Thank heavens for astute (and polite) readers!
As someone commented after Wednesday’s post, I seem to have overlooked something in my discussion of the UCI's procedure for determining the number of starters for each nation in the Worlds road race. In a nutshell, the UCI World/Pro Tour ranking is only used to determine the first 10 qualifying nations for Worlds (I got that wrong by saying it was used for more than 10 nations). After the first 10 on the World ranking, the various Continental rankings (which can be quite different) are used to determine the rest of the field. In most cases, this doesn’t pose a problem in regards to the solution I proposed, but in Europe's case, it most certainly does. So let’s revisit!
As discussed earlier, these are the first 10 nations on the UCI’s World ranking:
1. Spain 1334 pts.
2. Italy 910
3. Australia 710
4. Germany 661
5. Russia 590
6. Luxembourg 563
7. Belgium 505
8. Great Britain 462
9. Norway 414
10. USA 389
All 10 of these teams qualify to start 9 riders in the Worlds road race. As for the rest of the European qualifiers, the first 16 teams on the UCI Europe Tour ranking also qualify—excluding any teams that have already qualified via the World ranking. Here though is where things get a bit vague. Perhaps it would be best to quote the UCI regulation itself:
“The first 16 nations of the classification by nation of the UCI Europe Tour on 15 August 2009 [qualify for participation in the World Championship road race] excluding the nations qualifying via the world classification: the first 6 nations qualifying can enter 9 riders, with 6 to start; the nations ranked 7th to 16th can enter 5 riders, with 3 to start.”
What’s vague is the “excluding the nations qualifying via the world classification” part. Are we to take the Top-16 from Europe and then exclude those that have already qualified; or do we first exclude those that have already qualified and then take the Top-16? I’m interpreting it as the former as opposed to the latter; thus taking the Top-16 and deleting those already qualified via the World ranking.
So here’s the first 16 teams in the UCI Europe ranking:
1. Italy*
2. France*
3. Netherlands
4. Spain*
5. Germany*
6. Belgium*
7. Slovenia
8. Poland
9. Russia*
10. Portugal
11. Ukraine
12. Denmark
13. Great Britain*
14. Estonia
15. Norway*
16. Austria
*Nations in the Top-10 in the UCI World ranking
Now we need to delete the teams that have qualified via the World ranking, thus leaving us with the following nations:
1. France
2. Netherlands
3. Slovenia
4. Poland
5. Portugal
6. Ukraine
7. Denmark
8. Estonia
9. Austria
Of these (if I’m reading it right), the Top-6 get 6 riders in the road race and the rest get 3.
The biggest loser here has to be Denmark, which now only gets 3 starters (as our reader rightfully pointed-out).
And remember too, that there are still other ways for countries qualify based upon the ranking of their individual riders--there's a list of them here.
But let’s go back to the Pavé adjusted ranking, shall we?
Under the Pavé system, these are the Top-10 nations in the World ranking:
1. Spain
2. Italy
3. Australia
4. Germany
5. Russia
6. Belgium
7. USA
8. Luxembourg
9. Norway
10. Netherlands
The list remains largely unchanged aside from the Netherlands replacing Great Britain (sorry, blokes!). Now we delete the European nations on this list from the Top-16 of the UCI European ranking and get the following:
1. France
2. Slovenia
3. Poland
4. Portugal
5. Ukraine
6. Denmark
7. Great Britain
8. Estonia
9. Austria
Like before, the Top-6 get 6 starters, the rest get 3.
So under the Pavé system, the Netherlands now brings a full team to Mendrisio by jumping into the World ranking's Top-10. Denmark jumps from 3 to 6 starters, and Great Britain loses 6 starters, dropping waaaay down the ranking.
Is my method fair? Maybe not, but I feel it’s a better system than the one being used now. An even better solution might the way points are weighted in Pro Tour races, as another reader suggested, or to just make Worlds a trade team-only event--yet another suggestion from Pavé's commentators.
No matter what, I hope you appreciate the revised attempt at setting the UCI straight. And thanks to whomever set me straight; it gave me something else to think about during these dog days of August.
Now back to your comments!
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Is Worlds a Sham?
In this week's Monday Musette I mentioned my shock over the fact that traditional cycling nations such as France and the Netherlands will have their numbers reduced in this year’s World Championship road race due to the fact that both nations will—as of August 15th—be outside of the Top-10 in the UCI’s World Rankings. Now, while I have indeed calmed down a bit, I still find the selection procedure less than perfect.
