322 replies to this topic

[redreni]

I think the World Cup shows the value of winning over consistency.

 

If you value winning, then Italy and Uruguay quite rightly have 3 points each.

 

If you value consistency, then England, who have been better on average in the 2 games, ought to be above Italy and Uruguay, who have been abject in 50% of their matches.

 

Applying the F1 points system (assuming the winner gets 25 and second gets 18 - I'm not sure what happens if there's a dead heat in F1 because it never occurs but from memory I think the points for the win and P2 are aggregated and shared equally, so we'll say it's 21.5 points for a draw). Costa Rica would have 50 points, Italy and Uruguay 43 each and England 36. But looking at the permutations for the final group games, Italy and Uruguay would each be guaranteed to finish on a minimum of 61 points, but at least one of them would have to finish on more points than that whatever happens when they play each other, and Costa Rica would be guaranteed to finish on a minimum of 68. England would only be able to finish on a maximum of 61, thereby finishing behind Costa Rica and either Uruguay or Italy (or possibly behind all three).

 

Which is a long-winded way of saying that the system which is maligned for valuing consistency over winning and for rewarding drivers for finishing second, would produce the same outcome as the system they use in the World Cup, which you say favours winning over consistency. You get a lot more points for winning in F1 than for finishing anywhere else. People who don't win races don't generally get anywhere near winning the title.

Edited by redreni, 20 June 2014 - 23:21.

[ensign14]

You missed my point entirely.  Over the 180 minutes of the games played so far England have been better than Uruguay and Italy.  Consistent.  But when it comes to winning the matches, Italy and Uruguay got the job done.  Wins.

 

It's all about winning.  Greece won the Euros in 2004.  Someone like Germany has been consistent in them since 2000 but hasn't won.  Which would you rather have?  Nobody gives a toss that England kept making the last 8 but never the last 2, whereas for France it was win or bust. 

[27gilles27]

How about dropping both best and worst scores - one each in each half of the season?

[27gilles27]

Very intereting point. If you had to use say 5 results from each half of the season and drop the other scores, alternating between lowest and highest scores, you could end up with a very interesting score sheet.

[27gilles27]

The system should, if anything, award consistency quite simply because if you have a dominating winner, people lose interest. Also, a drivers championship should be about a driver doingvthe best job with what he has st his disposal. The constructors is sbout building the best car. Maybe we need some real racing to sort the men from the boys. Reverse grids, forget the word artificial, f1 is never going to be what it used to be.

[Myrvold]

You missed my point entirely.  Over the 180 minutes of the games played so far England have been better than Uruguay and Italy.  Consistent.  But when it comes to winning the matches, Italy and Uruguay got the job done.  Wins.

If not Gerrard had messed up twice, England might've won against Uruguay. A team sport.

If not a component of Hamilton's car had stopped working, things would've been different. But still, it's a team sport. It's just how it is.

[sopa]

The comparisin between football and F1 is not valid, since in football there are two competitors in one match - one winner, one loser (or a tie), But in F1 there are 22 competitors together - 1 winner, 21 losers. So only rewarding a win in F1 is not an equivalent to football. If you award points to top10 in F1, then it would be about an equivalent - about half of the competitors in one competition are "winners" by scoring points.

 

It is not like by the end of football group stage one team has 3 points, all three other 0 points. They have point system as well. Like 6-4-4-3 by the end of group stage or whatever. So in the end if all teams are competitive enough and can at least tie with someone, all teams score points!

 

On a very odd occasion in football a team has made it through the group stage by not winning a match. I think it was Italy in the 80s. 3 ties, 3 points, and made it into the knock-out stage. Now this is consistency getting rewarding in football if we are talking about consistency. More often you have 1 win and 2 ties, which guarantees you through. Also pretty consistent.

Edited by sopa, 21 June 2014 - 06:51.

[sopa]

You missed my point entirely.  Over the 180 minutes of the games played so far England have been better than Uruguay and Italy.  Consistent.  But when it comes to winning the matches, Italy and Uruguay got the job done.  Wins.

 

It's all about winning.  Greece won the Euros in 2004.  Someone like Germany has been consistent in them since 2000 but hasn't won.  Which would you rather have?  Nobody gives a toss that England kept making the last 8 but never the last 2, whereas for France it was win or bust. 

 

So we should have a knock-out championship in F1 like in NASCAR? Only that for the Abu Dhabi race only 2 title contenders left?

 

If you are looking for an equivalent, in each football round half of the competitors are winners. Say in quarterfinals - 4 winners, 4 losers. But in F1 Grand Prix - 1 winner, 21 losers. And this in every race, all the time. Without any knockout stage or even winning anything in the early stage of the year, let alone late phase of the season. Maybe 11 drivers out of 22 competitors in F1 should be winners too. And then until the last race we keep selecting, who should be the real and only winner.

Edited by sopa, 21 June 2014 - 06:57.

