Log in:  

Register

The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

Come in and talk about betting, computer games and cycling simulations, and your office's or online fantasy cycling leagues.

03 Dec 2016 12:55

Although the rule from the opening post does not provide clear guidance on his case, I would say he should be available for his 2016 score because he was not suspended. I would interpret those two removed results similarly as if he was DQ'd for some in-race incident such as Bouhanni was.
PeterB
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 13:53

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

05 Dec 2016 06:34

Hey all,

I didn't follow up with a year wrap-up like I said I would, sorry. Some lingering personal distractions, annoying. But anyway, the post for next year's game is gonna come up in the next week to ten days, so I appreciate the discussion, even if I haven't been here to help spur it on. Here are a couple of things:

- suspensions are tricky. I haven't fully caught up on the Trofimov case, but what I've been using for guidance is the UCI list of suspended and provisionally suspended riders linked to in the opening post. I'd imagine if he wasn't suspended, he wouldn't be on the list, and my first reaction is that he should be available at 'face value' for 2016. Quickly reading through the article, his stripped results don't affect his points totals, at any rate. Looking more into it, Sergey Shilov might be an issue, as his results in Rioja (2nd place, 48 CQ points) have been stripped, which changes his score quite a bit (except CQ hasn't changed it yet). Where I'm at right now with those are that I think they should be taken at face value of their points for 2016 as of December 31st update, even if CQ doesn't remove the results. That seems the simplest. I welcome discussion and opinions before deciding what to do next week when making the opening thread.

- one strange case I was thinking of last month when I realized he had returned and was getting results is the Kazakh rider Ilya Davidenok. He returned on October 19th from a two-year suspension and picked up 108 points in the Asian races. The year he got suspended (2014), he picked up 372 points, but with stripped results, this would be adjusted to 115 points. However - CQ's rider overview shows him with 372 in his list of years ridden, but when you click through to the detailed breakdown it is adjusted to 115. That is a bit of a confusing headache, so I think I'm just going to make his cost 372 so that no one gets a weird discount out of this ambiguity. Thoughts on this also welcome, I'll listen to whatever anyone says but ultimately will make the decision I feel is the clearest and fairest.

- other changes to the game next year: people have said they didn't feel like the polka dot jersey added much to the competition this year. I'd like to hear if anyone else has an opinion on this before making a final decision, but if people don't want it, I'm fine with that. It was created to give some more variety and maybe reward a different skillset than the green jersey (as I found last year that the top teams in the game mostly led the green jersey competition), but this year the green jersey was interesting for more teams who weren't in the overall hunt, so it may have served dual purpose.

That's it for now.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,484
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

05 Dec 2016 11:45

"Where I'm at right now with those are that I think they should be taken at face value of their points for 2016 as of December 31st update, even if CQ doesn't remove the results. That seems the simplest. I welcome discussion and opinions before deciding what to do next week when making the opening thread."

Im a bit unsure what you mean when saying "Face value of their 2016 points" I would assume that is the normal points (currently 72) as if nothing had happened but your arguments sounds more like you mean it from the year before as if they were indeed suspended. Can you just confirm which one it is. Also I think its fine if a tricky case like this can be discussed, but the most important thing for most us I think would just be a quick decisision as all teams that wants to include him if he is at the 2016 score kind of has to wait for the decision to continue their team-puzzle. So the soooner the better. I personally has no problem either way, but I think the most correct decision would be that it was the 2015 score that counted now since any kind of suspension should disqualify the yearly score in this game, so that it is irrelevant that he did not loose any points.
MADRAZO
Member
 
Posts: 381
Joined: 06 Nov 2009 11:27
Location: Denmark

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

05 Dec 2016 19:08

skidmark wrote:I'd imagine if he wasn't suspended, he wouldn't be on the list, and my first reaction is that he should be available at 'face value' for 2016.

Actually, both Shilov and Trofimov are on the UCI list http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/17/32/52/20161205SanctionADRVENG2.0_English.pdf but there is no "Sanction" for them according to the document. Those races, results of which are removed, are mentioned under "Disqualification starting" column. That is what made me looking at them as if they were not dopers for the purpose of this game, just that they were DQ'd, so they should cost their 2016 points (for Shilov without La Rioja points which I hope CQ will remove). This would be consistent with our usual rule as they were not suspended for doping.

