Ranking Professional Cyclist Teams in Multi-Stage Races: New Indicators Beyond Finishing Times

Core Concepts

New team ranking indicators based on the finishing places of riders, rather than their finishing times, can provide a more objective and competitive measure of team performance in multi-stage cycling races.

Abstract

The article proposes new team ranking indicators for professional cyclist multi-stage races that focus on the finishing places of riders rather than their finishing times. The classical team ranking is based on the aggregated finishing times of the fastest 3 riders on each team for each stage, which can lead to counterintuitive results if riders abandon the race before the end. The new indicators introduced are: A(#) L: The adjusted team final time, calculated using only the 3 best finishing riders who completed the entire race. B(#) L: The adjusted team final place, calculated using only the 3 best placed riders who completed the entire race. D(#) L: The team ranking based on the sum of the places of the 3 best finishing riders across all stages. G(#) L: The team ranking based on the sum of the places of the 3 best finishing individual riders across all stages. The analysis shows that these new indicators provide a different team hierarchy compared to the classical time-based ranking. The place-based indicators are argued to promote more competitive racing throughout the stages, as riders will aim for good stage placings rather than just focusing on time. The new measures also avoid issues with riders abandoning the race early. The statistical analysis using Kendall's tau rank correlation coefficient demonstrates significant differences between the new and classical indicators. Further research is suggested on applying these new indicators to longer multi-stage races.

Stats

The data used in this study is from the 2023 Vuelta Ciclista a la Provincia de San Juan (VSJ) race, a 7-stage event in the UCI ProSeries calendar.

Quotes

"It is commonly admitted that cyclist races are won by one rider, but the role of the team is of crucial importance." "It seems that one can argue that the place accounting should demand more riding action till the end of each stage, thus fuller competition."

Key Insights Distilled From

Hierarchy Selection

by Marcel Auslo... at arxiv.org 04-05-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.02910.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How would the new team ranking indicators perform in longer (3-week) multi-stage races, where more riders tend to abandon the race?

In longer multi-stage races, where more riders tend to abandon the race, the new team ranking indicators could potentially offer a more accurate reflection of team performance. Since the new indicators focus on the cumulative sums of the places of riders rather than their finishing times, they would provide a more consistent measure of team success throughout the race. In a race where many riders abandon, the traditional time-based ranking may be skewed as it includes the times of riders who did not finish, leading to an inaccurate representation of team performance. The new indicators, which prioritize the finishing places of the best riders who complete the race, would give a clearer picture of the teams that performed well consistently throughout the entire race. This approach would be particularly beneficial in longer races where attrition rates are higher, as it ensures that only the contributions of riders who complete the race are considered in the team ranking.

What counter-arguments could be made in favor of the classical time-based team ranking approach, and how could the new indicators be further refined to address those concerns?

One counter-argument in favor of the classical time-based team ranking approach could be the emphasis on overall race time as a measure of team efficiency and performance. Traditional time-based rankings provide a straightforward and easily understandable metric for comparing team performances across stages. Additionally, time-based rankings may reflect the strategic decisions made by teams in managing their riders' efforts throughout the race. To address concerns about the new indicators, further refinements could be made to incorporate a weighted system that considers the importance of each stage in the overall race. By assigning different weights to stages based on their difficulty or significance, the new indicators could provide a more nuanced evaluation of team performance. Additionally, introducing a mechanism to account for the impact of rider abandonments on team rankings could enhance the accuracy of the new indicators in longer multi-stage races.

Given the potential for the new indicators to promote more competitive racing throughout the stages, how could this impact the overall spectacle and excitement of multi-stage cycling events for fans and organizers?

The introduction of new indicators that promote more competitive racing throughout the stages could significantly enhance the overall spectacle and excitement of multi-stage cycling events for fans and organizers. By emphasizing the performance of the best finishing riders in each stage, teams would be incentivized to compete more fiercely for top placements, leading to more dynamic and engaging races. Fans would witness closer battles between teams as they vie for better rankings, creating suspense and drama throughout the race. Organizers could leverage the increased competitiveness to market the events more effectively, attracting a larger audience and generating more interest in the sport. The new indicators could also lead to strategic shifts in team tactics, adding an element of unpredictability and excitement to the races. Overall, the implementation of new indicators that promote competitiveness and fairness in team rankings has the potential to elevate the overall experience of multi-stage cycling events, making them more thrilling and engaging for fans and organizers alike.