Driver Statistics

[pumpdoc 2]

Indeed. The Ferrari F399 was a superlative machine. Superior equipment is the only reason Eddie was able to challenge Mika after Michael was effectively eliminated from the championship fight.

Indeed the F399 was good enough to give Mika Salo a race win......oppssss that's right he had to let Irv the swerve by

[kup 0]

funkejay Yesterday, 06:31 PM Post #71

Kup, I'd love to scrutinize your stats for meaning, but I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say half the time.

How about giving us some indication of what "success" and "strength" are suppoed to represent in your table, and how you calculated those numbers?

Oke: I can add my _Rating_ or _Ranking_ (last 5 years counts)

= Driver - Success - Strength =

MS 75 42

RB 52 45

Sucess =

We take (last) 5 years (2001-2005) Results (Top-5 race finish).

We give points for results: 1st=5, 2nd=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5th=1pt. Oke ?

We multiply every year resuls: 2001*1, 2003*3, 2005*5.

(Why ? - to give last year (05) more weight than (03 or 01).

Finaly we add (summarize) all 5 year " ranking points" together.

Strength =

Same as Success, but "minus" all wins (1st places)

Why ? - it`s a long story, but imho, most useful is - it`s worx =)

[ButtonGod 0]

I started watching F1 in 1999. I also never said that DC had the best car in 1995. I have said on many occassions that the only time in his career that DC has had the best car was 1998 and DC had a bad year in 1998. Every driver has at least 1 bad year and 1998 was DC's turn.

I owe you an apology ykickamoocow, it was jemstride that said it, so sorry for that.

We agree then that 1998 was a bad year for DC which is what I said earlier in the thread, fate surely did pick the year when DC had an opportunity to win the WDC. A shame.

DC was capable of race wins but never to be a WDC.

[kup 0]

funkejay Today, 12:00 AM Post #75

Kup, for all I know you're a genius statistician, but I can't understand what the hell you're driving at man!!!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE NUMBERS MEAN AND WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY!!!!!

Funny stats: "IF ONE Driver never be F-1 pilot" (and never win a race)

WHO gonna win all those races (actually was finished 2nd =) ?

IS IT CLEAR ? =)

Aim: Win itself is very good result for any driver or team, but

"win over who ?" is also very important (i.e. Rival`s strength), clear ?

[Senna 0]

Indeed the F399 was good enough to give Mika Salo a race win......oppssss that's right he had to let Irv the swerve by

Indeed.

[kup 0]

Cruel truth why i dis-like MS, is He won most his wins over RB,

and in (the very) best car of those moment (esp. 02 and 04) ...

Just 94 was not best car (but i`m unsure of "cheating"),

an 2003 Ferrari was best car, but Michelin was best tyres.

MS carrier is: 1992-2005 full seasons - and NO-ONE is in a team with any champion (they are: 92-NM, 93-AP, 96-DH, 97-JV, 98-99-MH, 05-FA).

Why ? =)

[Max Mosley 2]

They're all scared of him Kup. You've just proven how great he is.

[kup 0]

They're all scared of him Kup. You've just proven how great he is.

Aha, by-your-logic (not "biologic" =) RB is greatest (un-scary-est) driver ever ... after MS=)

And WHY MS himself never was in a team with any WDC ?

I know: "They're all scared of Him" =) Aha ?

[Senna 0]

They're all scared of him Kup.

I think it

[cavallino 2]

Kup, for all I know you're a genius statistician,

He isnt, I remember when he ranked MS and RB the best drivers of the last 5 years based solely on the points theyve scored and the fact that in total its more than anyone else. dont waste your time

[AutoRacer5 0]

Like Senna and Warwick and Dumfries in 1986.

[Senna 0]

Like Senna and Warwick and Dumfries in 1986.

What?

[ButtonGod 0]

AR5, I suggest your New Year Resolution should be to think before you post.

