CQ game 2012 evaluation thread

[Hugo Koblet]

Hello everyone who has been a part of the 2012 game and/or considers being a part of the 2013 game.

As the game is approaching its conclusion I thought it was about time I started this thread. Well also because I've already received the first team for the 2013 season.

The point of this thread is to discuss this years game with the purpose of making next year's edition even better. What has been good this year? What has been bad? Should anything be changed for next season?

Personally, I think the game has been a great succes once again. We had 130 teams this year compared to 88 last year. That's an increase of almost 50%. We've had 3954 posts in the game thread this year, compared to 3111 last year. An increase of more than 27%.

Admittedly, the entusiasm for the game has worn out as we're approaching the last races of the season, but I think that's a natural tendency. As people realize that their teams are out of contention they lose interest. On that note: thanks to everyone who has helped keeping the thread alive untill the end. I shall be the first to admit that I myself haven't been the best in that area this year.

Regarding the rules, which are subject to discussion here, I think that they have been better this year. The team size and points available is something I'd rather not change because they first and foremost seem fair, and second, keeping the numbers the same creates a sort of continuation.

I also think that ending the game after the last "big race" (1.1 or higher) is good ruling because the interest in the game will only diminish after this race, as we can already see is the case when only the less interesting Asian races are left on the calender.

The main issue, as we can see unfortunately is the case in cycling in general, is that of dopers. I think the current rules are OK, but I'd like to propose one change: A rider returning from doping will still have a value equivalent to that of his last full season unless he has had a season inbetween in which he has scored more points. If that's the case, then his value will be that of his points that season.

The need for this extra ruling comes from this year's "Rui Costa case". Rui Costa's last full season was 2009 in which he scored 413 points which, in turn became his value for the game. However, in 2011 he scored 664 points which gave a hint that he might be an artificial created bargain at 413 points.

I'm not trying to start a witch hunt against previous dopers but I'd rather not that this game becomes a quest of finding the best ex-dopers because of a flaw in the rulings. In this area I'd rather have an ex-doper cost a too much than too little.

Another issue regarding ex-dopers which I'm uncertain of is if we should maintain the ruling that excludes dopers who will be returning in the upcomming season. For instance, Yoann Offredo received a one-year ban ending on January 31 2013, and according to the current rules he won't be available in next years game. This ruling can easily be changed so that all returning dopers are available and will be valued according to the rules of the last full season. Then you can decide for yourself if you want to include a rider who won't be able to ride for the whole season.

One more thing that is new for next year: I will create a spreadsheet with a template for creating a team and upload it here. This is to make everything easier for you and me. In this spreadsheet you only have to type in the names or your riders and it will automatically tell you how much that rider is worth and how much your team is worth in total.

This way we can avoid any misunderstandings regarding the riders values and I, hopefully, can avoid fixing spelling errors and other stuff that actually takes a lot of time when 130 teams are participating.

Once you've created your team you just send the spreadsheet to me or mark and copy your team and send it to me in a PM.

This also means that I will have to manually change the scores for all returning dopers as well as deleting the riders not available. Therefore, I urge everyone to help me out: whenever you think of a rider whose value should be changed because of the rulings, please send me a PM so that I can fix it. I don't know of all riders who have been suspended so I will need some help on this area.

Actually, I think that's about it. Any ideas, proposed changes etc. are gladly appreciated. Anything you would like included in the spreadsheet etc., I'll see what I can do.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm picking Pozzato at either value.

But everyone knows I disagree with the "artificially make dopers as expensive as possible" argument. So in this case the most consistent approach would be to apply the rules uniformly. If I have to pay 460 for Pozzato why do I have to pay 987 for Pellizotti.

Offredo and anyone else coming off a ban should be available for selection too.

 

[will10]

Many thanks for all your hard work in getting the game off the ground and for sticking your hand in the air for 2013 too.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I'm picking Pozzato at either value.

But everyone knows I disagree with the "artificially make dopers as expensive as possible" argument. So in this case the most consistent approach would be to apply the rules uniformly. If I have to pay 460 for Pozzato why do I have to pay 987 for Pellizotti.

Offredo and anyone else coming off a ban should be available for selection too.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

I should probably add that my purpose isn't to make ex-dopers as expensive as possible. I would love (see my avatar) to include Pellizotti in my team. However, the rules should, above all, be consistent and apply as suitable and fair as possible for all ex-dopers. Of course this is very hard to do but the rulings should be the same for all ex-dopers.

In my opinion, having Pellizotti cost 987 is way more fair than having him cost 60 (as the case would have been last year).

On the same token, surely 460 is a more appropriate cost for Pozzato than 301 because he showed last year that he can score 460 points (even while being suspended for parts of the season).

