Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

[SafeBet]

Re:

The difference is that Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his exit, whereas TJVG's odds to win the Tour were hovering around 0 at all times.

Although Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giuro at the time of his exit, Nibali wasn't far behind.

By contrast, SK was by far the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his crash, with Nibali very unlikely to win. But that also reflected his very poor form, which then very unexpectedly improved.

I will later post an estimate as to what the chance is Nibali would have won the Giro, had SK nor crashed, knowing what we know now (as opposed to before it happened, when the chance Nibali would win was like <5%). An interesting question in my view, that adds some context to his victory.

Well, I think it's fair to discuss if Nibali had any chance of winning the Giro hadn't SK crashed. It's not a discussion I want to indulge in, but I understand why posters would do it.

On the contrary, the Landa discussion is completely pointless. He abandoned midway through the race when the 5 most important stages had yet to be ridden while being 8th in the GC. That the betters thought he was the most likely winner of the race is completely irrelevant. Reality tells us he's a very volatile rider when it comes to GTs, having finished inside the top20 once in his not so brief career.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Re:

Nibali's "show of strenghth" was directly proportional to the condition of his rivals, one off whom was debilitated by the crash, while the other was no champion. I've already stated that my assessment of Nibali's victory (indeed Nibili's real status as a GT champion) factors this in and that I don't consider beating Kruijswijk the way he did to be of the same merit as had he without the crash. I don't even think he would have beaten SK without the crash, as I have said. This means that his win in this Giro, just as his win in the 2014 Tour, has an asterisk after it.

Nibali's show of strength was disproportionate to his condition in this Giro, for whatever reason he had been performing well below expected levels and thus the show of strength when it mattered was a great performance.

An asterisk? oh please, I'll take this as a joke, these are meant for victory's tainted by cheating or outside influences, a rider crashing is very much part of this sport.

Watch it now, or this goes to the clinic. And if you're satisfied with Enzo winning GTs because the stronger riders crash out, so be it.

What victory doesn’t end up there?

I’m satisfied with the best rider over the entire course winning the GT and if the ‘strongest rider’ can’t stay on his bike, so be it.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Nibali's "show of strenghth" was directly proportional to the condition of his rivals, one off whom was debilitated by the crash, while the other was no champion. I've already stated that my assessment of Nibali's victory (indeed Nibili's real status as a GT champion) factors this in and that I don't consider beating Kruijswijk the way he did to be of the same merit as had he without the crash. I don't even think he would have beaten SK without the crash, as I have said. This means that his win in this Giro, just as his win in the 2014 Tour, has an asterisk after it.

Nibali's show of strength was disproportionate to his condition in this Giro, for whatever reason he had been performing well below expected levels and thus the show of strength when it mattered was a great performance.

An asterisk? oh please, I'll take this as a joke, these are meant for victory's tainted by cheating or outside influences, a rider crashing is very much part of this sport.

Watch it now, or this goes to the clinic. And if you're satisfied with Enzo winning GTs because the stronger riders crash out, so be it.

What victory doesn’t end up there?

I’m satisfied with the best rider over the entire course winning the GT and if the ‘strongest rider’ can’t stay on his bike, so be it.

I don't know you brought it up, not me.

In any case, your last 'so be it' isn't something that relates to my perspective. It seems negligent and fairly odious.

 

[Flat Out]

Re: Re:

Niba never won a GT against Froome, A.C and Quintil.

I could be wrong but Quintana never won a GT against Froome, Contador or Nibali too.
And if i still am not wrong, last GTContador won was agaist Aru. And the mighty Qujntana won agaisnt Uran...

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

[
He was very good in both the Giro last year despite working for Aru, and in the Vuelta when he went stage hunting

And Nibali was very good in like his last 10 GTs ridden. So?

I don't even understand why Landa is being discussed here. It's like saying Froome was lucky cause TJVG abandoned during last year TdF. Happens in every GT.