But I also do not mind if we eventually decide otherwise, because it is true that Shilov would then cost less thanks to his doping offence, which I guess was meant to be avoided by that rule on ex-dopers.

one strange case I was thinking of last month when I realized he had returned and was getting results is the Kazakh rider Ilya Davidenok. ... The year he got suspended (2014), he picked up 372 points, but with stripped results, this would be adjusted to 115 points.

Those 372 points obviously include races from which he was disqualified. So it really does not make much sense to me to have him at points he did not earn after all. So for him I would rather use those 115 points. It seems fair if rider costs as many points as he could win clean (ehm...).
PeterB
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 13:53

07 Dec 2016 00:47

Can we increase the budget for next year to at least 20,000? Somehow, I cant fit all the riders I would like to have inside the 7500 limit :)
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

07 Dec 2016 02:34

Can we make it more realistic? Some WT teams have more money to spend than others. I'd like to be team sky with a bigger budget to use than all the other contestants.
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,585
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

07 Dec 2016 13:38

Will there be another game in 2017 and if yes: how can I join?
Polliwop
New Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 07 Dec 2016 10:26

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

07 Dec 2016 16:20

Polliwop wrote:Will there be another game in 2017 and if yes: how can I join?

Pretty sure there will be a 2017 edition, a thread should be opened for it soon-ish and you'll be able to join by sending your team to the organizer via PM :)
Alberto we love you
on the road
you don't need to say this stuff
we saw you on the road
you blessed us with 9 great shows
let's not argue the toss about the official count
you are much bigger than that
~TourOfSardinia
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 26,354
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

07 Dec 2016 17:02

Polliwop wrote:Will there be another game in 2017 and if yes: how can I join?

The deadline for sending teams will probably be in the first days of January - exact details will be published in the new thread specific for the 2017 game. In the meantime, you may wish to contribute to some of other discussions on this forum as I think you need to have some minimum number of posts (10?) before you can send a personal message (which is the way the teams are submitted).
PeterB
Member
 
Posts: 447
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 13:53

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

07 Dec 2016 21:51

PeterB wrote:
skidmark wrote:I'd imagine if he wasn't suspended, he wouldn't be on the list, and my first reaction is that he should be available at 'face value' for 2016.

Actually, both Shilov and Trofimov are on the UCI list http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/17/32/52/20161205SanctionADRVENG2.0_English.pdf but there is no "Sanction" for them according to the document. Those races, results of which are removed, are mentioned under "Disqualification starting" column. That is what made me looking at them as if they were not dopers for the purpose of this game, just that they were DQ'd, so they should cost their 2016 points (for Shilov without La Rioja points which I hope CQ will remove). This would be consistent with our usual rule as they were not suspended for doping.

But I also do not mind if we eventually decide otherwise, because it is true that Shilov would then cost less thanks to his doping offence, which I guess was meant to be avoided by that rule on ex-dopers.

one strange case I was thinking of last month when I realized he had returned and was getting results is the Kazakh rider Ilya Davidenok. ... The year he got suspended (2014), he picked up 372 points, but with stripped results, this would be adjusted to 115 points.

Those 372 points obviously include races from which he was disqualified. So it really does not make much sense to me to have him at points he did not earn after all. So for him I would rather use those 115 points. It seems fair if rider costs as many points as he could win clean (ehm...).


ugh, complications, grumble grumble.

Okay, so Shilov and Trofimov are both on the list, but it clearly says 'N/A (no fault)' under their names, so I have no problem with them being available at their 2016 point totals. By 'face value' (to respond to another comment), I meant the value that CQ gives them at 12/31/2016. So if CQ has not taken away Shilov's points for Rioja by then, his unchanged total is what he is worth, even if officially those results are stripped. This is the CQ Ranking Manager Game. I know we use UCI lists to identify dopers, but it is the points total reported by CQ that is the basis of this game, so it seems consistent and simple to use those.

For Davidenok, the issue isn't so much for me to be 'fair' in terms of what he would have gotten as points if his wins were clean, it's to avoid confusion on the behalf of game participants. Certainly, the details are important in this game, and people should be rewarded for paying attention to detail. But there is some confusion if a game participant is looking for riders and comes across his page - if they see that 372 score there under 2014 and think that is what he is worth without clicking through, they might not take him, whereas if his score is 115 (as shown on his 2014 page), they might have. This is the only such discrepancy I've ever seen at CQ, so it's an abnormal case, and their inconsistent methodology is my problem to deal with now. I'm going to have him at 372 unless I hear a compelling case otherwise.

