join the PlanetF1 Network
Wait, you mean it wasn't just chosen because it's the only statistic he could find where he could put Vettel at the top and Hamilton at the bottom?mds wrote:I don't get what this statistic would show or prove, by the way, but I've come to expect that with Need4Naiim's statistics.
It just enables him to put Hamilton at the bottom of the listmds wrote:He counts the number of WCC's they contributed to (which is 4, in Vettel's case) and sets it off against the number of seasons both drivers won a race (which is also 4, in Vettel's case).lamo wrote:How is Vettel 100%, what happened to 2009?Need4Naiim wrote:Yet McLaren's last WCC is still with Hakkinen-Coulthard combo. There were quite strong pairs after them; Rai&DC, Rai&JPM, Alo&Ham, But&Ham but that Constructors title never came again. The best chance came in 2007 but ended with DSQ.Covalent wrote:Interesting, I would've thought Lewis had a larger proportion of McLaren's stats 2007-2012.
I expect good harmony from Alo&But duo if Honda begins to run on full power.
Along the current drivers, those who have contributed to Constructor titles (WCC) are;
Sebastian Vettel: 4 times (2010-2011-2012-2013) out of 4 seasons (2009-2010-2011-2012) that both team drivers won.
<<%100>>
Fernando Alonso: 2 times (2005-2006) out of 3 (2005-2006-2007) seasons that team drivers could win a race. <<%67>>
Felipe Massa: 2 times (2007-2008) out of 3 (2006-2007-2008) seasons that both team drivers could win a GP.
<<%67>>
Kimi Raikkonen: 2 times (2007-2008) out of 4 seasons (2003-2005-2007-2008) that both team drivers could win a GP.
<<%50>>
Nico Rosberg: 1 time (2014) out of 2 seasons (2013-2014) that team drivers won a race. <<%50>>
Jenson Button: 1 time (2009) out of 4 seasons (2009-2010-2011-2012) that team drivers won a race. <<%25>>
Lewis Hamilton: 1 time (2014) out of 7 seasons (2007-2008-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014) that team drivers could win a race.
<<%14>>
By the same logic, how is Alonso 67%. You include 2007 here, but not 2009 for Vettel?
That would put Schumacher at well over 100% as he won the WCC in 1994 and 2001 when his team mate failed to win a race
I don't get what this statistic would show or prove, by the way, but I've come to expect that with Need4Naiim's statistics.
You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
- Verstappen - Vettel!It's not it's just another set of confluted statistics in order to undermine Hamilton using WCC titles which is ridiculous when you consider the 2008 WCC title was not won because of the failure of Hamilton's teammate, whilst the 2007 WCC title was not won because of the exclusion/penalties of his team.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
Don't worry - without any further explanation I agree with you and I'm strongly inclined to believe he won't be able to come up with a decent explanation.pokerman wrote:It's not it's just another set of confluted statistics in order to undermine Hamilton using WCC titles which is ridiculous when you consider the 2008 WCC title was not won because of the failure of Hamilton's teammate, whilst the 2007 WCC title was not won because of the exclusion/penalties of his team.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
The 2008 situation which could actually be used as a positive for Hamilton in winning the WDC title in a car that didn't win the WCC title is turned on it's head to actually demean him, it's laughable really the methodology used here.
- Verstappen - Vettel! Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
pokerman wrote:It's not it's just another set of confluted statistics in order to undermine Hamilton using WCC titles which is ridiculous when you consider the 2008 WCC title was not won because of the failure of Hamilton's teammate, whilst the 2007 WCC title was not won because of the exclusion/penalties of his team.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
The 2008 situation which could actually be used as a positive for Hamilton in winning the WDC title in a car that didn't win the WCC title is turned on it's head to actually demean him, it's laughable really the methodology used here.
You got to give him 10/10 for effort though!pokerman wrote:It just enables him to put Hamilton at the bottom of the listmds wrote:He counts the number of WCC's they contributed to (which is 4, in Vettel's case) and sets it off against the number of seasons both drivers won a race (which is also 4, in Vettel's case).lamo wrote:How is Vettel 100%, what happened to 2009?Need4Naiim wrote:Yet McLaren's last WCC is still with Hakkinen-Coulthard combo. There were quite strong pairs after them; Rai&DC, Rai&JPM, Alo&Ham, But&Ham but that Constructors title never came again. The best chance came in 2007 but ended with DSQ.Covalent wrote:Interesting, I would've thought Lewis had a larger proportion of McLaren's stats 2007-2012.