You can read the entire selection criteria here. In a nutshell, Worlds participation is based upon the UCI Nations Ranking. The Nations Ranking is calculated by adding-up the points earned by each country's respective riders’ in Pro Tour races (the sum of which constitutes their World Rankings). Cut-offs are then made after 10 and 6 nations, giving each of these nations 9 and 6 riders respectively in the road race. Let’s take a look at the ranking (with points) as of August 10th (and how it will remain on August 15th):
1. Spain 1334 pts.
2. Italy 910
3. Australia 710
4. Germany 661
5. Russia 590
6. Luxembourg 563
7. Belgium 505
8. Great Britain 462
9. Norway 414
10. USA 389
These 10 nations will get 9 starters in the road race. The next 6 countries in the ranking will each get 6 (it’s a bit convoluted as to why and how, but you can read about it here):
11. Netherlands 341 pts.
12. Czech Republic 321
13. France 301
14. Switzerland 253
15. Denmark 210
16. Belarus 111
Does this look right to you? At first glance it appears that several deserving nations will have riders excluded in favor of countries with an individual or two who might have over-achieved. At least that’s how I see it.
My solution? It’s really quite simple: throw-out the points from each nation’s highest rider.
Since the ranking is being used to judge the participation of a national team, then it should be used in a way that reflect a nation’s consistency, not as a reward for having one particularly good rider.
For example, how about Luxembourg and its 563 points? Are Andy Schleck’s 334 worthy of the entire nation getting 9 riders on the start line in Switzerland? Does Luxembourg even have 9 registered pros? Without Andy, Luxembourg would have 229 points on the Nations ranking—a much more logical number to me.
But let’s not stop there; let’s apply the “Pavé Test” to the entire Top-16.
Here’s how the ranking would look if we exclude the top point-getter from each nation:
1. Spain 807
2. Italy 708
3. Australia 491
4. Germany 429
5. Russia 372
6. Belgium 318
7. USA 239
8. Luxembourg 229
9. Norway 198
10. Netherlands 196
These nations would have 9 riders in the road race. Here are the next 6, each getting 6 riders in the event:
11. France 194
12. Great Britain 158
13. Denmark 128
14. Switzerland 105
15. Belarus 50
16. Ireland 16
The Biggest Winners?
1. In both systems, Italy and Spain are clearly heads and shoulders above the competition. The consistency and depth of their riders is clear. The same can be said for Australia, Germany, and Russia, all of whom held their spots in the ranking.
2. Also, the Netherlands jumped into the Top-10 under my system. Extend the deadline to after the Eneco Benelux Tour and perhaps they move even higher.
3. Ireland has to be happy to go from 3 to 6 riders as well. They’re lucky that Colombia is ahead of them in my new ranking and is therefore included since it qualifies under the UCI America Tour ranking.
4. And Belarus. Belarus.
The Biggest Losers?
1. The Czech Republic lost 310 points from Roman Kreuziger, dropping them from 9 to 3 riders.
2. Great Britain went from 9 to 6 riders with Mark Cavendish’s 304 points being excluded.
3. And France? Well, under both systems they get only 6 riders on the line. Désolé, mes amis!
A major factor creating a problem with the UCI’s method lies in the fact that it de-emphasizes one day races in favor of Grand Tours. Eliminating each country’s top point-getter seems to fix this. For example, under the new system, Spain earned the majority of its points via Alejandro Valverde as opposed to Alberto Contador. And why shouldn’t they? Is it fair to participation in a one day event on points earned by riders in Grand Tours? Should Andreas Kloden and his 232 points be the reason Germany gets 9 riders? No. Heinrich Haussler and his 217 points should. Under my system, the right riders from the right nations get rewarded for the results in the right races. Right?
Share your thoughts below...
You can read the entire selection criteria here. In a nutshell, Worlds participation is based upon the UCI Nations Ranking. The Nations Ranking is calculated by adding-up the points earned by each country's respective riders’ in Pro Tour races (the sum of which constitutes their World Rankings). Cut-offs are then made after 10 and 6 nations, giving each of these nations 9 and 6 riders respectively in the road race. Let’s take a look at the ranking (with points) as of August 10th (and how it will remain on August 15th):
1. Spain 1334 pts.
2. Italy 910
3. Australia 710
4. Germany 661
5. Russia 590
6. Luxembourg 563
7. Belgium 505
8. Great Britain 462
9. Norway 414
10. USA 389
These 10 nations will get 9 starters in the road race. The next 6 countries in the ranking will each get 6 (it’s a bit convoluted as to why and how, but you can read about it here):
11. Netherlands 341 pts.
12. Czech Republic 321
13. France 301
14. Switzerland 253
15. Denmark 210
16. Belarus 111
Does this look right to you? At first glance it appears that several deserving nations will have riders excluded in favor of countries with an individual or two who might have over-achieved. At least that’s how I see it.
