The new rating systems from Autosport and The Race are interesting, though I'm not convinced that disregarding qualifying performance - Autosport's new approach - is a wise idea... It's also worth noting that this will have much more of a bearing on their scores than being slightly less generous in terms of handing out 10s (which I reckon is sensible). Yet they spent more time (i.e. words) explaining/justifying the latter change than the former.
Whatever their merits, the new scoring systems certainly make it trickier to compare ratings across publications! Not only are the criteria different - which could probably be covered with the appropriate asterisks/caveats - but Edd Straw's ranking system can't easily be converted into scores out of 10.
Yet I think it would be a shame to narrow the range of ratings which are aggregated in a table, and I'm not persuaded that other publications apply much rigour to the task. For example, to take a few gripes I have with Planet's ratings for Bahrain... they state that qualifying performances are factored into their scores, yet they give Gasly (who drove a great race but had a stinker of a qualifying) a 9; I can't understand why Perez (who did a good competent job but was soundly beaten by Verstappen in qualifying and the race) should score higher than Leclerc (who wrung everything there was out of the Ferrari); and the McLaren drivers' scores seem pretty harsh given the car's lack of competitiveness and reliability. Sure, we can argue the toss about other publications' ratings (and do so all the time given their inevitably subjective nature), but let's just say I'm not impressed by these Planet ones as a potential substitute for The Race.
I'll try to think of a way of converting Edd's rankings to ratings - possibly bracketing 2-3 drivers in increments of 0.5 across a range of 9.5 down to 2.5, which was his typical scoring range last year - and incorporating them into a composite score, but not sure it's going to be feasible...
Edited by alexsab, 06 March 2023 - 11:22.