish a salary of only 99k, that also mirrors that he, as a sprinter, doesn't score that many WT points.

Of course, as pimmen said, that also shows that the WT points scale is "skewed as hell" - so maybe it shouldn't be used for point scoring either? Using the CQ ranking (taking into account only WT races) could be a better way: In the Tour de France, the top-20 in GC get WT points; but the top-50 get CQ points (with the rest also getting 20 points for finishing). And CQ also takes into account the various jerseys, and awards points for wearing the leader's jersey.
For his very good Tour, Jelle Vanendert got 34 WT points (17% points of the points for 1st place). In the CQ ranking, Vanendert got 237 CQ points (that's 39,5% points of the points for 1st place). Thomas Voeckler scored 122 WT points in the Tour (61% of the points for 1st place), but 592 CQ points (98,7% of the points for 1st place). More importantly, in the WT ranking, 110 points (90,1%) came from his 4th GC place. In the CQ ranking, only 320 points (54%) come from his overall GC position, while 200 points (33,8%) come from his 10 days in the yellow jersey - this isn't reflected in the WT ranking at all. But I don't remember Voeckler's Tour as one where he finished close to the podium, but as one where he defended his maillot jaune against all odds for 10 days. And that's how it should be reflected in the scoring system we use.
A similar point can be made about Vanendert, and it's even more obvious in the case of Samuel Sαnchez: 134 WT points, 90 of which come from his 6th place in GC; but 557 CQ points, where 180 come from the stages to Luz-Ardiden, Plateau de Beille and Alpe d'Huez, and 80 from his winning the mountain jersey (which again isn't taken into account at all in the WT ranking).

I realise I'm opening a can of worms here, but this is called the brainstorming topic for a reason.
How big was Cavendish's success at the Tour? 112 WT points compared to the winner's 200 (I'm aware Evans also got points from stages), or 565 CQ points compared to 600?
To me, it's the latter. The WT points scale puts a ridiculous high weight on GC results, which - as many riders have lamented - sometimes results in boring races. There's no need for us to aggravate that by using a stupid ranking, and not honouring stage wins (whether it's a mass sprint, an epic breakaway or a lucky finisseur), jerseys etc.
Therefore, I propose that instead of using the WT points for the keepers' salaries, we use the CQ ranking for scoring - and, by extension, for the keepers' salaries, but with a twist: Only WT results count, but with their CQ points.

Slaughter me now.

Offline Garfield

  • League Moderator
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Posts: 13918
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :PHX:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :ARS:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2012, 04:00:01 PM »
Therefore, I propose that instead of using the WT points for the keepers' salaries, we use the CQ ranking for scoring - and, by extension, for the keepers' salaries, but with a twist: Only WT results count, but with their CQ points.

Sounds great to me. It's only slightly less transparent (we need to extract the WT race from the overall score), but has a zillion advantages, which you have just listed brilliantly! :toast:

I will now update the rules and assign the salaries to our first keepers.

Btw warm welcome to Ag2r, our 10th team!
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 #47 on: January 09, 2012, 05:07:27 PM »
I will now update the rules and assign the salaries to our first keepers.

Done and done!
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 #48 on: January 09, 2012, 05:11:33 PM »
Slaughter me now.

On the contrary. I think it's a great idea.
It makes the game a lot more interesting, and puts a bit less emphasis on the top dogs. Suddenly a whole lot of riders become much more useful to have in your team - riders who may only score a few, or none, WT points in a season won't just be making up the numbers now, but will actually contribute. That gives us a few more tactical options.

 :winner:

Offline pimmen

  • Rookie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 302
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Ajax:
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming
« Reply #49 on: January 09, 2012, 05:16:35 PM »
The only thing from the rules which is not entirely clear to me is this:

"Example: If a team bids €4M for Cadel Evans, then that declares that the entire value of his contract is €3M, and they can still choose between 1 year €3M, 2 years €1.5M per, or 3 years €1M per."

In this case do you pay the €1m that is missing from the contract value as a signing fee? And Is there any reason not to choose 3 years at €1m per year over 1 year for €3m per year except maybe a possible retirement?


For the rest, thumbs up  :thumbsup:
I like the changes that have been made a lot


 

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