If you haven't read it yet, go to the main page of Atlas and read this excellent article. I read it, 'did the math' (nothing anal retentive about me!), and happen to agree that their methodology at least makes sense, is consistent, and a fun thing to have around.
Peter & David done good in my opinion!
As I mentioned, in an irony that Bira will never believe, my next series was to be on the 1961 season!!!! Now maybe I'll do the 1968 one as well. 1986? Don't know, but worth a look.
Please take a look at this article and see what you think...
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-07-2000).]
The Best Season Ever Article
Started by
Don Capps
, Apr 07 2000 07:03
17 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 08:31
Well done but I would change things a little. First I would add strength of opposition by using points scored year to date/points offered for each driver on the grid and add them up for the entire season. Then I would do the same for the cars. Add additional weight to the number of WCs racing. (Compensating the earlier years)
The fact that you had more race winners may just be a sign of mediocrity and how can 5 winners out of 10 races score higher 4 winners out of 8? Must be that new math.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
The fact that you had more race winners may just be a sign of mediocrity and how can 5 winners out of 10 races score higher 4 winners out of 8? Must be that new math.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
#3
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 08:42
DD, I think that the concept of a 'rolling tally' is an interesting idea and perhaps has some neat surprises in store.
New Math? Hell, I had trouble with the Old Math! Yeah, good point. Hmmmmm. Reckon it is one of them algorithmic things?
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
New Math? Hell, I had trouble with the Old Math! Yeah, good point. Hmmmmm. Reckon it is one of them algorithmic things?
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
#4
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 08:56
Algorithmic? Me and the misses had a little of that this morning. Yeeha.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
#5
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 09:00
BTW Give me Clark, Hill, Gurney, Surtees and Brabham in one season and I'll take it every time. I don't need to add up no stinkin' points. ;-)
Or Nuvolari, Varzi, Caracciola, Moll, Fagioli and Chiron for that matter.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
[This message has been edited by Dennis David (edited 04-07-2000).]
Or Nuvolari, Varzi, Caracciola, Moll, Fagioli and Chiron for that matter.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
[This message has been edited by Dennis David (edited 04-07-2000).]
#6
Vicster
-
- 125 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 09:13
Read the article. Generally it's pretty good in a numbers sort of way. But being that we lost G.V. in '82 eliminates that year from first, for me. No matter how many winners there were. WDC Keke Rosberg, with one win that year???
#7
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 09:51
Vicster, use the Atlas search function and check out the articles I did on the season in Rear View Mirror. As for Keke and his only win, keep in mind it is the season that counts in championships -- for better or worse...
Sure, their system has its faults, but it certainly beats running a poll where 99.9% of the readers have no idea of what happened prior to 1995 or so....
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-07-2000).]
Sure, their system has its faults, but it certainly beats running a poll where 99.9% of the readers have no idea of what happened prior to 1995 or so....
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-07-2000).]
#8
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 10:01
Absolutly! I enjoy these spreadsheets, etc. much more than a poll. We do a lot of these things in Baseball.
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
#9
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 10:04
AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Sabremetrics...... The Great Bill James and his analyses of The Game!!!!!
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-07-2000).]
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-07-2000).]
#10
Dennis David
-
- 2,483 posts
- Joined: March 99
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 10:14
We are mere twigs to this great Oak. Wouldn't it be great to create a motorsport version of SABR?
For those that don't know what Don and I are talking about check http://www.sabr.org/
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
[This message has been edited by Dennis David (edited 04-07-2000).]
For those that don't know what Don and I are talking about check http://www.sabr.org/
------------------
Regards,
Dennis David
Yahoo = dennis_a_david
Life is racing, the rest is waiting
Grand Prix History
www.ddavid.com/formula1/
[This message has been edited by Dennis David (edited 04-07-2000).]
#11
Marcel Schot
-
- 5,459 posts
- Joined: November 98
Member
Posted 07 April 2000 - 13:30
Baseball! How come that even on F1 related forum America's favorite passtime hits the board jus days after the new season has started? 
To this data Baseball is still responsible for the fattest book in my collection : 1981 edition of the Baseball Encyclopedia.
Anyway, the article. I liked it, but my opinion remains that history can't be measured through statistics very well.
I agree with Vicster that the death of Villeneuve, as well as the injury of Pironi, casts a shadow on 1982, while I will probably never understand why 1999 was a good season (the only excitement was caused because people failed to do their job properly...not a quality season)
Some ideas to ban these factors out:
- number of drivers injured/killed during the season, weighted with the number of points they scored
- number of championship lead changes where both the leader and the overtaker scored points in the race where the lead changed
DC/DD : have you seen the "Is Mika the most productive champion ever" thread? Did some stats on championship chances and how they were converted, a bit analog to the saves stat for baseball reliefpitchers.
To this data Baseball is still responsible for the fattest book in my collection : 1981 edition of the Baseball Encyclopedia.
Anyway, the article. I liked it, but my opinion remains that history can't be measured through statistics very well.
I agree with Vicster that the death of Villeneuve, as well as the injury of Pironi, casts a shadow on 1982, while I will probably never understand why 1999 was a good season (the only excitement was caused because people failed to do their job properly...not a quality season)
Some ideas to ban these factors out:
- number of drivers injured/killed during the season, weighted with the number of points they scored
- number of championship lead changes where both the leader and the overtaker scored points in the race where the lead changed
DC/DD : have you seen the "Is Mika the most productive champion ever" thread? Did some stats on championship chances and how they were converted, a bit analog to the saves stat for baseball reliefpitchers.