My solution? It’s really quite simple: throw-out the points from each nation’s highest rider.
Since the ranking is being used to judge the participation of a national team, then it should be used in a way that reflect a nation’s consistency, not as a reward for having one particularly good rider.
For example, how about Luxembourg and its 563 points? Are Andy Schleck’s 334 worthy of the entire nation getting 9 riders on the start line in Switzerland? Does Luxembourg even have 9 registered pros? Without Andy, Luxembourg would have 229 points on the Nations ranking—a much more logical number to me.
But let’s not stop there; let’s apply the “Pavé Test” to the entire Top-16.
Here’s how the ranking would look if we exclude the top point-getter from each nation:
1. Spain 807
2. Italy 708
3. Australia 491
4. Germany 429
5. Russia 372
6. Belgium 318
7. USA 239
8. Luxembourg 229
9. Norway 198
10. Netherlands 196
These nations would have 9 riders in the road race. Here are the next 6, each getting 6 riders in the event:
11. France 194
12. Great Britain 158
13. Denmark 128
14. Switzerland 105
15. Belarus 50
16. Ireland 16
The Biggest Winners?
1. In both systems, Italy and Spain are clearly heads and shoulders above the competition. The consistency and depth of their riders is clear. The same can be said for Australia, Germany, and Russia, all of whom held their spots in the ranking.
2. Also, the Netherlands jumped into the Top-10 under my system. Extend the deadline to after the Eneco Benelux Tour and perhaps they move even higher.
3. Ireland has to be happy to go from 3 to 6 riders as well. They’re lucky that Colombia is ahead of them in my new ranking and is therefore included since it qualifies under the UCI America Tour ranking.
4. And Belarus. Belarus.
The Biggest Losers?
1. The Czech Republic lost 310 points from Roman Kreuziger, dropping them from 9 to 3 riders.
2. Great Britain went from 9 to 6 riders with Mark Cavendish’s 304 points being excluded.
3. And France? Well, under both systems they get only 6 riders on the line. Désolé, mes amis!
A major factor creating a problem with the UCI’s method lies in the fact that it de-emphasizes one day races in favor of Grand Tours. Eliminating each country’s top point-getter seems to fix this. For example, under the new system, Spain earned the majority of its points via Alejandro Valverde as opposed to Alberto Contador. And why shouldn’t they? Is it fair to participation in a one day event on points earned by riders in Grand Tours? Should Andreas Kloden and his 232 points be the reason Germany gets 9 riders? No. Heinrich Haussler and his 217 points should. Under my system, the right riders from the right nations get rewarded for the results in the right races. Right?
Share your thoughts below...
Monday, May 4, 2009
Spring Statistical Analysis - Nations Ranking
Here's the third and final installment in our statistical analysis of the best teams, riders, and countries of the Spring. Last week we covered teams and riders; here's the breakdown by country:1. Belgium 1353pts.
2. Italy 1096pts.
3. Spain 947pts.
4. Germany 759pts.
5. Norway 525pts.
6. Netherlands 497pts.
7. Luxembourg 410pts.
8. France 274pts.
9. Australia 270pts.
10. Great Britain 265pts.
11. Russia 236pts.
12. Sweden 128pts.
13. Belorussia 118pts.
14. USA 94pts.
15. Austria 84pts.
16. Czech 79pts.
17. Switzerland 65pts.
18. Kazakhstan 63pts.
19. Canada 56pts.
20. Denmark 30pts.
21. New Zealand 18pts.
22. Slovakia 15pts.
Observations:
1. Again, no surprises at the top of rankings. Belgium wins the title thanks to it’s over-abundance of one-day specialists. Spain’s stage racing abilities launched the nation to third in our ranking. Italy took second thanks to strong showings pretty much everywhere (with surprisingly few wins relative to its storied past). Can you believe Italy didn't win a single monument this year? (Rebellin's Fleche tops the nation's palmares, but can we still count it?)
2. Interesting to see Norway up so high. Hushovd and Boassen Hagen should be proud.
3. AUSTRALIA wins the battle of English-speakers DESPITE Marky Mark’s win in San Remo. (Apologies to my Australian readers for the original oversight.)
4. Hard to imagine Norway, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands before France—but it’s true.
5. One final note as well from our individual rankings posted last week: what ever happened to Greg Van Avermaet? Here’s a six-word memoir that sums it up pretty well: “21 points. No podium. Big disappointment.”
