Spring Classics 2015

enrique wrote:

... Can we have all the riders displayed?...

Dave, could you activate the feature we had last year where we could toggle between seeing all riders and seeing only the riders in the current competition? It'd be nice to see all the riders on one page instead of looking for them one by one... Thanks!

Joelsim wrote:

... less transfers... makes strategy more important and rewards knowledge...

That's where I basically disagree with you... Let me try and make my point...
.

These are the riders that scored a Top 4 placing in any of the races last year, not considering Scheldeprijs or Brabantse Pijl. They are sorted by highest number of races they scored a Top 4 in and then by highest finish order in any of the races. (Obviously) Breakaways are not considered.

Greg Van Avermaet BMC Racing Team
Edvald Boasson Hagen Team Sky
Alexander Kristoff Team Katusha
Tom Boonen Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
Arnaud Demare FDJ.fr
Sep Vanmarcke Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Fabian Cancellara Trek Factory Racing
John Degenkolb Team Giant-Shimano
Niki Terpstra Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
Peter Sagan Cannondale
Geraint Thomas Team Sky
Stijn Vandenbergh Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
Yves Lampaert Topsport Vlaanderen - Baloise
Ian Stannard Team Sky
Philippe Gilbert BMC Racing Team
Jelle Vanendert Lotto Belisol
Moreno Hofland Belkin-Pro Cycling Team
Michal Kwiatkowski Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
Ben Swift Team Sky
Bauke Mollema Belkin-Pro Cycling Team
Damiano Cunego Lampre-Merida
Juan Jose Lobato Del Valle Movistar Team
Alejandro Valverde Belmonte Movistar Team
Simon Gerrans Orica Greenedge
Daniel Martin Garmin Sharp
Giampaolo Caruso Team Katusha

So, if (!), the rider valuation was based on just (!) the Classics, which I don't think they are, , then this should be their order in rider value, more or less, going from highest valued to lesser valued. When Dave publishes their values this year, I'll update this, of course...

Well, the trend as I've seen it this year, is you probably won't be able to fit in more than 3, at most 4, 'Big Boys', per race, making the other 4 or 5 riders on your team mid-level riders, fillers or 3.0 riders...

If the game is designed to allot, say, 3 transfers between races, which admitedly you don't have to follow, then it would make sense to just (!) switch out your 'Big Boys', because they (!) are the most probable to score you the 50, 40, 30, 25 or so points available for the first four placings, leaving you with a core of 4 or 5 riders that, unless you use another strategy, will stay put until the Ardennes, when you are almost obligated to change your team completely to score any points (unless you have Gilbert in there, that super human beast! I exaggerate, of course... )

I think it would be fun to rotate more riders around than just 3 'Big Boys' per race. With around 691 different riders to chose from, with new teams and new rosters coming in every race, I think we deserve more than an average of 3 transfers per race, just so you can meddle into the midlevel riders and unknown or little-known 3.0 riders from the smaller teams.

I'm not asking for much, just an average of 1 more transfer per race. Instead of an average of 3 transfers, I'd like 4. I think it'd be more fun.

And challenging. And it would 'reward knowledge' much more than simply swapping out the 'Big Boys' every race, which I think 3 transfers per race is likely to do, pushing people to bring in just (!) the 'Big Boys' in their efforts to get the most points every day...

That's a little boring... I'd just like a little more flexibility... not a wholesale 'redo' of your team every race...

Nix wrote:

stumps wrote:

Nix wrote:

You can do all the thought experiments or boast all you want.

Facts and mathematics (statistics) says that ....
The more trades you have, the more strategy and good planning is rewarded, and the less luck is a factor.
Conversely, the less trades you have, the less strategy is rewarded, and the more luck is a factor.

Also there's a saying ......."lies, damn lies and statistics".

Also your later comments about not wanting to do purist races and eye sticking in my opinion shows that you dont have the interest in spending time doing your homework for races and only want a lot of transfers to make up for that lack of interest

Haha, a purist cult member can't even accept that I have a valid reason for not wanting to play purist games.

