Velo d’Or 2023

[Elos Anjos]

I analyzed the results based on whether the judges come from a traditional cycling country or the rest. I assigned France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the 3 Benelux countries as the traditional countries. Basically, those countries that would have been considered the big cycling nations about 30-40 years ago. The new traditionalists: Denmark, Colombia, and Slovenia are lumped in with the rest.

There is a noticeable difference in results from the two groups.

Traditional cycling countries:
MvdP 62, JV 56, TP 47, PR 23, RE 22

Other countries:
JV 86, TP 79, MvdP 71, PR 45, RE 27, JP 17, WvA 5

It looks like riders who have never ridden the Tour (Evenepoel) or who are less conspicuous in the Tour (MVdP) suffer from a TdF bias from the non-traditional countries. It's also interesting that the traditional cycling countries only voted for the big 5 defined in this thread.

Fantastic work.
Ergo, having a lasting and alive (cycling) tradition results in overall better informed professionals.
Britain had two blokes of "journalists"...

 

[Panda Claws]

through the course of the season, both Pog and Vingegaard had better results. EVERY SINGLE objective scoring metric shows that. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

As I said, one day races are hyped far too much on this forum

One-week stage races are barely remembered.

Alberto Contador may have won more of them than anyone since Kelly but that's not what people discuss him for.

Jonas Vingegaard's baseline this season was having won Tour de France. There is only so much you can pad that by winning lesser races just like MvdP can do only so much to pad his season by winning non-monument one-day races or Tour stages.

Scoring metrics don't reflect these diminishing returns.

Theoretically MvdP could have gone to France and won heaps of races like Tour de Picardie and artificially raised his score but I think it's obvious that not every 1500 CQscore is the same. Doing so wouldn't really have made his season any better.

Just look up Marc Hirschi's season as an example.

What you propose sounds like a system where GT riders can barely be beaten because a GT + 2 one-week races is not that uncommon and thus not that special.

To demand that a one-day rider starts winning GP Plouay and Eneco Tour to beat it nonetheless sounds very artificial.

We should of course recognize Jonas Vingegaard's 2nd at the Vuelta which means I agree that there is a case but I wouldn't base this on PCS scores too much.

 

[Froome]

through the course of the season, both Pog and Vingegaard had better results. EVERY SINGLE objective scoring metric shows that. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

As I said, one day races are hyped far too much on this forum

Having good results through the course of the season is important, but winning the most important races it should also matter, that's why i think van der poel or vingegaard would be fair winners. I put pogacar behind the two.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

This year was easy. Pog

You shouldn't really give the velo dor to a guy who flopped in his biggest objective. He was humiliated by Jonas in July, although he did have a fantastic season.

 

[Netserk]

Loser mentality. Had Van der Poel also targeted Amstel and Liège and failed in both, it wouldn't diminish the rest of his accomplishments one bit.

 

[Elos Anjos]

You shouldn't really give the velo dor to a guy who flopped in his biggest objective. He was humiliated by Jonas in July, although he did have a fantastic season.

People tend to put Pogacar so high that only a perfect season can now suffice. Otherwise, he "fails".

Any rider with two monuments, a bunch of classics, 3rd at WCR and 2nd at the Tour would be held as an obvious contender for Velo d'Or.

 

[Froome]

You shouldn't really give the velo dor to a guy who flopped in his biggest objective. He was humiliated by Jonas in July, although he did have a fantastic season.

"I'm gone, i'm dead", a rider that says something like this after being again humiliated by jonas, cannot win the velon d'or. At least pogacar is not a wheelsucker like the other slovenian.

 

[Elos Anjos]

"I'm gone, i'm dead", a rider that says something like this after being again humiliated by jonas, cannot win the velon d'or. At least pogacar is not a wheelsucker like the other slovenian.

Two sentences and two bingos of prejudice and lunacy

 

[Izzyeviel]

Wait a sec, your initial post said that he shouldn't be included in the top-5 at the favour of Evenepoel and Philipsen. MvdP second after Pogi or even third after Vingo and Pogi is something many can understand, but omitting him from the top-5 like quite some journalists did shows me they know feck all of cycling. And no Cycling Quotient in the world can change that.

no, I said I could understand the logic that one might use to justify not picking him. I think there is another factor as well. We've had a great year for cycling, & by being great in the first part of the season, he's kinda been overshadowed by others.

 

[Froome]

Two sentences and two bingos of prejudice and lunacy

We all hope that he can give some fight to vingegaard next year without the classics and the wrist injury. Maybe he he will finish 2 min behind vingo instead of 4 min in 2022 and 7 min and half in 2023, because the gap is increasing year by year!

 

[Izzyeviel]

You shouldn't really give the velo dor to a guy who flopped in his biggest objective. He was humiliated by Jonas in July, although he did have a fantastic season.

Pogacar got beat by Jonas. Jonas got beat by a domestique...

 

[Netserk]

Van der Poel's season would have been better if he hadn't ridden Ronde. Then he wouldn't have been defeated in any of his biggest objectives.