Friday, May 1, 2009
Spring Statistical Analysis - Individual Riders
Yesterday I published the method I felt should be used when attempting to statistically analyze the performances on teams and riders during the Spring Classics. I included a list of which races should be scored, how they should be weighed, and point system borrowed from Competitive Cyclist. I concluded with the final scores and a ranking by team. You can read all about it here. (Or just scroll down.)
Today I'm posting scores and rankings of individual riders. I've included the top-25--the full list is a bit unwieldy.
Here's the run-down:
1. Tom Boonen (Bel) Quick Step 400 pts.
2. Thor Hushovd (Nor) Cervelo Test Team 351 pts.
3. Andy Schleck (Lux) Team Saxo Bank 310 pts.
4. Heinrich Haussler (Ger) Cervelo Test Team 298 pts.
5. Davide Rebellin (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni 285 pts.
6. Filippo Pozzato (Ita) Team Katusha 280 pts.
7. Stijn Devolder (Bel) Quick Step 227 pts.
8. Mark Cavendish (GBr) Team Columbia – Highroad 212.5 pts.
9. Alberto Contador (Spa) Astana 208 pts.
10. Luis-Leon Sanchez (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 193 pts.
11. Serguei Ivanov (Rus) Team Katusha) 190 pts.
12. Edvald Boasson Hagen (Nor) Columbia-Highroad 174 pts.
13. Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Silence-Lotto 172 pts.
14. Michele Scarponi (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni 165 pts.
15. Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - N.G.C. 148 pts.
16. Jens Voigt (Ger) Team Saxo Bank 142.5 pts.
17. Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Quick Step 134 pts.
18. (tie) Joaquím Rodríguez (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 130 pts.
Frederik Willems (Bel) Liquigas 130 pts.
20. Antonio Colom (Spa) Team Katusha 129 pts.
21. Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia – Highroad 128 pts.
22. Karsten Kroon (Ned) Team Saxo Bank 126 pts.
23. Samuel Sanchez (Spa) Euskaltel – Euskadi 117 pts.
24. Alessandro Petacchi (Ita) LPR Brakes-Farnese Vini 115 pts.
25. (tie) Robert Gesink (Ned) Rabobank 100 pts.
Aleksandr Kuschynski (Blr) Liquigas 100 pts.
Notes:
1. No real surprises here. The best riders on the best teams from yesterday's ranking top the charts. Furthermore, it looks like riders who peaked for March and early-April scored more points than those peaking later. Wonder what adding Romandie to the mix would do to the standings?
2. Gilbert’s the first rider on the list to have not won one of the races used for the calculation.
3. Kuschynski makes the list due only to his 2nd place in Ghent-Wevelgem.
Several riders not making the top-25 jumped-out at me for one reason or another:
1. Rabobank’s Tom Leezer scored 87 pts. via 5th in Kuurne, 3rd in DePanne, and 8th in Ghent-Wevelgem. A rider to watch?
2. AG2R’s Martin Elmiger seems to like rough roads after scoring 42 pts. via his 3rd place in L’Eroica and 9th in the Ronde.
3. Matti Breschel flew the cobbled flag for Saxo Bank in Cancellara’s absence, scoring 30 pts. with a 5th place in the Ronde and 10th in Roubaix. Not bad! His teammate Matthew Goss kept the top-10 streak alive in between with 3rd in Ghent-Wevelgem. One can only imagine what Cancellara could have done (had he been healthy) with teammates such as these.
4. By now you’ve already read something extolling the virtues of Simon Gerrans. He scored 53 pts. with his top-10’s in Amstel, Fleche, and Liege. Looks like Cervelo scored big with this kid!
5. The biggest rider to have missed the top-25? It has to be Alejandro Valverde. He really has no excuses for a mere 16 pts. for his 7th place in Fleche.
Your thoughts?
Today I'm posting scores and rankings of individual riders. I've included the top-25--the full list is a bit unwieldy.