[PayasYouRace]

You missed my point entirely.  Over the 180 minutes of the games played so far England have been better than Uruguay and Italy.  Consistent.  But when it comes to winning the matches, Italy and Uruguay got the job done.  Wins.

 

It's all about winning.  Greece won the Euros in 2004.  Someone like Germany has been consistent in them since 2000 but hasn't won.  Which would you rather have?  Nobody gives a toss that England kept making the last 8 but never the last 2, whereas for France it was win or bust. 

 

You're conflating a match/race with a tournament/championship. In the match/race, the result counts. You reward the competitors in the order they finish. In football it's easy, because there are only two. In F1 there's more than 20 starters and not all finish.

 

You're not approaching this reasonably, because when it suits you you switch and claim that 0/1 success can be counted as 90% (in your Titanic example).

[sopa]

By the way in a football season-long tournament it is possible to become a champion with less wins than your competitor.

 

Let's say.

 

38 matches.

Team A - 22 wins, 13 draws, 3 losses - 79 points

Team B - 25 wins, 2 draws, 11 losses - 77 points

 

Is it unfair? Should we change the point system?

[highdownforce]

By the way in a football season-long tournament it is possible to become a champion with less wins than your competitor.

Let's say.

38 matches.
Team A - 22 wins, 13 draws, 3 losses - 79 points
Team B - 25 wins, 2 draws, 11 losses - 77 points

Is it unfair? Should we change the point system?

Interesting.

In this example, Team A needed more 11 draws to compensate for 3 wins, bonus of 2 extra points.

In football, 1 win equates to 3 draws, the second better result.

Instead of nearly 70% of the winner points, the second place would have won not much more than merely 30% of it.

A comparable point system to football would be something akin to:

6591, 2187, 729, 243, 81, 27, 9, 3, 1


If my math is right, of course.

[redreni]

You missed my point entirely.  Over the 180 minutes of the games played so far England have been better than Uruguay and Italy.  Consistent.  But when it comes to winning the matches, Italy and Uruguay got the job done.  Wins.

 

It's all about winning.  Greece won the Euros in 2004.  Someone like Germany has been consistent in them since 2000 but hasn't won.  Which would you rather have?  Nobody gives a toss that England kept making the last 8 but never the last 2, whereas for France it was win or bust. 

 

So it is in F1. Performing well but finishing second, while your opponent performs less well but manages to win, causes you to fall behind in the points and, ultimately, lose the title. Neither football nor F1 rewards consistently coming up just short above winning. It's just that in a football match, coming second is the worst you can possibly do, which is why you don't get anything for that, whereas in a Grand Prix it's no easy matter to get to the end at all and even if you do, there are 20-plus participants all trying to beat you which is why second is viewed, by anyone with a sense of perspective I should have thought, as being a pretty good result, and the points reflect that.

 

Looking at it over a period of years, I agree that I'd rather win the championship one year and be nowhere the rest of the time than be consistently up there. But that's because we treat each season seperately and when you retire, you want to be able to say you've won something. We don't have a 5-year or 10-year championship. If we did, it would alter that equation because one would want to win that. You can't really extrapolate from the Germany vs Greece example to the way individual race results relate to the outcome of a single season's world championship, because we don't simply treat each race separately if they're Championship events. You may wish we did, but we don't.

[27gilles27]

So, the race is where you want the overall win and the first place trophy. It's a grand prix and to win one in a career is an achievement. To win the world championship its about the whole season and how you maximize each gp. That may not mean regular winning but could equate to a wc title. Two different driver challenges. I would not want one driver to win the wc because he won all the races. I would not be the only one to turn off the telly by round 3.

[PlatenGlass]

I think some people might not take to this thread because the points are laid out in advance and it's a level playing field, so it would be strange to call it unfair. But if we ask "Is the points system any good?" then that complaint goes away. And I'd say it isn't. After four rounds, Hamilton had won three and wasn't leading. I thought that was a bit stupid myself.
 

Personally I would try for a system where 1st is worth 2 2nds, and worth 3 3rds, and worth 4 4ths, etc. So for example,
 
1st: 24
2nd: 12
3rd: 8
4th: 6
5th: 5 (rounded)
6th: 4
7th: 3
8th: 2
9th: 1 (Last ones just filled in in sequence to avoid many decimals.)

I've thought this for years. This way one retirement means that you are guaranteed to be back at least level with two wins. That seems right to me. I have a couple of different systems. One which starts at 60 points:

1st: 60
2nd: 30
3rd: 20
4th: 15
5th: 12
6th: 10
7th: 8
8th: 7
9th: 6
10th: 5
11th: 4
12th: 3
13th: 2
14th: 1

Or with 120 points for the win:

1st: 120
2nd: 60
3rd: 40
4th: 30
5th: 24
6th: 20
7th: 17
8th: 15
9th: 13
10th: 11
11th: 10
12th: 9
13th: 8
14th: 7
15th: 6
16th: 5
17th: 4
18th: 3
19th: 2
20th: 1

I think 20 is a nice round number to award points. After all, as has been said on this thread, points are merely a way to distinguish between drivers in a championship. They are aren't trophies or rewards and it makes sense to distinguish between drivers at the front and back of the field.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 30 June 2014 - 13:45.