I expect good harmony from Alo&But duo if Honda begins to run on full power.
Along the current drivers, those who have contributed to Constructor titles (WCC) are;
Sebastian Vettel: 4 times (2010-2011-2012-2013) out of 4 seasons (2009-2010-2011-2012) that both team drivers won.
<<%100>>
Fernando Alonso: 2 times (2005-2006) out of 3 (2005-2006-2007) seasons that team drivers could win a race. <<%67>>
Felipe Massa: 2 times (2007-2008) out of 3 (2006-2007-2008) seasons that both team drivers could win a GP.
<<%67>>
Kimi Raikkonen: 2 times (2007-2008) out of 4 seasons (2003-2005-2007-2008) that both team drivers could win a GP.
<<%50>>
Nico Rosberg: 1 time (2014) out of 2 seasons (2013-2014) that team drivers won a race. <<%50>>
Jenson Button: 1 time (2009) out of 4 seasons (2009-2010-2011-2012) that team drivers won a race. <<%25>>
Lewis Hamilton: 1 time (2014) out of 7 seasons (2007-2008-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014) that team drivers could win a race.
<<%14>>
By the same logic, how is Alonso 67%. You include 2007 here, but not 2009 for Vettel?
That would put Schumacher at well over 100% as he won the WCC in 1994 and 2001 when his team mate failed to win a race
I don't get what this statistic would show or prove, by the way, but I've come to expect that with Need4Naiim's statistics.
Why is this the fault of Hamilton in particular?Need4Naiim wrote:Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
"You win as a team, you lose as a team." Drivers say that like this.
The problems I see with that:Need4Naiim wrote:Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
"You win as a team, you lose as a team." Drivers say that like this.
- Verstappen - Vettel!Yes I know all that, the problem is that some other posters give credence to what he posts and then it's hard not to want to point out the flaws in the post_Rogue_ wrote:pokerman wrote:It's not it's just another set of confluted statistics in order to undermine Hamilton using WCC titles which is ridiculous when you consider the 2008 WCC title was not won because of the failure of Hamilton's teammate, whilst the 2007 WCC title was not won because of the exclusion/penalties of his team.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
The 2008 situation which could actually be used as a positive for Hamilton in winning the WDC title in a car that didn't win the WCC title is turned on it's head to actually demean him, it's laughable really the methodology used here.
I dont know why you still give enough credance to his posts to even reply to his ridiculous statements..... You really should know by now that he will always try and manipulate stats to prove how poor a driver Hamilton is to his favourites... The best thing to do is to starve the trolls and ignore their output so hopefully they will go back under their own particular bridge until they find another community to trouble!
It also doesn't provide a negative as in drivers failing to win when their teammates managed to win, Vettel gets a free pass for 2014 by not winning a race actually gives him a higher percentagemds wrote:The problems I see with that:Need4Naiim wrote:Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
"You win as a team, you lose as a team." Drivers say that like this.
1. The fact that both drivers won races does not mean that the maximum result isn't obtained when the WCC is not won. Case in point, most of Hamilton's years. So once again your stat does not prove what you want it to prove.
2. The years should be the same for both criteria. For Vettel the stat should be 3 out of 4.
3. This stat actively disadvantages drivers that have been paired with strong drivers. Case in point, again Hamilton.
All Mclaren drivers really, as they have built fast but unreliable cars and always gone with two good drivers rather than number 1 and 2's.mds wrote:The problems I see with that:Need4Naiim wrote:Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
"You win as a team, you lose as a team." Drivers say that like this.
1. The fact that both drivers won races does not mean that the maximum result isn't obtained when the WCC is not won. Case in point, most of Hamilton's years. So once again your stat does not prove what you want it to prove.
