Jump to content


Photo

Jenson vs Lewis - 2012 Scorecard - Part III


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3870 replies to this topic

#2151 thesham01

thesham01
  • Member

  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 00:23

Not including stewards decisions, or strategy calls. Both are open to discussion on luck, but this is meant to be as quantifiable a list as possible. If a steward decision or a strategy call was so bad as it should make this list, then please throw it into the mix.

Incidents where Hamilton was ahead on track, only for McLaren to get Button ahead after the first round of pitstops (as has happened far, far more in Buttons favour than Hamiltons) are not included. Incidents like Monza 2011 where Button had the good fortune of Webber and Massa crashing in front of him are not included.

I also freely admit I can remember 2012 far better, so incidents like safety car costing a place (Aus 2012) is remembered, while an equal event in Buttons favour in, say, 2010 might be forgotten. Please correct me.

I'm sure there are some errors here, some missed botched pitstops, so please add them in.

2010

Spanish GP 2010: Hamilton punctures from 2nd. A bad McLaren pitstop cost Button a place, so cancels it out placed gained.
Hamilton +18

Monaco 2010: Button had engine overheat, but was outside points at time. Presumably would have gained places, but pace was poor that weekend (qualy 8th). I'll give him 8th finish.
Button +4

Hungary 2010: Hamilton retires from 4th, 12 points. Button gains 2 points.
Hamilton +12, Button -2

Spa 2010: Button loses 18 points through no fault of his own.
Button +18

Japan 2010: Hamilton gearbox change, and gearbox failure in race. Was in 4th at time of 3rd gear loss, lapping at the pace of the winner. Had it not been for gearbox change, then gearbox failure in race, he would have challenged for podium at worst.
Hamilton +5, Button -2



Hamilton +35, Button + 18
Hamilton +17


2011

Monaco 2011: Perez crash benefits Button, and hinders Hamilton, in qualy. Hard to quantify this one, so I'll leave it as it is, although I think its pretty clear Hamilton got unlucky.

Silverstone 2011: Button loses wheel. Qualified 5th, and had been over-taken by team-mate (who lay in 4th at race end). Massa finished next to Hamilton, but even so I think giving Button a 5th is fair seeing as he may have finished 6th or 4th.
Button +10

Germany 2011: Button was 6th when hydraulics cost him.
Button + 8

Japan 2011: Hamilton had a bad pitstop putting him behind Webber and Massa. He finished ahead of Massa anyway, but behind Webber, but Hamilton lost alot of time behind Massa. Webber also wreckied his chance at a fast lap in qualy. However its hard to quantify it, so I'll give nothing again.

India 2011: Hamilton taken out by Massa (the one and only clear cut faultless incident for Hamilton of 2011). Was for 5th, and he finished 7th, I'll give him 5th. Remember, if Button gets Spa, Hamilton gets this.
Hamilton +4

Brazil 2011: Hamilton retires with gearbox. 5th was possible.
Hamilton +10



Hamilton + 14, Button +18
Button +4


2012

Australia 2012: Hamilton lost a place due to safety car.
Hamilton +3

China 2012: Hamilton has gearbox penalty. Would have stayed ahead of Button otherwise.
Hamilton +3, Button -3

Bahrain 2012: Total of 22.2 seconds lost in pits. That time alone brings him up to 4th.
Hamilton +8

Spain 2012: McLaren mess up Hamiltons fuel.
Hamilton +21

Valencia 2012: Another bad pitstop cost Hamilton lead, and chance of podium. Bad pitstop brought him into Maldondos clutches, so that incident is forgotten. I'll give him 3rd.
Hamilton +15, Button -2

Germany 2012: Hamilton got a puncture. Given that his pace was similar to that of Buttons in qualy, 4th was definitely not out of the equation.
Hamilton +12

Spa 2012: Hamilton taken out by Grosjean. Pace not great, but at least anywhere between 3rd and 8th on offer. 6th given.
Hamilton +8

Italy 2012: Button robbed of 2nd/3rd. I'll give him 2nd.
Button +18

Singapore 2012: Hamilton gearbox cost him win.
Hamilton +25, Button -3

Japan 2012: Car failure cost Hamilton. Hard to quantify, so I'll leave it.

Korea 2012: Hamilton had car failure, and Button got taken out. I'll leave this as is.

Abu Dhabi 2012: Hamilton robbed of win.
Hamilton +25, Button -2



Hamilton +120, Button +8
Hamilton +112


---------------------------------



Total so far:

Hamilton +126

I think Button is 7 ahead now? So Hamilton should be 115 ahead by my count.

Edited by thesham01, 07 November 2012 - 00:27.


Advertisement

#2152 superdelphinus

superdelphinus
  • Member

  • 1,413 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 00:38

Slightly controversially, I actually disagree with the commonly held view that button has done better than expected since joining mclaren. He's been outclassed for two of those years, and probably about half of the other one as well, all things considered.

#2153 whitevisor

whitevisor
  • Member

  • 267 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:10

Button will always live with the memories that he was no match for Hamilton.

He's even starting to whinge about the car that he had most input into. I wonder what he is going to say about the '28 which was designed with Hamilton in mind?

#2154 inca_roads

inca_roads
  • Member

  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 November 2012 - 01:24

There is a reason they use the points system, and that is because it is by far the most reliable way to judge who's done the best job. As opposed to a forum full of fanboys that is absolutely the worst, but surprise surprise the fanboys think they are better than the points.


Are McLaren themselves a reliable way to judge?

