Giro 2014

drheaton wrote:

Using one persons performance to judge whether a budget is right or not is nonsense, so much is down to chance like losing Rodriguez and Kittel in week one or Evans not being able to stick with the pace.

My point stands. If, going into the race, you can pick the top three GC riders plus the best sprinters in one team then the budget is too high.

But everyone had the same budget and choices , if u look at the fs purist in particular not everyone made the same choices on riders which if the budget had been 250 would have had the same end result, different teams ....it's not solely the budget that picks the team it's people's preferences and hunches as well

Twybaydos wrote:

The thing I like about the game in its normal sense is...

To say that the thing you like about this game in its 'normal sense' 'blah, blah, blah' is nonsense... Just kidding...
.

I agree... But this is what's fun about it... Even with that ability, how many people fell flat on their face loading up on GC favorites on a couple of stages to then have a huge breakaway take the top 10 or 15 spots? That's (!) what's cool about it... Even if you're able to load up on GC favorites galore, in a 3 week race that strategy will keep you near the top, but won't win the competition for you... And that's (!) great!

enrique wrote:

Well, this should be the 'Perfect', within budget, Purist team for the just completed Giro, according to my calculations:

33.2 Cadel Evans
29.3 Rigoberto Uran
26.7 Rafal Majka
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.9 Roberto Ferrari
17.2 Fabio Aru
14.0 Dario Cataldo
13.1 Julian David Arredondo
9.4 Tim Wellens
179.9

It would have scored 2369 points. Notice no Quintana and just one sprinter in there...

In comparison, this was the best 'real' Purist team...

37.0 Nairo Alexander Quintana
33.2 Cadel Evans
26.7 Rafal Majka
23.7 Domenico Pozzovivo
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.2 Fabio Aru
16.4 Fabio Andres Duarte
3.4 Rick Flens
3.3 Francesco Chicchi
180.0

It scored 1890 points... Team name boz, manager boz...

Enrique , for arguments sake, and because you enjoy doing this sort of thing , what would the best team have been with a 150 credit budget?

enrique wrote:

Jesus Christ, the competition was decided by 1 point!

it's been a tie before, decided on countback. vuelta 2012 i think.

ray silvester wrote:

... not having Quintana would probably meant that you had J-Rod instead

And I just had to have both!...

giff77 wrote:

... Every wondered what happens at the back of the bunch?...

Joyful! Thanks!

Joelsim wrote:

I'm not enjoying the break. I want to play. I think next year there should always be one game at least, every day of the season. And in the winter...

I got NRL and State of Origin to keep me busy atm and I also big speedway(sliders/solo bikes) fan.
State of origin was possibly one of the best games I have seen and I seen all of them and a lot live as I sold programs at the games as kid. If you going to watch a game of origin , check the last one out, except my team lost

chiv30 wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Using one persons performance to judge whether a budget is right or not is nonsense, so much is down to chance like losing Rodriguez and Kittel in week one or Evans not being able to stick with the pace.

My point stands. If, going into the race, you can pick the top three GC riders plus the best sprinters in one team then the budget is too high.

But everyone had the same budget and choices , if u look at the fs purist in particular not everyone made the same choices on riders which if the budget had been 250 would have had the same end result, different teams ....it's not solely the budget that picks the team it's people's preferences and hunches as well

I agree that to win a comp, whether it be purist or otherwise, you still need to pick the best riders. The fact that the same old people are at the top of the Giro standings, despite the higher budget, shows that.

My point is more that some of the personal challenge of picking a strong team within budget has gone. I no longer had to make the difficult choices between the best sprinter who'll get me points on flat stages or another GC guy, I no longer needed to choose between a Quintana, an Evans or an Uran for my team, I could have ALL of them if I wanted.

From my point of view purist is about making the tough calls and picking as good a team as you can within strict limitations, a 180 budget just makes it too easy to pick all the best riders and no longer forces you to pick and choose weighing up the strengths and weakness of each rider to the same extent.

A 150 credit budget would have meant I could have picked Quintana, Rodriguez or Evans, not all three, or it would have meant dropping my sprinters in favour of GC guys, a 180 credit budget means I can have the best of all worlds. Yes, I still managed to choose poorly with that budget (although no-one can blame me for picking Rodriguez and Kittel) but that's the nature of the game, and a separate issue from the budget.

chiv30 wrote:

...what would the best team have been with a 150 credit budget?

Good idea!
.