Another funny issue I just thought of - I have no idea how CQ intends to grade the new 'lowest tier' WT races next year, and nothing on their site or message boards that I can find seems to indicate it. I guess that's a bit of a wildcard for next year...
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,484
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

07 Dec 2016 21:52

Polliwop wrote:Will there be another game in 2017 and if yes: how can I join?


You bet there will - game thread will be up in this forum within a week, instructions will be detailed there. But it will be pretty much the same as this year, so you can read the first posts of this thread to familiarize yourself with the general rules, if you are keen on it.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,484
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

08 Dec 2016 11:53

Can we have a 2017 discussions thread outside the main thread where potential pick are mentioned or alluded to or is that a bad idea
del1962
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,726
Joined: 16 Oct 2012 17:20

Re: The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

09 Dec 2016 23:23

Final Update (#42)

Hi all, this is my belated (sorry) end-of-year update, taking into account the races in November. There was very little scoring, but enough that a few dozen teams picked up some points. For posterity's sake, I'll include a link to the final official standings.

For those curious about the 2017 game, the game thread will be up very soon! I am hoping to get it up in the next 5 days.

November's Top Scorers

Rank Team Points this week
1 laarsland 96
2 BalearicBeats 85
3 ItalianGigolo 65
3 18-Valve. (pithy) 65
5 skidmark 55
5 Schleckamagurky 55
5 archieboy 55

Unique picks Mareczko (for laarsland) and Yonder Godoy (for BalearicBeats) were enough for these teams to get an end-of-year shoutout. The 5 teams that picked Eduard-Michael Grosu finally saw a bit of payoff for him as well, as he picked up 55 of his 163 points in November.

November's High Movers

Rank Team Up/down
1 laarsland (+7)
2 the asian (+3)
2 Schleckamagurky (+3)
2 Londonpat (+3)
5 18-Valve. (pithy) (+1)
5 ItalianGigolo (+1)
5 bort (+1)
5 fauniera (+1)

The top 5 captures all the upwards movement in the table, which is unsurprising at the end of the year.

Final Green Jersey Standings

Rank Team Total
1 Emericlabordure 308
2 Eric10 227
3 togo95 209.7
4 Slapshot 202
5 scrooll07 180
6 Jancouver 175
7 Roda_na_Frente 173
7 freshman 173
9 LaVelocipede 170
10 Roubaix 169

No movement here - Eric10, already firmly in 2nd overall, was the only scorer this update.

Final Polka Dot Jersey Standings

Rank Team Points Wk42
1 Emericlabordure 155.4
2 scrooll07 130.3
3 the_fool_on_the_hill 118
4 freshman 117
5 just some guy 100.5
6 Sasquatch 98.7
7 Eric10 96
8 Roubaix 94.5
9 ironted 94
10 Sneekes 90

No movement or points in the top 10.

Congratulations to Emericlabordure, who picked high-cost, high-reward riders (sprinters) that tend to score in clumps, and also picked three French sprinters, which maximized chances of scoring in the same periods (lots of the HC and .1 French races had at least two of the three of Bouhanni, Coquard and Demare lining up). These choices allowed their team to dominate both competitions this year.

Final top 10

Rank Team Points
1 skidmark 15392
2 jeroenk 14707
3 abbulf 14448
4 Squire 14340
5 togo95 14332
6 Eric10 14316
7 Hugo Koblet 14206
8 Kazistuta 14100
9 search 14097
10 CraZyCaLL 13818

No movement this update, and the final podium is in - team skidmark becomes the first two-time winner of this game, while jeroenk and abbulf pick up hard-fought podium spots.

Thanks to everyone for playing, and we will talk very soon about next year!

Spreadsheet at dropbox
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,484
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

10 Dec 2016 04:35

Thanks for the update and for the running the game!

I finished 16th (tie with LaFlo so I'm at a good company :) ) which is my best so far. Also a little surprising as I always go for many "unusual" picks and also pick too much with my heart. Also leaving out Lopez just because he is on Astana probably cost me Top 10.

On the other hand, my rare picks delivered 6th place at the Green Jersey competition so at least I had some luck there.

Thanks all for playing and looking forward to 2017. No big hopes for me next year as I again have too many "wishful" names on my short list :D
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

Re:

10 Dec 2016 12:54

Thanks, skidmark, for all the hard work, and congratulations on the victory!