[funkejay 0]

funkejay Yesterday, 06:31 PM Post #71

Kup, I'd love to scrutinize your stats for meaning, but I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say half the time.

How about giving us some indication of what "success" and "strength" are suppoed to represent in your table, and how you calculated those numbers?

Oke: I can add my _Rating_ or _Ranking_ (last 5 years counts)

= Driver - Success - Strength =

MS 75 42

RB 52 45

Sucess =

We take (last) 5 years (2001-2005) Results (Top-5 race finish).

We give points for results: 1st=5, 2nd=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5th=1pt. Oke ?

We multiply every year resuls: 2001*1, 2003*3, 2005*5.

(Why ? - to give last year (05) more weight than (03 or 01).

Finaly we add (summarize) all 5 year " ranking points" together.

Strength =

Same as Success, but "minus" all wins (1st places)

Why ? - it`s a long story, but imho, most useful is - it`s worx =)

Thanks for explaining that Kup, though I don't necessarily agree with your methodology.

Although I understand why you might be tempted to assign more weight to recent results - to quantify each drivers' current form/strength - it's not necessarily something that you can evaluate based solely on pure numbers. As with many endeavors, pure results (numbers) tell only half the story. It's a mistake to look just at points and raw numbers to evaluate the skills and talent of any athlete.

One of the most frequent errors made on this forum is equating race results (rankings and statistics) with driver skill and talent, without paying sufficient (or in some cases, any) attention to the various other factors that affected those results. As an example, many posters would say that because FA won the WDC last year, he therefore must have also been the best driver. Those people are falling victim to a logical falacy (the non-sequitor), by failing to realize that while that deduction may be true, it is not necessarily true.*

There are many factors that lead any driver/team to win (or lose) the championship (or a race for that matter), and many of those have nothing to do with the driver. That is why results (rankings) tell only half the story, and stats that rely solely on those results (rankings) will always be misleading.

* For those of you interested in formal logic, this particular non-sequitor can be stated as follows: (and for those of you already familiar with the concept, forgive me for boring you.......)

i.e. If being the best driver does not guarantee (necessarily mean) that you will be Champion (you may have a car that is incapable of winning races), then being the Champion does not guarantee (necessarily mean) that you are the best driver.

So, what do we get when we apply this reasoning to Kup's analysis? Having better numbers does not necessarily mean that you are a better driver (nor is it a particularly accurate predictor of future performance). Were it true, all other things would have to be equal (not to mention static), and in motor-racing, particularly at the F1 level, we know that not to be the case.

They're all scared of him Kup.

I think it

[Senna 0]

Cruel truth why i dis-like MS, is He won most his wins over RB,

and in (the very) best car of those moment (esp. 02 and 04) ...

Just 94 was not best car (but i`m unsure of "cheating"),

an 2003 Ferrari was best car, but Michelin was best tyres.

MS carrier is: 1992-2005 full seasons - and NO-ONE is in a team with any champion (they are: 92-NM, 93-AP, 96-DH, 97-JV, 98-99-MH, 05-FA).

Why ? =)

To be fair to Michael he did face a former world champion in equal machinery in the form of Nelson Piquet at Benetton for a very short time (i.e. not nearly a full season) in 1991. To be fair to Nelson, the Brazilian did do a marginally better job. I believe that Nelson

[narain fan 0]

AR5, I suggest your New Year Resolution should be to think before you post.

why should he wait for a new year to make a resolution

[kup 0]

He isnt, I remember when he ranked MS and RB the best drivers of the last 5 years based solely on the points theyve scored and the fact that in total its more than anyone else. dont waste your time

Yes, be cool, i`m a worst stat-worm ever =)

Digits, plz !

When it was i ranked MS and RB "more than anyone else" ?

Else i cannot agree with you, sorry, i`m a very good stat-worm =)

P.S. funkejay Posted Yesterday, 08:01 PM

I agree with mostly all in your post, and i know formal logic quite well,

it was one of my favourite subjects in colledge, and it is now =)

[nojvnof1 0]

Michael wasnt leading the championship going into the British GP...it was 40-32 in Hakkinen's Favor

I stand corrected. He was in front of Irvine though.