Here it is:

29.3 Rigoberto Uran
26.7 Rafal Majka
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.9 Roberto Ferrari
17.2 Fabio Aru
14.0 Dario Cataldo
13.1 Julian David Arredondo
9.4 Tim Wellens
3.0 Enrico Barbin
149.7

It would have netted you 2087 points...

If you felt like you had to have Quintana on your team, you would have had to replace Majka and Ferrari with Quintana and Tjallingii in the team above. So this would have been the best team with Quintana under 150.0:

37.0 Nairo Alexander Quintana
29.3 Rigoberto Uran
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.2 Fabio Aru
14.0 Dario Cataldo
13.1 Julian David Arredondo
9.4 Tim Wellens
7.3 Maarten Tjallingii
3.0 Enrico Barbin
149.4

But It would have scored you 1970 points...

Hope everyone is enjoying their break, I know I certainly am, I could only imagine how some of the riders are feeling, that Giro is just plain Brutal every year.
FANTASTIC viewing , except the organiser's always seem to stuff up at least 2 stages every year. They certainly could learn a lot off the TDF (except for the driver of the media car that took Hoogs out).
Step in the right direction here I think. I love people getting enthused , but there is a line.

http://road.cc/content/news/120694-police-want-banning-order-spectator-w...

I seriously doubt I would ride the Giro to often if I was a professional, I would wuss out and do the Classics and come back later in year for Veulta and Worlds ..LOL .
You suffer some mega bad conditions in classics but its only one day and no wet downhills like the Giro'. I can understand the attraction for suffering in the mad conditions of a classic. Pleasure 'n' Pain.

THE DAUPH looks a FUN TDF warm-up again, great startlist , can't wait

drheaton wrote:

... a 180 budget just makes it too easy to pick all the best riders and no longer forces you to pick and choose weighing up the strengths and weakness of each rider...

I think it's nice to have that budget once in a while... Why should everything be about the 'intellectual challenge'? Sometimes it's nice to pick your favorite team with your favorite riders, no limitations, and let it fly... I think it was fun, exciting and a challenge to the very end. No complaints here!

enrique wrote:

chiv30 wrote:

...what would the best team have been with a 150 credit budget?

Good idea!
.

Here it is:

29.3 Rigoberto Uran
26.7 Rafal Majka
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.9 Roberto Ferrari
17.2 Fabio Aru
14.0 Dario Cataldo
13.1 Julian David Arredondo
9.4 Tim Wellens
3.0 Enrico Barbin
149.7

It would have netted you 2087 points...

If you felt like you had to have Quintana on your team, you would have had to replace Majka and Ferrari with Quintana and Tjallingii in the team above. So this would have been the best team with Quintana under 150.0:

37.0 Nairo Alexander Quintana
29.3 Rigoberto Uran
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.2 Fabio Aru
14.0 Dario Cataldo
13.1 Julian David Arredondo
9.4 Tim Wellens
7.3 Maarten Tjallingii
3.0 Enrico Barbin
149.4

But It would have scored you 1970 points...

So what you have just proved is that even in purist the 180 vs150 budget really was irrelevant as in both instances the difference in max scores across a 3 week tour is minimal, the only difference would have been on who ppl would pick and on the restricted budget ..... I'm sure most ppl would have opted for Quintana thus netting them a lower score

chiv30 wrote:

... most [people] would have opted for Quintana...

That's what's funny about Purist... There's a difference between trying to get the highest score possible, beating out other players, having a balanced team, taking risks and as dr says, just having the luck that you don't have your riders drop out...
.

It's funny because even though ray correctly pointed out that Quintana was not a good value proposition, the best Purist team had him in (!)

enrique wrote:

37.0 Nairo Alexander Quintana
33.2 Cadel Evans
26.7 Rafal Majka
23.7 Domenico Pozzovivo
19.1 Wilco Kelderman
17.2 Fabio Aru
16.4 Fabio Andres Duarte
3.4 Rick Flens
3.3 Francesco Chicchi
180.0

I wish we had more detailed info on teams. I wish we could see how many teams actually picked Cataldo and Wellens and Ferrari for their Purist teams for the Giro, just because they were unorthdox great value propositions each yielding 15.1, 18.7 and 10.1 points per budget credit... I don't know if after, or at any point in the competition, you can see the number, not the percentage, of teams that picked a certain rider, but it'd be kind of cool to see how many people picked those riders for their Purist teams...

Why? Just because I think no one thought of them as worthy picks for GC, breakaway riders, KOM competitiors, etc... and it'd be kind of nice to applaud those who came up with those riders for their teams...

chiv30 wrote:

... the only difference would have been on who [people]... pick...