If you propose a set of rules making a rider cost whatever he scored last year despite of suspensions etc., I think this is even more unfair. It would make Offredo cost 7 next season and would have made Valverde cost 0 this season.

Surely Pellizzoti costing 987 is more appropriate than Valverde costing 0, right?

 

[will10]

I'm picking Pozzato at either value.

But everyone knows I disagree with the "artificially make dopers as expensive as possible" argument. So in this case the most consistent approach would be to apply the rules uniformly. If I have to pay 460 for Pozzato why do I have to pay 987 for Pellizotti.

Offredo and anyone else coming off a ban should be available for selection too.

Pozzato is a really strange case and I think should cost 460. He is the exception IMO.

Pellizotti... it's not right for him to have his 2012 value of 585 as he only rode from May. He also shouldn't cost 60 from '10 as that was his suspension year and he barely raced. So the only logical cost IMO is 987 from '09. Any alternative rule suggestion might give a reasonable cost for Pellizotti (say 585+987)/2=2013 value, f/ex) but will almost certainly leave a massive hole that can be exploited for some other rider.

 

[Ferminal]

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Just apply consistently, whichever rule you choose. Do not make an exception in the rule for one rider just because without it he would be cheaper than you want him to be.

 

[will10]

Just apply consistently, whichever rule you choose. Do not make an exemption in the rule for one rider just because that makes him cheaper than you want him to be.

?
If anything the exception (Pozzato) makes him more expensive - giving him 460 instead of his 2011 cost of 301.

 

[Ferminal]

?
If anything the exception (Pozzato) makes him more expensive - giving him 460 instead of his 2011 cost of 301.

Yeh I fixed it, made no sense to me either

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Just apply consistently, whichever rule you choose. Do not make an exception in the rule for one rider just because without it he would be cheaper than you want him to be.

It's not an exception in the rules for one rider. It's an exception in the rules for all riders. And it's not what I personally want the riders to cost. It's what's logically the most fair value.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Isn't the exception actually a rule?

 

[Ferminal]

Correct, it's an exception which applies for all riders. So instead of having one rule you have two, rules which are there to achieve a certain outcome.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Fermie I am on your side ok

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Correct, it's an exception which applies for all riders. So instead of having one rule you have two, rules which are there to achieve a certain outcome.

Yes of course. All rules are made to achieve a certain outcome. Not just mine.

The outcome I want to achieve is to make the game as fair as possible, whether that takes one, two or fifteen rules.

In football there's a rule that the goalkeeper is allowed to take the ball with his hands. But there's also a rule that he must not keep the ball in his hands for more than 6 seconds. That's rules created to achieve a certain outcome as well.

Anyway, I do not deny that on the subject of doping, I'd personally rather go high than low. I'd rather that some riders are overpriced than some are underpriced. There are several thousand riders available in the game. Forcing all teams who wants to aim at the victory to pick certain riders because their value is kept artificially low is a bad idea.

 

[Ferminal]

Yes of course. All rules are made to achieve a certain outcome. Not just mine.

The outcome I want to achieve is to make the game as fair as possible, whether that takes one, two or fifteen rules.

In football there's a rule that the goalkeeper is allowed to take the ball with his hands. But there's also a rule that he must not keep the ball in his hands for more than 6 seconds. That's rules created to achieve a certain outcome as well.

Rule 1: Anyone returning from a doping suspension will cost the equivalent of their most recent complete (non-sanctioned) season.

Why: So sanctioned riders are more expensive than they would be if you applied their most recently ridden season like everyone else

Rule 1.1: Rule 1 will only apply if a returning doper's most recent complete season is of greater cost than any subsequent incomplete seasons. Where the most recent complete season is of lower value, the cost of the rider will be the highest value in any subsequent partially-sanctioned seasons.

Why: Because the application of Rule 1 would otherwise result in unintended consequences, i.e. a sanctioned rider not being more expensive than they would be if the standard value of a rider was applied.

Again, everyone knows where I stand on this, but it seems like an endless quest to make dopers as unpickable as possible. The reality is that the highest picked riders have poor seasons for reasons other than sanctions. More people are going to pick Schleck than Contador on his 2012 value, more people have picked Breschel, Cobo etc than any perceived undervalued dopers.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Rule 1: Anyone returning from a doping suspension will cost the equivalent of their most recent complete (non-sanctioned) season.

Why: So sanctioned riders are more expensive than they would be if you applied their most recently ridden season like everyone else

Rule 1.1: Rule 1 will only apply if a returning doper's most recent complete season is of greater cost than any subsequent incomplete seasons. Where the most recent complete season is of lower value, the cost of the rider will be the highest value in any subsequent partially-sanctioned seasons.