[MikeMM]

Guys I cant belive that you are seriously discussing unjustice of points system.

The most unfair thing is that drivers have to drive different cars.

This year only Hamilton and Rosberg can win championship.

Are they by far two best drivers in the world? Certainly they are not.

So no matter how sofisticated points sistem FIA comes up with unjustice will still remain and not best drivers will continue to win championships.

[PayasYouRace]

Guys I cant belive that you are seriously discussing unjustice of points system.

The most unfair thing is that drivers have to drive different cars.

 

This is a thread about points systems. That's what we're discussing here. If you want to talk about having the drivers in the same cars, go find a thread about that.

[Buttoneer]

That's a bit tough.

 

He makes a good point that if the intention is to differentiate between the skills of the drivers, the points are not the biggest barrier to assessing that.  You couldn't even reasonably say that Lewis and Nico are in the same car when they race against each other because they are the sum total of the engineering input and setup by two relatively independant sides of the garage with input from drivers that will have different preferences.

 

The fact that all of this is separated by a maximum 7 point differential is hardly the worst thing in the world.

[MikeMM]

This is a thread about points systems. That's what we're discussing here. If you want to talk about having the drivers in the same cars, go find a thread about that.

If this a thread about points systems than dont tell  me here that should I do. PM exist just for that purpose.

[Jimisgod]

It would differ hugely in that in my hypothetical scenario Hamilton would be leading.

Just to add... this is NOT about Hamilton. It's about the balance of wins v finishing.

2 wins being worth the same as 3 seconds "feels" right (and was indeed the system for the first 40 years of the World Drivers Championship).

 

24 - 16 - 12 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 = Podiums get priority but points for consistency? Maybe give 3 points for pole and 1 for the fastest lap?

 

Thus in 2014...

 

ROS - 163

HAM - 141

RIC - 67

ALO - 54

VET - 44

HUL - 43

BOT - 38

BUT - 30

MAS - 24

MAG - 23

PER - 23

RAI - 15

GRO - 6

JEV - 6

KVY - 4

BIA - 2

 

And if we get three 1-2 in Hamilton's favor, with 3 poles by HAM... 225 vs. 211

 

Lets try 2008...

 

HAM - 230 & MAS - 236 

 

2007...

 

RAI - 256 & ALO - 238 & HAM - 249

 

2009...

 

BUT - 216 & VET - 194

 

2006...

 

MSC - 257 & ALO - 291

 

All the way back to 1989...

 

PRO - 229 & SEN - 203

Edited by Jimisgod, 01 July 2014 - 09:51.

[sopa]

24 - 16 - 12 - 8 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 = Podiums get priority but points for consistency? Maybe give 3 points for pole and 1 for the fastest lap?

 

Thus in 2014...

 

ROS - 163

HAM - 141

RIC - 67

ALO - 54

VET - 44

HUL - 43

BOT - 38

BUT - 30

MAS - 24

MAG - 23

PER - 23

RAI - 15

GRO - 6

JEV - 6

KVY - 4

BIA - 2

 

And if we get three 1-2 in Hamilton's favor, with 3 poles by HAM... 225 vs. 211

 

Lets try 2008...

 

HAM - 230 & MAS - 236 

 

2007...

 

RAI - 256 & ALO - 238 & HAM - 249

 

 

Not a bad points system at all. Actually I quite like it. Except I wouldn't give points to pole position and FL.

[PayasYouRace]

Apologies for being a bit harsh up there. I'm just a bit tired of discussions being sidetracked by issues that others feel are more important, as if it meant that because something isn't that important, we shouldn't talk about it.

 

Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that a champion should be the most successful in a year. How you measure success is of course the point of this thread. But I've never seen how it would make sense to crown a champion based on some idea that he's the "best" on the grid.

[Rinehart]

You missed my point entirely.  Over the 180 minutes of the games played so far England have been better than Uruguay and Italy.  Consistent.  But when it comes to winning the matches, Italy and Uruguay got the job done.  Wins.

 

It's all about winning.  Greece won the Euros in 2004.  Someone like Germany has been consistent in them since 2000 but hasn't won.  Which would you rather have?  Nobody gives a toss that England kept making the last 8 but never the last 2, whereas for France it was win or bust. 

2 things.

 

Firstly, your view of England is a bit rose tinted I think. We matched them going forwards but we defended poorly in both games. 

 

Secondly, your comparing an F1 season which is essentially a "league" format in that lots of points add together to establish a winner (rewarding consistency), with a football tournament in a "cup" format which is essentially win or go home (rewarding wins, not consistency). 

 

I think the F1 point systems works well except it penalises DNFs too harshly. You can't DNF in football. 

[ensign14]

Didn't defend poorly against Uruguay.  They had 2 shots on target all match.  One of which was unstoppable, the other was gifted by a Phil Collins fan.