Alakagom wrote:
Manx: Edmonson finisehd 43rd in Fleche, above many much better names, cosnidering he was a domestique, for me he deserves those stats, he has other performances like Algarve to back that up.
I find Edmondsons stats are appropriate, but than on the other hand i can understand Denifls lowering even less. Like i said two pages before, 29th Fleche Wallone, 22th L-B-L, 29th Paris-Nice and 5th Circuit de la Sarthe. You don't do this with 70HIL.
Edited by ppanther on 24-04-2013 12:14
Blueprint wrote:
With Andy Schleck, things are fairly simple: it's impossible to predict his stats at the moment, so anything goes for the Daily DB and people can tweak them the way they see fit. It's nothing more than guess work at the moment.
Gesink should just have 78 on climbing and he'll be fine.
My personal top stats on MO:
82 Contador, Froome
81 Nibali, Rodriguez
80 Wiggins, Van den Broeck, Valverde
79 Hesjedal, Quintana, A. Schleck(?)
78 Gesink, Pinot, S. Sanchez, Porte, Henao etc...
Alakagom wrote:
Manx: Edmonson finisehd 43rd in Fleche, above many much better names, cosnidering he was a domestique, for me he deserves those stats, he has other performances like Algarve to back that up.
I find Edmondsons stats are appropriate, but than on the other hand i can understand Denifls lowering even less. Like i said two pages before, 29th Fleche Wallone, 22th L-B-L, 29th Paris-Nice and 5th Circuit de la Sarthe. You don't do this with 70HIL.
Denifl's stats were updated afterwards, he was a name that didn't jump out isntantly for easy to miss in an updated I didn't go trough teams individually, he has either 73 or 74 now. Gesink as well as one of those, he has 78 in MO for now.
Edited by Alakagom on 24-04-2013 12:27
Contador is a wee bit overrated in my opinion. Perhaps a balance with Nibali at 81? Froome at 82, Rodriguez at 80(he's better in the hills), and Gesink steadies at 78 until proven .
"America. Show a nipple on television and the whole country goes ape-shit." -DubbelDekker
Denifl's stats were updated afterwards, he was a name that didn't jump out isntantly for easy to miss in an updated I didn't go trough teams individually, he has either 73 or 74 now. Gesink as well as one of those, he has 78 in MO for now.
No problem.
What bothered me was, that he had alread 73 before and now only has 70.
All in all i have to say you do great work with the stats and even if there sometimes is a lot of discussion i think pcmdaily db has by far the best stats.
TheManxMissile wrote:
We always say here not to judge people before their goals. Andy's goal is the Tour, and to drop him before then is massively unfair. He did finish LBL which is such a major improvment over the last 6-7months it cannot be unreasonable to think that he could gather some decent fitness in the next 2 months and contest the Tour.
I argue that Andy should not be dropped, as he has a wide palmares of top results in the Tour, and missed only 1 race. Suddenly that makes him a shit rider? No it doesn't.
Also we cannot base stats on expectations, otherwise the whole system descends into who we do and do not like, which we will all agree is wrong and does not work.
Andy's goal was also LBL. He wanted to be good there but he wasn't. For Andy's standards, he was average at best. I don't consider dropping him for LBL unfair. I don't want to drop Andy's stats in expectation. It's not in expectation, but based on his current performance and dedication to the sport. He has entered and abandoned loads of races since late 2012. The only part where expectation comes in is in the potential to develop. I expect Andy to develop to be able to reach 8th in the GC of the Tour. You agree that it's not good to base current stats on expectations, yet you don't want to drop Andy's stats because you expect that we may be proven wrong then in the Tour?
Also remember these stats are the in-game stats for January 1st 2013. Giving Andy lower stats with growing potential would make him play exactly as is happening now: Shit at the start of the season, but possibly good enough to place decently at the Tour by growth, provided that everything goes right and he receives the right training in-game.
TheManxMissile wrote:
I argue that Robert should be dropped a bit.