I say this beacuse I have a feeling (apologies if incorrect), when Hamilton was rumoured to have been offered a similar amount of money to Jenson, that you used this as part of your argument about bad luck for Lewis - that McLaren knew what was really bad luck and what wasn't better than we did, and the fact they'd offered similar money maybe showed what they thought - presumably that it wasn't bad luck and the drivers were about equal on performance. It was then revealed they offered Lewis more money - Whitmarsh said it was an offer which was, to their knowledge, better than any other driver in F1.

#2155 PretentiousBread

PretentiousBread
  • Member

  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:18

@thesham, good effort all round. There would have been certain things I might have calculated differently, little things here and there but by and large we remember events in the same way.

Some people will nitpick minor details as if it debunks your entire list, but any reasonable minded person can see the point you're making, 'scuse the pun.

FTIW i'm going to do the same thing when I get a chance. Main difference with my list will be that it will purely include mechanical/operational issues. Strategy and racing incidents won't make my list. Want to keep it as simple, objective and quantifiable as possible.

#2156 thesham01

thesham01
  • Member

  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:07

@thesham, good effort all round. There would have been certain things I might have calculated differently, little things here and there but by and large we remember events in the same way.

Some people will nitpick minor details as if it debunks your entire list, but any reasonable minded person can see the point you're making, 'scuse the pun.

FTIW i'm going to do the same thing when I get a chance. Main difference with my list will be that it will purely include mechanical/operational issues. Strategy and racing incidents won't make my list. Want to keep it as simple, objective and quantifiable as possible.


I'm pretty certain I didn't include anything that could be construed as driver fault.

On top of that I was very generous awarding Button points, like in Monza this year. I was also a very conservative in awarding Hamilton points, like ignoring the bad luck in Korea and Spa this year.

I'm very confident that the points total is a minimum Hamilton should be ahead.

Edited by thesham01, 07 November 2012 - 05:08.


#2157 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:01

Are McLaren themselves a reliable way to judge?

I say this beacuse I have a feeling (apologies if incorrect), when Hamilton was rumoured to have been offered a similar amount of money to Jenson, that you used this as part of your argument about bad luck for Lewis - that McLaren knew what was really bad luck and what wasn't better than we did, and the fact they'd offered similar money maybe showed what they thought - presumably that it wasn't bad luck and the drivers were about equal on performance. It was then revealed they offered Lewis more money - Whitmarsh said it was an offer which was, to their knowledge, better than any other driver in F1.


Not sure how that's relevant to a fans v points system comparison.

#2158 ZooL

ZooL
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:01

Are McLaren themselves a reliable way to judge?

I say this beacuse I have a feeling (apologies if incorrect), when Hamilton was rumoured to have been offered a similar amount of money to Jenson, that you used this as part of your argument about bad luck for Lewis - that McLaren knew what was really bad luck and what wasn't better than we did, and the fact they'd offered similar money maybe showed what they thought - presumably that it wasn't bad luck and the drivers were about equal on performance. It was then revealed they offered Lewis more money - Whitmarsh said it was an offer which was, to their knowledge, better than any other driver in F1.



Not sure how that's relevant to a fans v points system comparison.

you know the point you was making back then.
what it means is mclaren recognise the points dont tell the fully story and is not a true measure of success. despite button outscoring hamilton mclaren were still prepared to make hamilton the best paid driver in f1.

that must really annoy button fans.

#2159 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:24

I believe there's a while field of mathematics based on it being the case... http://en.wikipedia....f_large_numbers

From that page: "There is no principle that a small number of observations will converge to the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others. See the Gambler's fallacy."

So in F1, is 56 races a large number or a small number (in the context of "the law of large numbers", not in any other context such as the length of a season, driver's career etc) or somewhere inbetween?

Why do we have to resort to theory when we can look at what has actually happened?

Exactly. The law of large numbers tells us what will happen if the number of races is large enough - it will even out.

An examination of reality, and it being clear from doing so that it has not evened out, tells us that 56 ain't a large number (in the context of the law of large numbers and F1).

If I someone tosses a coin 56 times, who is going to be right most often about the number of heads: (a) the man who says "it's 28" without looking; or (b) the man who watches the 56 tosses and then calls it?

I thought that was the problem. The actual events aren't being looked at, they're being worked into some kind of perfect fantasy world where everything goes in Hamiltons favour.

I am sure it is easy to poke holes in the lists produced by a number of Hamilton fans over however long.

Rather than looking at those lists, or resorting to mathematical arguments as to why it should have happened in a particular way: do you honestly believe that both Jenson and Lewis have suffered the same from incidents outside their control but within McLaren's control?

Advertisement

#2160 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:28

Not sure how that's relevant to a fans v points system comparison.

The teams clearly do not solely look at points.

There's a reason why McLaren offered Hamilton more money than Button despite the points similarity (and they made that offer with 3 years of comparative data at their disposal better than that which we hold). There's a reason why McLaren signed Raikkonen and not Heidfeld. There's a reason why McLaren signed Perez (74pts in his time partnering KK) over KK (88pts).

Maybe the teams are just fanboys, or maybe the points don't always tell the full story of relative performance.

#2161 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:33

It tells us which combination of driver and team have done the best job, undoubtedly.


Well they are both in the same team.

If you mean his side of the garage, then he is very much a part of that team. If you want to argue that he is not, then neither is Button part of his side and they take the blame for getting his setup so wrong this year.

#2162 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:38

they take the blame for getting his setup so wrong this year.

Depends on whether you see driving style as something intrinsic to a driver that they simply cannot change, or something a driver ought to be able to adapt when circumstances demand.