Here's the run-down:
1. Tom Boonen (Bel) Quick Step 400 pts.
2. Thor Hushovd (Nor) Cervelo Test Team 351 pts.
3. Andy Schleck (Lux) Team Saxo Bank 310 pts.
4. Heinrich Haussler (Ger) Cervelo Test Team 298 pts.
5. Davide Rebellin (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni 285 pts.
6. Filippo Pozzato (Ita) Team Katusha 280 pts.
7. Stijn Devolder (Bel) Quick Step 227 pts.
8. Mark Cavendish (GBr) Team Columbia – Highroad 212.5 pts.
9. Alberto Contador (Spa) Astana 208 pts.
10. Luis-Leon Sanchez (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 193 pts.
11. Serguei Ivanov (Rus) Team Katusha) 190 pts.
12. Edvald Boasson Hagen (Nor) Columbia-Highroad 174 pts.
13. Philippe Gilbert (Bel) Silence-Lotto 172 pts.
14. Michele Scarponi (Ita) Serramenti PVC Diquigiovanni 165 pts.
15. Damiano Cunego (Ita) Lampre - N.G.C. 148 pts.
16. Jens Voigt (Ger) Team Saxo Bank 142.5 pts.
17. Sylvain Chavanel (Fra) Quick Step 134 pts.
18. (tie) Joaquím Rodríguez (Spa) Caisse d'Epargne 130 pts.
Frederik Willems (Bel) Liquigas 130 pts.
20. Antonio Colom (Spa) Team Katusha 129 pts.
21. Thomas Lövkvist (Swe) Team Columbia – Highroad 128 pts.
22. Karsten Kroon (Ned) Team Saxo Bank 126 pts.
23. Samuel Sanchez (Spa) Euskaltel – Euskadi 117 pts.
24. Alessandro Petacchi (Ita) LPR Brakes-Farnese Vini 115 pts.
25. (tie) Robert Gesink (Ned) Rabobank 100 pts.
Aleksandr Kuschynski (Blr) Liquigas 100 pts.
Notes:
1. No real surprises here. The best riders on the best teams from yesterday's ranking top the charts. Furthermore, it looks like riders who peaked for March and early-April scored more points than those peaking later. Wonder what adding Romandie to the mix would do to the standings?
2. Gilbert’s the first rider on the list to have not won one of the races used for the calculation.
3. Kuschynski makes the list due only to his 2nd place in Ghent-Wevelgem.
Several riders not making the top-25 jumped-out at me for one reason or another:
1. Rabobank’s Tom Leezer scored 87 pts. via 5th in Kuurne, 3rd in DePanne, and 8th in Ghent-Wevelgem. A rider to watch?
2. AG2R’s Martin Elmiger seems to like rough roads after scoring 42 pts. via his 3rd place in L’Eroica and 9th in the Ronde.
3. Matti Breschel flew the cobbled flag for Saxo Bank in Cancellara’s absence, scoring 30 pts. with a 5th place in the Ronde and 10th in Roubaix. Not bad! His teammate Matthew Goss kept the top-10 streak alive in between with 3rd in Ghent-Wevelgem. One can only imagine what Cancellara could have done (had he been healthy) with teammates such as these.
4. By now you’ve already read something extolling the virtues of Simon Gerrans. He scored 53 pts. with his top-10’s in Amstel, Fleche, and Liege. Looks like Cervelo scored big with this kid!
5. The biggest rider to have missed the top-25? It has to be Alejandro Valverde. He really has no excuses for a mere 16 pts. for his 7th place in Fleche.
Your thoughts?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Spring Statistical Analysis - A Response to Competitve Cyclist
I’ve long been a fan of Michael Lewis’ Moneyball, his book about the Billy Beane and his statistical approach to running a Major League baseball team. So naturally I was particularly excited to read the latest post on Competitive Cyclist’s "What's New" page. (If you haven’t yet bookmarked the link or added it to your feed reader, do so now.) The post takes 2 distinct approaches to summarizing the Spring Classics season: one statistical, the other emotional. Coincidentally, I had been in the process of constructing a similar overview of my own, albeit using a different points system.
You can read the full report and analysis on Competitive Cyclist here, but I’ll do my best to summarize their process below.
1. Points were assigned to Top-10 finishes in the following races:
Milan-San Remo
Tour of Flanders
Paris-Roubaix
Amstel Gold
Liege-Bastogne-Liege
Ghent-Wevelgem
Brabantse Pijl
Fleche Wallone
E3-Harelbeke
Dwars door Vlaanderen
Grote Scheldeprijis
Tour of California
Paris-Nice
Tirreno-Adriatico
Pais Vasco
2. Points were assigned as follows:
1st = 40, 2nd = 25, 3rd = 21, 4th = 7, 5th =6….10th =1
3. Points in certain races were weighted using the following multipliers:
MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, Amstel, and Liege x5
Stage Races x3
4. Stage wins were not counted for points.
Now I’m not here to argue with how Competitive Cyclist constructed its system. As they admitted in the post, statistical analysis is a particularly subjective enterprise, especially in a sport that seems to resist any statistics beyond wins and placings. However, there are some places where I think I would have done some things differently.