2. The years should be the same for both criteria. For Vettel the stat should be 3 out of 4.
3. This stat actively disadvantages drivers that have been paired with strong drivers. Case in point, again Hamilton.
This I can still understand: no opportunities were lost for the team in 2014, they were never going to win the WCC. Stats don't need to prove everything - but they should prove (or disprove) what the inventor of the stat wishes to demonstrate. Quod non.pokerman wrote: It also doesn't provide a negative as in drivers failing to win when their teammates managed to win, Vettel gets a free pass for 2014 by not winning a race actually gives him a higher percentage
- Verstappen - Vettel!
Based on Seb's stats, you could actually give him 10/9.Ryu28 wrote:You got to give him 10/10 for effort though!Need4Naiim wrote:Yet McLaren's last WCC is still with Hakkinen-Coulthard combo. There were quite strong pairs after them; Rai&DC, Rai&JPM, Alo&Ham, But&Ham but that Constructors title never came again. The best chance came in 2007 but ended with DSQ.
I expect good harmony from Alo&But duo if Honda begins to run on full power.
Along the current drivers, those who have contributed to Constructor titles (WCC) are;
Sebastian Vettel: 4 times (2010-2011-2012-2013) out of 4 seasons (2009-2010-2011-2012) that both team drivers won.
<<%100>>
Fernando Alonso: 2 times (2005-2006) out of 3 (2005-2006-2007) seasons that team drivers could win a race. <<%67>>
Felipe Massa: 2 times (2007-2008) out of 3 (2006-2007-2008) seasons that both team drivers could win a GP.
<<%67>>
Kimi Raikkonen: 2 times (2007-2008) out of 4 seasons (2003-2005-2007-2008) that both team drivers could win a GP.
<<%50>>
Nico Rosberg: 1 time (2014) out of 2 seasons (2013-2014) that team drivers won a race. <<%50>>
Jenson Button: 1 time (2009) out of 4 seasons (2009-2010-2011-2012) that team drivers won a race. <<%25>>
Lewis Hamilton: 1 time (2014) out of 7 seasons (2007-2008-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014) that team drivers could win a race.
<<%14>>
Thanks for your kind reply mds.mds wrote:The problems I see with that:Need4Naiim wrote:Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
"You win as a team, you lose as a team." Drivers say that like this.
1. The fact that both drivers won races does not mean that the maximum result isn't obtained when the WCC is not won. Case in point, most of Hamilton's years. So once again your stat does not prove what you want it to prove.
2. The years should be the same for both criteria. For Vettel the stat should be 3 out of 4.
3. This stat actively disadvantages drivers that have been paired with strong drivers. Case in point, again Hamilton.
Were Mercedes going to win the WCC in 2013, this seems quite arbitrary nowmds wrote:This I can still understand: no opportunities were lost for the team in 2014, they were never going to win the WCC. Stats don't need to prove everything - but they should prove (or disprove) what the inventor of the stat wishes to demonstrate. Quod non.pokerman wrote: It also doesn't provide a negative as in drivers failing to win when their teammates managed to win, Vettel gets a free pass for 2014 by not winning a race actually gives him a higher percentage
You do realise that no one is buying into your system?Need4Naiim wrote:Thanks for your kind reply mds.mds wrote:The problems I see with that:Need4Naiim wrote:Because when there is a proven race winner car underneath (both drivers can win with it), every team dreams of a title. And if they lose the championship after winning races, <like 1997-1999-2000-2001-2003-2005-2007-2008-2010, 2011, 2012 for McLaren, 1990-2006 for Ferrari, 2009 for Redbull, 1995-2001-2003 for Williams> this shows that there were opportunities that the team couldn't extract maximum results out of them.mds wrote:You'll have to explain this further. Why is it a good barometer?Need4Naiim wrote:@lamo, mds, Exediron
That is a pretty good barometer to measure a drivers career relative to Constructor Championship.
"You win as a team, you lose as a team." Drivers say that like this.
1. The fact that both drivers won races does not mean that the maximum result isn't obtained when the WCC is not won. Case in point, most of Hamilton's years. So once again your stat does not prove what you want it to prove.
