CQ Manager evaluation thread

[Kazistuta]

The more (riders) the merrier IMO

Reg. picking ex-dopers, I think the easiest way would be to forbid picking those with doping-sanctions from (part of) 2011 or other doping-related cases preventing them from racing in 2011. As stated in this thread there's a massive "grey area" which could confuse people.

Ballan fx hasn't been sanctioned (only by his team) and rides now = available
Contadors case is still pending, high risk pick, rides now = available
Mozquera + Pellizotti hasn't ridden all year due to doping infractions = not available
Kashechkin + Rebellin both had doping suspensions going into 2011 = not available
Rasmussen has no doping sanction, has ridden almost all 2011, high risk pick = available
Valverde has been suspended the whole year = unavailable

I think the rules should be rather easy to understand, and I really don't think the game should be about "spotting most ex-dopers coming back".
If all the above were allowed to be picked, I personally think I would pick at least three of them, considering I calculated correct...

 

[Luke Schmid]

For those who are saying that a list of dopers should not be produced, I have already done so in the other thread. It may not be complete and I may have not got the last years points correct but sorry I did put up a list. I apologise for doing what know seems to be considered the wrong thing to do.

 

[CQmanager]

There seems to be two camps when it comes to team size. Those that want the number lower and those that want it higher. I think the only viable compromise is to keep the rules the same as they were this year both in terms of size and budget.

(Personally I prefer a higher number for the team and the only reason people seem to prefer 30 riders is for cosmetic reasons which isn't a compelling reason in my opinion. The more riders we have the more riders will be active from week to week which means the game will be more fun to follow and I also believe it increases diversity so the teams aren't as similar. But as I said this is only one of the various opinions out there so a compromise will have to be found.)

As for dopers I think giving them the price of their last full season is a good idea but I could also buy the suggestion of not allowing dopers that didn't ride the full 2011 season.

I do agree. More riders = more fun. Question is should the budget be increased too or kept the same? I would go even for something like 40 or even 50 riders per team and do anything from 7500 to 10000 buying points. (10K points at 50 riders is just 200 per rider and that is lower than current 227 per rider)

Dopers list should be released with cost for each rider. Who cares the list is public. Perhaps less people would be willing to select those riders and thats only good for the game and cycling in general.

 

[skidmark]

For those who are saying that a list of dopers should not be produced, I have already done so in the other thread. It may not be complete and I may have not got the last years points correct but sorry I did put up a list. I apologise for doing what know seems to be considered the wrong thing to do.

I don't think you need to apologize, no big deal. It is kind of exciting to me, from a 'sporting' standpoint, to think of people having to figure out dopers and their values themselves, but really, either following that other thread to see your post when it came up or digging through the pages to find that out is enough work in itself. You could get pieces of info from many threads here to find out who's suspended, who's not, etc, and that kind of research is rewarded by having good picks in the game... I think the sentiment is just that if, say, Hugo put a list in the first page of the 2012 CQ thread, it would be a bit of a 'hey, here are a bunch of potential picks!' sign, maybe a bit obvious for those who don't put as much work into their teams.

That said, it really wouldn't be a big deal if he did do that either. But the season's pretty much over, what else are we going to discuss?

 

[asdfgh101]

I don't see the point in adjusting scores down based on what time has passed. Much easier for people to figure out the cost of they simply use the last full year score as listed by CQ rather than having to do math to know the score.

It's all about creating a system which will give each rider a fair score. No need for anybody to do any math, the values can be posted in a thread.

People won't stumble across any massive bargains because the idea of the system is that there won't be any.

Look again at the values which i calculated and tell me which are unfair.

With one tweak (involving cases like Ballan) i think my formula could work.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I think that's enough reason to keep things like they were this season. The other alternatives might be better or worse, but ultimately I don't think the difference would be big and actually I bet they'd make for a slightly different (not better or worse) game.