If the former, then the requirements of the tyres and the inability to find a setup that worked with them, remains something out of Jenson's control.

If the latter, then the fact that another driver in the same car was clearly able to make it work shows that the requirements were something within Jenson's control if only he had the adaptability to drive in the same manner as the other driver.

Certainly prior to this season, making your tyres work was seen as something within that driver's control and, if he did it succesfully, a strength of that driver. Of course, if you want to suggest that times when Button was succesful as a result of this in 2011 and 2010 were not actually successes of his, then be my guest ...

#2163 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:44

If 3 years doesn't tell a story, then a 1 year championship must be pretty meaningless. So a WDC means FA really, right?



From that page: "There is no principle that a small number of observations will converge to the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others. See the Gambler's fallacy."

So in F1, is 56 races a large number or a small number (in the context of "the law of large numbers", not in any other context such as the length of a season, driver's career etc) or somewhere inbetween?


In F1 56 races is a large number, it is 3 whole seasons. By your logic you could go through the history of the sport and change 90% of the WDC's. I'm sure Massa's fans could come up with a very convincing list why he should have been WDC in 2008 for example. Or Prost's that he should have won both championships against Senna.

#2164 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:47

In F1 56 races is a large number, it is 3 whole seasons.

In the context of the law of large numbers, a large number is one over which stuff evens out. A large number is not "something that can be said to be large for some other reason".

By your logic you could go through the history of the sport and change 90% of the WDC's. I'm sure Massa's fans could come up with a very convincing list why he should have been WDC in 2008 for example. Or Prost's that he should have won both championships against Senna.

At what point have I said WDCs should be changed, or standings? I've not suggested that at all.

So, no, by my logic that doesn't occur because that isn't my logic. But lovely straw man, though.

#2165 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 08:56

Depends on whether you see driving style as something intrinsic to a driver that they simply cannot change, or something a driver ought to be able to adapt when circumstances demand.

If the former, then the requirements of the tyres and the inability to find a setup that worked with them, remains something out of Jenson's control.

If the latter, then the fact that another driver in the same car was clearly able to make it work shows that the requirements were something within Jenson's control if only he had the adaptability to drive in the same manner as the other driver.

Certainly prior to this season, making your tyres work was seen as something within that driver's control and, if he did it succesfully, a strength of that driver. Of course, if you want to suggest that times when Button was succesful as a result of this in 2011 and 2010 were not actually successes of his, then be my guest ...


I'm not the one who wants to rewrite history here, I'm fine with things the way they are.

Absolutely, Button is part of his side of the garage and Lewis his, therefore in relation to robs post:

It tells us which combination of driver and team have done the best job, undoubtedly.


They are both in McLaren, they are both equally responsible for their side of the garage, ergo: the points tell us who's done the best job.


#2166 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:02

They are both in McLaren, they are both equally responsible for their side of the garage, ergo: the points tell us who's done the best job.

The ergo would be correct if it was "fully responsible". It does not work with just "equally responsibile".

If they are responsible for everything that happens on their side of the garage (such as whether the anti-roll bar breaks on their car or not), then yes the ergo works.

Given they are not, it doesn't.

Why have McLaren just signed Perez instead of KK? If the points tell us who's done the best job, surely they would have signed KK?

#2167 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:06

In the context of the law of large numbers, a large number is one over which stuff evens out. A large number is not "something that can be said to be large for some other reason".


At what point have I said WDCs should be changed, or standings? I've not suggested that at all.

So, no, by my logic that doesn't occur because that isn't my logic. But lovely straw man, though.


I never said you did, I said one could do so, using your logic.

Nice attempt to pretend it's a straw man though.

Formula 1 is built around the concept of points over a season to decide the champions. If you are going to turn around and say that 3 whole seasons has no statistical validity, then 1 season certainly hasn't and the whole thing becomes meaningless. What you are essentially doing is turning it into an aesthetic activity to be judged in subjective terms.

#2168 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,553 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:07

Why have McLaren just signed Perez instead of KK? If the points tell us who's done the best job, surely they would have signed KK?

As Martin Whitmarsh said, they don't look backwards, so, I would guess he was chosen for his perceived potential.

#2169 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:15

Formula 1 is built around the concept of points over a season to decide the champions.

If you are going to turn around and say that 3 whole seasons has no statistical validity, then 1 season certainly hasn't and the whole thing becomes meaningless. What you are essentially doing is turning it into an aesthetic activity to be judged in subjective terms.

I haven't said that 3 whole seasons has no statistical validity. I have suggested that it is insufficient for the law of large numbers to come into play. The two are different. Claiming I have said the former, when I have said the latter, is a straw man.

I am saying that "which driver did better over [X] stretch of seasons/races" is not necessarily an answer that can be solely examined through the points table.

As an example, I would not suggest that Barrichello was the second best driver in F1 in the early 2000s, yet the points table will tell us he is.

This is because the WDC points table is a combination of "driver + car + team performance", not just driver.

Whilst for team mates you might expect that the "car + team" element of "driver + car + team" performance is even, I would contend this is not necessarily the case, even over 56 races, because things like reliability, pit stops etc come into play, can be different between the two team mates, and do not necessarily even out over 56 races.

This "logic" does not mean you could look to change the WDC standings, as this logic accepts that the WDC winner is not the best driver in the world - it is a combination of driver, car and team that collects the most points.

#2170 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,065 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:18

Well they are both in the same team.