2. The years should be the same for both criteria. For Vettel the stat should be 3 out of 4.
3. This stat actively disadvantages drivers that have been paired with strong drivers. Case in point, again Hamilton.
1-This point is debatable, because in some years, teams produced a really fast but unreliable machines to compete for WCC title. But this is rather an exception than the norm. Because the Williams of 2001 was the last car of that genre. But it didn't affect the the list of champions because 2001 Williams drivers completed their careers without a title.
2-Mark won in 2009-2010-2011 and in 2012, but Vettel took all 13 victories of RBR in 2013. The stat is correct for every driver in above list. You can trust me on this one.
3-It does not disadvantage the drivers who have been paired with strong racers and/or champions. Because, as we know, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost and Nigel Mansell, ALL OF THE THREE, have been paired with strong drivers. And as you see in the above list with blue color, NONE of them, yes, NONE OF THEM have a ratio lower than 50%.
I liked your questions because the answers will enable you to understand the above stat better. We shouldn't forget that the current champions continue to drive and they can increase their ratio or further reduce them before their retirement.
The McLaren of 2012 was certainly an example of that too.Need4Naiim wrote:1-This point is debatable, because in some years, teams produced a really fast but unreliable machines to compete for WCC title. But this is rather an exception than the norm. Because the Williams of 2001 was the last car of that genre. But it didn't affect the the list of champions because 2001 Williams drivers completed their careers without a title.
I am not an idiot, Need4Naiim. I know fully well who won when. I still do not agree with compiling the stat that way. It's too arbitrary. I could live with it somewhat better if it was "WCC won/lost in years when both drivers won a race", not "amount of years when both drivers won vs amount of years when the WCC was won".2-Mark won in 2009-2010-2011 and in 2012, but Vettel took all 13 victories of RBR in 2013. The stat is correct for every driver in above list. You can trust me on this one.
It does, because when two strong drivers are paired the count of the denominator is more likely to go up by one, but the numerator is dependent on whether the car is actually up to winning the WCC or not, and those chances are smaller than the chances of a great driver winning a race in a season.3-It does not disadvantage the drivers who have been paired with strong racers and/or champions.
- Verstappen - Vettel! Yet it could not pull Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna and Nigel Mansell down under 50% despite having champion teammates. Guess why?mds wrote:It does, because when two strong drivers are paired the count of the denominator is more likely to go up by one, but the numerator is dependent on whether the car is actually up to winning the WCC or not, and those chances are smaller than the chances of a great driver winning a race in a season.3-It does not disadvantage the drivers who have been paired with strong racers and/or champions.
Because the seasons both them and their team mates won races, the car was usually good enough to win the WCC.Need4Naiim wrote:Yet it could not pull Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna and Nigel Mansell down under 50% despite having champion teammates. Guess why?mds wrote:It does, because when two strong drivers are paired the count of the denominator is more likely to go up by one, but the numerator is dependent on whether the car is actually up to winning the WCC or not, and those chances are smaller than the chances of a great driver winning a race in a season.3-It does not disadvantage the drivers who have been paired with strong racers and/or champions.
- Verstappen - Vettel!Mansell won 1 WDC...Need4Naiim wrote:Yet it could not pull Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna and Nigel Mansell down under 50% despite having champion teammates. Guess why?mds wrote:It does, because when two strong drivers are paired the count of the denominator is more likely to go up by one, but the numerator is dependent on whether the car is actually up to winning the WCC or not, and those chances are smaller than the chances of a great driver winning a race in a season.3-It does not disadvantage the drivers who have been paired with strong racers and/or champions.
lamo wrote:How did you get 50% exactly for Mansell? 1 WDC and 1 WCC from 7 cars capable of wins with both drivers.
- Verstappen - Vettel!Ohmds wrote:lamo wrote:How did you get 50% exactly for Mansell? 1 WDC and 1 WCC from 7 cars capable of wins with both drivers.
Actually 4 WCC's out of 8 seasons (I count '94 as well but that's up to you to decide whether to include it or not).
That is how it works. This statistic is even worse than I thought! Mansell won 1 WDC in 4 WCC winning cars. Now that is a better more meaningful statistic.. although 1/3 is better as he only did 4 races in 1994. Webber would also be looking great in this statistic if he pulled 2010 off. Webber's 11-1 defeat in wins to Vettel in 2011 is a good thing in this statistic? 