Maybe because he was the favourite to win after the TTs? At least according to the majority of bookies outside Italy

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Re:

Nibali's show of strength was disproportionate to his condition in this Giro, for whatever reason he had been performing well below expected levels and thus the show of strength when it mattered was a great performance.

An asterisk? oh please, I'll take this as a joke, these are meant for victory's tainted by cheating or outside influences, a rider crashing is very much part of this sport.

Watch it now, or this goes to the clinic. And if you're satisfied with Enzo winning GTs because the stronger riders crash out, so be it.

What victory doesn’t end up there?

I’m satisfied with the best rider over the entire course winning the GT and if the ‘strongest rider’ can’t stay on his bike, so be it.

I don't know you brought it up, not me.

In any case, your last 'so be it' isn't something that relates to my perspective. It seems negligent and fairly odious.

Then I apologise if it is understood as such.

You asked if I was satisfied with the best rider over the entire course of the Giro winning and I confirmed that I was, crashes are unfortunate but not so regrettable that the clock does not govern them.

 

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

The difference is that Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his exit, whereas TJVG's odds to win the Tour were hovering around 0 at all times.

Although Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giuro at the time of his exit, Nibali wasn't far behind.

By contrast, SK was by far the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his crash, with Nibali very unlikely to win. But that also reflected his very poor form, which then very unexpectedly improved.

I will later post an estimate as to what the chance is Nibali would have won the Giro, had SK nor crashed, knowing what we know now (as opposed to before it happened, when the chance Nibali would win was like <5%). An interesting question in my view, that adds some context to his victory.

Well, I think it's fair to discuss if Nibali had any chance of winning the Giro hadn't SK crashed. It's not a discussion I want to indulge in, but I understand why posters would do it.

On the contrary, the Landa discussion is completely pointless. He abandoned midway through the race when the 5 most important stages had yet to be ridden while being 8th in the GC. That the betters thought he was the most likely winner of the race is completely irrelevant. Reality tells us he's a very volatile rider when it comes to GTs, having finished inside the top20 once in his not so brief career.

This. " what if " Landa is just pointless.

 

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

[
He was very good in both the Giro last year despite working for Aru, and in the Vuelta when he went stage hunting

And Nibali was very good in like his last 10 GTs ridden. So?

I don't even understand why Landa is being discussed here. It's like saying Froome was lucky cause TJVG abandoned during last year TdF. Happens in every GT.

Maybe because he was the favourite to win after the TTs? At least according to the majority of bookies outside Italy

Fact is we will never know what would've happened. Bookies are fun and all, but they don't know what will happen. Besides last years Giro Landa didn't show anything in a GT so claiming he would've challenged Nibali is such a big unknown and completely irrelevant to Nibali's win.

 

[SafeBet]

Re: Re:

Maybe because he was the favourite to win after the TTs? At least according to the majority of bookies outside Italy

Already replied to this point before.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

[
He was very good in both the Giro last year despite working for Aru, and in the Vuelta when he went stage hunting

And Nibali was very good in like his last 10 GTs ridden. So?

I don't even understand why Landa is being discussed here. It's like saying Froome was lucky cause TJVG abandoned during last year TdF. Happens in every GT.

Maybe because he was the favourite to win after the TTs? At least according to the majority of bookies outside Italy

Fact is we will never know what would've happened. Bookies are fun and all, but they don't know what will happen. Besides last years Giro Landa didn't show anything in a GT so claiming he would've challenged Nibali is such a big unknown and completely irrelevant to Nibali's win.

Nobody knows what would happen. For all we know, Landa could have suffered from the pollen and finished outside the top 10, or could have absolutely crushed everyone. But being the favourite is enough of a reason to discuss his withdrawal as a major event in the Giro.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

The difference is that Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his exit, whereas TJVG's odds to win the Tour were hovering around 0 at all times.

Although Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giuro at the time of his exit, Nibali wasn't far behind.

By contrast, SK was by far the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his crash, with Nibali very unlikely to win. But that also reflected his very poor form, which then very unexpectedly improved.