If you mean his side of the garage, then he is very much a part of that team. If you want to argue that he is not, then neither is Button part of his side and they take the blame for getting his setup so wrong this year.


Are you genuinely trying to equate working with your engineers to find a set up with refuelling, reliability issues and pit stops, the latter of which are performed by the same team for both drivers?





#2171 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:19

The teams clearly do not solely look at points.

There's a reason why McLaren offered Hamilton more money than Button despite the points similarity (and they made that offer with 3 years of comparative data at their disposal better than that which we hold). There's a reason why McLaren signed Raikkonen and not Heidfeld. There's a reason why McLaren signed Perez (74pts in his time partnering KK) over KK (88pts).

Maybe the teams are just fanboys, or maybe the points don't always tell the full story of relative performance.



The ergo would be correct if it was "fully responsible". It does not work with just "equally responsibile".

If they are responsible for everything that happens on their side of the garage (such as whether the anti-roll bar breaks on their car or not), then yes the ergo works.

Given they are not, it doesn't.

Why have McLaren just signed Perez instead of KK? If the points tell us who's done the best job, surely they would have signed KK?


One of the biggest reasons, if you accept all the press releases at face value, would be money. There's no doubt that Lewis has greater commercial appeal and Perez has Carlos Slim.

Personally I think accepting press releases in formula 1 would be foolish. Contract negotiation is a very complicated affair and the true details hardly ever get out. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that Lewis was pushed rather than he jumped.


Ok, so how much responsibilty in percentage terms do they have? How much responsibility does the garage have for the roll bar and how much the team as a whole? There are so many unknown variables that it is just arrogance/stupidity to pretend you can make an objective judgement. This is why, I repeat, the points system has been proven, tried and tested, many times to be by far the best way to judge relative performance.



#2172 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,291 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:23

....

Ok, so how much responsibilty in percentage terms do they have? How much responsibility does the garage have for the roll bar and how much the team as a whole? There are so many unknown variables that it is just arrogance/stupidity to pretend you can make an objective judgement. This is why, I repeat, the points system has been proven, tried and tested, many times to be by far the best way to judge relative performance.


Yes ... but we know how much responsibility the driver has for it ....zero

If there is crash we can see who to assign blame to. If there a failure, we are usually told what caused it. Often drivers put their hands up when they make mistakes re set up and and other things in their control.... We have enough info to be able to make a judgment.

Edited by jjcale, 07 November 2012 - 09:25.


#2173 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:28

Are you genuinely trying to equate working with your engineers to find a set up with refuelling, reliability issues and pit stops, the latter of which are performed by the same team for both drivers?



What I am saying Rob, for the umpteenth time and I really thought you understood this, is that we have no way of knowing to what extent these factors effected things.

#2174 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:40

Yes ... but we know how much responsibility the driver has for it ....zero


No we don't know that. Kerb hopping, clipping a barrier, nudging another, car could all do that.

#2175 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:44

I haven't said that 3 whole seasons has no statistical validity. I have suggested that it is insufficient for the law of large numbers to come into play. The two are different. Claiming I have said the former, when I have said the latter, is a straw man.


That's just semantics, maybe there's a little poetic license in "no statistical validity" but you know the point I'm trying to make and it's not a strawman so stop trying to pretend it is.

#2176 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,824 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:47

I have a question for you both - Gareth and Lazy - which is whether 56 events is the right number to be using for your analysis. Those 56 events comprise 7 sessions (FP's 1,2,3, Q1,2,3 and the race). all of which come with different levels of risk for the driver and team. A blown engine on Friday isn't a big deal at the end of FP2 but it would ruin the whole weekend at the start of FP1 or Qualifying. If so, the number is 392.

For pitstop errors should you be counting the number of pitstops for the entire period? For driver errors, or strategy issues, should you look at the number of laps?

What's nice about this is the acceptance that looking over three years seems to be reasonably common ground. A far cry from the diatribe startig on page 46.

#2177 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 09:50

There are so many unknown variables that it is just arrogance/stupidity to pretend you can make an objective judgement.

:lol: of course it's subjective. In my subjective judgement, it's very obvious that Hamilton has been by far the more affected than Button by factors outside his control, and within the team's control, over their time together.

I think it's very telling that the counter arguments to this all involve generalisations. At no point is there an attempt to say "no, I've looked over the history and I think they have both been fairly evenly affected".

Instead, we get attempts to claim that statistics (and the law of large numbers) render this viewpoint impossible. Attempts to claim that Hamilton is a car breaker. Attempts to claim that it's just all too unknown so we simply must fall back on the points table.

I don't find a single one of those arguments at all convincing. So I remain quite content in my subjective assesment: Hamilton has been by far the more affected than Button by factors outside his control, and within the team's control, over their time together

#2178 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 514 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:12

I'm a Hamilton fan, and I thought JB's defence was fine. He held on for several laps against a faster car on faster tyres, with rejigged gearing to aid overtaking and with two helpings of DRS 'push to pass'.


+1 :up:

#2179 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:13

:lol: of course it's subjective. In my subjective judgement, it's very obvious that Hamilton has been by far the more affected than Button by factors outside his control, and within the team's control, over their time together.

I think it's very telling that the counter arguments to this all involve generalisations. At no point is there an attempt to say "no, I've looked over the history and I think they have both been fairly evenly affected".

Instead, we get attempts to claim that statistics (and the law of large numbers) render this viewpoint impossible. Attempts to claim that Hamilton is a car breaker. Attempts to claim that it's just all too unknown so we simply must fall back on the points table.