A tiny nitpick is that for the green jersey competition to be entirely fair, all gameweeks should count (I think you combined the two weeks of Tour of Taihu, IIRC). I can see why it may feel a bit stupid having a few tiny CQ points spread over two weeks and potentially award two weekly wins, but if anyone is aiming for the green jersey competition, this is exactly the sort of situation they would be planning for and trying to take advantage of. Randomly combining two gameweeks could be a bit unfair. Of course I can also see that it's not extremely motivating making these small updates at the end of the season.


On another note: In January I wrote this:

Squire wrote:Anything less than top 5 would disappoint me!

Target reached! I made some stupid picks, like Sergent and Farrar, the types of which I intend to avoid next year. Next step will be aiming for a podium, although a lot can happen in this game.

Hopefully StephenC2020 can provide us with the optimal 2016 team.
User avatar Squire
Member
 
Posts: 649
Joined: 28 Dec 2010 23:39
Location: Shanghai

Re: Re:

10 Dec 2016 21:41

Squire wrote:Thanks, skidmark, for all the hard work, and congratulations on the victory!

A tiny nitpick is that for the green jersey competition to be entirely fair, all gameweeks should count (I think you combined the two weeks of Tour of Taihu, IIRC). I can see why it may feel a bit stupid having a few tiny CQ points spread over two weeks and potentially award two weekly wins, but if anyone is aiming for the green jersey competition, this is exactly the sort of situation they would be planning for and trying to take advantage of. Randomly combining two gameweeks could be a bit unfair. Of course I can also see that it's not extremely motivating making these small updates at the end of the season.


On another note: In January I wrote this:

Squire wrote:Anything less than top 5 would disappoint me!

Target reached! I made some stupid picks, like Sergent and Farrar, the types of which I intend to avoid next year. Next step will be aiming for a podium, although a lot can happen in this game.

Hopefully StephenC2020 can provide us with the optimal 2016 team.


Hey Squire, point taken, for sure. Situationally, the two weeks weren't 'randomly' combined - it was just that the situation you described, of a result that would be relevant in any way to the results of the competition, did not arise, and so I felt fine combining the two weeks. If there was a result forthcoming that involved riders and teams fighting at the top of the standings, I would certainly play out those weeks 'by the books' and have done updates for both. That in itself is playing a bit loose and fast with the rules, as 'properly' I should update each week. So yeah, I was a bit lazy, guilty as charged. I'll think on how to better handle the end of season next year.

Aside from that, I just want to say congratulations to you on a successful season and return to the game! Obviously, you stated at the outset that you did a lot of analysis about what it takes to be successful in the game, and it worked! There is definitely an element of luck to everything here, so a bit of health and form from a few riders will determine whether you finish first, fifth or twentieth, but the bulk of it is in the work you do, so congrats and good luck next year.
skidmark
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,484
Joined: 13 Mar 2009 23:16

11 Dec 2016 00:07

To all of you for your entertainment in the off-season, here are a lot of CQ game statistics!


Top overall score
Rank, name, total score
1 skidmark 84660
2 Kazistuta 78266
3 MADRAZO 77845
4 mc_mountain 77078
5 EvansIsTheBest 76506
6 ingsve 76139
7 Hugo Koblet 75730
8 will10 74841
9 Armchair cyclist 74734
10 Ferminal 74422

Kazistuta made a big leap in this list compared to last year: From 7th to 2nd!


Average placement (3+ participations)
Rank, name, (no. of participations), average placement
1 Geraint Too Fast (5) 16
2 skidmark (6) 16,2
3 The Hitch (5) 16,4
4 freshman (3) 23
5 gustienordic (4) 24
6 Kazistuta (6) 25
7 Nyssinator (3) 26
8 Kjellus (3) 26
9 Cykeltyven (3) 27
10 bicing (4) 28

This year, previous leader The Hitch was finally overtaken by both Geraint Too Fast and skidmark.


Top weekly scores
Rank, name, weekly score, (after which race)
1 Ben1376 2146 (Giro d'Italia 2014)
2 fauniera 2101 (Giro d'Italia 2014)
3 CQmanager 2063 (Tour de France 2015)
4 Kwibus 1962 (Vuelta a Espana 2011)
5 kurtinsc 1940 (Vuelta a Espana 2011)
6 Milanello 1930 (Giro d'Italia 2014)
7 Ruvu75 1899 (Tour de France 2015)
8 highoctane 1885 (Giro d'Italia 2014)
9 Slow_Rider 1875 (Giro d'Italia 2014)
10 MCardinalR 1874 (Giro d'Italia 2014)

Despite having the entire podium of the 2014 Giro, Ben1376 finished the year in 82nd place.