I will later post an estimate as to what the chance is Nibali would have won the Giro, had SK nor crashed, knowing what we know now (as opposed to before it happened, when the chance Nibali would win was like <5%). An interesting question in my view, that adds some context to his victory.

Well, I think it's fair to discuss if Nibali had any chance of winning the Giro hadn't SK crashed. It's not a discussion I want to indulge in, but I understand why posters would do it.

On the contrary, the Landa discussion is completely pointless. He abandoned midway through the race when the 5 most important stages had yet to be ridden while being 8th in the GC. That the betters thought he was the most likely winner of the race is completely irrelevant. Reality tells us he's a very volatile rider when it comes to GTs, having finished inside the top20 once in his not so brief career.

Forget about the betters for the moment. Suppose we just knew that Landa was the most likely rider to win, just like we know that the chance you get a number greater than 4 when you roll a die is a bit more than 33%.

Would it still be pointless?

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

The difference is that Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his exit, whereas TJVG's odds to win the Tour were hovering around 0 at all times.

Although Landa was the most likely rider to win the Giuro at the time of his exit, Nibali wasn't far behind.

By contrast, SK was by far the most likely rider to win the Giro at the time of his crash, with Nibali very unlikely to win. But that also reflected his very poor form, which then very unexpectedly improved.

I will later post an estimate as to what the chance is Nibali would have won the Giro, had SK nor crashed, knowing what we know now (as opposed to before it happened, when the chance Nibali would win was like <5%). An interesting question in my view, that adds some context to his victory.

Well, I think it's fair to discuss if Nibali had any chance of winning the Giro hadn't SK crashed. It's not a discussion I want to indulge in, but I understand why posters would do it.

On the contrary, the Landa discussion is completely pointless. He abandoned midway through the race when the 5 most important stages had yet to be ridden while being 8th in the GC. That the betters thought he was the most likely winner of the race is completely irrelevant. Reality tells us he's a very volatile rider when it comes to GTs, having finished inside the top20 once in his not so brief career.

8th in the GC after the TTs with none of the real mountains having been ridden is way above what anyone could possibly have expected.

Most people predicted that Landa would be the better climber, and if Nibali did win the Giro, it would be due to
a) significant time losses for Landa in the TTs, not due to a superior climbing ability.
b) 'never give up & always go for the win' mentality, which tbf to him, he did show in the last two stages.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Re:

Forget about the betters for the moment. Suppose we just knew that Landa was the most likely rider to win.

Would it still be pointless?

We didn't know, nobody knew, so yes it's rather pointless. Of course you could wonder what would have happened if Contador had rode the Giro, or how Coppi would have faired, these may well be enjoyable things to ponder but just like Landa they have little bearing in how the actual Giro panned out.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

Forget about the betters for the moment. Suppose we just knew that Landa was the most likely rider to win.

Would it still be pointless?

We didn't know, nobody knew, so yes it's rather pointless. Of course you could wonder what would have happened if Contador had rode the Giro, or how Coppi would have faired, these may well be enjoyable things to ponder but just like Landa they have little bearing in how the actual Giro panned out.

You can do more than wonder, you can reason about such counterfactuals. You can assess their plausibility. That we can do this is at the very core of causal explanation and thus science.

To give a simple example that should get you going, reflect on why you know that I wouldn't have won the Giro, had I started.

 

[46&twoWheels]

considering Kruijswijk superb climbing abilities, Landa's candidacy as the final winner doesn't appear now as clear as it was.

(Nibali is laughing at me right now..)

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re: Re:

Forget about the betters for the moment. Suppose we just knew that Landa was the most likely rider to win.

Would it still be pointless?

We didn't know, nobody knew, so yes it's rather pointless. Of course you could wonder what would have happened if Contador had rode the Giro, or how Coppi would have faired, these may well be enjoyable things to ponder but just like Landa they have little bearing in how the actual Giro panned out.

