Roman Kreuziger might be in MO and HILL 1 point to high. He has same MO Stat as DE GENDT (3 at Giro and 18 Min ahead of him), URAN, HENAO, NIEVE, HORNER and even better Stats than CUNEGO (6 at Giro and 15:18 Mon ahead of him), GADRET, CATALDO, BRAMBILLA and COSTA. I mean every time an important Mountain Stage for the General Classification has to be ride he did it awful and his only win of the season at the Giro was because he was like 20 Min behind the leader and they let him go.
I also cant understand Juan Jose Cobo MO and HILL stats after such an horrible 2012 Year, his best result was 12 at Stage 6 at the Vuelta. There are other riders who deservs better stats than him.
Robert Gesink has every year high MO and HILL stats and hasnt been able to win a World Tour race. He also has one of the best REC in the Game only because he won Amgen Tour of California???
1º GC Amgen Tour of California
4º GC Tour de Suisse
6º GC Vuelta a Burgos
6º GC Vuelta a España
8º GC Vuelta Ciclista a Murcia
So he is way better than: COSTA who won Tour de Suisse, DANIEL MORENO who won Vuelta a Burgos and was ahead of him at Vuelta a España despite he was a helper for RODRIGUEZ while GESINK was one of the Tam Leaders, and QUINTANA who won Vuelta Ciclista a Murcia and was the only one who could follow CONTADOR, VALVERDE and RODRIGUEZ in the Mountains at the Vuelta.
I REALLY CANT understand this Stats. In my Career this guys are able to do way better than in Real Live. I thought the stats was base in Real Results in Real Live and not in speculations or: what if....... or but 2 Years ago he won....... or he might do well in the future.
I dont want to ofend someone its just I really cant understand the stats of some guys.
Stats are not only based on last year's racing - that's it. That's why Andy has 81, Cobo has high stats etc. Same as Rujano, he was quite sick at Giro, couldn't show his full potential, that's why he has high MO to see how he does this year.
They'll be changed, well many of them for V1, but few guys still have high stats after bad year in 2012 due to injuries or luck, or just to prove themselves in 2013, maybe they can do much better, and decreasing their stats didn't make sense after all.
Same with Gesink, he broke his leg at end in late 2011. He wasn't in optimal condition, he should be much better this year, hence his stats stayed high to show the nature of him as he should be in optimal conditions.
Secondly, few youngster with high stats have slightly lower stats which they should because they will develop through the season anyway.
Changing stats dramatically after one bad year for rider, that had injuries isn't the way to go and this applies to many scenarios without injuries but other problems etc.
Edited by Alakagom on 12-02-2013 16:42
@Fickman About the Gesink stats. He wasn't very lucky this year. He had to recover from the TdF crash(who knows what he could have achieved without the crash), and I think his crash also disturbed a part of his Vuelta preparations. And don't forget that Moreno & Costa do have higher hill stats. I might made a mistake, but Moreno gained most of his time in the Vuelta on the 'walls', so on the hills. Not to mention that the Vuelta wasn't Gesink's main goal, the TdF was. I wonder what his season would have been without his crash.
And I don't think Vuelta a Burgos is a bigger race than California.
You should look better at the races guys aim for. Gesink put all his 'money' on the TdF, but crashed...
And indeed Gesink broke his leg in 2011.
@Tour de Suisse: Gesink only lost real time on Costa on stage 2, which ended with a more hilly than mountainous climb. If Gesink would have kept up with Costa there, on that hill/small climb, than he would have won the GC, since the final difference with Costa in the GC was just 25 seconds. That means that Gesink won time on Costa at the other stages. Costa was only better on the hills.
And Costa's hill stat is higher than Gesink's, so that settles it.
Edit: Well, okay, it's more like a small mountain, but the other mountain stages were harder...
Edited by Jesleyh on 12-02-2013 17:05
Polyvoda is good in flat (69-70). He also not bad hilly stages (70).
Averin is good sprinter with a lot of top-10 last year (71-72) and not bad at hills (~69-70)
Brambilla is top-sprinter of team (72-73)
Klimiankou is climber (70-71) also for hills (71). He won his Euro-23 bronze at hilly route. But suffer at flat windy stages
Chiocca is sprinter (70)
Baldo is good at hilly stages (71). He won overall of An Post
Imhof good at flat. He is track-rider
And Erdin is young, but promising sprinter (for this level). Maybe 68-69 now, but 72 in future
And belarusians
Krasilnikau is TT-specialist. He was 2nd at national championship and had some top-10 at worlds U-23. 72 for TT
Bazhkou is very talented sprinter and puncher. He had a lot of top-10 and wins in italian under-23 tour. Maybe 70-71 now for SP, but smth like 74 in future. He also good in hills (69-70 now, 72-73 in future). He is just a little bit less talented, then Lutsenko. His results https://elite-unde...u_2012.htm and here https://cqranking....current=0. And he was KOM in Baby Giro before injury
Novikau, Sinelnikau, Sobal retired
Nothing against you, but i think you rate these guys too high. I gave Zoidl, who won the National Championship and finished 14th at World Championships, 71 in TT, so I don't see why Krasilnikau would deserve 72... (for example at World Championships he finished more than 6 minutes behind him)
The same with the other guys, but it's just my opinion.
