PCM.daily banner
22-11-2024 21:57
PCM.daily
Users Online
· Guests Online: 63

· Members Online: 1
matfield

· Total Members: 161,788
· Newest Member: Robertner
View Thread
PCM.daily » Pro Cycling Manager 2006-2020 » Pro Cycling Manager 2015
 Print Thread
PCMdaily DB Stat Discussion - PCM15
Arberg27
81: Nibali and Kruijswijk
80: Valverde and Chaves
79: Majka, Zakarin
78: Jungels; Uran, Nieve
77: Amador, Pozzovivo, Fuglsang, Scarponi
 
Forever the Best
Arberg27 wrote:
81: Nibali and Kruijswijk
80: Valverde and Chaves
79: Majka, Zakarin
78: Jungels; Uran, Nieve
77: Amador, Pozzovivo, Fuglsang, Scarponi
What about our bet?Pfft
Also Nibali still deserves 82 after the last 2 days
 
baseballlover312
What do you think Dombrowski should get after this Giro? I'm actually wondering, I don't even have the DB so I don't know where he is.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/avatar.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2019/funniest.png
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/funniest.png
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/forumthread.png
i.imgur.com/VCXYUyF.png
i.imgur.com/4osUjkI.png
 
Ad Bot
Posted on 22-11-2024 21:57
Bot Agent

Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09

IP: None  
Selwink
He's at 75MO right now, which seems about fine to me. Maybe he could get his REC bumped a little from 69.
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/micro/npn.png[PCT] Novatek-Panarmenian.net
[ICL] Sugoi-Xanterra & Canada Dry Dev Team
Stages (Requests closed)

i.imgur.com/vR8EVAA.png

'But why were [...] they helped to get to space? To find answers, we must look at predictions not of science, but of science-fiction.'
Ancient Aliens
 
baseballlover312
Selwink wrote:
He's at 75MO right now, which seems about fine to me. Maybe he could get his REC bumped a little from 69.


That's what I was thinking. Clearly 69 recovery puts him near the bottom of that category, and I don't think he belongs there. Recovery seems to be something he's good at considering his second and third week performances. But 75 mountain seems about right I suppose.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/avatar.png
pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2019/funniest.png
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/funniest.png
pcmdaily.com/images/mg/Awards2020/forumthread.png
i.imgur.com/VCXYUyF.png
i.imgur.com/4osUjkI.png
 
Arberg27
The Schleck Fan wrote:
Arberg27 wrote:
81: Nibali and Kruijswijk
80: Valverde and Chaves
79: Majka, Zakarin
78: Jungels; Uran, Nieve
77: Amador, Pozzovivo, Fuglsang, Scarponi
What about our bet?Pfft
Also Nibali still deserves 82 after the last 2 days

Yes Nibali avatar now! Sad
No but still he deserves 82 REC Wink
Edited by Arberg27 on 28-05-2016 17:57
 
I_Mayo
Arberg27 wrote:
81: Nibali and Kruijswijk
80: Valverde and Chaves
79: Majka, Zakarin
78: Jungels; Uran, Nieve
77: Amador, Pozzovivo, Fuglsang, Scarponi


Agreed. I've never watched Majka and said to myself that's one 80 mtn rider right there.
 
Geslin-bouygues
Croatia14 wrote:
Geslin-bouygues wrote:
I think this guys in Conti need a little up no? :

PLANCKAERT Baptiste https://www.cqrank...;current=0
PL 71>73 ; PAV 69>71 ; END 68>70

EIBEGGER Markus https://www.cqrank...;current=0
MO 70>72 ; VAL 71>72 ; BAR 67>70 ; END 69>70 ; REC 69>70 ; RES 66>68

BRANDAO Joni https://www.cqrank...;current=0
MO 71>72 ; VAL 69>71 END 68>70 ; RES 66>68 ; REC 69>72

BRAVO OIARBIDE Garikoitz https://www.cqrank...erid=12121
VAL 70>72 ; END 67>70 ; RES 66>68 ; REC 66>68

And you can add WILMANN Frederik to ColoQuick Cult
https://www.cqrank...derid=2595

Thanks for your work guys


Very well spotted! Most of the guys enjoyed updates already on our planned db, which you will see in the very next update Smile

Not all as harsh as you are suggesting, but pointing at this direction.


Ok thanks guys ! Smile
 
marcoplv95
MO values after Guro, imo:

Niibali 82 (he won the Giro after all, no reason to downgrade him)
Kruijswijk 80 (can't upgrade much for just one good Giro, how could him be rated higher than Valverde already)
Valverde 80
Chaves 80 (same as Kruijswijk, but he should have definitely worse REC value)
Majka 79 (high rec value)
Zakarin 79
Scarponi 78 (Wow. Just impressive. Even better than Majka and in this Giro imo, but can't upgrade him too much for the same reason as Kruijswijk)
Amador 78 (low rec value)
Uran 78
Ulissi 78 (Amazing, just remember stage 18)
Jungels 77 (high rec value)
Pozzovivo 77
Fuglsang 77
Edited by marcoplv95 on 29-05-2016 00:47
 
Paul23
Jungels > Amador.
i.imgur.com/aJSlUNt.png
 
Thatguyeveryonehates
with uran keep in mind he had bronchitis since the time trial. yesterday was the first day he was sort of recovered but even now he isn't 100%
 
marcoplv95
In this Giro yes he was, but upgrading from 73 to 78 could be way too much.
And Amador was riding for Valverde after losing pink jersey meanwhile Jungler was the team leader
 