I don't find a single one of those arguments at all convincing. So I remain quite content in my subjective assesment: Hamilton has been by far the more affected than Button by factors outside his control, and within the team's control, over their time together


Well, I know that at the start of their time together I, amongst others, predicted that Lewis would be generally faster but would be more effected by "incidents" crashes, penalties, breakdowns etc and therefore it would end up very close. This is exactly what has happened. What I see now are what I interpret to be attempts to rewrite history to fit other peoples predictions of destruction.

@Buttoneer :D F*** me! I'm going to have to think about that one a bit. 392 is a large number ;)

Advertisement

#2180 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,065 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:33

What I am saying Rob, for the umpteenth time and I really thought you understood this, is that we have no way of knowing to what extent these factors effected things.


I agree that we don't know with any certainty.

I disagree that we should therefore just count them all as equal or dismiss them all.

Gareth's posts are pretty much summing up my position.

#2181 rileyl

rileyl
  • Member

  • 461 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:42

Button will always live with the memories that he was no match for Hamilton.

He's even starting to whinge about the car that he had most input into. I wonder what he is going to say about the '28 which was designed with Hamilton in mind?


Button would then say because the 28 was designed with/for Lewis; that's why...bla bla bla.... balance problem....worst car that McLaren ever built ......to cover himself struggle to get into Q3

#2182 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 514 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:58

Awsome topic this one and rather amusing at times. You can imagine the bulging eyes and pulsating veins when some people reply to posts in this thead. It will run and run (hopefully).

Imagine though that you're Martin Whitmarsh, sitting down at the MTC this week to review the events of the last GP, and no matter what spin you put on things one nagging sinking feeling keeps gnawing away at you.

"oh my god, WTF have we done...........!"

I admire McLaren as a team and for sure they have always been there are thereabouts for many many years and it is a team that, quite rightly, many drivers want to drive for. I remember Williams back in the mid 80's to 1996, the Judd year(s) notwithstanding, and they were the same, but a continued belief that their star drivers (and star designer) weren't important and came a distant second behind the needs of the team as a whole (and the egos and entrenched beliefs of the management too no doubt). I see some simlarities with what is now happening at McLaren. Next year will be a very different year for McLaren - they'll be a paying customer for their engines and they're taking a rather unknown quantity in Perez who just happens to bring some money/sponsorship with him which of course played no part whatsoever in them choosing him. They'll also have Button's mercurial qualifying speed and ability to drive the wheels off a poorly balanced car to get the best possible race result.

The times they are a changing and yes indeed Martin Whitmarsh, just WTF have you gone and done?

#2183 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,824 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:32

Well, I know that at the start of their time together I, amongst others, predicted that Lewis would be generally faster but would be more effected by "incidents" crashes, penalties, breakdowns etc and therefore it would end up very close. This is exactly what has happened. What I see now are what I interpret to be attempts to rewrite history to fit other peoples predictions of destruction.

@Buttoneer :D F*** me! I'm going to have to think about that one a bit. 392 is a large number ;)

Yes, but 112 isn't (assumes two pitstops per race), for example. I'm not proposing answers or a route into large numbers, but questioning whether in examining the statistics one should just take the number of events as the baseline. The number of gearboxes and engines are far smaller than that, but the number of laps far larger. The number of new developments unknown although I recall Whitmarsh taking about a development change every 20 minutes at the factory, or something equally fantastic. How about the number of passes for collision stats or corners for unforced errors etc?

@Gareth I don't think you'll find many people objecting to that. The objection is to attempts to attribute absolute metrics to it, which is an impossible and fruitless task as my comment above I think goes some way to illustrating.

The lists for both drivers took a lot of time to construct and are clearly flawed, but I don't understand that it was necessary. I think everyone who posts here is of the opinion that Lewis has appeared to lose a lot of points through matters outside his direct control. I wouldn't say anybody except those in the team can know to what extent Buttons dip this year was within his control, or Hamilton's wing choice in Spa, whether his driving style actually is responsible for his larger number of gearbox failures, or whether pitstop issues were down to the drivers missing their marks (although parking in the wrong box is a clue to one of those...).

Subjectively yes, Lewis has lost a lot of points. The attribution of numbers is in my view just another attempt to create a gulf between the 'obvious' right answer that Lewis is the faster driver of the two and the other qualities which create success which JB must have in order to have become a WDC and be doing so well against TDG. It just points to the fact that F1 is more complex than we can possibly understand here on the outside looking in.

Should that stop us from trying? No, of course not. Is our lack of knowledge and understanding well served by a 'bad luck formula'? No, I don't think so.

#2184 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,291 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:46

No we don't know that. Kerb hopping, clipping a barrier, nudging another, car could all do that.


A roll bar .... srsly?

#2185 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:51

Yes, but 112 isn't (assumes two pitstops per race), for example. I'm not proposing answers or a route into large numbers, but questioning whether in examining the statistics one should just take the number of events as the baseline. The number of gearboxes and engines are far smaller than that, but the number of laps far larger. The number of new developments unknown although I recall Whitmarsh taking about a development change every 20 minutes at the factory, or something equally fantastic. How about the number of passes for collision stats or corners for unforced errors etc?

@Gareth I don't think you'll find many people objecting to that. The objection is to attempts to attribute absolute metrics to it, which is an impossible and fruitless task as my comment above I think goes some way to illustrating.