His stats seem to be based of what he could acheive, not what he has achieved. We cannot base stats off expectation. People from the Netherlands (like you, Jesl and Ruben) will expect more of Gesink than Andy, and thus believe that he deserves really good stats.
I agree that Robert should be dropped, as I indicated in a previous post. Please don't dismiss my opinion as nationalistic.
I wrote:
And before I get accused of only looking at things from one perspective, I too feel like Gesink should have a lower potential as well. Both Andy and Robert will probably never get to the level of let's say, Ryder Hesjedal in the 2012 Giro anymore.
Gesink deserves the stats that allow him to reach his Vuelta 2012 result and his Catalunya 2013 result, with potential that allows an increase to place 6-8 in the Tour GC. Nothing more. I concur that fans usually rate their favourites higher, but I'm not a fan of Gesink at all. In that light, fans will always demand higher stats and DB makers need to balance for that by providing lower stats and I have no problem if they do so.
Blueprint's suggested stats seem very fair by the way.
It seems like Gesink is the exception rule for everything here.
Alakagom wrote: Andy's stats changed to gue general consenus here. Most people wanted them to change and they did.
Here are a lot of people complaining since months about Gesinks stats and I dont see his stats changing at all.
Jesleyh wrote:
Gesink got 6th in the last GT from Cycling. He was not in a great form there, he had a little bit less preparation than the others(crash recovery) and Vuelta wasn't his peake(Conta and Moreno, and also guys like Rodriguez a bit f.e totally peaked here I think)
Yes, he crashes in his peak races, but since there is no 'crash' skill at the moment, that doesn't say anything about one of the PCM abilities. In that case, Andy should be lower than Gesink, because Gesink actually achieved something the last years. And Gesink got 4th times in the Top 7 of a GT, not just the TdF 2009
If Gesink doesn't crash in the Giro & TdF, I think Gesink can make Top 5 in one of them this year, which is good/okay for 79 MO, don't forget that!!!
And about the potential, don't forget that Gesink is about the youngest rider from the best, say, 10 Stage-racers. I think even Froome is a little bit older(they're about the same)
It would be only logical if Gesink develops, he's only 26(27 if he just had his birthday, idk )
Gesinks is never in top form, he can have raced 100 days and u still he never is in top form. He races as much as other riders and he never gets in top form.
Conta came from a ban and training is not the same thing as racing.
Moreno was working for Purito but I think u consider working in a Grand Tour for another rider is much easier than having a Team working for u
Rodriguez yeah he wasnt in his third peak after peacking for Ardennes and Giro Vuelta was his third peack while Gesink was only peacking for Tour.
And nice to see that been 2 in the TDF in 2011 isnt achiving something. Been 2 in the race Gesink dreams about is nothing BRAVO. Schleck "won the Tour in 2010 and was 2 times 2, but for u that is least achivment. I mean the amount of riders with the achivment of Gesink is so small in history because is way difficult to achive that, than that to do what Schlleck has done.
And I think Schleck is going to win the TDF this year 1 Hour ahead of Froome but that doesnt give him a 79 MO.
ShortsNL wrote:
[quote]TheManxMissile wrote: Gesink deserves the stats that allow him to reach his Vuelta 2012 result and his Catalunya 2013 result, with potential that allows an increase to place 6-8 in the Tour GC. Nothing more. I concur that fans usually rate their favourites higher, but I'm not a fan of Gesink at all. In that light, fans will always demand higher stats and DB makers need to balance for that by providing lower stats and I have no problem if they do so.
Blueprint's suggested stats seem very fair by the way.
But Moreno doesnt deserves stats that allow him to reach his Vuelta 2012 result. Moreno 78 MO Gesink 79 MO
And Quintana doesnt deserves stats that allow him to reach his Catalunya 2013 result agian Gesinks 79 Mo Quintana 78 MO
And same goes for Martin that was more than a Minute ahead of Gesink. Gesink 79 MO Martin 77 MO.
