• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The 2024 CQ Ranking Manager Thread

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think it is still a good chance that he ends up scoring 1000-1500 points this season. He will be back for Dauphine and then Tour + whatever he does in the fall.

I also think, given Roglics age, that you cant look at what he normally has done. He probably wont be able to score 2000-3000 points again. It is more realistic to think that his ceiling, from now on, could be just short of 2000 points or within the range of 1500-2000 points.

You just gotta see where he ends the season with to gauge what the potential profit might be, because he is not gonna win every race going up against the younger guys in the stage-races.
Well, that's the thing isn't it. A Roglic at 1000 or even perhaps 1500 is in the range of being viable for the game. His age certainly makes it less of a no brainer pick but that's really what you want rather than just obvious picks. Even at 1500 I bet he'd be on something like 30 teams and it could be a great gamble for those teams if he ends up being just as good as in the past.
 
Well, that's the thing isn't it. A Roglic at 1000 or even perhaps 1500 is in the range of being viable for the game. His age certainly makes it less of a no brainer pick but that's really what you want rather than just obvious picks. Even at 1500 I bet he'd be on something like 30 teams and it could be a great gamble for those teams if he ends up being just as good as in the past.
Most riders are viable to pick if you can fit them in, but if you pick them will depend on your perspective and what you think their ceiling is/could be... relative to what they cost.
 
Most riders are viable to pick if you can fit them in, but if you pick them will depend on your perspective and what you think their ceiling is/could be... relative to what they cost.
Viable to me is always in the context of what their likely ceiling is. A rider who costs 500 and has 8 years straight of scoring between 400 and 500 points is technically viable according to your criteria I suppose? But in the context of their history they would not be a viable pick the way I view it. Of the 2500+ riders that typically score something each year, the vast majority of them are not viable picks in my opinion.

So for Roglic to be viable he would need to be cheap enough that there is at least a decent chance that he can make a good profit. Exactly where that line is is of course subjective based on ones confidence in him scoring like before but I think at least there is a chance that he could end up at a cost where it is not unreasonable to pick him.
 
Viable to me is always in the context of what their likely ceiling is. A rider who costs 500 and has 8 years straight of scoring between 400 and 500 points is technically viable according to your criteria I suppose? But in the context of their history they would not be a viable pick the way I view it. Of the 2500+ riders that typically score something each year, the vast majority of them are not viable picks in my opinion.

So for Roglic to be viable he would need to be cheap enough that there is at least a decent chance that he can make a good profit. Exactly where that line is is of course subjective based on ones confidence in him scoring like before but I think at least there is a chance that he could end up at a cost where it is not unreasonable to pick him.
No, thats not my criteria... I said: "but if you pick them will depend on your perspective and what you think their ceiling is/could be... relative to what they cost." Which seems to be what you are also explaining here.

I just said that any rider is viable to pick for your team, if you can fit them in with the budget. That might not be the best decision just because you can. It doesnt mean they will be a good pick, which is something different.

"So for Roglic to be viable he would need to be cheap enough that there is at least a decent chance that he can make a good profit. " Yes, thats what I mean and we will just have to see where he ends the season with. As with other riders mentioned.
 
Viable to me is always in the context of what their likely ceiling is. A rider who costs 500 and has 8 years straight of scoring between 400 and 500 points is technically viable according to your criteria I suppose? But in the context of their history they would not be a viable pick the way I view it. Of the 2500+ riders that typically score something each year, the vast majority of them are not viable picks in my opinion.

So for Roglic to be viable he would need to be cheap enough that there is at least a decent chance that he can make a good profit. Exactly where that line is is of course subjective based on ones confidence in him scoring like before but I think at least there is a chance that he could end up at a cost where it is not unreasonable to pick him.
Another big factor is who you can pick instead of Roglic. And next year we might have some viable picks in a similar price range which would make Roglic less attractive.
 
No, thats not my criteria... I said: "but if you pick them will depend on your perspective and what you think their ceiling is/could be... relative to what they cost." Which seems to be what you are also explaining here.

I just said that any rider is viable to pick for your team, if you can fit them with the budget. However, that doesnt mean they will be a good pick which is something different.

"So for Roglic to be viable he would need to be cheap enough that there is at least a decent chance that he can make a good profit. " Yes, thats what I mean and we will just see where he ends the season with. As with other riders mentioned.
Viable pick and good pick is the same thing in my mind for this game. There is no point in calling a rider viable just because they are available to be picked. Viable means there is a decent chance that they will double their cost score (with some reservation for high cost riders).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squire
Another big factor is who you can pick instead of Roglic. And next year we might have some viable picks in a similar price range which would make Roglic less attractive.
Certainly. There are always viable riders that you can't fit in your team and that's part of the game. Especially if we end up with several attractive high cost top riders then it will also be a choice to be made whether to go with several high cost riders and fill out with sub 100 cost riders or if you forego some high cost riders in order to fill out with picks in the 3-500 cost range if there are good picks there as well.
 