"There's a saying ......."lies, damn lies and statistics" " ... Yes, and it is a refuge for cultists who don't want their self-serving beliefs challenged by facts.

I don't play purist because in my view it is fantasy cycling lite - a dumbed down version of fantasy sports to enable people to play lots of games with the least amount of effort and the most amount of luck. That said if others want to play it why should I care - just don't talk to me about it.

Here is an indisputable rule of logic for you ...
Factors that a common to both options are irrelevant in a comparison of which is the better option.

So, while it is true that .... no matter what form of fantasy cycling you play, the more research you do, the better outcome you will get, compared to someone who does a lot less work (over the long term and over lots of games).

Because that factor is common to all options it is completely irrelevant in trying to compare and evaluate the options.

Further, only someone that your signature phrase applied to, would propose it as a reason to invalidate someone else's preference.

Why are you getting so wound up ?

You have an opinion that ,based on your posts, you are trying to push onto everyone else, and yet when someone else has an opinion/question you either ignore the questioning or get aggressive in response to someone else's opinion .

Stumps was just pointing out what other people ,myself included, have observed . Your comment about fork and eye is an indication that you don't actually care or even respect anyone who wants to play as a purist and therefore simply won't tolerate any opinion other than your own about the purist game.

In conclusion to the above you should have given up on this thread about 10 posts back ( arbitrary number but you should get the point ) .

Simply put your numbers game doesn't tie up with real world fantasy cycling , the transfers will be the transfers , people will and do enjoy purist and std versions of the game and everyone is allowed an opinion irrelevant of whether you agree .

Now I'm done with this thread

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

The bigger the race the less likely a rider 5 credits or below will score any predictable points... Certainly cant see there being a rider of a small value where u could say he should top 10 and get a decent hall of points...

Well... we'll see... Greg Bole , I think, has been or is a 3.0 rider... But again... for me , it's about the fun of being able to take a few more risks... Even if they don't pan out! And, of course, you're probably right, but it would add a a little bit of excitement to a very exciting part of the season... They're extraordinary races, and so many riders to pick from! It's like going to a dance and instead of one sorority show up, 15 (!) show up, hell, I want to dance with all the girls I can! And well, it'd be nice to try out a few different combinations rather than stick to the old 'swap 'Big Boys' in, swap 'Big Boys' out rouitne for most of the year, which is fun, mind you, and challenging... But... Hmmm... I wonder if... ? ... Yes... I think I did repeat myself... Damn! I'm growing old...

LukeClosely wrote:

I realise it's a bit late but could I propose a Bonus Purist competition with unlimited transfers for people who genuinely can't be bothered to play the standard game? Obviously it wouldn't be purist as such so wouldn't have to count towards the purist scores. I think a few of us more casual players would like to play a simplified version of the game

Purist + transfers isn't purist
If you aren't a premium player then why would you want to play a casual game as one of your 8 (im making the assumption there that casual equals non premium)

LukeClosely wrote:

Casual doesn't mean not premium. I have paid my tenner so I can do all the races but I only play purist. Casual means that I love to play but haven't got the time nor inclination to do the neccessary research and planning to do well at the standard game. As I stated I know transfers isn't purist which is why I suggested it be a Bonus competition. I'm suggesting a Bonus Purist as a more relaxed competition so I can still enjoy playing the Classics but without the hassle of the standard game. Let the serious players enjoy their standard competition and have a just for fun bonus competition like there has been for some other races already this season. It doesn't have to be called bonus purist if that's a problem as it wouldn't count towards any season scores anyway

Got ya , like I said I had made an assumption, it wasn't intended as a dig it just confused me as I associated casual with non premium

2 hours before, 13 IAM riders listed and no Haussler who is only in the top 10 favs to win............... Also no Zico Waeteyns from Giant ? Great start !

stumps wrote:

...The more transfers the more it complicates matters and the less effort people have to put in as they just make sweeping changes...