1. By their own admission, the Tour of California really shouldn’t be counted.
2. Despite the persuasive argument against counting stage wins, I think these do deserve recognition. In my own point system, I accommodated them.
3. I added Het Nieuwsblad, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, L’Eroica, the Criterium International and the 3-Days of DePanne to the list. In my opinion, any analysis of the Spring Classics is incomplete without these races.
4. Finally, and this is perhaps my biggest deviation from the good writers at Competitive Cyclist, I weighted each race individually on what I considered to be it’s own merits. I took into consideration characteristics such as prestige, length, terrain, field quality, and importance. Here is where subjectivity plays a major role. I’m sure there are holes in my logic, but I gave it my best shot.
Here’s my list of races with their weights:
Het Nieuwsblad x3
Kuurne x2
Paris-Nice x4
L’Eroica x2
Tirreno-Adriatico x4
Milan-San Remo x5
Dwars door Vlaanderen x2
E3-Harelebeke x3
Criterium International x3
Brabantse Pijl x2
3-Days of Depanne x3
Ronde van Vlaanderen x5
Ghent-Wevelgem x4
Paris-Roubaix x5
Grote Scheldeprijis x2
Pais Vasco x4
Amstel x4
Fleche Wallone x4
Liege-Bastogne-Liege x5
And the points:
1st through 10th Place: 40 – 25 – 21 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 points
Stage Wins: 5 points (split stages in DePanne and Criterium International share points)
Some notes on my weighting and point systems:
1. I weighed each of the one-day races differently; I think most make sense. I wanted to make L’Eroica’s multiplier 3, but it suffered a bit this year without Cancellara and Ballan. As for Milan-San Remo, I’m really struggling giving this race the same weight as Flanders, Roubaix, and Liege. As I said earlier—and to the agreement of Competitive Cyclist—it’s just not as difficult as other Classics. In the end, it gets the 5 for its prestige, its history, and by virtue of the fact that so many riders base their entire late-February and early-March upon doing well there. And Amstel? Maybe I underrated it, but I feel that several riders look past it to Liege or plan to peak earlier for Flanders and Roubaix. Overall, I’m content with the fact that Amstel and MSR effectively average one another out.
2. As for the stage races, there’s not too much to say. Some might argue that Pais Vasco is much harder than Tirreno and Paris-Nice. Others might argue that the Criterium International is weighted too high. I welcome your feedback. Is there a better way?
3. To try and allow for a point of comparison, I used Competitive Cyclist’s point system. Changing the points would have made such a comparison difficult if not impossible.
4. I think 5 points is a fair method to recognize stage wins without creating an imbalance. Ignoring them is simply too easy. Does the winner on Montelupone really deserve nothing for his exploits? Does Pozatto deserve no credit for the 1st stage of DePanne?
So let’s get on with it!
Here’s how things shaped-up over at Competitive Cyclist:
Quick Step 659
Cervelo Test Team 574
Saxo Bank 558
Katusha 528
Columbia 394
Astana 360
Silence-Lotto 276
Caisse d'Epargne 267
Rabobank 185
Diquigiovanni 175
Garmin-Slpistream 125
Liquigas 112
Euskatel 100
Lampre 86
Acqua Sapone 85
LPR 70
Francaise des Jeux 64
Milram 51
Skil-Shimano 34
An Post 25
Vacansoleil 22
Ceramica Flaminia 15
Ag2R 11
BMC 7
BBox 6
Elk Haus 5
Landbouwkredit 5
Andalucia 3
Topsport Vlaanderen 1
Verandas Willems 1
Here’s how they turned-out for me:
Quick Step 946
Cervelo Test Team 838
Saxo Bank 822.5
Columbia 789
Katusha 610
Diquigiovanni 450
Rabobank 422
Astana 360
Caisse d'Epargne 340
Liquigas 334
Silence-Lotto 319
Euskatel 179
Milram 165
Lampre 148
Francaise des Jeux 139
Garmin-Slipstream 136.5
LPR 115
Acqua Sapone 110
Agritubel 85
Skil-Shimano 80
Ag2R 71
An Post 50
Vacansoleil 44
Landbouwkredit 20
BBox 19
Ceramica Flaminia 15
BMC 14 (tie)
Cofidis 14 (tie)
Elk Haus 10 (tie)
ISD 10 (tie)
Andalucia 6
Besson-Sojasun 5
CSF Group-Navigare 3
Topsport Vlaanderen 2
Verandas Willems 2
Fuji-Servetto 0
Some things I noticed in my analysis:
1. Quick Step romped to the win in both my and the Competitive Cyclist analysis. The most interesting thing though is that they did it without scoring ANY points after Paris-Roubaix. Truly, this is a team built for cobbles.