You can do more than wonder, you can reason about such counterfactuals. You can assess their plausibility. That we can do this is at the very core of causal explanation and thus science.

To give a simple example that should get you going, reflect on why you know that I wouldn't have won the Giro, had I started.

Science is to use probability to make predictions,not make retroactive predictions for something that didn't happen
That's sci-fi or philosophy

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Re:

Forget about the betters for the moment. Suppose we just knew that Landa was the most likely rider to win.

Would it still be pointless?

We didn't know, nobody knew, so yes it's rather pointless. Of course you could wonder what would have happened if Contador had rode the Giro, or how Coppi would have faired, these may well be enjoyable things to ponder but just like Landa they have little bearing in how the actual Giro panned out.

You can do more than wonder, you can reason about such counterfactuals. You can assess their plausibility. That we can do this is at the very core of causal explanation and thus science.

To give a simple example that should get you going, reflect on why you know that I wouldn't have won the Giro, had I started.

But again, like Landa, your whimsical participation has little to do with the actual race for pink or indeed this thread

 

[SeriousSam]

I'm unsure what point, if any, you're even attempting to make here. It seems little other than pleading for people to stop caring about how results come to be. But curious people care not just about what is, but also about why it is. Exploring this is impossible without counterfactual thinking.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Nibali's show of strength was disproportionate to his condition in this Giro, for whatever reason he had been performing well below expected levels and thus the show of strength when it mattered was a great performance.

An asterisk? oh please, I'll take this as a joke, these are meant for victory's tainted by cheating or outside influences, a rider crashing is very much part of this sport.

Watch it now, or this goes to the clinic. And if you're satisfied with Enzo winning GTs because the stronger riders crash out, so be it.

What victory doesn’t end up there?

I’m satisfied with the best rider over the entire course winning the GT and if the ‘strongest rider’ can’t stay on his bike, so be it.

I don't know you brought it up, not me.

In any case, your last 'so be it' isn't something that relates to my perspective. It seems negligent and fairly odious.

Then I apologise if it is understood as such.

You asked if I was satisfied with the best rider over the entire course of the Giro winning and I confirmed that I was, crashes are unfortunate but not so regrettable that the clock does not govern them.

Well I didn't ask you anything, as your position has always been clear. I just stated it baldly. The 'best rider' over the entire course though isn't really what's being desputed, but how the win should be assessed and valued.

Given the rivalries, its quite odd that a win by default is valued the same as one on merit.

 

[46&twoWheels]

Re:

I'm unsure what point, if any, you're even attempting to make here. It seems little other than pleading for people to stop caring about how results come to be. But curious people care not just about what is, but also about why it is. Exploring this is impossible without counterfactual thinking.

A noble goal,indeed
Unfortunately if we enter the realm of plausibility, one's take doesn't become more plausible than anybody else's opinion. Even if you say that Landa had 33% of winning, percentages fluctuates during the race and are subjected to changes, to "what's happening". They are only indicative not predictive.

if you like to believe that Landa,being the best climber, was also the favourite..well,you can do it, but trying to convince other people is a futile effort
I understand though that some people like to engage in weird forms of onanism (especially of delusional nature, I don't know if this is the case)..nothing wrong with that

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re:

I'm unsure what point, if any, you're even attempting to make here. It seems little other than pleading for people to stop caring about how results come to be. But curious people care not just about what is, but also about why it is. Exploring this is impossible without counterfactual thinking.

This comment for me or just self-internalization…

Yeah I know, Nibali won, the ‘what if’s’ are numerous and the curious people are free to discuss at their leisure, but a discussion about Landa is more fanciful than one surrounding Nibali, Kruisjwijk, Chaves or Valverde.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Re: Re:

Well I didn't ask you anything, as your position has always been clear. I just stated it baldly. The 'best rider' over the entire course though isn't really what's being desputed, but how the win should be assessed and valued.

Given the rivalries, its quite odd that a win by default is valued the same as one on merit.