The lists for both drivers took a lot of time to construct and are clearly flawed, but I don't understand that it was necessary. I think everyone who posts here is of the opinion that Lewis has appeared to lose a lot of points through matters outside his direct control. I wouldn't say anybody except those in the team can know to what extent Buttons dip this year was within his control, or Hamilton's wing choice in Spa, whether his driving style actually is responsible for his larger number of gearbox failures, or whether pitstop issues were down to the drivers missing their marks (although parking in the wrong box is a clue to one of those...).

Subjectively yes, Lewis has lost a lot of points. The attribution of numbers is in my view just another attempt to create a gulf between the 'obvious' right answer that Lewis is the faster driver of the two and the other qualities which create success which JB must have in order to have become a WDC and be doing so well against TDG. It just points to the fact that F1 is more complex than we can possibly understand here on the outside looking in.

Should that stop us from trying? No, of course not. Is our lack of knowledge and understanding well served by a 'bad luck formula'? No, I don't think so.


:up:


#2186 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,498 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:51

A roll bar .... srsly?


Why not?


#2187 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:12

@Gareth I don't think you'll find many people objecting to that. The objection is to attempts to attribute absolute metrics to it

We clearly have a very different understanding of the posts we have been reading, then.

If the objections were restricted to just "I have a problem with a fantasy points table", I'd broadly agree - whilst I think that the points table does not tell the whole story, the fantasy points table suffers from the same problems and then some.

My understanding of what I've been reading/responding to (rightly or wrongly) has been that there are a number of absolute objections to any suggestion that relative performance should be judged on anything other than the points table. These objections including "it's statistically impossible that over 56 races the drivers could have been differently affected by team matters", "Hamilton's problems are of his own making [car breaker]", "we simply cannot judge, so must use the points table".

The result of those arguments is to say: the aggregate points tally tells us Hamilton and Button performed equally well. I disagree with the arguments used to justify that conclusion and I disagree with the conclusion.

If I have misunderstood people and those arguments are not being presented nor the conclusion that the aggregate points tally tells us the absolute truth of their relative performance, my bad.

I have been at pains to stress that any judgement on performance (such as my own) that concludes that Hamilton has been better over the three years, and explains the points tally as down to disproportionate effects of team related factors, is: subjective and that no one has to share those conclusions. I would also stress (even though I haven't said anything that suggests the opposite, but clearly given Lazy's post #2179 it appears I need to), that in no way do I think Hamilton "destroyed" Button - whilst I think Hamilton's better performance is clear, I do not think that the margin is nearly great enough to justify that kind of statement.

But I definitely disagree with "points table = be all and end all re: relative driver performance".

#2188 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,758 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:27

We clearly have a very different understanding of the posts we have been reading, then.

If the objections were restricted to just "I have a problem with a fantasy points table", I'd broadly agree - whilst I think that the points table does not tell the whole story, the fantasy points table suffers from the same problems and then some.

My understanding of what I've been reading/responding to (rightly or wrongly) has been that there are a number of absolute objections to any suggestion that relative performance should be judged on anything other than the points table. These objections including "it's statistically impossible that over 56 races the drivers could have been differently affected by team matters", "Hamilton's problems are of his own making [car breaker]", "we simply cannot judge, so must use the points table".

The result of those arguments is to say: the aggregate points tally tells us Hamilton and Button performed equally well. I disagree with the arguments used to justify that conclusion and I disagree with the conclusion.

If I have misunderstood people and those arguments are not being presented nor the conclusion that the aggregate points tally tells us the absolute truth of their relative performance, my bad.

I have been at pains to stress that any judgement on performance (such as my own) that concludes that Hamilton has been better over the three years, and explains the points tally as down to disproportionate effects of team related factors, is: subjective and that no one has to share those conclusions. I would also stress (even though I haven't said anything that suggests the opposite, but clearly given Lazy's post #2179 it appears I need to), that in no way do I think Hamilton "destroyed" Button - whilst I think Hamilton's better performance is clear, I do not think that the margin is nearly great enough to justify that kind of statement.

But I definitely disagree with "points table = be all and end all re: relative driver performance".


:up:


#2189 H2H

H2H
  • Member

  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:43

We clearly have a very different understanding of the posts we have been reading, then.

If the objections were restricted to just "I have a problem with a fantasy points table", I'd broadly agree - whilst I think that the points table does not tell the whole story, the fantasy points table suffers from the same problems and then some.

My understanding of what I've been reading/responding to (rightly or wrongly) has been that there are a number of absolute objections to any suggestion that relative performance should be judged on anything other than the points table. These objections including "it's statistically impossible that over 56 races the drivers could have been differently affected by team matters", "Hamilton's problems are of his own making [car breaker]", "we simply cannot judge, so must use the points table".

The result of those arguments is to say: the aggregate points tally tells us Hamilton and Button performed equally well. I disagree with the arguments used to justify that conclusion and I disagree with the conclusion.

If I have misunderstood people and those arguments are not being presented nor the conclusion that the aggregate points tally tells us the absolute truth of their relative performance, my bad.

I have been at pains to stress that any judgement on performance (such as my own) that concludes that Hamilton has been better over the three years, and explains the points tally as down to disproportionate effects of team related factors, is: subjective and that no one has to share those conclusions. I would also stress (even though I haven't said anything that suggests the opposite, but clearly given Lazy's post #2179 it appears I need to), that in no way do I think Hamilton "destroyed" Button - whilst I think Hamilton's better performance is clear, I do not think that the margin is nearly great enough to justify that kind of statement.

But I definitely disagree with "points table = be all and end all re: relative driver performance".


