The 2016 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

[Tigerion]

Obviously I can't speak for them but wouldn't think so. It always pretty much drops right off until the next years thread gets created

 

[skidmark]

Sorry guys, some personal stuff came up and I kind of checked out for a bit. Not too crazy serious - if it were the middle of the summer in the game I would've checked back in, but it was enough to take me away for a bit.

I'll be providing the final update soon. I don't think anyone has any riders in the Tour of Fuzhou, but might as well wait to make the final update (I know a few people scored in Taihu Lake) and I can just have a wrap up post.

And hey, it looks like I won the game again! That is crazy to me. I recognize that it's a weird dynamic for me to be organizing the game and giving these updates that I'm on top of the standings, so I've been kind of hands off about talking about it, but I am definitely pretty amazed and happy that things turned out so well.

I don't mind at all if y'all wanna talk about my role as an organizer. First, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet, so nobody knows anything about anyone else. Second, this game is just for pride anyway, and I feel an immense amount of pride for having done so well in it so consistently, amongst a huge group of intelligent and avid cycling fans. I know I did it without seeking, or gaining, an unfair advantage, and really beyond that, I'm not bothered if anyone thinks otherwise, since I know how I feel about my own integrity and that's really what matters.

But in the interest of transparency, I've mentioned this in passing in years past, but here is the process for me submitting my team:

- when I took over the game, I said on the thread that I'd love to take over, but I obsess about this game so I wanted to have some flexibility, ie. not have to submit my final, complete team a month in advance. So I submitted a core of about half a team of confirmed 'no brainer' riders, and maybe 25 other shortlisted riders to fill out the other spots, who I then sent to one of the early teams to submit (the first year it was just some guy, this year it was mc_mountain, can't remember off the top of my head who it was in between). I finalized my team for the deadline.

- last year I got pretty busy and didn't do a ton of work on my team and was travelling in December. When I started receiving teams and it came up in the thread, I realized it was getting late and sent my near-final team to mc before looking at any teams, even though I had about ten submissions at the time. I knew I hadn't looked at any teams, but I also realize it's important to be organized and have good optics about stuff like that, so I take it seriously and have my team pretty together already - will definitely have a pretty close to finalized team by the time the thread goes up in early December.

- I love entering the teams on the spreadsheet, but honestly, to me it's just data. Whatever rider people are submitting, I've already gone through my own thought process about that rider, and so I don't even pick up on the name, other than vaguely thinking that 'oh this rider's name is coming up alot'. So I suppose that could have a subconscious effect on the last few decisions I make, but I really don't think so. After all, I won this game in 2012 and had the second-most popular team, and that was two years before I started processing the info. So it's not like I try to find out who is popular and then put them on my team, I'm just good at identifying riders that lots of people agree are going to do well. Like someone said upthread, half the submissions are in the last day so there really isn't practically time to take in who is popular and all that, even if I wanted to use that info for nefarious purposes.

- there was one time in my second year organizing that I felt some concern that I had added a rider that I hadn't maybe been thinking about before because their name came up in a few submissions. I thought I had my own process around that rider, but it made me think about that dynamic. That was the only time I'd ever thought I might have been influenced by running this game; that rider was Andrea Zordan, who didn't score a single CQ point since then. So if it was the case that I was influenced in that pick, it certainly didn't help me. Anyway, even though I feel like i picked that rider for my own reasons, I felt uncomfortable about that dynamic and want to stay well away from it; and I am definitely not going to add any riders that aren't already on my shortlist right now (unless, you know, Andy Schleck or Matt Goss come out of retirement suddenly).

In short, I get how as someone who is really into this game, if you didn't know me you might think it logical that I'd seek any marginal advantage. But what I really think is that it'd be pretty stupid and petty to seek those advantages to win a game amongst strangers on the internet for pride. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty proud to do well in this game as I said above, but I feel there are much more substantial routes to fulfillment than seeking unfair advantages in a fun fantasy sports game.

So anyway, all this is to say - I really like this game, it's fun to organize, I certainly know that I'd never be interested in seeking an unfair advantage, and there's no way to prove that if you don't believe me, so I'm cool if whoever has whatever opinion on it. No bigs, gimme an asterisk in your unofficial standings, whatever you wanna do. Happy to keep going on this game, and I'll do my best to be diligent about being transparent about my own process in picking a team.

Thanks for playing, everyone!

 

[Falze]

Well said, thankyou for your effort and congrats on the win Skidmark

 

[LondonPat]

Thank you for all the organising, skidmark, and many congrats.

This is one of the best games on the internet and it correctly rewards good research. Including the most riders does not automatically lead to winning - it is finding the hidden gems that makes the difference at the top of the leaderboard.

No question at all about your integrity as far as I'm concerned. Pressure on all of us next year to raise our game to compete!

 

[PeterB]

Well, that was rather anonymous year for my team: two mentions in the top movers' list and Top 50 overall. But I should not be too surprised with result if I had as many as three riders featured in the CN article titled "Seven transfer flops of 2016"

TJ accumulated 500 or more points before the start of the TDF in each of the previous three years. Which is only slightly below his cost this year.

Nevertheless, he is in so many teams that he is almost unimportant for the game. I wonder who the riders are that teams have instead if they don't have him. It's probably diversity of various alternative ways of spending those points. But I do not think there is much better and at the same time safer way of spending your budget than him. You spent those money on Bonifazio, so it is TJ against Bonifazio for you! We can look back at the year-end which one was better pick

TJ vs Bonifazio, I like it!