I wish I had a way to prove this... I think, for example, of the last mountain stages of a GT... If everybody has 3 transfers left, well, you pretty much have to stick with the GC favorites... But (!) if you get 4 or 5 transfers, you're more likely to bring in a wildcard that someone else doesn't think is that good or go for a breakaway rider ... In my mind, the less transfers you have the more people will go for the safer bets, the favorites... I know I can't prove it, though, my closest comparison would be to compare the proportion of different teams in a Purist competition (no transfers) to the proportion of different teams at each stage of a Standard competition...
.

stumps wrote:

...the vast majority of those riders will never ever get picked unless its as a 3 point or similar, filler in a team.......

If most people would transfer in the favorites for each race if they're using, say, 3 transfers per race, wouldn't having 4 or 5 transfers available let you change these 'fillers' without losing out on bringing in on the favorites? For example, here comes Scheldeprijs and you only plan to use 3 transfers... You bring in Cavendish, Kittel and another big name sprinter. wouldn't you also like to bring in a 'filler' from a small team, too? Another 'Big Name' probably won't fit... Wouldn't that make for more varied teams rather than more similar teams?

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

You can't name a winner of schelderprijs...?...

What's that, you say? That I'm ignorant of such a prestigious race? That my numbers must therefore be skewed and I am too lazy to account for that race because of my 'utter disdain' for sprinter-friendly races?

.
That I should therefore, update my data on the Spring Classics to reflect the possible inclusion of Sheldeprijs and De Brabantse Pijl?
.

Well, if I must...

Bringing Sheldeprijs and De Brabantse Pijl into the mix brings us 78 new iders and 1 new team (Team Novo Nordisk) into the 'Spring Classics' competition...

Household names like Marcel Kittel, Elia Viviani and Theo Bos (Sheldeprijs) and Peter Stetina and Mikhail Ignatyev (Brabantse Pijl) only rode 1 race in this series of races and they were one of these two races...

Which brings our total to 769 (!) (:O) different riders in these races and 46 teams and makes Greg Van Avermaet your 'must have' throughout the series, having completed 9 of the 13 races and placing in the Top 20 4 times... Edvald Boasson Hagen should get an honorable mention, since he also completed 9 races, but only managed a Top 20 in 2 of them...

Joelsim wrote:

...The more transfers there are, the more similar the teams will be...

I look at it the other way around, the less transfers you have, the more I think you play conservatively, go for the sure things, the safe bets, with more transfers and 231 riders that only ride 1 race you can change your team to bring in that guy from a smaller team who will ride his butt off 'cause he's got only one chance to race at this level the whole year...

.
The less transfers you have, the more you'll stick with Boonen, Cancellara, Vanmarcke and Van Avermaet...

The more transfers you have, the more you might risk bringing in different riders for Strade Bianche and the Ardennes... the less transfers you have the more the chance you'll stick to just bringing in the favorites...

I have no idea why you'd think more transfers mean more similar teams?

With 691 riders to choose from, the more transfers we get the more the chance that we'll rotate some of the mid level riders rather than just rotate through the 'Big Guns'...

Think of Purists, I think Purist teams end up being more alike because people tend to go to the safer bets... I just find it strange you'd think more transfers means more similar teams...

If I could get a data dump from Dave after this is all through, I'd love to analyze it...

Joelsim wrote:

The more transfers there are, the more similar the teams will be...

I've come up with a way to try and illustrate my point.

.
Here's what I have:

On Stage 3 of Qatar, the Time Trial stage, at least 17.1% of the teams in the Standard competititon were 'unique' teams...

On Stage 6 of the Tour of Qatar, at least 12.9% of the teams in the Standard competititon were 'unique' teams...

I wish I could see the results for Stage 1, but I don't see how to get them... I figure the higher percentage of unique teams is on Stage 1, but I don't know for sure.

My premise is as a competition is drawing close to the end, the more similar teams you will get...