I brought the issue up hoping to bring the 'statistical side' into the discussion and I is nice to see an earnest exchange of arguments about a difficult topic. My personal approach has been shaped by work in the field of behavorial economics which was 'founded' by Daniel Kahnemann which quite recently wrote a award winning bestseller.

F1 is one of the sport events where the use of statistics to evaluate the performance is considerable harder then in basket. It is a team sport in which a great, highly skilled and ressourced team gets it return only through two members called drivers. Even with teammates, driving the car and getting equal treatment there is the difference of having a different 'garage' team behind them, which plays a very important role, especially with the performance gaps being so small. On top of that those drivers perform in an environment in which chance plays a much bigger role then in most other sports. External factors like other cars crashing into you, holding you up, causing SC and the impact of weather & etc can have a great influence on the outcome. And last but not least the number of outcomes is not that big, especially over a year - still the chamionships are decided on the very basis.

So there are good reasons to use your own mind and the opinon of others and 'experts' to form your personal conclusion. So why should you try to make us of a base rate like points? I will post that when I have more time.



#2190 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 515 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:54

It is a little amusing that the tables apparently cannot be trusted when comparing Hamilton with Button, but how easily (some) Hamilton fans will trot out that Hamilton is better than Alonso based on their time together at McLaren as Hamilton finished above Alonso in the table (even though they ended on equal points, but LH technically won due to race victories).

What's good for the goose...

#2191 moorsey

moorsey
  • Member

  • 642 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 12:56

Why not?


Because they are designed AND TESTED to take that kind of "abuse". Most teams can be seen taking to the kerbs etc and how many others have destroyed the roll bar.
Maybe Button doesn't have that problem simply because he doesn't drive or try hard enough?????

#2192 thesham01

thesham01
  • Member

  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:02

It really is ridiculous to keep the farce going that Button deserves to be ahead:

1) To judge how good a driver is off the pitstops he receives is laughable.

2) To then try and say that Hamilton wrecks his car more; well nearly all the issues Hamilton has faced (fuel pump, gearbox), Button has also. Meaning its a mechanical issue, not driver.

3) Then we have roll bar failures, well I think its quite obvious that these are non-fault issues.

4) To then grab hold of the idea that its 'team and driver defines the driver' is nonsense, obviously. We are here to judge the driver, to try and wade through the noise and see how good both have actually been in the last 3 years.

5) To think that luck definitely evens out over 3 years is plain ignorant.

To sensible people, of which 99% here are, it is clear that minus all the noise, Hamilton has performed better but has been handicapped.

Edited by thesham01, 07 November 2012 - 13:05.


#2193 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 515 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:11

To sensible people, of which 99% here are, it is clear that minus all the noise, Hamilton has performed better but has been handicapped.

So, just to clarify, when Hamilton wins he is the better performer, and when Hamilton loses he's the better performer.

As for 3 years not being long enough for luck to even itself out, how long would you like?

(I take it you're not simply one of those people who tries to suggest all criticism of Lewis is moral bereft? There's a lot of them in here. They make me laugh)

#2194 thesham01

thesham01
  • Member

  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:19

So, just to clarify, when Hamilton wins he is the better performer, and when Hamilton loses he's the better performer.

As for 3 years not being long enough for luck to even itself out, how long would you like?

(I take it you're not simply one of those people who tries to suggest all criticism of Lewis is moral bereft? There's a lot of them in here. They make me laugh)


Less than 60 races (in which all the incidents I listed a few pages back occurred, therefore 60 is the number we are looking at, not 396) is not enough time to judge luck. Clever people have shown this to be the case.

As for the Hamilton win-win situation you accuse me of; Hamilton has been out performed at times in the 3 years, he was outperformed overall in 2011 for example. This is not the issue; the horrendous bad luck Hamilton has received this year is, however.

Whats you opinion on it? Who has been a better performer over the 3 years?

Edited by thesham01, 07 November 2012 - 13:20.


#2195 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,824 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:19

We clearly have a very different understanding of the posts we have been reading, then.

If the objections were restricted to just "I have a problem with a fantasy points table", I'd broadly agree - whilst I think that the points table does not tell the whole story, the fantasy points table suffers from the same problems and then some.

My understanding of what I've been reading/responding to (rightly or wrongly) has been that there are a number of absolute objections to any suggestion that relative performance should be judged on anything other than the points table. These objections including "it's statistically impossible that over 56 races the drivers could have been differently affected by team matters", "Hamilton's problems are of his own making [car breaker]", "we simply cannot judge, so must use the points table".

The result of those arguments is to say: the aggregate points tally tells us Hamilton and Button performed equally well. I disagree with the arguments used to justify that conclusion and I disagree with the conclusion.

If I have misunderstood people and those arguments are not being presented nor the conclusion that the aggregate points tally tells us the absolute truth of their relative performance, my bad.

I have been at pains to stress that any judgement on performance (such as my own) that concludes that Hamilton has been better over the three years, and explains the points tally as down to disproportionate effects of team related factors, is: subjective and that no one has to share those conclusions. I would also stress (even though I haven't said anything that suggests the opposite, but clearly given Lazy's post #2179 it appears I need to), that in no way do I think Hamilton "destroyed" Button - whilst I think Hamilton's better performance is clear, I do not think that the margin is nearly great enough to justify that kind of statement.

But I definitely disagree with "points table = be all and end all re: relative driver performance".

The arguments about statistics/car breaking/points table etc apply equally to both drivers, even if the extent to which they apply differs.

