109 replies to this topic

[RedFever]

Yelnats, good post

[arcsine]

The relevance of statistics/data depends on the data being considered. That Michael Schumacher has more wins than anyone else (and Senna more poles than anyone else) are undisputed facts.

However some statistics that are quoted (in the media for example) are indeed downright misleading. Take for example the number of F1 world championship points a driver has scored in his career. After the 2001 Japanese GP it was widely reported that Michael had broken Alain Prost's points record (for examples see here and here).

from the BBC article
The world champion broke Alain Prost's all-time points scoring record......Prost had amassed a career haul of 798.5 points but Schumacher now has 801.

What those who heralded the breaking of this record in 2001 failed to realise is that different points systems had been used over the period in question. Prost received 9 points for the 44 of his 51 victories gained before the end of 1990. Schumacher has gained 10 points for each and every one of his wins. If a win had been worth 10 points during the whole of Prost's career then Alain would have scored over 840 points and Schumacher would (in all probability) have broken the points record in early 2002 rather than Suzuka 2001. Very misleading.

With the introduction of the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system this year there it makes comparing drivers career points (whatever relevance one sees in making such comparisons, if any) even more unreliable. What are the odds that later on this year it will be widely reported that Michael Schumacher has/is about to become the first driver ever to score more than 1000 F1 points in his career (before this year started MS had scored 945 points including those scored in 1997)? Those reporting this milestone will fail to recognise that had the 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system still been in use this year it would have taken MS a race or two longer to reach 1000 points. Draw your own conclusions ;)

[bira]

Originally posted by arcsine
Those reporting this milestone will fail to recognise that had the 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system still been in use this year it would have taken MS a race or two longer to reach 1000 points. Draw your own conclusions ;)

The only conclusion I can draw is that you're dealing with semantics. Statistics even out over time. If there's a new point system, then obviously you can argue that Fernando Alonso didn't actually achieve anything when he finished 7th in Australia, and all his excitement about scoring the first WC point was stupid. But then, a race later he's on the podium - and finishing third is still finishing on the podium, now and in 1967.

My point is, statistics may not provide the entire story. They may not even be important. But they have a way of somehow providing a fairly consistent story despite the changes to the sport. A driver that is good will shine through whether the points are 10 or 9. He will shine through whether you count his achievements based on the current qualifying system or the old one. He will shine though. Because the good ones always do.

[Vrba]

As much as statistics, myths are misleading as well. A fine example is that practically noone is allowed to question Gilles Villeneuve's greatness without being labeled as incompetent or ignorant.

Hrvoje

[holiday]

nikolas garth,

where do you have these comments about the tennis greats from? very interesting.

but i also have to say that i disagree about john mcenroe putting on number 1 in terms of talent. dont get me wrong, i consider myself a huge mcenroe fan, the biggest at the other side of the pond, when he lost the wimbledon semi-finals against edberg with 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 I got very .

BUT to put him on number 1 in terms of talent shows me once again a common misunderstanding also very widespread among motorsport fans. mcenroe brilliant as he was a player ALSO looked & behaved like a genius, so people started to believe in his genius. sampras on the other hand had more natural talent, but he didnt make a fuss out of it, but instead stressed his working limage.

sampras = worker
mcenroe = artist

but the worker type had more natural talent. there are similar cases in formula1.

[holiday]

Originally posted by arcsine
What those who heralded the breaking of this record in 2001 failed to realise is that different points systems had been used over the period in question.

Yeah, yeah, I saw it too. Those guys really rocketed the notion 'stupidity' into a whole new dimension. Have yet to see one who claims 1000 $ to be less than 2000 Polish Zloty.

[Rediscoveryx]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread; but the poll options clearly give away the fact that the poll starter has a vested interest in the result of the poll. In a scientific poll it is imperative to make two options that demand an equal amount of "agreement" in order for it to be chosen.

The current poll options are:

* Yes, I agree, stats are misleading
* No, stats show the exact talent of a driver

If someone wanted to "prove" that stats are very important, they could use the exact same question, but use different options:

* Yes, I agree, stats are not important at all
* No, stats give a good indication of driver skill

I can almost guarantee that there would have been a different outcome of the poll in question

[mikabest]

Originally posted by bira


My point is, statistics may not provide the entire story. They may not even be important. But they have a way of somehow providing a fairly consistent story despite the changes to the sport. A driver that is good will shine through whether the points are 10 or 9. He will shine through whether you count his achievements based on the current qualifying system or the old one. He will shine though. Because the good ones always do.

I couldn't agree more. Statistics, facts, don't tell the whole truth, they can even lie drastically if interpreted purpose-oriented or without knowing the circumstances and other facts behind the achievements. But they are still the hard facts which give us one part of the information we need when we make our own interpretations and conclusions about different thing - like form our more or less subjective opinions about the greatness of different drivers.

But still... more than those statistics, facts, it's something else that really shows us what the reality is like. As Bira says "He will shine through". That brings to my mind one clear example of that kind of through-shining. Schumacher and Hakkinen are generally rated as the two best drivers of the recent years, most of us will at least agree with that. And is it the statistics that tell us that? Perhaps those too, but for me there's one incident which summarises their superiority over the others more than their stats. It's Suzuka 2000. There they destroyed their team-mates and the whole field when they had their fierce battle over the championship. In that race they demonstrated perhaps more clearly than in any other race that they were on the level of their own compared to the others.

yours,

ever so biased MIKABEST

[holiday]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this thread; but the poll options clearly give away the fact that the poll starter has a vested interest in the result of the poll.

I think everybody realized this but nice to state it explicitly.

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
I can almost guarantee that there would have been a different outcome of the poll in question [/B]

I'll second that.

[Arrow]

F1 stats do tell a story but they hardly offer a finite answer.

They do however give a very good general indication of a drivers talents.

The drivers with 30+wins were/are clearly better than the drivers in the 0-15 win range or something like that anyways.

Trying to rank drivers within those brackets is another story and thats where statsistics are meaningless.

Is the driver with 6 wins better than the one with 3?
It wouldnt be fair and right to evaluate them on statistics alone.

Is michael schumahcer better than prost because he won more gps?
No.

He might well be the best ever but not because he won more than any other driver.
His statistics show he is the most successful(ie did the best job) but thats as far as it goes.

Stats are never the final word,but they are far from irrelevent.