#12
Roger Clark
-
- 7,539 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 09 April 2000 - 00:03
It's a very interesting article, well researched, but in my opiion any statistical method which rates 1857 in the bottom four fail the sanity check (Does this look reasonable)
1957 suffered because races were cancelled following the Suez crisis and Ferrari were not generally competitive. Against that, it ha the first British wins in a major race since 1924. the sublime driving of Fangio and three all-time great races (aintree, Nurburgring and Monza) Add the first glimmerings of things to come from Cooper, and the last year of truly long distance races and genuinely powerful engine (for ten years) and you've got what I would call a great year.
1957 suffered because races were cancelled following the Suez crisis and Ferrari were not generally competitive. Against that, it ha the first British wins in a major race since 1924. the sublime driving of Fangio and three all-time great races (aintree, Nurburgring and Monza) Add the first glimmerings of things to come from Cooper, and the last year of truly long distance races and genuinely powerful engine (for ten years) and you've got what I would call a great year.
#13
Rainstorm
-
- 1,313 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 09 April 2000 - 08:59
Marcel,
I guess it depends how you define quality. In sport, the #1 factor must be excitement and entertainment, as cynical as that may sound. And as such, 1999 was really one of the best. I personally loved it, regardless of the fact that my favourite driver wasn't around for almost half of it...
Regards,
Rain
I guess it depends how you define quality. In sport, the #1 factor must be excitement and entertainment, as cynical as that may sound. And as such, 1999 was really one of the best. I personally loved it, regardless of the fact that my favourite driver wasn't around for almost half of it...
Regards,
Rain
#14
Vicster
-
- 125 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 09 April 2000 - 10:29
Don, I wasn't trying to dis you're work. I apologise if that was the impression. I do have a recollection of GP racing before '95. In fact, I remember arguing with my Italian cousin back in '79 over who made the Ferrari 312T better Jody or Gilles. Being Canadian, I think you can guess who's side I was on. That's probably also the reason why I hate the '82 season. I will go over the articles.
#15
Don Capps
-
- 5,933 posts
- Joined: May 99
Member
Posted 10 April 2000 - 08:32
Vic, The thought truly never entered my mind!!! We are (or try very hard to be) very civil here. We are all used to folks having opinions that are based on or colored by personal recollections that are, well, personal. So be it, nothing wrong with that.
On the article, keep in mine that they laid out a set of criteria, developed an algorithm, got the data, then crunched it, and out came the results. It is a 'sterile' approach to the subject and within its objective parameters works pretty well. However, subjectively even seasons like 1957 and 1963 have their glories: in this case it is two Masters at work making mincemeat of the competition. It is perhaps not a perfect approach, but it has the value (intersting word to use) of being original and makes some sense when you read their approach and the methodology. Pretty clever and far more interesting than the rest of the jillions of lists that were generated...
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-10-2000).]
On the article, keep in mine that they laid out a set of criteria, developed an algorithm, got the data, then crunched it, and out came the results. It is a 'sterile' approach to the subject and within its objective parameters works pretty well. However, subjectively even seasons like 1957 and 1963 have their glories: in this case it is two Masters at work making mincemeat of the competition. It is perhaps not a perfect approach, but it has the value (intersting word to use) of being original and makes some sense when you read their approach and the methodology. Pretty clever and far more interesting than the rest of the jillions of lists that were generated...
------------------
Yr fthfl & hmbl srvnt,
Don Capps
Semper Gumbi: If this was easy, we’d have the solution already…
[This message has been edited by Don Capps (edited 04-10-2000).]
#16
Rainstorm
-
- 1,313 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 10 April 2000 - 09:41
I must admit to have been quite amazed at how much time they put into this. I don't think my attention span would have lasted...
#17
theMot
-
- 6,196 posts
- Joined: July 99
Member
Posted 10 April 2000 - 10:54
I dont understand how 1999 was rated that highly. For me that would have had to have ranked as one of the worst F1 seasons ever. Surely 1997 should have been there. This is coming from someone who does not like JV mych as well.
#18
Marcel Schot
-
- 5,459 posts
- Joined: November 98
Member
Posted 10 April 2000 - 14:01
Rain : Sure there was excitement in 1999, but I severly doubt the entertainment value. I like to see a driver win because he's good, not because others fail. On a race basis that is, overall Hakkinen was the deserved champion given that Schumacher was out of competition (of who I believe he would have dominated the 2nd half of the season if he wouldn't have gotten into his accident). Irvine merely stayed in competition by scoring enough points because a) Mika Hakkinen messed up sometimes, b) McLaren messed up quite a few times and c) David Coulthard doesn't seem to understand the concept of teamwork. There wasn't a single point in the season when I thought Irvine was gonna win the championship because he was the strongest. With that in mind, the season was done the minute Schumacher got injured.
But, as said before, the approach of the article is well worked out and with the limited possibilities, I think they've chosen the right parameters to judge things by. You can't measure feeling, it's as simple as that.
Frankly, I'm a bit jealous I didn't do the article myself
But, as said before, the approach of the article is well worked out and with the limited possibilities, I think they've chosen the right parameters to judge things by. You can't measure feeling, it's as simple as that.
Frankly, I'm a bit jealous I didn't do the article myself