As for dopers, I don't like banning them outright, and I'm not sure about using the score from their last full season. I think the current CQ prices of, say, Rebellin, are fair as they are, even if technically he didn't ride a full season. The only problem here is riders like Valverde who would cost 0. I think a distinction could be made between riders who already came back and riders who won't race until next year - the first group can keep their scores, the second group could have their price go back to their last full season.

I don't agree with any attempts to discourage signing ex-dopers - that's up to everybody's individual preferences. I only care about keeping their prices coherent so that they don't become must-haves.

i also don't like the notion of excluding ex-dopers.

I propose we do thier last season, but including the prior to ban.

so for example in 2009 jan-july dekker got 189 points.
Then in 2011 from july to december he got 11 points (or so i presume).
total = 200.

Rebellin in 2009 to end of april = 775 points.
in 2011 after ban = 889
total =1664

etc.

If we make a list it shouldn't be too hard.
still = last year. And generally riders will have high scores prior to being caught.

Or we could do last full season I guess.

 

[Ferminal]

So now it's not just people who missed part of 2011 for being a convicted doper, it's those provisionally suspended. Anyone who has tested positive but not yet been convicted (Kolobnev, Mosquera) or otherwise facing a doping hearing (Ricco, Rasmussen), anyone stood down by their team (Ballan, Santambrogio - what are they worth?). While we are at it we may as throw in all of Lampre, OPQS, Katusha, RNT, BMC and Menchov.

 

[asdfgh101]

I have Rebellin at 1265, Astarloza at 500, Ballan keeps his 497, Sevilla is at 301, Guerra at 411, Colom at 295 and Bosisio at 355.

I'm sorry but i have yet to see a better way of dealing with this problem.

 

[Eric8-A]

For me, dopers should cost what their CQ is the year before. For example Valverde will be 0 since he didn't compete this year. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

but then valverde becomes a default pick for every player.

we get 1 less pick basically.

i think we do either last full season or the combined last season (if suspended july 2009. 2009jan-july + 2011 july to end etc).

---


I agree with hugo that we end the game after japan cup.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Personally think that 35 riders is too much. More realistic to an actual pro team the better. Also the more riders allowed the more similar teams. IMagine if the teams were 40-50 riders like some were suggesting, teams would become very similar which ain't a good thing.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

The main issue is obviously those riders who are provisionally suspended.

It's quite easy to come up with a ruling towards riders who have previously been suspended, but it's a lot trickier to do so for riders who are provisionally suspended.

I think that anyone who's officially suspended at the start of 2012 shouldn't be available in the game.

But what about these who are only provisionally suspended?

Should Alex Rasmussen be available to be picked? Ricco? How should the ruling on Mosquera be like?

Sorry for "outing" any riders, but I think it's necessary and I think these aren't that "hidden" anyway.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The main issue is obviously those riders who are provisionally suspended.

It's quite easy to come up with a ruling towards riders who have previously been suspended, but it's a lot trickier to do so for riders who are provisionally suspended.

I think that anyone who's officially suspended at the start of 2012 shouldn't be available in the game.

But what about these who are only provisionally suspended?

Should Alex Rasmussen be available to be picked? Ricco? How should the ruling on Mosquera be like?

Sorry for "outing" any riders, but I think it's necessary and I think these aren't that "hidden" anyway.

I like this idea for a rule, if anyone has been suspended in any way or form the year before, they can't be picked until they go through a full cycle as then it will be a too easy for some to take advantage of a cheat coming back into the system

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

It would seem that the best thing to do is to be absolutist.

At one end of the spectrum, that is to say that a rider banned for any part of 2011 is disqualified. This is not a further sanction on the riders (they don't suffer by not being part of the game), it is not unfair to any participant (we all face the same restriction) Those who might find themselves banned are a risk, but so is every pick, as any rider might have a catastrophic season (either literally or metaphorically). The only list that need be published is those riders excluded.