Alakagom now I understand Stats better, I thought Stats was made based only on 2012 results.
Still 79 MO for Gesink only because he won in 2010 Grand Prix Cycliste de Montreal (that wasnt a Mountain) and 1 Stage at Tour de Suisse isnt too much??? He also didnt won anything in the World Tour before he crashed in 2011. I mean he has same MO as Hesjedal Giro winner 2012 and Evans TDF winner 2011. Doesnt deserve then Rui Costa Grand Prix Cycliste de Montreal winner 2011 and NORDHAUG Grand Prix Cycliste de Montreal winner 2012 and every other Stage winner at Tour de Suisse same stats as him too??? I mean what have he done or won that gives him one of the best MO Stats in the Game.
Every Year were Scarponi and Basso for example better than him in that classification but in the DB they are worse than him. How is that possible??? It seems that his Stat is 100% what some people think he is capable to do and not what the results shows he is abel to do.
Jesleyh ur right u cant compare Amgen Tour of California and Vuelta a Burgos. But dont forget that Amgen Tour of California had 29.6 km individual time trial while Vuelta a Burgos didnt. So it doesnt says too much about his climb ability in my opinion thats why ZABRISKIE (73 MO) who isnt a top Cimber was on the podium.
Edited by fickman on 12-02-2013 18:01
fickman wrote:
Alakagom now I understand Stats better, I thought Stats was made based only on 2012 results.
Still 79 MO for Gesink only because he won in 2010 Grand Prix Cycliste de Montreal (that wasnt a Mountain) and 1 Stage at Tour de Suisse isnt too much??? He also didnt won anything in the World Tour before he crashed in 2011. I mean he has same MO as Hesjedal Giro winner 2012 and Evans TDF winner 2011. Doesnt deserve then Rui Costa Grand Prix Cycliste de Montreal winner 2011 and NORDHAUG Grand Prix Cycliste de Montreal winner 2012 and every other Stage winner at Tour de Suisse same stats as him too??? I mean what have he done or won that gives him one of the best MO Stats in the Game.
Every Year were [b]Scarponi and Basso for example better than him in that classification but in the DB they are worse than him.[/b] How is that possible??? It seems that his Stat is 100% what some people think he is capable to do and not what the results shows he is abel to do.
Jesleyh ur right u cant compare Amgen Tour of California and Vuelta a Burgos. But dont forget that Amgen Tour of California had 29.6 km individual time trial while Vuelta a Burgos didnt. So it doesnt says too much about his climb ability in my opinion thats why ZABRISKIE (73 MO) who isnt a top Cimber was on the podium.
That's because mainly of his injuries though and crashes, however Scarponi and Basso are lot older now and so Gesink should perform much better than them at this year's Giro for example. I'd think, or hope. So this year might be the one to show us why we have big hope for him here
I agree, that's his stat is fairly based on what we think he can do without all that bad luck, it's hard to judge it indeed. We'll see you now, I think this year we'll know for sure what Gesink is made of at the Giro. Thanks for your opinions though, always appreciated
And to anyone that posted suggestion on especially the smaller teams, makes my job bit easier instead of going though the CQ rankings for each team and it's rider. So thx for that, keep it going, the CT needs a small stat overhaul finally Edited by Alakagom on 12-02-2013 18:07
My understanding: there's no such thing as "stats are based on 2012 results" or "stats shouldn't be based on 2009 results". Stats are what people believe the riders deserve in the current moment. How we can we know what they are capable of? Mainly by results, but they are not everything. By that same logic you're applying to Gesink, Andy Schleck should be a 'no one' because he didn't perform at all last year. But we know that's not true. Same for Cancellara, we know he's one of the best riders on the Cobbles even if he missed the two biggest cobbled classics of last year. Plus, at no time anybody said Gesink had 79 MO because of his GP Montreal win. If there's any stat that shouldn't be changed based on a result on GP Montreal it's exactly the mountain one
You're looking solely on the results they achieved, and it's not this way that it should be. Sometimes you have bad luck, sometimes you crash, sometimes you don't have a team that can help you properly. If I can quote Guido after Boonen's P-R win, it kind of sums up what I'm trying to say:
Guido Mukk wrote:
what you guys talking now..?