I'm not so sure, Need4 has a talent for such thingslamo wrote:Ohmds wrote:lamo wrote:How did you get 50% exactly for Mansell? 1 WDC and 1 WCC from 7 cars capable of wins with both drivers.
Actually 4 WCC's out of 8 seasons (I count '94 as well but that's up to you to decide whether to include it or not).
So if Rubens had won the WDC in 2009 he would be sitting on 100% 4/4. Or would that be 5/4, 120%, because he won the WCC in 2001 without winning a race
This is probably the worst statistical analysis I have seen on here. In 13 years!
You've got it.lamo wrote:Or would that be 5/4, 120%, because he won the WCC in 2001 without winning a race
- Verstappen - Vettel! Using "ifs" for any scientific equation disables its truth. With using ifs, we can get 64 different titles since 1950. But this is not how it works.lamo wrote:Ohmds wrote:lamo wrote:How did you get 50% exactly for Mansell? 1 WDC and 1 WCC from 7 cars capable of wins with both drivers.
Actually 4 WCC's out of 8 seasons (I count '94 as well but that's up to you to decide whether to include it or not).
So if Rubens had won the WDC in 2009 he would be sitting on 100% 4/4. Or would that be 5/4, 120%, because he won the WCC in 2001 without winning a race
This is probably the worst statistical analysis I have seen on here. In 13 years!
No. Seasons winning races with WDC teammates:Need4Naiim wrote:There is a tiny little difference with Schumacher that Michael has the years 1992-1993-1994-1996-1997-1998-2001-2005 <8 seasons> that his teammates who drove same car couldn't win. Fernando Alonso has 2003-2008-2010-2011-2012-2013 seasons that his teammates couldn't win. Those make 6 seasons for Alonso. Button has 2006 season, Vettel has 2008 and 2013 seasons, Rosberg has 2012 season, Hamilton has 2009 season, Raikkonen has 2004-2009-2012-2013 seasons, Maldonado has 2012 season and Ricciardo has 2014 season that their teammates couldn't win within those years. So this makes the below;
Alonso: 6 seasons
Raikkonen: 4 seasons
Vettel: 2 seasons
Button, Rosberg, Hamilton, Maldonado, Ricciardo: 1 season.
Rosberg won races in 2012, 2013 and 2014, all with a WDC teammate.trophicip wrote:No. Seasons winning races with WDC teammates:
- Schumacher - 0
- Alonso - 0
- Raikkonen - 0
- Maldonado - 0
- Ricciardo - 1
- Rosberg - 1
- Button - 3
- Hamilton - 4
The problem is that people have allowed Need4Naiim to derail the thread into a pointless exercise in generating and comparing meaningless statistics.mac_d wrote:The idea of using the WCC's as a part of the measure to compare drivers seems rather off.
For one, I'd also take issue with including 2007, at least without an asterisk on it. I don't think Alonso or Hamilton could really be blamed at all for it. And given they would have won that WCC, I really think it needs the asterisk. I don't disagree with the final outcome, but I do think it should be asterisked.
Secondly, I don't see how you can compare them in general. While it's a team sport, it doesn't work for comparing drivers. 2008 Hamilton with, sadly, anyone but Kovi would probably have put up a decent shout for that WCC. Kovi was the weak link of the top 6 drivers of that year, and let's be honest. He would almost certainly never have gotten that seat if it wasn't for Alonso, McLaren, Briatore and Renault taking a hit to get out of a bit of unpleasantness.
Yes exactly the same point I made earlier, an exercise to take away any credibility of achievement by Hamiltonsandman1347 wrote:The problem is that people have allowed Need4Naiim to derail the thread into a pointless exercise in generating and comparing meaningless statistics.mac_d wrote:The idea of using the WCC's as a part of the measure to compare drivers seems rather off.
For one, I'd also take issue with including 2007, at least without an asterisk on it. I don't think Alonso or Hamilton could really be blamed at all for it. And given they would have won that WCC, I really think it needs the asterisk. I don't disagree with the final outcome, but I do think it should be asterisked.