The other end of the absolutist scale is to say that all riders ride according to their 2011 points. If that means that we all have Valverde, so what? Picking 34 riders with a 7500 point budget is not much less of a challenge than picking 35. There are all sorts of reasons why a rider's 2011 score might be lower than might have been expected. The skill in the game is balancing the potential gains against the potential for recurrence of the reason for a low score. Are we to use the 2010 score for riders whose 2011 score was artificially low because of injury? Of course not, so why treat drugs as the reason for a low score any differently?

Of the two, I would have a slight preference for the latter.

 

[CQmanager]

Personally think that 25 riders is too much. More realistic to an actual pro team the better. Also the more riders allowed the more similar teams. IMagine if the teams were 40-50 riders like some were suggesting, teams would become very similar which ain't a good thing.

25 riders is too much? And you are asking for realistic WT team? Do you even know wow many riders on average is on WT teams? I will help you out. The good teams with good budgets are maxed out at 30. How many points do you need to build a realistic WT team? I think 10K would not be enough to buy entire 2012 roster for teams like Sky, BMC, Shack, QS etc. So for 7500 points you can only buy teams outside of the TOP 10.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

25 riders is too much? And you are asking for realistic WT team? Do you even know wow many riders on average is on WT teams? I will help you out. The good teams with good budgets are maxed out at 30. How many points do you need to build a realistic WT team? I think 10K would not be enough to buy entire 2012 roster for teams like Sky, BMC, Shack, QS etc. So for 7500 points you can only buy teams outside of the TOP 10.

I'm pretty sure acf meant it the other way around

7500 was, by the way, a rough average of the pro tour teams last year

 

[taiwan]

It's CQ guy FFS. I vote we do what he says.

 

[asdfgh101]

Last time i'm posting on this matter because there really isn't a lot of sense being talked.

These are the only sensible options:

1. A rider suspended for any part of 2011 or currently under investigation is ineligible


2. If a rider missed all of 2011 due to suspension/investigation then his last full season shall determine his value.

If a rider missed part of 2011 due to suspension then take the higher value between his 2011 score and that of his last full season.

(optionally) If a rider was suspended at the start of the season and rode during that corresponding time period in a previous season (before being suspended) then add those two values together.


3. 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 test scores

Franco Pellizotti 672, Ezequeil Mosquera 824, Alejandro Valverde 1996, Thomas Dekker 414, Riccardo Ricco 682, Davide Rebellin 1265, Mikel Astarloza 500, Oscar Sevilla 301, Hector Guerra 411, Antonio Colom 295 and Gabriele Bosisio 355.


nb. For options 2 and 3 an additional clause may be needed for cases like Ballan. If a rider incurs a temporary (less than 10 weeks) doping related suspension from his team then he shall assume the higher of the following values:

2011 score + Y% where Y is the percentage of the racing season (Jan to Oct) missed.

2011 score + Z where Z is the adjusted points total from the corresponding part of 2010.

 

[skidmark]

A few points on what's been mentioned:

ACF, you say '25 is too much', and 'the more like a pro team the better'. Why is it better?

And are you trying to say that if we had fewer riders, people would be forced to make more unique choices because all those guys that everyone might want won't be available to everyone? I see the point, but rather think the opposite, that if you have more options you will exhaust the 'obvious' ones quite quickly and have more room for unique picks. I guess an argument can be made either way.

Also, to the idea (mentioned by a few) that the season should end at the Japan Cup, I have reservations about that. Sure it's a bit of a trail-off as it stands, but there are still some races. Right now, the Tour of Hainan is going on, it's HC and has several riders picked in this game. Then there are the weird continental championships in November - last year Daniel Teklemaniot (spelling off the top of my head; possibly entirely wrong) got about 100 points out of those, to name one rider that could have value changed.