That Tommeke is stronger cobble rider that Cancellara?
Just comparing results? That is for guys who came 40 years after us and reading history books.
Results are our main reference, but there's a whole situation around it. Sometimes, we have to base it on what we believe riders can achieve, even if for some reason they don't have the results to back it up. Like Alakagom said, sometimes it's hard to judge. This very same factor is one of the reasons why it's nearly impossible to create stats that everybody agree with. The riders are riding in road races, not in stationary bikes with power meters Edited by lluuiiggii on 12-02-2013 18:22
ruben wrote:
lol @lowering Gesinks stats suggestion, they're already too low for my liking anyway
Nah, you can't say that. He isn't a future Tour winner, nor will it be easy for him to finish a TdF on podium. Therefore he would need a perfect race and even then it would be close. So i think you can't complain if his stats would be lower. For me they are good like they are, but nowhere too low.
ruben wrote:
lol @lowering Gesinks stats suggestion, they're already too low for my liking anyway
Nah, you can't say that. He isn't a future Tour winner, nor will it be easy for him to finish a TdF on podium. Therefore he would need a perfect race and even then it would be close. So i think you can't complain if his stats would be lower. For me they are good like they are, but nowhere too low.
How can you know that? I agree with you that he shouldn't be higher. For now. Why would it be hard for him to podium a TdF in his life? He got 5th a few years ago, and is now better than he was by then. Also, he's still in his mid-twenties. Who says he doesn't develop in a Contador when he's about 30?
He has been unlucky in the past years, but who says that he can't win a TdF in his life? You simply don't know, look where Wiggo came from Edited by Jesleyh on 12-02-2013 19:34
If he hadn't had his myriad of problems the last couple of years he would have won all three GT's. Every year. Was so young and strong just a couple of years ago.
lluuiiggii wrote:
My understanding: there's no such thing as "stats are based on 2012 results" or "stats shouldn't be based on 2009 results". Stats are what people believe the riders deserve in the current moment. How we can we know what they are capable of? Mainly by results, but they are not everything. By that same logic you're applying to Gesink, Andy Schleck should be a 'no one' because he didn't perform at all last year. But we know that's not true. Same for Cancellara, we know he's one of the best riders on the Cobbles even if he missed the two biggest cobbled classics of last year. Plus, at no time anybody said Gesink had 79 MO because of his GP Montreal win. If there's any stat that shouldn't be changed based on a result on GP Montreal it's exactly the mountain one
You're looking solely on the results they achieved, and it's not this way that it should be. Sometimes you have bad luck, sometimes you crash, sometimes you don't have a team that can help you properly. If I can quote Guido after Boonen's P-R win, it kind of sums up what I'm trying to say:
Guido Mukk wrote:
what you guys talking now..?
That Tommeke is stronger cobble rider that Cancellara?
Just comparing results? That is for guys who came 40 years after us and reading history books.
Results are our main reference, but there's a whole situation around it. Sometimes, we have to base it on what we believe riders can achieve, even if for some reason they don't have the results to back it up. Like Alakagom said, sometimes it's hard to judge. This very same factor is one of the reasons why it's nearly impossible to create stats that everybody agree with. The riders are riding in road races, not in stationary bikes with power meters
I think the Problem is I stared to watch cycling in 2010 and in that Year I only watched Giro, Tour and Vuelta. In 2011 and 2012 started to watch every race with live streaming and in those 2 Years didnt saw anything from GESINK that make me belive he is capable of doing a podium during a Grand Tour. SCHLECK and CANCELLARA have results and statistics that back up his Stats although they didnt have a good 2012, but in the case from GESINK he hasnt any result or statistic that back up his 79 MO. Its just annoying seen him beating guys like Moreno, Scarponi or Basso in a Grand Tour in my career although he never have done so IRL. I guess we will know how good is he really after the Giro if he dont crashes.
ruben wrote:
lol @lowering Gesinks stats suggestion, they're already too low for my liking anyway
Nah, you can't say that. He isn't a future Tour winner, nor will it be easy for him to finish a TdF on podium. Therefore he would need a perfect race and even then it would be close. So i think you can't complain if his stats would be lower. For me they are good like they are, but nowhere too low.