 

[QueenStagiaire]

"I'm gone, i'm dead", a rider that says something like this after being again humiliated by jonas, cannot win the velon d'or. At least pogacar is not a wheelsucker like the other slovenian.

Totally agree. If you say something honest, what are you even doing as a pro cyclist?

 

[rallybanana]

Van der Poel's season would have been better if he hadn't ridden Ronde. Then he wouldn't have been defeated in any of his biggest objectives.

We need to strip Contador (2014) and Roglic (2020) of their Velo d'Or as they failed in their primary objective.

 

[Froome]

We need to strip Contador (2014) and Roglic (2020) of their Velo d'Or as they failed in their primary objective.

Roglic didn’t deserve to win the velon d'or in 2020 after what pogacar beat him in the Tour after that famous TT. Pogacar should had won the velon d'or in 2020.

 

[proffate]

through the course of the season, both Pog and Vingegaard had better results. EVERY SINGLE objective scoring metric shows that. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

As I said, one day races are hyped far too much on this forum

Obviously if we cared about (or even had) "objective" scoring metrics then we wouldn't need a panel of judges to award this trophy. In any case, it's fine to argue for Vinge and Pog. But you haven't given an explanation for bumping MVDP down to 6th or worse (lol).

 

[proffate]

You shouldn't really give the velo dor to a guy who flopped in his biggest objective. He was humiliated by Jonas in July, although he did have a fantastic season.

I don't think he was humiliated. His prep was poor due to the broken wrist, and he had one jour sans, without which it was pretty close. Obviously he was beaten handily, and yes it was his biggest objective on Jan 1, and no I don't think the voting should be a "power ranking" which attempts to measure some hypothetical ability (it needs to focus on actual results). But the fact that he failed at his biggest objective is extenuated by injury, and thus the fact that it was his biggest objective should not be a knock against his season.

I think what counts against Pog this season is that there appear to be two camps: those that value panache and one-day results, and those that value really dull vo2 max competitions, and Pog was second best at both of these categories.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

I don't think he was humiliated. His prep was poor due to the broken wrist, and he had one jour sans, without which it was pretty close. Obviously he was beaten handily, and yes it was his biggest objective on Jan 1, and no I don't think the voting should be a "power ranking" which attempts to measure some hypothetical ability (it needs to focus on actual results). But the fact that he failed at his biggest objective is extenuated by injury, and thus the fact that it was his biggest objective should not be a knock against his season.

I think what counts against Pog this season is that there appear to be two camps: those that value panache and one-day results, and those that value really dull vo2 max competitions, and Pog was second best at both of these categories.

Fair points. I am in the former camp!

 

[houtdffan]

Obviously if we cared about (or even had) "objective" scoring metrics then we wouldn't need a panel of judges to award this trophy. In any case, it's fine to argue for Vinge and Pog. But you haven't given an explanation for bumping MVDP down to 6th or worse (lol).

he didn't have enough top finishes throughout the season.

Tell him to get some results in WT stage races, then we can talk about him winning the Velo D'Or

 

[Keldergoat]

he didn't have enough top finishes throughout the season.

Tell him to get some results in WT stage races, then we can talk about him winning the Velo D'Or

Sticking to the 'MvdP should've gotten a 5th place in the UAE Tour and a top-10 in Romandie in order to get the V d'Or is not the genius take you think it is.

The winner of a WC, MSR, and PR would've won the best cyclist award in almost any other year, despite that we're having two other absolute freaks on bikes who had a crazy season as well. That's the reason he didn't win it, not him not giving a monkeys f*ck about WT stage races.

 

[Panda Claws]

keep showing your IQ...

You obviously are unable to comprehend what I posted

3 1-day races does not equal best rider of the year. Do I need to spell it out even more for you. Is that simple enough for you to comprehend?

It can when it concerns three of the best 1-Day races. Like it or not but Monuments are the GT's of one-day racing. It goes like this.

If you are a pure sprinter the baseline of your season is determined by the stages (and points classifications) you win in GT's + stuff like MSR, GW, WCRR if you can win it. Stages won in Paris-Nice or Tour de Romandie only matter when it comes to further differentiation but no matter how many stages you win in those races they cannot really replace a TDF stage.
As such, how strong of a season a pure sprinter can have is quite capped and it will be hard to win Vélo d'Or.

If you are purely specialized in time trials then it becomes even harder to have a strong enough season. But here too only the World Championships and GT stages really matter. The cap here is low hence why Tony Martin, Rohan Dennis and Filippo Ganna failed to come close to winning Vélo d'Or.

If you are a pure GT rider your season is determined by how well you perform in GT's. Winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse, etc. is nice but cannot ever replace a GT for this kind of rider. It enhances yet does not drastically alter a season.
The realistically achievable ceiling here is potentially the highest (winning two GT's).

If you are a purely specialized in one-week stage races then your baseline will be determined by how many of these races you can win but the ceiling here is far lower as even winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse would not necessarily replace a GT.

