4 replies to this topic

[Melbourne Park]

A major problem with a Driver Rating is that it comes down to just one person's view. 

 

Interestingly too, Ben Anderson's "Best" driver of 2016 was not the popular choice.

 

Shouldn't there be a driver rating from Autosport that includes all the relevant information, and is a more disciplined format?

 

I'll provide an example - Monaco's driver ratings from Red Bull Racing. They are quoted following:

 

 

3 Daniel Ricciardo

Red Bull-Renault RB13

Start: 5th
Finish: 3rd
Strategy: 1 stop (ultra-soft/super-soft)

Rating: 8

Last year's poleman looked in great shape after Thursday practice, but struggled to go any faster thereafter, complaining a "stupid, silly error" from Red Bull also put him in traffic in Q3.

Outstanding speed on used tyres put that right in the race, but he was also very lucky to escape clouting the wall after the safety car restart.

33 Max Verstappen
Red Bull-Renault RB13

Start: 4th
Finish: 5th
Strategy: 2 stops (ultra-soft/super-soft/ultra-soft)

Rating: 9

Verstappen was flamboyant and committed, but the lap times didn't come until "wrongly calculated" settings were corrected after Thursday practice. He felt the 0.318s gap to pole was "logical" and the best he could do.

He didn't do much wrong in the race. An attempt to jump Bottas with an earlier pitstop failed and that sealed Verstappen's fate on a track where overtaking is tough, and he wasn't happy to learn that Ricciardo's later stop allowed him to jump ahead and relegate Verstappen to fifth.

 

 

Anderson gives Ricciardo 8 compared to Verstappen's 9. Anderson seems to pass over RBR's significant error in placing Ricciardo into traffic in qualifying. Anderson also does not mention that in the Verstappen's pitstop, Verstappen - according to Red Bull Racing's team principle Christian Horner - made an error in the placement of his car in the pitstop, which Horner said contributed to Verstappen loosing the undercut potential position. Anderson even seems to rate Verstappen's "unhappiness" as a race factor. It appears Anderson has included practice speed as evidence in Verstappen's performance, and has ignored issues influencing both Verstappen and Ricciardo's qualifying and race day performances. 

 

IMO we need a better way of Autosport judging performance - this format seems IMO emotional and leaves out too many facts.

 

Can't we a number of Autosport's journalists make their judgements, and include all those views? By doing so, we'll get rid of any potential for bias and lower the possibility of things being forgotten or ignored. 

Edited by Melbourne Park, 06 June 2017 - 23:05.

[Marklar]

IMO we need a better way of Autosport judging performance - this format seems IMO emotional and leaves out too many facts.

Here is an other suggestion

Just ignore it. How does it even matter what driver ratings which publication is going to hand out. Nothing depends on that outcome except of the pride of some fans. This is not serious business, but just an extra service. To then expect that said publication is going to publish bulletproof ratings (impossible, and for the record: I for one dont disagree with Anderson in this particular example) with every necessary effort is pretty pointless.

[Risil]

I've moved this thread to Website Feedback as the topic seems to be constructive criticism of Autosport's method of assembling their driver ratings.

 

(In spite of the example given in the OP, please don't use this thread to comment on the merits of the two Red Bull drivers.)

[Gretsch]

Those ratings does not mean much and can be ignored, still, it is fun to read. I often get the feeling that there is some cherry picking going on, from the whole weekend, in order to motivate a rating rather than to explain. First of all: FP does not matter! The times are only important in qualification and in the race. 
That would be an improvement, I think, to ignore everything that happens before qualifying.

[zanquis]

 

A major problem with a Driver Rating is that it comes down to just one person's view. 

 

Interestingly too, Ben Anderson's "Best" driver of 2016 was not the popular choice.

 

Shouldn't there be a driver rating from Autosport that includes all the relevant information, and is a more disciplined format?

 

I'll provide an example - Monaco's driver ratings from Red Bull Racing. They are quoted following:

 

 

 

Anderson gives Ricciardo 8 compared to Verstappen's 9. Anderson seems to pass over RBR's significant error in placing Ricciardo into traffic in qualifying. Anderson also does not mention that in the Verstappen's pitstop, Verstappen - according to Red Bull Racing's team principle Christian Horner - made an error in the placement of his car in the pitstop, which Horner said contributed to Verstappen loosing the undercut potential position. Anderson even seems to rate Verstappen's "unhappiness" as a race factor. It appears Anderson has included practice speed as evidence in Verstappen's performance, and has ignored issues influencing both Verstappen and Ricciardo's qualifying and race day performances. 

 

IMO we need a better way of Autosport judging performance - this format seems IMO emotional and leaves out too many facts.

 

Can't we a number of Autosport's journalists make their judgements, and include all those views? By doing so, we'll get rid of any potential for bias and lower the possibility of things being forgotten or ignored. 

 

 

The problem is that all judgements that are made are human. even yours is human and emotional and leaves out or includes fact that suits your narrative. For instance, the error in placement Verstappen supposed to have made is barely visible on the replay's. it might have a small error in placement but not enough to justify being a second slower. But you accept the explanation from Horner without confirming it with video because it suits your views. it is a form of confirmation bias. You mention that they pass over RBR significant error for Ricciardo in the qualifying, but they do mention it in the report.Which means they did not pass over it but they rated the influence differently than what you are doing. For instance since drivers get multiple moments to setting the time, drivers having a portion of influence on the gap they maintain Autosport has judged the portion RBR error vs Ricciardo error differently than you did. Next you mention that according to you Autosport rate's Verstappen unhappiness as a factor in the results, although it is mentioned, nothing indicates that his unhappiness influences the ratings in a positive or negative way. With the above example I do feel that they did actually quite well. They would be very evenly rated but Ricciardo got away extremely lucky after the safety car as we have seen many other driver this year end their race after a much lighter hit with a car/wall than the smack Ricciardo gave to the wall. That error despite getting away with it would reduce his rating in my book. But that is a fact you almost seemed to leave out in your own commentary. 

 

And non of this is to attack you but the problem you present is that you want unbiased ratings, which something that is impossible to do as you clearly demonstrated your own bias by complaining about the bias itself.  Just accept that sometimes the ratings will match your view and you will be happy, sometimes it will not. Unless you are planning to write your own ratings you will find out how hard it is to do without having extreme bias over a season. You might excuse your driver when the team sends him out in traffic for the Q or gives a bad strategy call where in the next race he benefits from such conditions and you won't excuse the other drivers.