Secondly, I don't see how you can compare them in general. While it's a team sport, it doesn't work for comparing drivers. 2008 Hamilton with, sadly, anyone but Kovi would probably have put up a decent shout for that WCC. Kovi was the weak link of the top 6 drivers of that year, and let's be honest. He would almost certainly never have gotten that seat if it wasn't for Alonso, McLaren, Briatore and Renault taking a hit to get out of a bit of unpleasantness.
The thread was always about a pretty meaningless statistic; having won a race in every season is interesting trivia, but all that means is that Hamilton has had a competitive car for at least part of every season. You don't need to look any further than that undeniable greats of the sport haven't won in every season to see that it doesn't mean much.sandman1347 wrote:The problem is that people have allowed Need4Naiim to derail the thread into a pointless exercise in generating and comparing meaningless statistics.
Need4Naiim wrote:There is a tiny little difference with Schumacher that Michael has the years 1992-1993-1994-1996-1997-1998-2001-2005 <8 seasons> that his teammates who drove same car couldn't win. Fernando Alonso has 2003-2008-2010-2011-2012-2013 seasons that his teammates couldn't win. Those make 6 seasons for Alonso. Button has 2006 season, Vettel has 2008 and 2013 seasons, Rosberg has 2012 season, Hamilton has 2009 season, Raikkonen has 2004-2009-2012-2013 seasons, Maldonado has 2012 season and Ricciardo has 2014 season that their teammates couldn't win within those years. So this makes the below;
Alonso: 6 seasons
Raikkonen: 4 seasons
Vettel: 2 seasons
Button, Rosberg, Hamilton, Maldonado, Ricciardo: 1 season.
The problem is that such a piece of statistic got no life on its own, and perhaps better fit in the Official Hamilton Thread for those who might be interested to read it. If to have a thread on that, then "derailing" was the only way to give the thread some existence beyond one or two posts.sandman1347 wrote:The problem is that people have allowed Need4Naiim to derail the thread into a pointless exercise in generating and comparing meaningless statistics.mac_d wrote:The idea of using the WCC's as a part of the measure to compare drivers seems rather off.
For one, I'd also take issue with including 2007, at least without an asterisk on it. I don't think Alonso or Hamilton could really be blamed at all for it. And given they would have won that WCC, I really think it needs the asterisk. I don't disagree with the final outcome, but I do think it should be asterisked.
Secondly, I don't see how you can compare them in general. While it's a team sport, it doesn't work for comparing drivers. 2008 Hamilton with, sadly, anyone but Kovi would probably have put up a decent shout for that WCC. Kovi was the weak link of the top 6 drivers of that year, and let's be honest. He would almost certainly never have gotten that seat if it wasn't for Alonso, McLaren, Briatore and Renault taking a hit to get out of a bit of unpleasantness.
I thought the point of creating a thread on the topic was to discuss it? Otherwise, as Prema has pointed out, it would probably have been best served as an entry in the Official Lewis Hamilton thread. But I don't see how anybody may be surprised that statistical comparisons will be made in a thread about an ambiguous statistic?pokerman wrote:Yes exactly the same point I made earlier, an exercise to take away any credibility of achievement by Hamiltonsandman1347 wrote:The problem is that people have allowed Need4Naiim to derail the thread into a pointless exercise in generating and comparing meaningless statistics.mac_d wrote:The idea of using the WCC's as a part of the measure to compare drivers seems rather off.
For one, I'd also take issue with including 2007, at least without an asterisk on it. I don't think Alonso or Hamilton could really be blamed at all for it. And given they would have won that WCC, I really think it needs the asterisk. I don't disagree with the final outcome, but I do think it should be asterisked.
Secondly, I don't see how you can compare them in general. While it's a team sport, it doesn't work for comparing drivers. 2008 Hamilton with, sadly, anyone but Kovi would probably have put up a decent shout for that WCC. Kovi was the weak link of the top 6 drivers of that year, and let's be honest. He would almost certainly never have gotten that seat if it wasn't for Alonso, McLaren, Briatore and Renault taking a hit to get out of a bit of unpleasantness.