If you are a pure one-day classics rider your season is determined by how well you perform in the monuments. Arnaud De Lie has been riding one-day races and performed well in them but his lack of success in the monuments means he doesn't at all qualify for Vélo d'Or. Performances in other classics (AGR, FW, CSS, ...) can further enhance a season but again, no matter how many times you win those, they do not replace a monument.

Some riders are much more of a hybrid (specifically Tadej Pogacar) but generally riders can be classified in one of those categories and their achievements then judged within that category. As an example, if Jasper Philipsen had won Milano-Sanremo while doing his great sprinting season then he would be judged as a great sprinter that even won a monument he could plausibly win and NOT as a one-day rider that failed to show up in the other classics. As another example, if Mathieu Van der Poel had won two sprints in Tour de France that wouldn't have heavily impacted his season as it was already determined by much greater victories.

It is relatively easy to obtain a season of some note (e.g. win a stage at TDF and podium Tour de Suisse) but adding to a season becomes harder and harder as smaller races no longer fundamentally change its value.

Let's look at 'the big five six seven'

(1) Jonas Vingegaard: By CQpoints he had the best season of stage racing so far this century. Indeed he won the most prestigious GT, two classic one-week stage races, a smaller one and was 3rd in Paris-Nice. Essentially he won 2/3 major one-week stage races he could have expected to which is very good but not exceptional. In essence how strong this season can be, without intanginble factors such as way of winning, is determined by our valuation of a 1st and 2nd in two GT's. Itzulia and Dauphiné provide gravy but don't transform the dish.

(2) Primoz Roglic: His season was very similar to that of Vingegaard with one (smaller) GT and two classic one-week stage races (among smaller victories). In the Vuelta he managed a 3rd. By all reasonable metrics this season is thus indeed a clear step down from Vingegaard's and the gap is determined by how much of a difference there is between Tour and Giro. Him winning Emillia and getting 3rd in Lombardia isn't important enough to elevate his season.

(3) Tadej Pogacar: A hard season to evaluate because of its hybrid nature. He won two monuments, got 2nd at TDF, won Paris-Nice, two additional classics and got a podium at Worlds. It seems obvious that the two monuments have distinct value and would add to any season. I would argue that him obtaining 2nd at Tour de France is also important enough to add (else we can't add the Vuelta podiums for (1) and (2) either).
That gives a baseline of two monuments + 2nd at TDF. If this puts him at the same level of the aforementioned riders we can then compare Paris-Nice, Amstel Gold Race, Flèche Wallonne to the two major one-week races they won. I would argue that AGR + FW outweighs any of the major one-week races.
It then depends on how you value two monuments vs. Giro/Tour. If they are more or less equal then 2nd at TDF should outweigh a Vuelta podium and Pogacar ends up on top. Without Lombardia Pogacar would not enter the conversation.

(4) Jasper Philipsen: As a 'pure' sprinter had a strong, yet unexceptional, season. Four stages + Green is very good but he did not ride other GT's and 3 stages at TA will only take you so far. He also won Scheldeprijs and got 2nd in Paris-Roubaix but it seems quite obvious to me that there is little room to argue him being high on this list. His season was not even exceptional as far as sprinters go.

(5) Remco Evenepoel: Evenepoel failed to make a splash in GT GC's this season and while he was unlucky in Giro d'Italia this meant that he really needed to be exceptional in other ways to make up for that. He did win LBL, CSS and became TT World Champion but overall he didn't win the biggest races (Worlds, Lombardia, GT GC's) or even do particularly well in them. He highly animated both Giro and Vuelta and still rode a strong season but this are relatively minor things that can't compare to e.g. becoming RR World Champion again.

(6) Wout Van Aert: Van Aert's season is usually strengthened by doing well at Tour de France and, because he didn't win a monument, this can still fundamentally improve his season. This year that was not the case and he is left with E3, a gifted GW and being close multiple times in major races. In doing so he wasn't even more consistent than MvdP was but only rode more races.

(7) Mathieu Van der Poel: His season is wholly determined by three days for beyond that nothing he did really matters. Only his 2nd place at RVV in my opinion still has some value in a season of this calibre. As a classics rider his season could have been strengthened by winning more semiclassics but as far as the Vélo d'Or is concerned this only becomes relevant if Milano-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix and Worlds are deemed to stack up against TDF + 2nd Vuelta/Giro + 3rd Vuelta/2 Monuments + 2nd TDF. If MvdP's achievements don't clearly eclipse those then indeed he should not win because he has little else to speak of.

It is quite obvious to me that Wout Van Aert is a troll pick for a top-5. He was often up there yes but left a limited impact this year around and I'd argue that Mads Pedersen had a similar but better season. Jasper Philipsen performed well at the Tour but didn't have an exceptional season otherwise so I wouldn't place him above Remco Evenepoel either. Adam Yates is close to the top-5 as well but doesn't quite make it for me.
There is not a particular strong case for Evenepoel over MvdP imo so that means the Dutchman is already at least 4th.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2.5 + 0.75
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 +1
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

This values grand tours up to the equivalent of 2.5 monuments (for the TDF).
This values grand tour podiums up to the equivalent of 1 monument (for the TDF).