Paul23
marcoplv95 wrote:
In this Giro yes he was, but upgrading from 73 to 78 could be way too much.
And Amador was riding for Valverde after losing pink jersey meanwhile Jungler was the team leader


Well, he was consistent and he did most of the work, when he was in groups with big guys. Also Uran needs a downgrade to 77.
i.imgur.com/aJSlUNt.png
 
Omloop
marcoplv95 wrote:
MO values after Guro, imo:

Niibali 82 (he won the Giro after all, no reason to downgrade him)
Kruijswijk 80 (can't upgrade much for just one good Giro, how could him be rated higher than Valverde already)
Valverde 80
Chaves 80 (same as Kruijswijk, but he should have definitely worse REC value)
Majka 79 (high rec value)
Zakarin 79
Scarponi 78 (Wow. Just impressive. Even better than Majka and in this Giro imo, but can't upgrade him too much for the same reason as Kruijswijk)
Amador 78 (low rec value)
Uran 78
Ulissi 78 (Amazing, just remember stage 18)
Jungels 77 (high rec value)
Pozzovivo 77
Fuglsang 77


No way is Ulissi 78. He's a good climber alright, but mainly on short hills, most of his big climbing results are part of breakaways. He shouls get around 75.
 
Arberg27
marcoplv95 wrote:
MO values after Guro, imo:

Niibali 82 (he won the Giro after all, no reason to downgrade him)
Kruijswijk 80 (can't upgrade much for just one good Giro, how could him be rated higher than Valverde already)
Valverde 80
Chaves 80 (same as Kruijswijk, but he should have definitely worse REC value)
Majka 79 (high rec value)
Zakarin 79
Scarponi 78 (Wow. Just impressive. Even better than Majka and in this Giro imo, but can't upgrade him too much for the same reason as Kruijswijk)
Amador 78 (low rec value)
Uran 78
Ulissi 78 (Amazing, just remember stage 18)
Jungels 77 (high rec value)
Pozzovivo 77
Fuglsang 77

Nibali wins with 1 minut to Chaves & Valverde = +2
Nibali loser with over 8 minutes to Froome = -1

Smaller time difference = Greater difference in stats xD
Greater time difference = Smaller difference in stats xD

Nibali has never ever been 82, if Froome is 83 and Contador is 82. So for me it is not a downgrade. 81 is enough to beat Chaves & Valverde with 1 minut and lose with over 8 minutes to Froome.
 
marcoplv95
Said from an hater, your comment loses relevance.
Remember that there's a thing called "condition". I think that if Nibali is the guy we've seen first 18 stages of the Giro, he deserves 80, but if he's the guy we've seen last two stages, then 82 is okay.

About Ulissi: Maybe not 78 but 77 for sure, i was not talking about his wins, they was for his fighter/puncher qualities, but as a climbee he shown he CAN climb as well as people like Uran, Amador, Jungels: in stage 18 he was in breakaway and yet after being caught was with Chaves.

Uran: Yes probably deserves 77...i just don't get last stage how was him better than Chaves...
 
Jorge14
Of course giro is important but you could dont do the stats now only because this giro, for me i will put something like this:

Nibali 82 Nice Backups
Kruij: 80 Nice giro yeah but his is bigger result so far, off course a 65 on downhill
Valverde 80
Chaves 80/79( I think he deserve the 80) he finished second and do well but could have a low rec and a little resistance compared to others
Majka 79 High Rec
Zakarin 79 Low Rec Than Majka
Bob Jungels 77 seems fine with nice rec
Rigoerto Uran 78 (Altough his "bad results" 78 seems fine because of the results that they have in past, nice rec too
Amador 77 With an low Rec but nice downhill
Darwin Atapum and Siutsou 76 dont know if you agree
Scarponi 77 with nice RES/REC
 
Unguru30
Nibali - 81 (not as good as Contador and can win Giro with 81 easily)
Kruij - 80 with good REC, not a terrible descender even if he fell, maybe about 70
Chaves - 80 with lower REC than Kruij and Valverde; also 75 DO
Valverde - 80
Zakarin - 79, low DO stat, better REC since he was better than expected in the final week (bad bike handler, fell twice in the ITT)
Majka - 79
Jungels - 77 MO, HIL, TT, decent REC
Uran - hard to say, but since it is the second year in a row he didn't live up to his MO stat, 77 with good REC would seem okay to me
Amador - 77, low REC
Scarponi - 78 with good REC
Fuglsang - again difficult, would say 77/78 MO with really low REC
Pozzovivo - 77, low REC
Atapuma - 76 with good REC
Dombrowski - 75 is fine, but higher REC
Ulissi - 75
Siutsou - 76
 
Paul23
Yeah, Nibali should only have 81. If Kruijijswijijk hadn't crashed, Nibali wouldn't had a chance.
i.imgur.com/aJSlUNt.png
 
marcoplv95
If my grandfather had 3 balls he would have been a flipper.
 
Jump to Forum:
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Latest content
Screenshots
Who Won it?
Who Won it?
PCM 07: General Screenshots
Fantasy Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet fighti... 18,376 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 17,374 PCM$
bullet Marcovdw 15,345 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 13,552 PCM$
bullet baseba... 10,439 PCM$

bullet Main Fantasy Betting page
bullet Rankings: Top 100
ManGame Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet Ollfardh 21,890 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 15,520 PCM$
bullet Marcovdw 14,800 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 13,500 PCM$
bullet baseball... 7,332 PCM$

bullet Main MG Betting page
bullet Get weekly MG PCM$
bullet Rankings: Top 100
Render time: 0.29 seconds