@Jancouver: our TJ vs Bonifazio contest did not work out as well as we imagined, did it. Although TJ duly scored over 500 points before the TDF so he was on track to be a good pick, but what happened afterwards, is a mystery. Still, a bit better pick than Bonifazio, although overall, your team was a mile ahead of mine...

Many thanks to skidmark and all other helpers throughout the year and looking forward to the next year's edition!

 

[rote_laterne]

Re: Re:

Congratulations to skidmark and a big thank you for putting up this game and to everyone who contributed, especially with updates.

I do not think skidmark gained any advantage by knowing the teams before the deadline. He showed over the years that he's constantly one of the best players in every edition, even before being responsible for the game. But it's nice to read that he doesn't care if others mark his performances with an asterix.

There were 11 riders on at least half of all teams. While many of them were good picks, several weren't, so it isn't really the be-all and end-all to have the most popular riders (though skidmark did have them all).

The examples were the ones I remember people over the years being upset about.
Gerrans 2014: 511 >> 1736
Ewan 2015: 95 >> 716
Porte: 2015: 415 >> 1359
Gavaria 2016: 151 >> 833
Boonen 2014: 139 - 783

Partially the suggestion was driven by perceived impact at the start of the game, with people losing interest quickly.
I'm not 100% locked on to the idea, just a thought as it can be annoying when you realise. It was only Gavaria in that list which I missed and given there is a number of riders who only just made the short list cut who I would have dropped

Having such a substitute rule will take away more from the game than it adds to it. Those who are thorough enough to find all the obvious picks deserve to be rewarded. It could also go both ways. For every Kittel and Gaviria there's an Andy Schleck, Pellizotti or Goss.

And you can argue that those who lose interest because of missing an obvious pick are the ones likely to lose interest anyway. Besides, it's perfectly okay and understandable that not everyone follows the game through the season, although more discussion would obviously make it more fun. Don't think your proposed bail-out card will help much though.

I also have some feedback I want to share. In the beginning of the year, I wrote this:

So there will be a KoM competition this year?

In my view such a competition is maybe a bit unnecessary. The leaderboard for such a competition will inevitably be the same as the Green Jersey competition, minus the teams that are doing well overall. I don't think it will create more interest from players who don't already have something to cheer about. I'd wager that, after a few months, the top ten will be quite exactly like the green jersey, with the exception of, say, the top 20-30 teams in the overall.

I think the updates are large enough already. I think adding in a few funfacts and other such statistics (if they're apparent) will be a better way to make the updates even more interesting, although they're quite fine as they are. I'm very much in your camp regarding keeping the simplicity of the game intact. If there is a wish for an additional minor competition, maybe a "Best newcomer" would be better. Such a ranking doesn't necessarily have to be updated every week, to save space and work.

Just my 2c.

By and large, I think my prediction was correct. The KoM competition being so similar to the points one dilutes both competitions, in my opinion. I suggest keeping only the points competition next year. If someone decides to actually aim for a sub-competition, the strategy one would have to employ would be the same for both, which kind of underscores my point.

I second squires thoughts. I do not think a substitute rule would make this game more interesting, it's good as it is. Even though I did contribute to the discussion (as I didn't have reasons to cheer about) I still closely followed the game. Also the more riders are in all the teams the less enjoyable it is to cheer for that rider as he doesn't have an impact in the game.

The only competition I didn't follow at all was the KOM one for the reasons squire stated. I too think a white jersey competition could be interesting.

That said, I did enjoy the game and got motivated to do better next year (which shouldn't be too difficult).

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I want to echo all the appreciation for your work, skidmark. And congratulations of course! Very well deserved.

On another note, I'm already locked in on 18 riders for next year's game

 

[Jspear]

Re:

I want to echo all the appreciation for your work, skidmark. And congratulations of course! Very well deserved.

On another note, I'm already locked in on 18 riders for next year's game

I have exactly 0 locked in for next years game. Would that explain why I do so poorly?

 

[Popchu]

Thank you Skidmark, for all the work you put in this game! And congratulations, of course.

 

[Netserk]

Who do you guys think will be the better pick next year of Valverde and Contador? I'm leaning towards Valverde, but it depends on his program.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Thanks and congratulations: the effort did not lead to the success, but is suitably rewarded by it.

 

[Martin]

Re:

Who do you guys think will be the better pick next year of Valverde and Contador? I'm leaning towards Valverde, but it depends on his program.

None of them - there is no big hope they will improve significantly next year. Consider younger riders...
PS: I have already a draft for the next year with 20 riders (circa 5800 points), none of them is more then 30 years old. However the rest of the team will be hard to pick, I might choose some "jokers" who seem to decline.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I actually find it very hard to create a team for next year as well. I have roughly 20 riders I'm pretty certain will make the cut (although one in particular I'm torn on).

 

[vladimir]

Good to hear that I'm not the only one who is psyched up for 2017. I have tried to create a shortlist of riders I need to have in my team for next year. So far I have found 54...

 

[shalgo]

Trofimov not suspended but two results removed--will his 2016 score no longer count as his baseline for next year?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trofimov-one-of-four-sanctioned-but-not-suspended-for-meldonium-positives-news-shorts/

 

[PeterB]

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.

 

[skidmark]

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.

 

[MADRAZO]

"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.

 

[PeterB]

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...).

 

[Jancouver]

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

 

[Jspear]

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.

 

[Polliwop]

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

 

[LaFlorecita]

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

 

[PeterB]

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).

 

[skidmark]

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...