2. In my system, Silence-Lotto suffered the most and Diquigiovanni benefitted the most (almost entirely due to Scarponi and Rebellin).
3. Interestingly, Astana scored the same number of points in both systems. Contador’s stage wins obviously compensated for the lack of Levi’s ToC.
4. Lampre scored zero points prior to Pais Vasco. Clearly Ballan’s absence hurt them. And while the same can’t be said for Saxo Bank as a team, one can’t help but wonder what effect an on-form Cancellara would have had on the final tally—of several teams.
5. Whatever happened to the French? FDJ aside, they were largely absent—as teams—from the majority of races. Those that did score points did so largely with riders from other countries. Individuals that did well did it while riding for foreign teams. It’s a shame we no longer have a French contender for Roubaix riding for a French team. Maybe someone will soon offer the big Euro’s to Chavanel to come home?
6. Should BMC feel better or Cofidis worse?
7. And finally, poor, poor Fuji-Servetto. Are they getting a raw deal?
All in all, this was a terrific exercise; it truly lent a new perspective to the races and the spring season as a whole. I did it all freehand—my Excel skills are negligible—which I think almost made it more enjoyable. However, I would welcome anyone with the time and talent to create a spreadsheet, particularly so that we can use it again next year.
In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I’m hoping to post a ranking of individual riders and maybe even countries—just to prolong the fun and opportunities for debate.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not extend one final salute to the folks at Competitive Cyclist. Not only are they a quality retailer, but they also offer some of the web’s greatest journalism and food for thought. Thanks!
Now, let the comments begin!
You can read the full report and analysis on Competitive Cyclist here, but I’ll do my best to summarize their process below.
1. Points were assigned to Top-10 finishes in the following races:
Milan-San Remo
Tour of Flanders
Paris-Roubaix
Amstel Gold
Liege-Bastogne-Liege
Ghent-Wevelgem
Brabantse Pijl
Fleche Wallone
E3-Harelbeke
Dwars door Vlaanderen
Grote Scheldeprijis
Tour of California
Paris-Nice
Tirreno-Adriatico
Pais Vasco
2. Points were assigned as follows:
1st = 40, 2nd = 25, 3rd = 21, 4th = 7, 5th =6….10th =1
3. Points in certain races were weighted using the following multipliers:
MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, Amstel, and Liege x5
Stage Races x3
4. Stage wins were not counted for points.
Now I’m not here to argue with how Competitive Cyclist constructed its system. As they admitted in the post, statistical analysis is a particularly subjective enterprise, especially in a sport that seems to resist any statistics beyond wins and placings. However, there are some places where I think I would have done some things differently.
1. By their own admission, the Tour of California really shouldn’t be counted.
2. Despite the persuasive argument against counting stage wins, I think these do deserve recognition. In my own point system, I accommodated them.
3. I added Het Nieuwsblad, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, L’Eroica, the Criterium International and the 3-Days of DePanne to the list. In my opinion, any analysis of the Spring Classics is incomplete without these races.
4. Finally, and this is perhaps my biggest deviation from the good writers at Competitive Cyclist, I weighted each race individually on what I considered to be it’s own merits. I took into consideration characteristics such as prestige, length, terrain, field quality, and importance. Here is where subjectivity plays a major role. I’m sure there are holes in my logic, but I gave it my best shot.
Here’s my list of races with their weights:
Het Nieuwsblad x3
Kuurne x2
Paris-Nice x4
L’Eroica x2
Tirreno-Adriatico x4
Milan-San Remo x5
Dwars door Vlaanderen x2
E3-Harelebeke x3
Criterium International x3
Brabantse Pijl x2
3-Days of Depanne x3
Ronde van Vlaanderen x5
Ghent-Wevelgem x4
Paris-Roubaix x5
Grote Scheldeprijis x2
Pais Vasco x4
Amstel x4
Fleche Wallone x4
Liege-Bastogne-Liege x5
And the points:
1st through 10th Place: 40 – 25 – 21 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 points
Stage Wins: 5 points (split stages in DePanne and Criterium International share points)
Some notes on my weighting and point systems:
1. I weighed each of the one-day races differently; I think most make sense. I wanted to make L’Eroica’s multiplier 3, but it suffered a bit this year without Cancellara and Ballan. As for Milan-San Remo, I’m really struggling giving this race the same weight as Flanders, Roubaix, and Liege. As I said earlier—and to the agreement of Competitive Cyclist—it’s just not as difficult as other Classics. In the end, it gets the 5 for its prestige, its history, and by virtue of the fact that so many riders base their entire late-February and early-March upon doing well there. And Amstel? Maybe I underrated it, but I feel that several riders look past it to Liege or plan to peak earlier for Flanders and Roubaix. Overall, I’m content with the fact that Amstel and MSR effectively average one another out.