In any case it must be said that in 96 and 97 JV had a the best car by quite a way.

1996 without a doubt. 1997 for half a season. The McLaren was the best car come the end of the season.

nojvnof1, don't bother, you'll never persuade these guys - their bias is complete and absolute, and they will not be swayed by something as trite and meaningless as facts.....

I know, but if I keep telling them for long enough, it'll hopefully sink in. It may take a long time, but I'll give it as long as it needs my friend!

[cavallino 2]

I stand corrected. He was in front of Irvine though.

you stand corrected again, MS and Irvine were level on points.

[YHR 0]

No brilliant win?? What rubbish.

Nurburgring '96 - held off Michael and was under strong pressure in only his fourth race on an unfamiliar track to win his first race.

Estoril '96 - made a bad start to drop to P4 behind Hill, Alesi and Michael. Passed Michael around the outside of Parabolica (he did the impossible basically) and then proceeded to chase down Hill's 20 second lead and win the race.

Barcelona '97 - Goodyear runners had major blistering problems. JV held a steady pace at the start of each stint to keep tyres in condition then demolished everyone. Michael and Frentzen suffered massive blisters.

A1-Ring '97 - On a 1 stop strategy hence was fat with fuel at the start. Got passed by Jarno and Rubens but then passed Rubens and set off a string of fast laps to win the race.

Excellent examples of JV at his best, some of which were in his rookie year!!!

Thanks for keeping the record straight.

[funkejay 0]

P.S. funkejay Posted Yesterday, 08:01 PM

I agree with mostly all in your post, and i know formal logic quite well,

it was one of my favourite subjects in colledge, and it is now =)

Then you understand that your stats are merely an accurate analysis of the previous results, and not necessarily of the drivers who played a part in producing them.

Although it seems that you do appreciate what stats can (and can't) tell us, some of the others who tend to quote them in support of their own arguments don't seem to have the same grasp of the concept (i.e. that to understand the significance of statistical analysis you must be very careful to identify correctly what it is the stats are - and are not - actually telling you). A study of race results will only provide insights into averages, means, probabilities, and historical trends in race results, and not necessarily anything substantive about the drivers who participated in them.

This is the inherent danger in statistics - i.e. misunderstanding how to interpret them.

[Kopite Girl 0]

you stand corrected again, MS and Irvine were level on points.

Think you are right!

Welcome back, Cavallino.

[cavallino 2]

Think you are right!

Welcome back, Cavallino.

Ah yes thanks for the reminder, better put you on ignore.

[narain fan 0]

Ah yes thanks for the reminder, better put you on ignore.

[kup 0]

This post has been edited by funkejay: Yesterday, 08:05 PM

"This is the inherent danger in statistics - i.e. misunderstanding how to interpret them."

Yes, and yes, again =)

I just wanna try to look at "hidden" stats, that are easy to "find", but most fans use just "well known" facts, and interpret them in just one of possible ways =)

My friend (Senna`s fan) thinks that if AP was 2nd after AS - 16 times, but AS was 2nd after AP just 7 times - purely indicates AS is much better ?

I just can say AP has 51win/200gp = 25% and AS has 41win/160gp = 25%.

And _combined_ stats (1st+2nd) just tells me that AP was likely to be just after AS, when AS won, but AS was less likely to follow AP =)

Another classical "interpret" is Qualifiyng abilities of AP and AS.

AS - 65 poles, AP - 33 - all rookie fans know it =)

And if compare "front row" we have almost equal ~ 80 times both.

Can i interpret is like: AP car setup was more for "win a race" than AS ?

(i.e. why try to win a Qual - when i can try setup to win a race)

Example: best laps: AP - 41-200gp = 20%, AS 19-160gp = 12.5 %.