dev4ever wrote:
Kristoff 79 spr and 78 acc? Rip, hard to see him 3 points worse than kittel and greipel in both stats considering he had a pretty similar tdf to them (top results atleast) Other stats are more likely to favour cav than kittel aswell
Heres my view: Cav is the fastest accelarator, together with Sagan. 83 is probably deserved for each.
Kittel is the fastest sprinter in the world, but I guess with one bad tdf its hard to remaign that status. Id put him at 83 still as only sprinter but with a bit worse acc.
Then cav and greipel at 82, with greipel also having a much worse acc (not fair downgrading someone too much because of one bad tdf imo..
Kristoff follows at 81, he is still a top 5 sprinter in the world, bike throw or no bike throw..
Then the 'bunch' with bouhanni, sagan at 80
Coquard at 79 with great acc (81 atleast) and Demare is also a quick, but not that great top speed. Would put him at 80 with 81 acc but hes too often a no-show in regular sprints
Just my punt, no idea how much TdF is taken into play. But cant see how Greipel and Kristoff should be considerably worse than cav and not come close/win a few stages when they were really close several times in the tour
Maybe a little, better ACC than Quintana at least. It is a combination of his mountain, MOD and ACC makes his acceleration, when he attacks, so crazy that even Contador and Quintana, for so much lactic acid that they goes down. When he's not attacking, he is a trialist in mountains, driving after his watts and goes never with in opponents accelerations.
Edited by Arberg27 on 22-07-2016 05:01
Froome boost in FLAT, DOWN, FTR, TT, REC, ACC.
Sagan boost in FLAT, MOD, REC.
Cavendish boost in FLAT, ACC, REC.
Dumoulin boost in TT.
T.Martin down in TT.
2015 1st Stage 11 Tour de France
2nd Milano–Torino 3rd Overall Vuelta a España
4th Overall Tour of Oman
7th Overall Tour de Romandie
10th Overall Tour de Suisse
2016
1st National Road Race Championships
5th Overall Vuelta a AndalucÃa 5th Overall Giro d'Italia
7th Overall Tour de San Luis Tour de France Mountains Jersey
So Mollema should be set back to 78 because he lost 4 minutes due to a fall? No way! He still proved he can follow the very best this Tour. He has been more consistent in the Pyrenees than in the Alps, but still 78 is too low for him. He has been climbing better than most 79 guys listed above and deserves either 80 or 79 with his RES above average and his REC a little below average (compared to the other top GC contenders).
And about Poels, he has shown that he's Froome's best helper in the mountains, but giving him 80 MO is too much imo. The main thing with the Sky helpers is that they're sparing themselves all day and then when it's their turn to relay, they will just empty their tanks and take it easy to the finish. Giving them too high stats will not only lead to an even bigger advantage for Sky in-game, but will also lead to unhappy riders in a career with Sky, because they'll consider themselves as team leaders in-game.
Remember that yesterday's stage isn't a good reference with Froome riding on a different bike and all the crashes that happened because of the rain.
haasje33 wrote:
@marcoplv95: If you want to criticise someone's suggestions, please use thought-out arguments instead of this type of statements!
Well i think you all know there's not much to say...
Putting Cavendish +3 SPR and ahead to Kittel of 2 points is crazy!
He did a fantastic TDF, but as you said, you consider results in a larger width of time. And Cavendish has to confirm his results to deserve better rating than Kittel
He can be 82-83, but remember Kittel is not in perfect shape, he was on Giro too
I think, as mentioned earlier, form is very important to take into account with this. As well as the matrix and back up stats. I don't think one bad GT, where he still podiums, should lead to a downgrade for Nairo. He's still the purest climber the peloton has to offer and is only 26. He's due for a couple of bad three week stints every now and then. Personally, I believe his biggest downfall was prepping with the RdS against minimal competition.
I honestly think consistency should be our biggest marker for stats, with form attributed to +/- 1 or 2 point changes. For example, Kruijswijk is on 80 MO after just one decent GT showing, which I believe is a little high justifying his results over the last year plus. You have to go back to last year's Giro to find a top 10 for him in a deep race. Yet Quintana performs below our expectations and everyone calls for his drop. Seems a little unfair in my book. Same goes for Landa in my book. He's been more consistent in his climbs then Kruijswijk, but I think he was overvalued for his strong second/third week in last year's Giro. The same goes for the sprint matrix. Consistency should be our baseline, and we shouldn't overreact because of one good GT. Agree, or disagree, that's why we like this discussion so much I think. We each have our own database, so we change what we see fit.
Guys like Gallopin, Gesink, Latour, Lopez, et al. fall on 77 for the time being.
Sprint
83: Kittel
82: Cavendish, Greipel
81:
80: Modolo, Viviani, Sagan, Bouhani, Degenkolb, Kristoff (each of these last three could reasonably be 81 if you made the argument, but I feel their backup stats/ACC level them out as "upper 80"
79: Coquard, Groenewegen, Bennett, Gaviria, Nizzolo, Van Poppel, Demare, Matthews
So there yeah have it. I could easily do this for the rest of the stats, but ultimately it's a fools errand. Everyone will have certain riders they like and dislike who get preferential treatment in either a good or bad way. And that's okay, because even our interpretations of real world cycling are skewed by these biases. The key is making sure we avoid the animosity of battling who's right or wrong based on simple points here or there. Logical discussion also yields more results versus yelling at someone who disagrees. Enjoy!
Contadope was better than Nibali. But Contador after has doping suspension not been. No way only one under Froome. Froome on 100% is also better than Quintana.
Cavendish is not so much better than the other two, which peaked in Giro.
Edited by Arberg27 on 24-07-2016 06:03
haasje33 wrote:
@marcoplv95: If you want to criticise someone's suggestions, please use thought-out arguments instead of this type of statements!
Well i think you all know there's not much to say...
Putting Cavendish +3 SPR and ahead to Kittel of 2 points is crazy!
He did a fantastic TDF, but as you said, you consider results in a larger width of time. And Cavendish has to confirm his results to deserve better rating than Kittel
He can be 82-83, but remember Kittel is not in perfect shape, he was on Giro too
I think that after the Tour the top mountain stats should look like this:
Froome Quintana 82. I put them at 82 so that all top GC riders are kind of equal in game. Also, I think that they should be equal because if you think about it, Quintana mainly lost time on TTs and in stages where the flat stat was important, like Ventoux (because of echelons) and the one where Sagan son with Froome and Thomas. Froome should have better DH and should be upgraded in REC a little bit.
Contador 81. Too early to downgrade him
Nibali, Aru and Porte 80. Since Nibali has great backup stats he should perform like an 81. Porte should have 80 with a little improvement in REC (like 72-73) because he was the only one
to follow Froome in the mountains and he kind of faded in the final week.
Yates, Mollema, Landa, Valverde, Chaves, Valverde, Kruiswijk, Poels, Bardet and Pinot 79. I dont put Kruiswijk at 80 because if you look at the stages where he gain time on Cháves you will see that they were TTs mainly.
Martin, TVG, Meintjes, Purito, Nieve and Kreuziger (with low REC) 78. Here I just highlight the ones that took part in the Tour, but there are more at this level.
As you can see, I basically looked at where each rider lost time to the leader, so I think that these stats are quite accurate, tell me what you think about them!