2. As for the stage races, there’s not too much to say. Some might argue that Pais Vasco is much harder than Tirreno and Paris-Nice. Others might argue that the Criterium International is weighted too high. I welcome your feedback. Is there a better way?
3. To try and allow for a point of comparison, I used Competitive Cyclist’s point system. Changing the points would have made such a comparison difficult if not impossible.
4. I think 5 points is a fair method to recognize stage wins without creating an imbalance. Ignoring them is simply too easy. Does the winner on Montelupone really deserve nothing for his exploits? Does Pozatto deserve no credit for the 1st stage of DePanne?
So let’s get on with it!
Here’s how things shaped-up over at Competitive Cyclist:
Quick Step 659
Cervelo Test Team 574
Saxo Bank 558
Katusha 528
Columbia 394
Astana 360
Silence-Lotto 276
Caisse d'Epargne 267
Rabobank 185
Diquigiovanni 175
Garmin-Slpistream 125
Liquigas 112
Euskatel 100
Lampre 86
Acqua Sapone 85
LPR 70
Francaise des Jeux 64
Milram 51
Skil-Shimano 34
An Post 25
Vacansoleil 22
Ceramica Flaminia 15
Ag2R 11
BMC 7
BBox 6
Elk Haus 5
Landbouwkredit 5
Andalucia 3
Topsport Vlaanderen 1
Verandas Willems 1
Here’s how they turned-out for me:
Quick Step 946
Cervelo Test Team 838
Saxo Bank 822.5
Columbia 789
Katusha 610
Diquigiovanni 450
Rabobank 422
Astana 360
Caisse d'Epargne 340
Liquigas 334
Silence-Lotto 319
Euskatel 179
Milram 165
Lampre 148
Francaise des Jeux 139
Garmin-Slipstream 136.5
LPR 115
Acqua Sapone 110
Agritubel 85
Skil-Shimano 80
Ag2R 71
An Post 50
Vacansoleil 44
Landbouwkredit 20
BBox 19
Ceramica Flaminia 15
BMC 14 (tie)
Cofidis 14 (tie)
Elk Haus 10 (tie)
ISD 10 (tie)
Andalucia 6
Besson-Sojasun 5
CSF Group-Navigare 3
Topsport Vlaanderen 2
Verandas Willems 2
Fuji-Servetto 0
Some things I noticed in my analysis:
1. Quick Step romped to the win in both my and the Competitive Cyclist analysis. The most interesting thing though is that they did it without scoring ANY points after Paris-Roubaix. Truly, this is a team built for cobbles.
2. In my system, Silence-Lotto suffered the most and Diquigiovanni benefitted the most (almost entirely due to Scarponi and Rebellin).
3. Interestingly, Astana scored the same number of points in both systems. Contador’s stage wins obviously compensated for the lack of Levi’s ToC.
4. Lampre scored zero points prior to Pais Vasco. Clearly Ballan’s absence hurt them. And while the same can’t be said for Saxo Bank as a team, one can’t help but wonder what effect an on-form Cancellara would have had on the final tally—of several teams.
5. Whatever happened to the French? FDJ aside, they were largely absent—as teams—from the majority of races. Those that did score points did so largely with riders from other countries. Individuals that did well did it while riding for foreign teams. It’s a shame we no longer have a French contender for Roubaix riding for a French team. Maybe someone will soon offer the big Euro’s to Chavanel to come home?
6. Should BMC feel better or Cofidis worse?
7. And finally, poor, poor Fuji-Servetto. Are they getting a raw deal?
All in all, this was a terrific exercise; it truly lent a new perspective to the races and the spring season as a whole. I did it all freehand—my Excel skills are negligible—which I think almost made it more enjoyable. However, I would welcome anyone with the time and talent to create a spreadsheet, particularly so that we can use it again next year.
In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I’m hoping to post a ranking of individual riders and maybe even countries—just to prolong the fun and opportunities for debate.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not extend one final salute to the folks at Competitive Cyclist. Not only are they a quality retailer, but they also offer some of the web’s greatest journalism and food for thought. Thanks!
Now, let the comments begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)