Gesink might be the only rider that get better stats than the oder rider that kicked his ass.
Edited by fickman on 24-04-2013 14:18
What about the races before that? LBL has always been a goal for him, but despite that he finished 50th. The last time he actually showed top class rider capacity was the 2011 Tour. That's two years ago. How can you be so sure that he was going to be in form for the Tour last year, after the ridiculously poor season he had before that?
Jesleyh wrote:
But I can see Gesink riding Top 5 in the Giro 2013 (or at least close)
Weren't you the one seeing Kelderman winning this year's Volta ao Algarve because of the closing 35 km ITT?
Jesleyh wrote:
And if I remember correctly, Gesink was technically a Menchov helper in 2010, and still Top 5'd. That rules out the Moreno point above btw
But yourself had already ruled out the Moreno point before someone said that Gesink was working for Menchov:
Jesleyh wrote:
Add the form Moreno had, and Gesink didn't, and I don't see why you are complaining
Helper role doesn't help, but isn't always a good excuse.
Moreno had top-form though.
So if I get it right -> Moreno rides as helper for Purito, finishes 5th = Moreno was in awesome form and helper role doesn't matter that much.
-> Gesink rides as helper for Menchov and finishes 6th = Gesink is awesome because even riding in the role of helper, he Top 6's the race? Doesn't seem to be the same judging process imo
Just poiting this out because, as you say, you're trying to speak honestly, I'm trying to help that
And btw - if you (people) don't call Andy the 2010 Tour winner, then you can't say Gesink has ever finished in the Top 5 of the Tour.
fickman wrote:
Sometimes its really hard to follow stats here, Stats for Purito were lowered for results in this season and others keeps their stats based on last season. There should be a system to make stats and not be this radom, there are enaugh sites with statitics to make stats more logical. Some riders have stats because of what the did 4,3,2 and 1 year ago and others because of what they have done this season, its all random and almost a how much i like the rider system
The riders don't have stats because of what they have achieved 4, 3 years ago, they have stats based on how good Alakagom believe they are currently. But the only way to measure how good a rider is today is by his performances.
However performances alone don't tell the rider's ability, there's so many other factors into it: preparation, form, injuries, sickness, role in races, bad luck... cycling races aren't a power test, where riders would simply ride in power machines and the strongest ones be awarded. For that reason, it's impossible to create a system based on statistics.
To take the Schleck example: he was 2nd in the 2011 Tour, but has done literally nothing since then partially because of his crash, scoring 30 CQ points in 2012 and 13. Should he have the same stats as a rider who's scored at least 30 CQ points in this same period? Or do you believe that he'll be able to do much better when July comes, assuming he doesn't get his preparation messed up by something else again?
JJ Cobo is another one who did very little since winning the Vuelta in 2011, despite having no major setbacks. Should his decline in stats be the same as Schleck's?
Or lastly, would you rate Nick Nuyens and Johan Vansummeren as the best cobbled riders in 2011? Oliver Zaugg as one of the best hilly riders?
To finish, the problem with this (the fact that stats are based on what we believe riders are capable of doing today - even if sometimes by some reasons they lack the results to show that) is that it's too subjective. Some people believe e.g. Schleck will again be one of the top climbers in the TdF; others think he's past it after his injury. Some think Gesink only doesn't have a true GC great result because of his bad luck; others might think he just isn't good enough to do that. It's impossible to create stats that everyone agrees with, which is why I think most people does their own few adjustments to the stats. What I can guarantee is that the stats are as little biased as possible (as a "how much I like the rider" system), and certainly aren't random
Well, no, I wasn't saying Kelderman was going to win Volta ao Algarve. Not at all. I believe I said he could ride a nice result in the TT(He didn't though, but he made me happy half-a-month later, in France )
You can search for the post if you want
And you have a point there, but I was just applying the Moreno was a helper logic, to prove that it doesn't make sense, since Gesink had the same
There is a difference between 2012 Vuelta helper Moreno and 2010 Tour helper Gesink, though.