With such a valuation you can indeed state that everyone is so close together that the sideshows (smaller races) come into play at which point, in my opinion, Pogacar should win unless we count intangibles (he got soundly beaten by Vingegaard).

Note though that this makes it almost impossible for a one-day rider to ever beat cyclists doing well at more than one GT in a single season, in my opinion, because those numbers are inflated.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.5
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 1.5 + 0.5
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

It's not too hard to see valuations where MVDP is perhaps far enough ahead to just run away with it. In this case again though Pogacar is there.

Overall, the idea that MVDP has no reasonable path to claiming the title because of others winning one-week stage races I cannot agree with. That's simply not what cyclists are remembered for or what truly makes a season.
I think there is a strong enough case for Vingegaard and Pogacar to beat MvdP but Roglic I cannot quite see as Tour >> Giro.

Additionally if we were to differentiate between the monuments I would argue that WCRR and Paris-Roubaix would be deemed as more prestigious when compared to Lombardia which could further boost MvdP and perhaps lift him above Pogacar as well.

MvdP should at least be 3rd and has a clear case for 1st.

 

[kn0s]

Anything but MVdP, Pog and Jonas in the top 3 is trolling and should be banned from voting next year, talking journalist here. That's my opinion anyways.

 

[houtdffan]

It can when it concerns three of the best 1-Day races. Like it or not but Monuments are the GT's of one-day racing. It goes like this.

If you are a pure sprinter the baseline of your season is determined by the stages (and points classifications) you win in GT's + stuff like MSR, GW, WCRR if you can win it. Stages won in Paris-Nice or Tour de Romandie only matter when it comes to further differentiation but no matter how many stages you win in those races they cannot really replace a TDF stage.
As such, how strong of a season a pure sprinter can have is quite capped and it will be hard to win Vélo d'Or.

If you are purely specialized in time trials then it becomes even harder to have a strong enough season. But here too only the World Championships and GT stages really matter. The cap here is low hence why Tony Martin, Rohan Dennis and Filippo Ganna failed to come close to winning Vélo d'Or.

If you are a pure GT rider your season is determined by how well you perform in GT's. Winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse, etc. is nice but cannot ever replace a GT for this kind of rider. It enhances yet does not drastically alter a season.
The realistically achievable ceiling here is potentially the highest (winning two GT's).

If you are a purely specialized in one-week stage races then your baseline will be determined by how many of these races you can win but the ceiling here is far lower as even winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse would not necessarily replace a GT.

If you are a pure one-day classics rider your season is determined by how well you perform in the monuments. Arnaud De Lie has been riding one-day races and performed well in them but his lack of success in the monuments means he doesn't at all qualify for Vélo d'Or. Performances in other classics (AGR, FW, CSS, ...) can further enhance a season but again, no matter how many times you win those, they do not replace a monument.

Some riders are much more of a hybrid (specifically Tadej Pogacar) but generally riders can be classified in one of those categories and their achievements then judged within that category. As an example, if Jasper Philipsen had won Milano-Sanremo while doing his great sprinting season then he would be judged as a great sprinter that even won a monument he could plausibly win and NOT as a one-day rider that failed to show up in the other classics. As another example, if Mathieu Van der Poel had won two sprints in Tour de France that wouldn't have heavily impacted his season as it was already determined by much greater victories.

It is relatively easy to obtain a season of some note (e.g. win a stage at TDF and podium Tour de Suisse) but adding to a season becomes harder and harder as smaller races no longer fundamentally change its value.

Let's look at 'the big five six seven'

(1) Jonas Vingegaard: By CQpoints he had the best season of stage racing so far this century. Indeed he won the most prestigious GT, two classic one-week stage races, a smaller one and was 3rd in Paris-Nice. Essentially he won 2/3 major one-week stage races he could have expected to which is very good but not exceptional. In essence how strong this season can be, without intanginble factors such as way of winning, is determined by our valuation of a 1st and 2nd in two GT's. Itzulia and Dauphiné provide gravy but don't transform the dish.

(2) Primoz Roglic: His season was very similar to that of Vingegaard with one (smaller) GT and two classic one-week stage races (among smaller victories). In the Vuelta he managed a 3rd. By all reasonable metrics this season is thus indeed a clear step down from Vingegaard's and the gap is determined by how much of a difference there is between Tour and Giro. Him winning Emillia and getting 3rd in Lombardia isn't important enough to elevate his season.

(3) Tadej Pogacar: A hard season to evaluate because of its hybrid nature. He won two monuments, got 2nd at TDF, won Paris-Nice, two additional classics and got a podium at Worlds. It seems obvious that the two monuments have distinct value and would add to any season. I would argue that him obtaining 2nd at Tour de France is also important enough to add (else we can't add the Vuelta podiums for (1) and (2) either).
That gives a baseline of two monuments + 2nd at TDF. If this puts him at the same level of the aforementioned riders we can then compare Paris-Nice, Amstel Gold Race, Flèche Wallonne to the two major one-week races they won. I would argue that AGR + FW outweighs any of the major one-week races.
It then depends on how you value two monuments vs. Giro/Tour. If they are more or less equal then 2nd at TDF should outweigh a Vuelta podium and Pogacar ends up on top. Without Lombardia Pogacar would not enter the conversation.