The problem with someone - anyone - posting up a points table is that it will inevitably draw some people into discussing the details of it, rather than standing back and looking at the bigger picture and asking themselves whether that is even worthwhile. Those who propose the lists, in this case TomNokoe and thesham01, clearly believe that the minutae are important and others will think so too and argue the points. If I see a single questionable value then I can't go any further as it straight away means the result is unreliable. That's what I thought I was seeing with you and Lazy and the law of big numbers, though you say I am wrong, so time to move on.

"If I have misunderstood people and those arguments are not being presented nor the conclusion that the aggregate points tally tells us the absolute truth of their relative performance, my bad."

Maybe I have misinderstood where those arguments are coming from. I believe it is fair to say (and obvious if you read the threads) that those who support Hamilton have been vocally dismissive of Button's ability from day 1 and continue to use silly adjectives to describe him as a person and his ability as a driver. Perhaps it is my bias, but I don't see many comments from the other side dismissing Hamilton, in fact it looks to me like there's clear respect for him and a feeling of pride that Button has done so well. There are notable exceptions on both sides, obviously. What I believe you're seeing is the difference between arguments put forward by those who seek to create a gulf between them and those who seek to bring them closer together. It's like watching the black and white cat trying to extricate itself from the clutches of Pepe le Pew.

I have sometimes wondered whether it might be worth starting a 'scorecard' thread purely to discuss how one should score the differences. Are there points of comparison which can be univerally accepted as resonable by most and applied then to different driver pairings to give a reasonable skill assessment? Sort of like the Castrol figures try to do but relying less on the results and create independance from the car.

#2196 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,758 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:24

So, just to clarify, when Hamilton wins he is the better performer, and when Hamilton loses he's the better performer.

As for 3 years not being long enough for luck to even itself out, how long would you like?

(I take it you're not simply one of those people who tries to suggest all criticism of Lewis is moral bereft? There's a lot of them in here. They make me laugh)


I can see some very well thought out and reasoned opinions being put forward. That's a lot classier than coming on to here and just bashing a fair chunk of the forum community.........

#2197 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 5,075 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:25

As for 3 years not being long enough for luck to even itself out, how long would you like?

There really is no such thing as "luck evening itself out". As people always said when discussing Alonso, he was never "due" a DNF because his chances do not increase each race. It's the same with Button/Hamilton. Button's risk of bad luck doesn't increase because Hamilton experiences some. Yes they are driving the same car for the same team, but that's not conclusive is it?

#2198 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,065 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:25

It is a little amusing that the tables apparently cannot be trusted when comparing Hamilton with Button, but how easily (some) Hamilton fans will trot out that Hamilton is better than Alonso based on their time together at McLaren as Hamilton finished above Alonso in the table (even though they ended on equal points, but LH technically won due to race victories).

What's good for the goose...


It's a fair point so who's going to do a fantasy WDC for 2007? :p



#2199 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,065 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:29

Lazy - this doesn't mean you are wrong but as far as I can tell most posters on 'button's side of the argument' for want of a better term, are arguing the extent of the bad luck that Lewis has received this year and the motivation behind doing a fantasy WDC, rather than whether or not he has lost a lot more points than Lewis through no fault of his own.

The latter point seems to be accepted by the likes of Burtros and Rinehart for example.

In the media I have not seen one claim that Lewis is in anyway responsible for pit stops issues, refuelling, mechanical breakdowns etc and several claims as to how many points they estimate Lewis has lost, including JA doing his own fantasy WDC.

Like I say, it doesn't mean you're wrong (Will Smith in I Robot :p ) but unless I am mistaken you are very much a lone voice.

And please don't interpret the above as any sort of attack, I just think there's nothing left to debate given your position as I understand it but that the above was worth pointing out.

Advertisement

#2200 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,758 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 07 November 2012 - 13:35

The arguments about statistics/car breaking/points table etc apply equally to both drivers, even if the extent to which they apply differs.

The problem with someone - anyone - posting up a points table is that it will inevitably draw some people into discussing the details of it, rather than standing back and looking at the bigger picture and asking themselves whether that is even worthwhile. Those who propose the lists, in this case TomNokoe and thesham01, clearly believe that the minutae are important and others will think so too and argue the points. If I see a single questionable value then I can't go any further as it straight away means the result is unreliable. That's what I thought I was seeing with you and Lazy and the law of big numbers, though you say I am wrong, so time to move on.

"If I have misunderstood people and those arguments are not being presented nor the conclusion that the aggregate points tally tells us the absolute truth of their relative performance, my bad."

Maybe I have misinderstood where those arguments are coming from. I believe it is fair to say (and obvious if you read the threads) that those who support Hamilton have been vocally dismissive of Button's ability from day 1 and continue to use silly adjectives to describe him as a person and his ability as a driver. Perhaps it is my bias, but I don't see many comments from the other side dismissing Hamilton, in fact it looks to me like there's clear respect for him and a feeling of pride that Button has done so well. There are notable exceptions on both sides, obviously. What I believe you're seeing is the difference between arguments put forward by those who seek to create a gulf between them and those who seek to bring them closer together. It's like watching the black and white cat trying to extricate itself from the clutches of Pepe le Pew.

I have sometimes wondered whether it might be worth starting a 'scorecard' thread purely to discuss how one should score the differences. Are there points of comparison which can be univerally accepted as resonable by most and applied then to different driver pairings to give a reasonable skill assessment? Sort of like the Castrol figures try to do but relying less on the results and create independance from the car.


P123 (a genuine fan of both) has done a very good analysis on relative performance..... Albeit one that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. That approach I think had more merit than the so called "Fantasy WDC".