How can you know that? I agree with you that he shouldn't be higher. For now. Why would it be hard for him to podium a TdF in his life? He got 5th a few years ago, and is now better than he was by then. Also, he's still in his mid-twenties. Who says he doesn't develop in a Contador when he's about 30?
He has been unlucky in the past years, but who says that he can't win a TdF in his life? You simply don't know, look where Wiggo came from
He has been unlucky, thats true, but i simply don't see him as future TdF winner. And for Wiggins, his transformation is nothing less than incredible, which contains credible and i wouldn't vouch for him, but thats Off-Topic. But yeah, all is possible.
I would leave his stats, how they are right now.
Polyvoda is good in flat (69-70). He also not bad hilly stages (70).
Averin is good sprinter with a lot of top-10 last year (71-72) and not bad at hills (~69-70)
Brambilla is top-sprinter of team (72-73)
Klimiankou is climber (70-71) also for hills (71). He won his Euro-23 bronze at hilly route. But suffer at flat windy stages
Chiocca is sprinter (70)
Baldo is good at hilly stages (71). He won overall of An Post
Imhof good at flat. He is track-rider
And Erdin is young, but promising sprinter (for this level). Maybe 68-69 now, but 72 in future
And belarusians
Krasilnikau is TT-specialist. He was 2nd at national championship and had some top-10 at worlds U-23. 72 for TT
Bazhkou is very talented sprinter and puncher. He had a lot of top-10 and wins in italian under-23 tour. Maybe 70-71 now for SP, but smth like 74 in future. He also good in hills (69-70 now, 72-73 in future). He is just a little bit less talented, then Lutsenko. His results https://elite-unde...u_2012.htm and here https://cqranking....current=0. And he was KOM in Baby Giro before injury
Novikau, Sinelnikau, Sobal retired
Nothing against you, but i think you rate these guys too high. I gave Zoidl, who won the National Championship and finished 14th at World Championships, 71 in TT, so I don't see why Krasilnikau would deserve 72... (for example at World Championships he finished more than 6 minutes behind him)
The same with the other guys, but it's just my opinion.
Krasilnikau had technical problems last two worlds, but OK, maybe 70 is enough. About other guys... For example, Brambilla won sprints last year, Bazhkou won, Averin was top-10 in 2,HC. But they have smth like 55 for SP. So, yes, maybe I overrated them, but the main issue is to show, what they can They are definitely not all-55 racers
Edited by Kirill Klimenkov on 12-02-2013 20:39
I think discussing stats of top riders is a waste of time here, because it's all about opinions we have on them. It's not like the stat makers don't know who Gesink is or what he can do
So maybe we should try to focus on smaller teams and lesser known riders. This is where great value can be added by the community as a whole to improve the DB.
By the way, I saw that Sergej Fuchs and Enrico Magazzini have a potential of 6, while they haven't shown anything to justify that in the last couple of years and the professional teams don't want to sign them. So maybe they can be lowered to 3 or 4.
Its a mystery to me why Danny Pate's stats decrease after EVERYSINGLE new database that is released. Then I have to come on here and complain, and then I just catch flak for being a fan boy while people ignore what is happening.
His Flat is back down to 73.
This implies that you think Alexandre Pichot, Matteo Pelucci, Alexander Porsev, Marcin Sapa, Alexander Serebryakov, Jesse Sergent, Pablo Urtasun, Steele Van Hoff, Gorik Gardeyn, Russel Downing, Jonas Ahlstrand, and numerous others could pull the entire peloton through every flat stage of the Tour de France and chase down every break, because they are all 73 Flat too, and this is what Danny Pate does.
This also means that Luke Durbridge, Ross Edgar, Nico Eeckhout, Mikhail Ignatiev, Alberto Ongarato, Marco Marcato, Adrien Petit, and a bunch of others could do a BETTER job of it than Danny Pate, because their Flat stats are laughably higher.
What a disgrace.
I don't know why I have to lobby so much for Danny Pate, but I don't think asking for 76 Flat for one of the best flat domestiques in the world is unreasonable. I'd also bump his MO to 70, and his hill to 74. Its just not realistic as it stands.
I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like I have to do this every single time there's a new DB, and I'm just tired of being labeled a troll when things are this unreasonable.
Mike Creed also needs a stat bump, as he was top 20 in the Tour of Colorado, but there is no way he'd do that with 60 MO. I think maybe 65-70 is reasonable.
Edited by Bushwackers on 12-02-2013 22:30
And I don't want to hear about "he has no results last year" because THAT'S NOT HIS JOB. His job is to make sure his team mates get results, and he is one of the best at it.
If we are really going by that fallacious logic, then we had better drop Andy Schleck's Mountain to 70 after last year.