(4) Jasper Philipsen: As a 'pure' sprinter had a strong, yet unexceptional, season. Four stages + Green is very good but he did not ride other GT's and 3 stages at TA will only take you so far. He also won Scheldeprijs and got 2nd in Paris-Roubaix but it seems quite obvious to me that there is little room to argue him being high on this list. His season was not even exceptional as far as sprinters go.

(5) Remco Evenepoel: Evenepoel failed to make a splash in GT GC's this season and while he was unlucky in Giro d'Italia this meant that he really needed to be exceptional in other ways to make up for that. He did win LBL, CSS and became TT World Champion but overall he didn't win the biggest races (Worlds, Lombardia, GT GC's) or even do particularly well in them. He highly animated both Giro and Vuelta and still rode a strong season but this are relatively minor things that can't compare to e.g. becoming RR World Champion again.

(6) Wout Van Aert: Van Aert's season is usually strengthened by doing well at Tour de France and, because he didn't win a monument, this can still fundamentally improve his season. This year that was not the case and he is left with E3, a gifted GW and being close multiple times in major races. In doing so he wasn't even more consistent than MvdP was but only rode more races.

(7) Mathieu Van der Poel: His season is wholly determined by three days for beyond that nothing he did really matters. Only his 2nd place at RVV in my opinion still has some value in a season of this calibre. As a classics rider his season could have been strengthened by winning more semiclassics but as far as the Vélo d'Or is concerned this only becomes relevant if Milano-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix and Worlds are deemed to stack up against TDF + 2nd Vuelta/Giro + 3rd Vuelta/2 Monuments + 2nd TDF. If MvdP's achievements don't clearly eclipse those then indeed he should not win because he has little else to speak of.

It is quite obvious to me that Wout Van Aert is a troll pick for a top-5. He was often up there yes but left a limited impact this year around and I'd argue that Mads Pedersen had a similar but better season. Jasper Philipsen performed well at the Tour but didn't have an exceptional season otherwise so I wouldn't place him above Remco Evenepoel either. Adam Yates is close to the top-5 as well but doesn't quite make it for me.
There is not a particular strong case for Evenepoel over MvdP imo so that means the Dutchman is already at least 4th.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2.5 + 0.75
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 +1
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

This values grand tours up to the equivalent of 2.5 monuments (for the TDF).
This values grand tour podiums up to the equivalent of 1 monument (for the TDF).

With such a valuation you can indeed state that everyone is so close together that the sideshows (smaller races) come into play at which point, in my opinion, Pogacar should win unless we count intangibles (he got soundly beaten by Vingegaard).

Note though that this makes it almost impossible for a one-day rider to ever beat cyclists doing well at more than one GT in a single season, in my opinion, because those numbers are inflated.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.5
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 1.5 + 0.5
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

It's not too hard to see valuations where MVDP is perhaps far enough ahead to just run away with it. In this case again though Pogacar is there.

Overall, the idea that MVDP has no reasonable path to claiming the title because of others winning one-week stage races I cannot agree with. That's simply not what cyclists are remembered for or what truly makes a season.
I think there is a strong enough case for Vingegaard and Pogacar to beat MvdP but Roglic I cannot quite see as Tour >> Giro.

Additionally if we were to differentiate between the monuments I would argue that WCRR and Paris-Roubaix would be deemed as more prestigious when compared to Lombardia which could further boost MvdP and perhaps lift him above Pogacar as well.

MvdP should at least be 3rd and has a clear case for 1st.

That's a fair explanation. You place most emphasis on monuments and GTs. Similar to the old cycling hall of fame rankings. Whereas I believe every WT race should count.

Which is why I'd have given it to Pog over Remco last year. When running the races through the ranking system I posted many pages ago, Pog scored more points than Remco this year.

This year, Pog scored MUCH higher than last year by something like 20%. Vingegaard was second, and I'd need to look at Remco vs Rog for 3. I suspect VDP would come in 5th

One interesting way of determining the award would be to only consider the all time ranking component of the PCS rankings. Those place such a heavy emphasis on winning because the divisor goes from 10 to 20 from 1st to second and to 30 for 3rd place. Think Pog beat Vingegaard on that this year:

1. 246.4: Pog
2. 207.1: Vingegaard
3. 205.1: Remco
4. 196.2: Rog
5. 171.4: Philipsen
6. 140.4: VDP

 

[Blanco]

It can when it concerns three of the best 1-Day races. Like it or not but Monuments are the GT's of one-day racing. It goes like this.