Top yearly scores
Rank, name, yearly score, (year)
1 skidmark 19372 (2012)
2 Kvinto 18106 (2012)
3 Nyssinator 17785 (2012)
4 FF'Wilco 17116 (2012)
5 TeoSheva 17096 (2012)
6 Armchair cyclist 17092 (2012)
7 EvansIsTheBest 16911 (2012)
8 mc_mountain 16479 (2012)
9 shalgo 16446 (2012)
10 Netserk 16319 (2012)

The first non-2012 yearly score on the list is at no. 13: Cykeltyven's 2015.


Most popular picks
Rank, name, percentage of teams, (year)
1 BOONEN Tom 92,0 % (2014)
2 KITTEL Marcel 91,7 % (2016)
3 SCHLECK Andy 90 % (2013)
4 HUSHOVD Thor 89 % (2013)
5 HENAO MONTOYA Sergio Luis 86 % (2015)
6 EWAN Caleb 85 % (2015)
7 SCHLECK Andy 85 % (2014)
8 BETANCUR GOMEZ Carlos Alberto 84 % (2016)
9 BRESCHEL Matti 83 % (2012)
10 HAUSSLER Heinrich 82 % (2011)

On 16 occasions has a rider been picked by more than 3/4ths of all teams. Andy Schleck is the only one to have had this honour twice.


Top overall picks
Rank, name, overall picks
1 PHINNEY Taylor 293
2 GOSS Matthew 289
3 DOMBROWSKI Joseph Lloyd 279
4 BETANCUR GOMEZ Carlos Alberto 272
5 MOSER Moreno 260
6 SCHLECK Andy 257
7 BOONEN Tom 252
8 HENAO MONTOYA Sergio Luis 215
9 EWAN Caleb 213
10 DE GENDT Thomas 208

Numbers 6, 7 & 8 in this list are the only riders who have been the top pick for a particular year.


Trivia

skidmark is the only player to double the value of his team on more than one occasion - and he has done it three times!

Master of consistency I: Geraint_too_Fast is the only player with five or more participations who has never finished outside the top 30.

Master of consistency II: If we look past the rather meaningless last weekly update (#42), skidmark comfortably won the 2016 game by placing in the weekly top 10 just once, and that was a 9th place!

Go big or go home: Pentacycle's only top 60 placing in four participations came in 2014 - when he won the game!

This year we lost five of the ever presents. There are now only 19 people who have participated every year of the game.

No weekly score outside the end week for a GT has ever reached 1500 points.

2016 is the only year where the top weekly score hasn't come after a GT: 1387 points for Kjellus after Tour de Suisse.

As many as 59 riders have been picked at least once every year of the game. This includes two pairs of brothers (Sagan and Velits).

Carlos Betancur has incurred the biggest net loss in the game (counting both profitable and non-profitable season): -34198 points!

Carlos Betancur also has the single biggest loss-incurring season: Losing a total of 39228 points in 2015. Ricco's 2011 is in second place with a total loss of 30744 points for all players combined (-31752 if we go by the rules that was in place in 2011: That riders caught doping lost all their scored points).

Tom Boonen's net score of 206108 points is the highest in the game, highly influenced by his successful 2012 and 2014 seasons both coming on the back of very unsuccessful seasons (which made him a popular and cheap pick).

Marcel Kittel has the record for the most points earned in one season across all players, with 136488 points in 2016.



Let me know if anyone wants me to post the entire list for any of the categories!
User avatar Squire
Member
 
Posts: 649
Joined: 28 Dec 2010 23:39
Location: Shanghai

11 Dec 2016 02:22

Thanks Squire for the interesting numbers. Quite fascinating.
User avatar Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,275
Joined: 14 Mar 2009 22:03
Location: San Diego, USA

11 Dec 2016 21:22

Fun reading indeed. Thx Squire!
User avatar Kazistuta
Member
 
Posts: 1,200
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 06:18
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

13 Dec 2016 08:44

Yeah that's some great research! Well done!
User avatar Hugo Koblet
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,285
Joined: 09 May 2010 08:08

PreviousNext

Return to Games and Fantasy Cycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: barmaher and 3 guests

Back to top