Why: Because the application of Rule 1 would otherwise result in unintended consequences, i.e. a sanctioned rider not being more expensive than they would be if the standard value of a rider was applied.

Ferminal, the rules have ups and down as all rules have.

I just find Pellizotti costing 987 instead of 585, Pozzato costing 460 instead of 301 and Contador costing 2272 instead of 1277 less disturbing than Valverde costing 0 instead of 2494 and Offredo costing 7 instead of 295.

I take it that you disagree?

Basically, I want the game to have the purpose of finding the biggest underperformers and the upcoming talents. Not finding as many returning dopers as possible. You can still pick returning dopers. Look at Rui Costa who would still have more than doubled his score under these rules.

The implications of being harsh on ex-dopers are less severe than not being harsh on them in my opinion.

Anyway, I think I've made my conviction become clear. I'll let everyone else have their say now

 

[Netserk]

Ferminal, the rules have ups and down as all rules have.

I just find Pellizotti costing 987 instead of 585, Pozzato costing 460 instead of 301 and Contador costing 2272 instead of 1277 less disturbing than Valverde costing 0 instead of 2494 and Offredo costing 7 instead of 295.

I take it that you disagree?

Basically, I want the game to have the purpose of finding the biggest underperformers and the upcoming talents. Not finding as many returning dopers as possible. You can still pick returning dopers. Look at Rui Costa who would still have more than doubled his score under these rules.

The implications of being harsh on ex-dopers are less severe than not being harsh on them in my opinion.

Anyway, I think I've made my conviction become clear. I'll let everyone else have their say now

If only Rule 1 applied and not 1.1, then the cost of the riders would be:
Pellizotti: 987
Pozzato: 301
Contador: 2272
Valverde: 2494
Offredo: 295

Isn't that fair?

 

[Ferminal]

Valverde would never be 0 as he was DQ'ed, technically he never raced in 2010.

Of course for next season he's 2013 in any case.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

If only Rule 1 applied and not 1.1, then the cost of the riders would be:
Pellizotti: 987
Pozzato: 301
Contador: 2272
Valverde: 2494
Offredo: 295

Isn't that fair?

I think it is. But I think that this is even more fair:

Pellizotti: 987
Pozzato: 460
Contador: 2272
Valverde: 2494
Offredo: 295

Basically the question is: is it fair that a rider's value is made higher if he scored more points in a season in which he was suspended? I think it is. I think 460 is more appropriate for Pozzato than 301 because he just showed, during the last 12 months which is the most correct to base his abilities on, that he's able to score such a value.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Ferminal,

Point taken about Valverde. But that's only because of the dates of his ban. Had they been decided to start and end one day later his score would have been twisted.

 

[Netserk]

On another note; Should there be a policy about name-dropping in the off-season? I remember a similar discussion last year, when quite some poster got mad about me (and others) naming names of riders on our short-list. I also remember that Feminal(?) argued that it shouldn't be a competition about who can find the best bargains, but who can analyse whether or not a rider is a bargain (and set together the best team).

I know that there always will be some people, who don't read the thread before they post their team (so they don't read any names), and others who will post names no matter what. But I would like if we had a mutual agreement (/policy) about name-dropping.

 

[jsem94]

I'd rather see no name-dropping whatsoever. After the end of the year, when everyone has submitted a team, we can talk about it as much as we want to.

 

[asdfgh101]

My post from last year

Solution to doping problem

Rider's 2012 value shall equal his 2011 score unless that rider has been suspended, witheld from racing or had results annulled in 2011.

In that case the highest of the following values shall apply:

A: 2011 CQ score

B: Adjusted value of last complete season

100%-X% where X is equal to the number of seasons which have passed since this score was registered (total to be rounded up)

C: Any adjusted score in between

Some Cases

Franco Pellizotti = 672 (960x0.7) 2008 score used

(note that CQ has incorrectly failed to annul FP's 2009 results)

Ezequeil Mosquera = 824 (915 x 0.9) 2010 score used pending further development

Alejandro Valverde = 1996 (2494x0.8) 2010 score used

Alex Rasmussen = 284 2011 score used

Thomas Dekker = 414 (591x0.7) 2008 score used

(complete season as split from team not linked to doping investigation)

Riccardo Ricco (if somehow cleared) = 682 (1136x0.6) 2007 score used

(2010 value adjusted 756x0.9 = 681, if this value had been 683 or greater than this season would have been used)

 

[the asian]

I agree with Hugo on this one. Having Pozzato at 460 is fairer than at 301, as 460 is a better indication of his true value.

And no name dropping certainly.

 

[shalgo]

I also agree with Hugo on the valuation question.

 

[Netserk]

Is the cost of Frank Schleck 1302 or 522? After all he hasn't been banned (yet)..