If you are a pure sprinter the baseline of your season is determined by the stages (and points classifications) you win in GT's + stuff like MSR, GW, WCRR if you can win it. Stages won in Paris-Nice or Tour de Romandie only matter when it comes to further differentiation but no matter how many stages you win in those races they cannot really replace a TDF stage.
As such, how strong of a season a pure sprinter can have is quite capped and it will be hard to win Vélo d'Or.

If you are purely specialized in time trials then it becomes even harder to have a strong enough season. But here too only the World Championships and GT stages really matter. The cap here is low hence why Tony Martin, Rohan Dennis and Filippo Ganna failed to come close to winning Vélo d'Or.

If you are a pure GT rider your season is determined by how well you perform in GT's. Winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse, etc. is nice but cannot ever replace a GT for this kind of rider. It enhances yet does not drastically alter a season.
The realistically achievable ceiling here is potentially the highest (winning two GT's).

If you are a purely specialized in one-week stage races then your baseline will be determined by how many of these races you can win but the ceiling here is far lower as even winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse would not necessarily replace a GT.

If you are a pure one-day classics rider your season is determined by how well you perform in the monuments. Arnaud De Lie has been riding one-day races and performed well in them but his lack of success in the monuments means he doesn't at all qualify for Vélo d'Or. Performances in other classics (AGR, FW, CSS, ...) can further enhance a season but again, no matter how many times you win those, they do not replace a monument.

Some riders are much more of a hybrid (specifically Tadej Pogacar) but generally riders can be classified in one of those categories and their achievements then judged within that category. As an example, if Jasper Philipsen had won Milano-Sanremo while doing his great sprinting season then he would be judged as a great sprinter that even won a monument he could plausibly win and NOT as a one-day rider that failed to show up in the other classics. As another example, if Mathieu Van der Poel had won two sprints in Tour de France that wouldn't have heavily impacted his season as it was already determined by much greater victories.

It is relatively easy to obtain a season of some note (e.g. win a stage at TDF and podium Tour de Suisse) but adding to a season becomes harder and harder as smaller races no longer fundamentally change its value.

Let's look at 'the big five six seven'

(1) Jonas Vingegaard: By CQpoints he had the best season of stage racing so far this century. Indeed he won the most prestigious GT, two classic one-week stage races, a smaller one and was 3rd in Paris-Nice. Essentially he won 2/3 major one-week stage races he could have expected to which is very good but not exceptional. In essence how strong this season can be, without intanginble factors such as way of winning, is determined by our valuation of a 1st and 2nd in two GT's. Itzulia and Dauphiné provide gravy but don't transform the dish.

(2) Primoz Roglic: His season was very similar to that of Vingegaard with one (smaller) GT and two classic one-week stage races (among smaller victories). In the Vuelta he managed a 3rd. By all reasonable metrics this season is thus indeed a clear step down from Vingegaard's and the gap is determined by how much of a difference there is between Tour and Giro. Him winning Emillia and getting 3rd in Lombardia isn't important enough to elevate his season.

(3) Tadej Pogacar: A hard season to evaluate because of its hybrid nature. He won two monuments, got 2nd at TDF, won Paris-Nice, two additional classics and got a podium at Worlds. It seems obvious that the two monuments have distinct value and would add to any season. I would argue that him obtaining 2nd at Tour de France is also important enough to add (else we can't add the Vuelta podiums for (1) and (2) either).
That gives a baseline of two monuments + 2nd at TDF. If this puts him at the same level of the aforementioned riders we can then compare Paris-Nice, Amstel Gold Race, Flèche Wallonne to the two major one-week races they won. I would argue that AGR + FW outweighs any of the major one-week races.
It then depends on how you value two monuments vs. Giro/Tour. If they are more or less equal then 2nd at TDF should outweigh a Vuelta podium and Pogacar ends up on top. Without Lombardia Pogacar would not enter the conversation.

(4) Jasper Philipsen: As a 'pure' sprinter had a strong, yet unexceptional, season. Four stages + Green is very good but he did not ride other GT's and 3 stages at TA will only take you so far. He also won Scheldeprijs and got 2nd in Paris-Roubaix but it seems quite obvious to me that there is little room to argue him being high on this list. His season was not even exceptional as far as sprinters go.

(5) Remco Evenepoel: Evenepoel failed to make a splash in GT GC's this season and while he was unlucky in Giro d'Italia this meant that he really needed to be exceptional in other ways to make up for that. He did win LBL, CSS and became TT World Champion but overall he didn't win the biggest races (Worlds, Lombardia, GT GC's) or even do particularly well in them. He highly animated both Giro and Vuelta and still rode a strong season but this are relatively minor things that can't compare to e.g. becoming RR World Champion again.

(6) Wout Van Aert: Van Aert's season is usually strengthened by doing well at Tour de France and, because he didn't win a monument, this can still fundamentally improve his season. This year that was not the case and he is left with E3, a gifted GW and being close multiple times in major races. In doing so he wasn't even more consistent than MvdP was but only rode more races.