Of course it’s subjective, for instance you rated Nibali’s victory in this Giro as an 8 which is higher than what I would rate it yet Kruisjwijk’s crash seems an issue of contention for you as far as Nibali being the worthy champion whereas for myself it’s just another facet of racing.

Btw, minor point but the leader by default of this race after Kruisjwijk lost control was Chaves.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Well I didn't ask you anything, as your position has always been clear. I just stated it baldly. The 'best rider' over the entire course though isn't really what's being desputed, but how the win should be assessed and valued.

Given the rivalries, its quite odd that a win by default is valued the same as one on merit.

Of course it’s subjective, for instance you rated Nibali’s victory in this Giro as an 8 which is higher than what I would rate it yet Kruisjwijk’s crash seems an issue of contention for you as far as Nibali being the worthy champion whereas for myself it’s just another facet of racing.

Btw, minor point but the leader by default of this race after Kruisjwijk lost control was Chaves.

Au contraire, the Giro wasn't over and Chaves was dropped by Nibali.

I really couldn't give Nibali lower than an 8, because he won, though this is the lowest score I could give a winner. The point though is that crashing isn't 'just another facet of racing.' It can remove the ability of a rider to fight on, end his race. It is the exact opposite of racing itself.

For this reason beating someone who crashed, isn't the same as beating someone who didn't. It's really quite elementary my dear Watson.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

A noble goal,indeed
Unfortunately if we enter the realm of plausibility, one's take doesn't become more plausible than anybody else's opinion.Even if you say that Landa had 33% of winning, percentages fluctuates during the race and are subjected to changes, to "what's happening". They are only indicative not predictive.

A moment's reflection might have revealed that you are dead wrong. All of us are able to handle the 'realm of plausibility' (that is, the absence of certainty about something) every single day. We are able to distinguish between more probable events and less probable events. Just making it through daily life would be unthinkable if we didn't have the ability to deal with uncertainty.

So, no, not all takes are equally plausible. If you assign Dominic Thiem a better chance to advance to the RG final than Djokovic, you are just plainly incorrect. But he could of course win. If you assign Lil'Richie a better chance to win the Tour than Contador, you'd be plainly incorrect. But of course, it could happen. If you assign Clinton a smaller chance to become the next President of the United States, you'd be incorrect. But of course, Trump might become President. If you think it equally plausible that you will be struck by lightning tomorrow than that you will not, you'd be incorrect. Either may occur.

I know, it's tempting sometimes to pretend that when we can't know something for sure, everything conceivable is equally plausible. But that's dead wrong.

Even if you say that Landa had 33% of winning, percentages fluctuates during the race and are subjected to changes, to "what's happening". They are only indicative not predictive

That percentages fluctuate over the course of the race isn't something that lessens their value. Indeed, if they didn't fluctuate, that would be evidence that they are wrong. When the information we have changes, so does our remaining uncertainty about an outcome, hence so does the chance that it occurs.

Your puzzling post here seems to genuinely assert that Sk's Giro chances dropping after his crash made them less predictive. The exact opposite is the case.

if you like to believe that Landa,being the best climber, was also the favourite..well,you can do it, but trying to convince other people is a futile effort

Sure, trying to convince some people of anything is a futile effort. Others are responsive to evidence.

I understand though that some people like to engage in weird forms of onanism (especially of delusional nature, I don't know if this is the case)..nothing wrong with that

What a.. climatic end to the post!

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

I'm unsure what point, if any, you're even attempting to make here. It seems little other than pleading for people to stop caring about how results come to be. But curious people care not just about what is, but also about why it is. Exploring this is impossible without counterfactual thinking.

This comment for me or just self-internalization…

Yeah I know, Nibali won, the ‘what if’s’ are numerous and the curious people are free to discuss at their leisure, but a discussion about Landa is more fanciful than one surrounding Nibali, Kruisjwijk, Chaves or Valverde.

Both.

Yes, it's more fanciful. There was much more uncertainty about the outcome of the race when Landa left than when eg Sk crashed.