I think if we're going to go that route, we should make it a year-round competition starting and ending on a fixed date. Say we started December 1st, or even November 15th, this year. Wouldn't that satisfy everyone? Of course, we'd have to let this game 'finish' so they'd be running simultaneously until December 31st, but let's say we picked new teams for November 15th, and ended November 15th next year. Now we have something to do in the off-season, and track the silly little races our guys might be involved with in November and December with interest for bragging rights at the leadership of the new game, rather than no one caring about it because the results of this year are already decided. Then next November 15th, we take the leader of the 'current rankings', which CQ conveniently provides. If we want to eventually end after the last HC ranked race or something, then we can start 2012-13's the day after Japan Cup or whatever and have that up and going as this upcoming one is winding down.

There are 2 problems I could see: first would be in terms of putting the scores in the spreadsheet - my understanding is that CQ doesn't provide downloadable info with the flexibility to find results from November 15th 2011-January 15th 2012, for example. Second would be that, of course, some riders might not be signed by then. But some might not be signed by January 1st either. Anyway, just an idea because the natives are restless here (heck, I just finished my 128-rider long list) and so jumping on another game a bit early might give people something to do right away.

Also:

Last time i'm posting on this matter because there really isn't a lot of sense being talked.

These are the only sensible options:

1. A rider suspended for any part of 2011 or currently under investigation is ineligible


2. If a rider missed all of 2011 due to suspension/investigation then his last full season shall determine his value.

If a rider missed part of 2011 due to suspension then take the higher value between his 2011 score and that of his last full season.

(optionally) If a rider was suspended at the start of the season and rode during that corresponding time period in a previous season (before being suspended) then add those two values together.


3. 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 test scores

Franco Pellizotti 672, Ezequeil Mosquera 824, Alejandro Valverde 1996, Thomas Dekker 414, Riccardo Ricco 682, Davide Rebellin 1265, Mikel Astarloza 500, Oscar Sevilla 301, Hector Guerra 411, Antonio Colom and Gabriele Bosisio 355.


nb. For options 2 and 3 an additional clause may be needed for cases like Ballan. If a rider incurs a temporary (less than 10 weeks) doping related suspension from his team then he shall assume the higher of the following values:

2011 score + Y% where Y is the percentage of the racing season (Jan to Oct) missed.

2011 score + Z where Z is the adjusted points total from the corresponding part of 2010.

I like option 2, with the 'take the values from the last season until they were suspended plus the numbers after they returned from suspension last year'. As a numbers guy, option 3 is attractive and thorough, but I feel it's just too complicated for most folks to really appreciate or get.

 

[asdfgh101]

My idea was that people wouldn't have to do the calculations as the values of the affected riders would be posted and verified in a separate thread.

The argument against taking a rider like Valverde's 2009 value straight up would be that absolutly no-one would expect him to outperform what he did that season after returning from a 2 year suspension. This makes him and many others returning riders unpickable which means that they are de facto excluded from the game which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place.

ps. With regards to the dates of the competition the first race of note this season was Jan 7 (NZ ITT) and the last to end will be Tour of Hainan on Oct 28. After this there is nothing above 2.2 and excluding these races is a necessary evil even if Tekehaimanot did win the Tour of Rwanda last year).

pps. I agree that less riders will equal less variety.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

for the sake of simplicity 7500/33 is probably the best. Also as many have mentioned allows us to analyze our difference from 1 year to another.

 

[Jancouver]

for the sake of simplicity 7500/33 is probably the best. Also as many have mentioned allows us to analyze our difference from 1 year to another.

If we go that route I would suggest a mandatory team size whatever that number is. If we decide on 33, everyone should have 33. That will make picking harder for everybody.

 

[The Hitch]

If we go that route I would suggest a mandatory team size whatever that number is. If we decide on 33, everyone should have 33. That will make picking harder for everybody.

Well having 33 riders is imo an advantage. So if posters want to handicap themselves by choosing smaller rosters i don't mind.