Gesink was basically co-captain alongside Menchov, never having to sacrifice himself by pacing, etc, whereas Moreno was actually doing a lot of work for Purito. He could easily have saved that energy for later if he had a more free role in that race.
Edited by Pellizotti2 on 25-04-2013 06:21
Pellizotti2 wrote:
There is a difference between 2012 Vuelta helper Moreno and 2010 Tour helper Gesink, though.
Gesink was basically co-captain alongside Menchov, never having to sacrifice himself by pacing, etc, Moreno was actually doing a lot of work for Purito. He could easily have saved that energy for later if he had a more free role in that race.
lluuiiggii wrote:
The riders don't have stats because of what they have achieved 4, 3 years ago, they have stats based on how good Alakagom believe they are currently. But the only way to measure how good a rider is today is by his performances.
However performances alone don't tell the rider's ability, there's so many other factors into it: preparation, form, injuries, sickness, role in races, bad luck... cycling races aren't a power test, where riders would simply ride in power machines and the strongest ones be awarded. For that reason, it's impossible to create a system based on statistics.
To finish, the problem with this (the fact that stats are based on what we believe riders are capable of doing today - even if sometimes by some reasons they lack the results to show that) is that it's too subjective. Some people believe e.g. Schleck will again be one of the top climbers in the TdF; others think he's past it after his injury. Some think Gesink only doesn't have a true GC great result because of his bad luck; others might think he just isn't good enough to do that. It's impossible to create stats that everyone agrees with, which is why I think most people does their own few adjustments to the stats. What I can guarantee is that the stats are as little biased as possible (as a "how much I like the rider" system), and certainly aren't random
I think the problem is that this is a DB for thousands of people and not for 3 or 4 persons or x or y country.
One of the big factors to win a Grand Tour in MO, REC, TT and form. Then there are only 3 Grand Tours. If u oberpower rider X who has been receiving the leader role in a Team not for a couple of weeks or months but more than a year and this rider hasnt been able to get a podium in a sigle World Tour Stage Race and has been beaten more than once from helpers from his own team and other teams and then u play the game and see that that rider is winning and making Podiums at Grand Tours and One Week Tours and beating last year and this year One week Stage Tours winners, then u ask youself what is this? Then u have to edit yourself the DB to get Real Life results instead of some weird fantasy results. Maybe thats not a big problem with people that sim all the time but its really anoying if u play all the stages in 3D mode.
And now I not going keep anoying u all with my opinion and with stat sugestions. Stats are made by Alakagom and like u said they are based on how Alakagom believe they should be and my opinion or the opinion posted by others here its not going to change that and we must learn to live with that.
@fickman
Its time to let it go dude. You can make any changes yourself for now, and as almost every argument is irrelevant until the GT's we should all just wait until they are done.
fickman wrote:
And now I not going keep anoying u all with my opinion and with stat sugestions. Stats are made by Alakagom and like u said they are based on how Alakagom believe they should be and my opinion or the opinion posted by others here its not going to change that and we must learn to live with that.
I wasn't saying your opinion was annoying. Every stat suggestion is always welcome, I'd believe Alak reads them all and considers them all (though it's true that for the well-known riders, suggestions are less useful than for the lesser riders, since most people - including Alakagom - have their own opinion on the main riders). At least for my part I'm happy that in 2 days there have been 5 pages of discussion, which shows there's several people interested in discussing the stats. But as you said, the DB is for thousands of people; impossible to get something everyone agrees with.
In other words, what I meant wasn't that the discussion was annoying, but rather that people not agreeing is expected (and also that the stats aren't random).
ps.: If that's Gesink you're talking about in paragraph 2, I think he has podiumed 2011 Tirreno and Vuelta al Pais Vasco
PhilipBusch wrote:
Maybe Berhane should also have an upgrade in MO and ACC after his win on the first mountain finish. But let's wait till after tomorrow's stage.
)
(or at least close)
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