Incidentally, here are what came about to be the Top 10 'best value options' for the Giro:

9.4 Tim Wellens 18.7
13.1 Julian David Arredondo 17.1
17.2 Fabio Aru 17.0
14.0 Dario Cataldo 15.1
3.0 Enrico Barbin 15.0
3.0 Marco Bandiera 13.7
3.0 Ivan Rovny 13.7
19.1 Wilco Kelderman 13.0
26.7 Rafal Majka 12.8
3.0 Angelo Tulik 12.7

Again, it'd be kind of nice to be able to see how many people chose those riders for Purist after the competition was over... Maybe the 'riders' page could collect that info as they do the scores for each rider at the end of the competition...

chiv30 wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Using one persons performance to judge whether a budget is right or not is nonsense, so much is down to chance like losing Rodriguez and Kittel in week one or Evans not being able to stick with the pace.

My point stands. If, going into the race, you can pick the top three GC riders plus the best sprinters in one team then the budget is too high.

But everyone had the same budget and choices , if u look at the fs purist in particular not everyone made the same choices on riders which if the budget had been 250 would have had the same end result, different teams ....it's not solely the budget that picks the team it's people's preferences and hunches as well

I agree that to win a comp, whether it be purist or otherwise, you still need to pick the best riders. The fact that the same old people are at the top of the Giro standings, despite the higher budget, shows that.

My point is more that some of the personal challenge of picking a strong team within budget has gone. I no longer had to make the difficult choices between the best sprinter who'll get me points on flat stages or another GC guy, I no longer needed to choose between a Quintana, an Evans or an Uran for my team, I could have ALL of them if I wanted.

From my point of view purist is about making the tough calls and picking as good a team as you can within strict limitations, a 180 budget just makes it too easy to pick all the best riders and no longer forces you to pick and choose weighing up the strengths and weakness of each rider to the same extent.

A 150 credit budget would have meant I could have picked Quintana, Rodriguez or Evans, not all three, or it would have meant dropping my sprinters in favour of GC guys, a 180 credit budget means I can have the best of all worlds. Yes, I still managed to choose poorly with that budget (although no-one can blame me for picking Rodriguez and Kittel) but that's the nature of the game, and a separate issue from the budget.

drheaton wrote:

Using one persons performance to judge whether a budget is right or not is nonsense...

Sometimes you sound so 'high and mighty'... It's a pity... You tend to come across as arrogant and a 'know it all' with comments like this and I can't imagine you're like that in your real life... I mean, you can't be, you're a friend of dave's, after all... and he's the greatest (!)

Twybaydos wrote:

The thing I like about the game in its normal sense is to pick a favourite to win (e.g. Quintana), lay against other favourites by not picking them (e.g. cuddles & Uran), then pick your 10-15 point punts (Wellens, Zardini, Bongiorno, Cataldo) in the hope that they will score a few points more than everyone else's 10 pointers. If I can pick the whole GC on a decisive mountain stage then this element of the game is lost.

The only reason u managed that in this comp is because most of the top 10 gc guys were low 20s and below ....even with a 180 budget at the tdf I'd suggest 3 of the top ten gc riders are going to be high 20s or even low 30s , froome , contador, valverde, Wiggins, (nibs?)

I honestly think the higher budget allowed more choice if it was wanted , the only reason everyone had the same riders in the mountains was due to a number of team leaders crashing out of contention .....if scarponi, j rod , Dan Martin etc had been there or thereabouts the game would have been different due to their prices

giff77 wrote:

And for something a bit more light hearted. Every wondered what happens at the back of the bunch? http://youtu.be/k3Uc74IyJSM

Who else but "THE IRON HORSE" Adam Hansen, what a legend, so proud of this bloke.

enrique wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Using one persons performance to judge whether a budget is right or not is nonsense...

Sometimes you sound so 'high and mighty'... It's a pity... You tend to come across as arrogant and a 'know it all' with comments like this and I can't imagine you're like that in your real life... I mean, you can't be, you're a friend of dave's, after all... and he's the greatest (!)

Let it go fella , ur right but let it go I did

chiv30 wrote:

[...if carponi, [Rodriguez and]... Martin... had been there... the game would have been different due to their prices

Yeah, I agree... I also have to admit the dynamics for Purist teams vs. Standard teams are different... I'm going to look at the best Purist team and the best 'possible' Purist team later just to see that, of course... ... but, maybe, just maybe (!) we could have a lower budget just (!) for the Purist competition... which might appease dr and others that want (!) that challenge for the Purist side but let the budget be higher for the 'Standard' competition...