Certainly. There are always viable riders that you can't fit in your team and that's part of the game. Especially if we end up with several attractive high cost top riders then it will also be a choice to be made whether to go with several high cost riders and fill out with sub 100 cost riders or if you forego some high cost riders in order to fill out with picks in the 3-500 cost range if there are good picks there as well.
A scenario with Vingegaard at 1700, Remco at 1850, WvA at 1500 and Roglic at 1500 and De Lie at 900 would certainly be the most interesting puzzle in the game's history!

And I would probably have to avoid all of them to not reverse jinx my questionable choices regarding expensive riders in recent years. :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salvarani
Viable pick and good pick is the same thing in my mind for this game. There is no point in calling a rider viable just because they are available to be picked. Viable means there is a decent chance that they will double their cost score (with some reservation for high cost riders).
Really... then all viable picks would turnout good, but they rarely do.

Most would consider their picks being made were viable at the time that they picked them? Hoping they would turnout good.

So I dont see how viable and good pick are the same.

It more has to with your perspective and what you think a rider is capable of, if they actually do it or dont nobody knows before the racing and the season goes on.
 
Really... then all viable picks would turnout good, but they rarely do.

Most would consider their picks being made were viable at the time that they picked them? Hoping they would turnout good.

So I dont see how viable and good pick are the same.

It more has to with your perspective and what you think a rider is capable of, if they actually do it or dont nobody knows before the racing and the season goes on.
Potential and reality don't always align. Just because a rider didn't live up to expectations does not mean they were not viable. Racing is still full of randomness. Riders crash, get ill, miss crucial breakaways, have a bad day on the wrong stage etc etc etc. That does not mean it was wrong to view them as viable picks.

People also pick riders who are not viable for various biased reasons. Patriotism or favoritism for example. Also people can simply be wrong in their assessment of riders and think or hope someone is better than they really are.

What makes someone viable is that they have the potential to do well, not that they are guaranteed to do well.
 
Potential and reality don't always align. Just because a rider didn't live up to expectations does not mean they were not viable. Racing is still full of randomness. Riders crash, get ill, miss crucial breakaways, have a bad day on the wrong stage etc etc etc. That does not mean it was wrong to view them as viable picks.

People also pick riders who are not viable for various biased reasons. Patriotism or favoritism for example. Also people can simply be wrong in their assessment of riders and think or hope someone is better than they really are.

What makes someone viable is that they have the potential to do well, not that they are guaranteed to do well.
"Just because a rider didn't live up to expectations does not mean they were not viable." Thats not what I am saying.

"That does not mean it was wrong to view them as viable picks." Thats why I am saying viable and good isnt the same thing.

"People also pick riders who are not viable for various biased reasons. Patriotism or favoritism for example. Also people can simply be wrong in their assessment of riders and think or hope someone is better than they really are." Everyone has their own bias, not strange at all and could sometimes be to your benefit if you know more about a rider than everyone else. Been following their development for a long time and so on.

"What makes someone viable is that they have the potential to do well, not that they are guaranteed to do well." But there are many cases where this isnt that obvious to everyone, picks who has great seasons... that were VIABLE to pick to fit in within the budget.

Whats viable to each and everyone, their opinion and perspective, may very well be a subjective thing. Thats my point.
 
"What makes someone viable is that they have the potential to do well, not that they are guaranteed to do well." But there are many cases where this isnt that obvious to everyone, picks who has great seasons... that were VIABLE to pick to fit in within the budget.

Whats viable to each and everyone, their opinion and perspective, may very well be a subjective thing. Thats my point.
Viability is only something you can judge ahead of a season. Someone having an annus mirabilis does not make them retrospectively a viable pick unless someone had inside information that led them to suspect that something special was about to happen that year.

Riders can randomly have good years for lots of reasons. Especially cheap riders can more than double their score by a single good result but that does not mean they were a viable pick ahead of time. Picking them would have been equivalent to gambling and sometimes long shots get a you win.

Also it's generally more useful to flip everything around and instead discard riders that are typically not viable and see what you are left with. For example if Roglic costs 2000 then he is obviously not viable. Arnaud De Lie at 1700 this year was clearly not viable imo.

Or to take an example of someone who looks to be having an annus mirabilis, Narvaes. He has 7 years where he has been jumping between 100 and 350 points but at this moment he is already at 475 points so it looks like he is on his was to having an unprecedented good year. But he was still not a viable pick before the season started in my opinion, unless you had some inside information that could have predicted this year. Purely based on history etc. there was no reasonable way of expecting this year to be any different than the previous 7 years so picking him would be a pure gamble in my opinion.

I agree that viability is subjective. No one knows for sure what a riders actual potential is so there will always be a level of subjectivity there.
 
Viability is only something you can judge ahead of a season. Someone having an annus mirabilis does not make them retrospectively a viable pick unless someone had inside information that led them to suspect that something special was about to happen that year.

Riders can randomly have good years for lots of reasons. Especially cheap riders can more than double their score by a single good result but that does not mean they were a viable pick ahead of time. Picking them would have been equivalent to gambling and sometimes long shots get a you win.