 

[bicing]

I haven't read all the evaluation comments from this thread or the last thread, but I think the attention is on the wrong points. What we need to do here is correct the problems with the game, not the other parameters or conditions that merely change the way we play it. The game's problems are that:
(1) the doping infractions and suspensions are found out too late in the game and are likely to be across years (making it complicated!), and as a result the rankings might change in 2012 for 2011.
(2) the current system of scoring for returning dopers is not a reflection of their capability, as it is affected more by the calendar (when they get banned, whether they are suspended, etc.), and hence inconsistent with the other rider scores.
*if more had been discussed and i missed them, feel free to add them*

It is not a problem that dopers aren't necessarily known to all - because the awesome neo-pro's aren't known to all either. Team size and budget is not a problem either. Quotas for neo-pros are not resolutions to any problems I see either. What these suggestions do is change the game, and given the success and engagement in the current game, should be avoided.

The solutions offered to problem (1) have been to
- eliminate all dopers and returning dopers from eligibility for selection

The solutions offered to problem (2) have been to
- use their last full season as the score
- use the last full season plus their doping season as the score
- make some fancy equation to calculate

If we consider the element of the game that made this most successful, it is simplicity. Hugo's rules last year were extremely clear and concise, the players had very basic tasks to complete, the spreadsheet's maintenance was simple, the rankings were simply the CQ points. Simplicity, should be the primary thing in mind when solving these issues.

---------

With that in mind, I'd like to offer my solution to these issues.

(1) the doping infractions and suspensions are found out too late in the game and are likely to be across years (making it complicated!), and as a result the rankings might change in 2012 for 2011.

- unfortunately due to the slow processes of the doping authorities, CAS, WADA, and the UCI, we cannot avoid doping cases crossing over multiple years. Theire is great complexity and range in the things that happen with regard to doping cases (infractions, a and b tests, hearings, provisional suspensions), and there is no strict process (no doper goes through each of these things in a structured order, or at least we don't hear about them).

- clearly, this issue is too big and can easily become over complicated. it's probably not possible to get what we want out of the related rules here, and that is to add that dramatic element of risk in choosing dopers

- my suggestion: choose a single source from which to obtain information on doping cases (for example, http://www.dopeology.org) and a rider's points will be lost only if the rider is officially penalised, regardless of whether it's a really old case (like pellizotti/mosquera) and was from past years, or a really current one that is opened and closed in the same year. if a rider opens a CAS hearing and delays it more than a year, that's good fortune.

(2) the current system of scoring for returning dopers is not a reflection of their capability, as it is affected more by the calendar (when they get banned, whether they are suspended, etc.), and hence inconsistent with the other rider scores.

- simplicity rules out the option of the complicated scoring system. while it probably increases accuracy, it places a great burden on King Koblet, who already has the taxing task of doing the spreadsheet every week and collating the 100+ teams that will probably apply this year.

- the simplest solution in my opinion and therefore my suggestion is: to use the last full season only. adding the latest half season would already be too complicated and too much work i think. to maintain consistency, there should be one source/reference for information (another example, could be the little box below each rider's CQ profile)

---------

the point of my post is to focus the discussion on the problems of the game and not the elements which just change the way we play it. to those who want to have 10,000 points, a strict quantity of riders, 7,000 points, 30 riders, 50 riders, special requirements for # dopers or neo-pros selected, mid-season trades, women, etc. - THIS WOULD CREATE A NEW GAME. it would change strategy, tactics, it would make the previous results uncomparable i.e. the way we play it, not the problems.

 

[bicing]

I just remembered, there's a 3rd problem and that's the end and start dates for the game. The best suggestion in my opinion was to finish after all the non-shtty races i.e. Hainin Tour, and to start again 1 January just in time for the NZ championships and the Austrian criteriums. Teams can be comfortably sent in from there because rider scores will hardly change and if they are found to do so, Hugo just organises a correction like he did at the start of this season.