Would the Purist competition have a higher percentage of unique teams?

I'd need to see the scoring information for the Tour of Qatar Purist competition, which I don't have access to because I didn't play it.

Still, with a much more varied terrain, 6 more stages, 550 (!) more riders to choose from in 27 more (!) teams, with practically no (!) riders that ride both (!) the Ardennes and the Cobbled Races, why would you expect more (?) similar teams from less (!) transfers?

If I had access to the TDU Standard and Purist scores, I'd gladly compare those! But I didnt play the TDU, so I can't see it.

It's not anywhere perfect, but it could prove whether teams actually vary more, the more transfers you're given...

Now, if we go with a 15 man Purist team in the Classics, well, it may not be a good comparison, because the Standard teams would only have 8 or 9 man teams, but I'd be happy to try this methodology on another competiton in the future, if somebody will provide the Purist team data... But I think you get my point... In my mind more transfers means more different teams...

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

...I believe transfers will either be at 40 or 45

How about 52?... Or an even 48? But 52 sounds better, 4 per race day and 4 more to cover the complete transition to the Ardennes!:? Thanks!

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

The races will be very similar to last year... at the moment it is likely to be 12 races, with 1 race different to the list above...

On another note, you know what I think would be cool? If the last race was tagged on to the Ardennes side of things... Why not add the De Brabantse Pijl - La Flèche Brabançonne ?

.

Here's their top 10 from last year:

1 Philippe Gilbert (Bel) BMC Racing Team 4:54:26
2 Michael Matthews (Aus) Orica Greenedge
3 Tony Gallopin (Fra) Lotto Belisol
4 Simon Geschke (Ger) Team Giant-Shimano
5 Björn Leukemans (Bel) Wanty - Groupe Gobert
6 Nathan Haas (Aus) Garmin Sharp
7 Davide Rebellin (Ita) CCC Polsat Polkowice
8 Julien Vermote (Bel) Omega Pharma - Quick-Step Cycling Team
9 Sébastien Reichenbach (Swi) IAM Cycling

Pretty nice race! It's right after Roubaix, just 3 days later, and just 4 days before Amstel Gold, and it would even out the calendar between Cobbled Races vs. Hilly Races!

enrique wrote:

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

The races will be very similar to last year... at the moment it is likely to be 12 races, with 1 race different to the list above...

On another note, you know what I think would be cool? If the last race was tagged on to the Ardennes side of things... Why not add the De Brabantse

Already mentioned it to dave, that would be the 13th race if included, its up to dave

Nix wrote:

TERatcliffe26 wrote:

Equally you don't get sprint points or mountain points in the classics, just purely a breakaway bonus, and picking a breakaway guy for the classics is more about luck than it would be for a GT stage, so if your using trades to target that imo your strategy for the classics is all wrong anyway

I was replying to a comment that Dave made in relation to DSs and Grand Tours. So my comment about sprint and KOM intermediate points was about grand tour scoring and therefore relevant.

Apologies thought you were referring to using that as a classics strategy

stealth wrote:

This 'argument' would support my asking to play the entire year as 'purist' with a squad of 25 riders for the whole year. If you lose riders through injury, illness or suspension, tough luck! It should be possible to pick a team that will score throughout the year, or targeted a certain types of 'event'.

Podium cafe do this already. I think the USP of the road.cc game is very separate, but you might enjoy that game with some of us. You may wish to see our thread from last year. http://road.cc/content/forum/110711-podium-cafe-vds

Dave Atkinson wrote:

one other option that's possible within the current game engine is just to give everyone a nice big squad, say 15/18 riders, and then you can make your picks for the whole classics season. thoughts? they'd all score, every race. but then they wouldn't all be riding every race.

Id prefer it the way you intended originally

even with a squad of 18 you are effectively picking 2 9 rider teams and you can't change your mind when it gets to the ardennes and if valverde, gerrans and kwiatkowski all decided not to ride you can't change, at least your likely to have saved some transfers to that point