(7) Mathieu Van der Poel: His season is wholly determined by three days for beyond that nothing he did really matters. Only his 2nd place at RVV in my opinion still has some value in a season of this calibre. As a classics rider his season could have been strengthened by winning more semiclassics but as far as the Vélo d'Or is concerned this only becomes relevant if Milano-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix and Worlds are deemed to stack up against TDF + 2nd Vuelta/Giro + 3rd Vuelta/2 Monuments + 2nd TDF. If MvdP's achievements don't clearly eclipse those then indeed he should not win because he has little else to speak of.

It is quite obvious to me that Wout Van Aert is a troll pick for a top-5. He was often up there yes but left a limited impact this year around and I'd argue that Mads Pedersen had a similar but better season. Jasper Philipsen performed well at the Tour but didn't have an exceptional season otherwise so I wouldn't place him above Remco Evenepoel either. Adam Yates is close to the top-5 as well but doesn't quite make it for me.
There is not a particular strong case for Evenepoel over MvdP imo so that means the Dutchman is already at least 4th.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2.5 + 0.75
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 +1
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

This values grand tours up to the equivalent of 2.5 monuments (for the TDF).
This values grand tour podiums up to the equivalent of 1 monument (for the TDF).

With such a valuation you can indeed state that everyone is so close together that the sideshows (smaller races) come into play at which point, in my opinion, Pogacar should win unless we count intangibles (he got soundly beaten by Vingegaard).

Note though that this makes it almost impossible for a one-day rider to ever beat cyclists doing well at more than one GT in a single season, in my opinion, because those numbers are inflated.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.5
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 1.5 + 0.5
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

It's not too hard to see valuations where MVDP is perhaps far enough ahead to just run away with it. In this case again though Pogacar is there.

Overall, the idea that MVDP has no reasonable path to claiming the title because of others winning one-week stage races I cannot agree with. That's simply not what cyclists are remembered for or what truly makes a season.
I think there is a strong enough case for Vingegaard and Pogacar to beat MvdP but Roglic I cannot quite see as Tour >> Giro.

Additionally if we were to differentiate between the monuments I would argue that WCRR and Paris-Roubaix would be deemed as more prestigious when compared to Lombardia which could further boost MvdP and perhaps lift him above Pogacar as well.

MvdP should at least be 3rd and has a clear case for 1st.

Really great post.

 

[proffate]

It can when it concerns three of the best 1-Day races. Like it or not but Monuments are the GT's of one-day racing. It goes like this.

If you are a pure sprinter the baseline of your season is determined by the stages (and points classifications) you win in GT's + stuff like MSR, GW, WCRR if you can win it. Stages won in Paris-Nice or Tour de Romandie only matter when it comes to further differentiation but no matter how many stages you win in those races they cannot really replace a TDF stage.
As such, how strong of a season a pure sprinter can have is quite capped and it will be hard to win Vélo d'Or.

If you are purely specialized in time trials then it becomes even harder to have a strong enough season. But here too only the World Championships and GT stages really matter. The cap here is low hence why Tony Martin, Rohan Dennis and Filippo Ganna failed to come close to winning Vélo d'Or.

If you are a pure GT rider your season is determined by how well you perform in GT's. Winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Suisse, etc. is nice but cannot ever replace a GT for this kind of rider. It enhances yet does not drastically alter a season.
The realistically achievable ceiling here is potentially the highest (winning two GT's).

If you are a purely specialized in one-week stage races then your baseline will be determined by how many of these races you can win but the ceiling here is far lower as even winning Paris-Nice, Tour de Romandie and Tour de Suisse would not necessarily replace a GT.

If you are a pure one-day classics rider your season is determined by how well you perform in the monuments. Arnaud De Lie has been riding one-day races and performed well in them but his lack of success in the monuments means he doesn't at all qualify for Vélo d'Or. Performances in other classics (AGR, FW, CSS, ...) can further enhance a season but again, no matter how many times you win those, they do not replace a monument.

Some riders are much more of a hybrid (specifically Tadej Pogacar) but generally riders can be classified in one of those categories and their achievements then judged within that category. As an example, if Jasper Philipsen had won Milano-Sanremo while doing his great sprinting season then he would be judged as a great sprinter that even won a monument he could plausibly win and NOT as a one-day rider that failed to show up in the other classics. As another example, if Mathieu Van der Poel had won two sprints in Tour de France that wouldn't have heavily impacted his season as it was already determined by much greater victories.

It is relatively easy to obtain a season of some note (e.g. win a stage at TDF and podium Tour de Suisse) but adding to a season becomes harder and harder as smaller races no longer fundamentally change its value.

Let's look at 'the big five six seven'

(1) Jonas Vingegaard: By CQpoints he had the best season of stage racing so far this century. Indeed he won the most prestigious GT, two classic one-week stage races, a smaller one and was 3rd in Paris-Nice. Essentially he won 2/3 major one-week stage races he could have expected to which is very good but not exceptional. In essence how strong this season can be, without intanginble factors such as way of winning, is determined by our valuation of a 1st and 2nd in two GT's. Itzulia and Dauphiné provide gravy but don't transform the dish.

