"To compare stats of individuals over different decades can be deceiving.
But we need tangible numbers to grade success. It's just the way it is. How else can you do it?"
I never felt the need for a ranking or statistic to tell me this driver is better than that driver because won 22 GP while that one 14. That is total bullshit to me. Drivers like Fangio, Schumacher and Senna had great cars for 75% of their career. Drivers like Hakkinen had great cars for maybe 30-40% of their career, drivers like Fisichella never had a great car. That affects the stats dramatically, which give no insight about the driver.
Bart -
"If statistics are meaningless, then there is no way to compare drivers. You have to do it with numbers. While RedFever "begs to disagree" that stats are the only scientific way, he doesn't suggest another scientific method and I don't think "because I say so" counts"
I never said that, don't change my words, please. I never suggested another scientific way exists. In fact, I believe that NO scientific way to compare drivers from different eras or years exists. If you feel the need for a scientific method, it is you who need to suggest one. Not only I don't feel the need and believe it is impossible, I also don't see care. I really don't need a pre-packaged system to tell me Driver A is better than Driver B because the weighted average of his fast lap times multiplied the differential on pole positions....that is bullshit. I simply respect great drivers, people that showed talent like Stewart, Clark, Lauda or Senna and don't feel compelled at all to rank them. In fact, it makes no sense. So, don't call me to satisfy needs I don't have, you are the one that needs numbers to help him make sense of his world.
Groom -
"Well... nice post RedFever but ... I disagree... "
I don't have a problem with that.
" Now I don't have the time to go through the whole thing but I just wanted to say that it is doable."
I do have a problem with that. First, the system you mention was never utilized to rank F1 drivers. Therefore, it is irrelevant to our discussion. If they wil ldevelop an accurate system in the future, maybe we'll talk about it. For now, nobody has proven a "doable" system that is accurate. Yourself confirmed this when you say "in these decisions is that some of the variables that you need to take into account are subjective". Subjective means imprecise, hence it doesn't work. Besides, why do we need a rank? do you? would you respect Schumacher more or less if you found out he is the 3rd best of all times? does it matter if instead he was the 4th best?
"But if I were a team manager and I have to hire a new driver, I will look at the trend statistics are showing me, as part of my decision making process."
Anfd that will tell you if he is maturing and improving, a good tool. However, trend stats won't help you compare Schumacher to Fangio.
"admited, my statistics is not very impressive
(wds: 0, wins: 0, points: 0, fastest laps: 0, poles: 0, laps lead: 0)
but if statistics is irrelevant, I herewith claim to be the best driver in
F1 history!"
No, you can't, because there is no fans of your or journalist that will agree with your statement. You don't even get subjective credit regarding your driving. Besides, apart from being a failed attempt at being a smart ass, your post shows you missundertood my post altogether
Rediscoverix -
"Stats don't matter, look at Gilles Villeneuve. He was a great driver with relatively poor stats. But look at some of the things he did. He was once 12 seconds faster than any other driver in a wet practice!"
- Here the Gilles fan conveniently uses the fact that Gilles was 12 seconds faster than any other driver (a statistic) without informing about the circumstances, I.e he was the only driver out there pushing. Basically the same reasoning as when a "stat junkie" uses facts without circumstance"
You mean the same way Schumi and Senna fans get defensive as soon as someone discredits stats?
Obviously you never understood at all what caused anyone to become a fan of Gilles Villeneuve!!!! nobody who claims to be a Gilles Villeneuve fan ever cared about stats (not even the 11 seconds you mention, as notable as it was) because you can't capture genius in numbers. It's that simple. To understand Gilles genius you had to watch him live, you had to see him slide on the ARMCO at every lap in Monaco or break at the limit (no carbon back there) to take the Tosa in Imola or watch him drive in the rain with a wing in his way, looking at the rails left by someone else to know where to turn. That you don't find in numbers. Just as you can't describe the Sixtin Chapel and Michelangelo in numbers, similarly you can't capture Gilles furor and skill in any stats. You really have no idea of who he was and I would never offend him by trying to describe him in those terms. Your example is entirely wrong. Sorry. That is exactly why I abor numbers to describe drivers. Numbers will tell you Damon Hill is the 10th best driver of all times and DC is the 20th best. I don't even think their fans would agree with that!!!
Masterhit - "The problem with stats is that they can, and are used to substantiate opinions. So they are no more scientific than opinions. Human beings and the world around us are so much more complex than mere stats, soundbytes. headlines, percentages, taglines. The world is not fully understood or predictable."
Great post. The world indeed is fun because as you say it is unpredictable. However, people live in fear, fear of lacking money or resources or health. So, they need to predict, to measure, to define things, they want no surprises, they need to feel confortable in the little cocoon they live in. Everything has to be measurable and needs to fit within certain parameters. Thankfully, art, genius and talent are not scientifically measurable. And probably that's why we appreciate them so much!!! They transmit passion, not cold calculations
siggers
"You note a trend towards more racewins per driver in the later years of f1 history. That itself is as much a verifyable statistical fact as your explanation would be. We could look at a ratio of points (or placings) of the top two or three teams over time and measure the trend towards more 'concentrated' championships. The effect of more races per season (and therefore more 'available' wins) and of longer life or career of the drivers can statistically be neutralized by looking at percentage of wins out of participations instead of absolute number of wins. And so on ...."
my question to you: why?
Holiday -
"BTW Redfever, you know how absurd it is to set up a poll about the value of stats? You use the same means you are trying to deny..... Pretty desperate stuff."
Desperate? I had no intention to rank the pros and cons, I simply was interested in opening up the forum to very SUBJECTIVE points of view. Whether 79% or 34% will say no, it really means nothing to me. After all, I studied statistics enough (you need to know what you are attacking, after all) to know this would be a statistically insignificant sample of respondents anyway. Desperate is someone who takes this so seriously. The point was to hear people's opionions on the subject. It seems the result was obtianed.
Desperate is when someone tries to standardize the objective, assuming everyone has the same objective, therefore denying facets and differences in humans. "since everybody on the grid wants to succeed and you have to judge the people by what they want". It is a very superificial statement, which shows your superficial approach to life and that is why you are so desperate as to need stats to make sense of your world.
Do all the drivers want the same thing? absolutely not!!!! in fact, a driver like Villeneuve or Rosberg would have never wanted a victory like Adelide 94 or attempt something like Suzuka 89, 90 or Jerez 97. Didn't they want the same things as Schumi, Prost and Senna??? apparently not. Why did Reuteman and Regazzoni disobey team orders to win races while Villeneuve and Peterson followed the orders and lost their chances to WDC? because obviously drivers want different things because they are different. In the flat and boring vision of your world, of course, there might be a relevant place for stats, but art and beauty and genius and talent are not measurable by these means. They are simply admired and one simply feels the emotions that are communicated to us. It is that simple. I would be desperate, however, if I could not appreciate the beauty of these and needed numbers to make sense of them.
Obviously, this is far from truth. F1 since the late 70s has changed dramatically and more and more one or two teams dominate an entire season, allowing their top drivers t oscore 8-10 wins in one single season. That is more than a top driver like Scheckter scored in his whole career. Even Barichello has as many wins already as WDC Farina and Keke Rosberg scored in their entire careers and more than Phil Hill, Hawthorn, McLaren, Von Trips, etc. 