Also it's generally more useful to flip everything around and instead discard riders that are typically not viable and see what you are left with. For example if Roglic costs 2000 then he is obviously not viable. Arnaud De Lie at 1700 this year was clearly not viable imo.

Or to take an example of someone who looks to be having an annus mirabilis, Narvaes. He has 7 years where he has been jumping between 100 and 350 points but at this moment he is already at 475 points so it looks like he is on his was to having an unprecedented good year. But he was still not a viable pick before the season started in my opinion, unless you had some inside information that could have predicted this year. Purely based on history etc. there was no reasonable way of expecting this year to be any different than the previous 7 years so picking him would be a pure gamble in my opinion.

I agree that viability is subjective. No one knows for sure what a riders actual potential is so there will always be a level of subjectivity there.
"Viability is only something you can judge ahead of a season. Someone having an annus mirabilis does not make them retrospectively a viable pick unless someone had inside information that led them to suspect that something special was about to happen that year."

Thats why every rider that you can fit within the budget potentially is "viable". Doesnt mean they will be "good", which is a whole different discussion and something you have to wait and see.

"But he was still not a viable pick before the season started in my opinion, unless you had some inside information that could have predicted this year. "

Well there you go, the subjective part of the picking process.

"I agree that viability is subjective. No one knows for sure what a riders actual potential is so there will always be a level of subjectivity there."

Good.
 
"Viability is only something you can judge ahead of a season. Someone having an annus mirabilis does not make them retrospectively a viable pick unless someone had inside information that led them to suspect that something special was about to happen that year."

Thats why every rider that you can fit within the budget potentially is "viable". Doesnt mean they will be "good", which is a whole different discussion and something you have to wait and see.
This is our disagreement. You don't seem to be able to categorize anyone as "not viable" until after the fact. Take my example of Narvaes. To me he was not a viable pick this year because there was no good reason to expect him to break above his points ceiling that has been in place the past 6-7 years. Yet you will view him as viable because people could fit him in their budget.
 
This is our disagreement. You don't seem to be able to categorize anyone as "not viable" until after the fact. Take my example of Narvaes. To me he was not a viable pick this year because there was no good reason to expect him to break above his points ceiling that has been in place the past 6-7 years. Yet you will view him as viable because people could fit him in their budget.
Everyone is viable to pick, if they can fit within your budget with your other picks!

That it is a good or bad pick, idea if you will, is a whole other thing.

Our disagreement is you bundling up viable=good.
 
Everyone is viable to pick, if they can fit within your budget with your other picks!

That it is a good or bad pick, idea if you will, is a whole another thing.

Our disagreement is you bundling up viable=good.
No, I think you are confusing viable with available. Viable implies potential for success. Everyone is available to be picked but only a minority of riders are viable picks for the game.
 
No, I think you are confusing viable with available. Viable implies potential for success. Everyone is available to be picked but only a minority of riders are viable picks for the game.
And I responded to you by saying "potential for success" is not as obvious, in some cases.

So what is viable to you, may not be to me. Depending on our knowledge, perspective and bias.

Hence me saying it is subjective and not as black or white as you put it.

Everyone is available, everyone could be viable. Then it is just probability and luck.
 
Our disagreement is you bundling up viable=good.
Yeah, I think this disagreement is mostly down to you guys having differing views on the meaning of the word 'viable'. :sweatsmile:

Though I'd say Narvaez isn't the best example of someone who wasn't 'viable'. You could certainly make some kind of case for him being a pick with some upside before the season. Hirschi or someone like Guillaume Martin would be a better example I think.
 
And I responded to you by saying "potential for success" is not as obvious, in some cases.

So what is viable to you, may not be to me. Depending our knowledge, perspective and bias.

Hence me saying it is subjective and not as black or white as you put it.

Everyone is available, everyone could be viable. Then it is just probability.
At no point have I said it's black or white. I have said all along that viability is always in the context of what you expect a riders potential ceiling to be. No one has ever said that viability is obvious. But you are the one who keeps saying that everyone is viable when both of us know that is not true. Out of all the 3000+ professional riders that score CQ points you can easily pick out 2500 of them and immediately everyone would agree that the potential for success for those riders in this game is virtually non-existent but you still want to call them viable whereas I call them not viable.
 
At no point have I said it's black or white. I have said all along that viability is always in the context of what you expect a riders potential ceiling to be. No one has ever said that viability is obvious. But you are the one who keeps saying that everyone is viable when both of us know that is not true. Out of all the 3000+ professional riders that score CQ points you can easily pick out 2500 of them and immediately everyone would agree that the potential for success for those riders in this game is virtually non-existent but you still want to call them viable whereas I call them not viable.
Everyone is viable and available though.

What you have to think about is the probability of a rider being able to score such and such amounts, to turn into a good pick. Then there is luck involved as well.

And as I have said, what is viable or not depends on your perspective.

You may think a rider is "viable", that I dont think is "viable" and vice versa.

There is also risk involved about any pick, that hasnt been mentioned yet.

We are arguing in circles and I will abstain from driving this thread off-topic any further now.

We can agree to disagree... our perspectives are obviously different.