(2) Primoz Roglic: His season was very similar to that of Vingegaard with one (smaller) GT and two classic one-week stage races (among smaller victories). In the Vuelta he managed a 3rd. By all reasonable metrics this season is thus indeed a clear step down from Vingegaard's and the gap is determined by how much of a difference there is between Tour and Giro. Him winning Emillia and getting 3rd in Lombardia isn't important enough to elevate his season.

(3) Tadej Pogacar: A hard season to evaluate because of its hybrid nature. He won two monuments, got 2nd at TDF, won Paris-Nice, two additional classics and got a podium at Worlds. It seems obvious that the two monuments have distinct value and would add to any season. I would argue that him obtaining 2nd at Tour de France is also important enough to add (else we can't add the Vuelta podiums for (1) and (2) either).
That gives a baseline of two monuments + 2nd at TDF. If this puts him at the same level of the aforementioned riders we can then compare Paris-Nice, Amstel Gold Race, Flèche Wallonne to the two major one-week races they won. I would argue that AGR + FW outweighs any of the major one-week races.
It then depends on how you value two monuments vs. Giro/Tour. If they are more or less equal then 2nd at TDF should outweigh a Vuelta podium and Pogacar ends up on top. Without Lombardia Pogacar would not enter the conversation.

(4) Jasper Philipsen: As a 'pure' sprinter had a strong, yet unexceptional, season. Four stages + Green is very good but he did not ride other GT's and 3 stages at TA will only take you so far. He also won Scheldeprijs and got 2nd in Paris-Roubaix but it seems quite obvious to me that there is little room to argue him being high on this list. His season was not even exceptional as far as sprinters go.

(5) Remco Evenepoel: Evenepoel failed to make a splash in GT GC's this season and while he was unlucky in Giro d'Italia this meant that he really needed to be exceptional in other ways to make up for that. He did win LBL, CSS and became TT World Champion but overall he didn't win the biggest races (Worlds, Lombardia, GT GC's) or even do particularly well in them. He highly animated both Giro and Vuelta and still rode a strong season but this are relatively minor things that can't compare to e.g. becoming RR World Champion again.

(6) Wout Van Aert: Van Aert's season is usually strengthened by doing well at Tour de France and, because he didn't win a monument, this can still fundamentally improve his season. This year that was not the case and he is left with E3, a gifted GW and being close multiple times in major races. In doing so he wasn't even more consistent than MvdP was but only rode more races.

(7) Mathieu Van der Poel: His season is wholly determined by three days for beyond that nothing he did really matters. Only his 2nd place at RVV in my opinion still has some value in a season of this calibre. As a classics rider his season could have been strengthened by winning more semiclassics but as far as the Vélo d'Or is concerned this only becomes relevant if Milano-Sanremo, Paris-Roubaix and Worlds are deemed to stack up against TDF + 2nd Vuelta/Giro + 3rd Vuelta/2 Monuments + 2nd TDF. If MvdP's achievements don't clearly eclipse those then indeed he should not win because he has little else to speak of.

It is quite obvious to me that Wout Van Aert is a troll pick for a top-5. He was often up there yes but left a limited impact this year around and I'd argue that Mads Pedersen had a similar but better season. Jasper Philipsen performed well at the Tour but didn't have an exceptional season otherwise so I wouldn't place him above Remco Evenepoel either. Adam Yates is close to the top-5 as well but doesn't quite make it for me.
There is not a particular strong case for Evenepoel over MvdP imo so that means the Dutchman is already at least 4th.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2.5 + 0.75
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 +1
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

This values grand tours up to the equivalent of 2.5 monuments (for the TDF).
This values grand tour podiums up to the equivalent of 1 monument (for the TDF).

With such a valuation you can indeed state that everyone is so close together that the sideshows (smaller races) come into play at which point, in my opinion, Pogacar should win unless we count intangibles (he got soundly beaten by Vingegaard).

Note though that this makes it almost impossible for a one-day rider to ever beat cyclists doing well at more than one GT in a single season, in my opinion, because those numbers are inflated.

TDF + 2nd Vuelta -> 2 + 0.5
Giro + 3rd Vuelta -> 1.5 + 0.5
2 Monuments + 2nd TDF -> 2 + 0.75
2 Monuments + WCRR -> 3

It's not too hard to see valuations where MVDP is perhaps far enough ahead to just run away with it. In this case again though Pogacar is there.

Overall, the idea that MVDP has no reasonable path to claiming the title because of others winning one-week stage races I cannot agree with. That's simply not what cyclists are remembered for or what truly makes a season.
I think there is a strong enough case for Vingegaard and Pogacar to beat MvdP but Roglic I cannot quite see as Tour >> Giro.

Additionally if we were to differentiate between the monuments I would argue that WCRR and Paris-Roubaix would be deemed as more prestigious when compared to Lombardia which could further boost MvdP and perhaps lift him above Pogacar as well.

MvdP should at least be 3rd and has a clear case for 1st.

You forget that MVDP dissed the tour de france by using it as a prep race for WC. So -2 for that.