planetf1.com

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I learned today that some people think that none of Fangio's WDCs are legit.

Please explain.

Although I'm not a Hamilton fan, I would consider Schumacher's record beaten if Lewis wins a seventh title, even if the season is shorter than initially scheduled. As long as no teams/drivers are unable to race because of corona virus related factors, the season is the season.

I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton, interesting take on Fangio when considering drivers that have won titles in what we may consider nowadays to be shortened seasons.

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton, interesting take on Fangio when considering drivers that have won titles in what we may consider nowadays to be shortened seasons.

Last year Valtteri won the first race in Melbourne and kept the points lead when Lewis won Bahrain by one point. When Lewis won China he took the lead but lost it again after Azerbaijan. Then Lewis won four in a row and never looked back.

Seems like Lewis can be beat at the start of the season but after than you better have your A game on.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

No.


It's just logical. If Hamilton gets off to a good start then it's highly unlikely Bottas will catch him over a long string of races. If Bottas gets off to a good start then Hamilton likely has a fair shot at bridging the gap, but in a shortened season might run out of time.

If we played out 100 20-race seasons and 100 5-race seasons, I can see Bottas winning quite a number of the 5-race seasons and very few of the 20-race seasons.

Invade wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

No.


It's just logical. If Hamilton gets off to a good start then it's highly unlikely Bottas will catch him over a long string of races. If Bottas gets off to a good start then Hamilton likely has a fair shot at bridging the gap, but in a shortened season might run out of time.

If we played out 100 20-race seasons and 100 5-race seasons, I can see Bottas winning quite a number of the 5-race seasons and very few of the 20-race seasons.

Very true. Valtteri had the lead after three of the first four weekends last year.

Add to this the fact that Lewis usually seems to get a bit of a slow start to the year, and a very short season is not in his favor as much as a longer season. It's hard to put together an eight race stretch though that would favor Valtter, or anyone else for that matter.

Mort Canard wrote:

Invade wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

No.


It's just logical. If Hamilton gets off to a good start then it's highly unlikely Bottas will catch him over a long string of races. If Bottas gets off to a good start then Hamilton likely has a fair shot at bridging the gap, but in a shortened season might run out of time.

If we played out 100 20-race seasons and 100 5-race seasons, I can see Bottas winning quite a number of the 5-race seasons and very few of the 20-race seasons.

Very true. Valtteri had the lead after three of the first four weekends last year.

Add to this the fact that Lewis usually seems to get a bit of a slow start to the year, and a very short season is not in his favor as much as a longer season. It's hard to put together an eight race stretch though that would favor Valtter, or anyone else for that matter.

Hamilton has a mindset to adapt, he only lost to Nico in the WC, because he had mechanical failures. 1 point difference is still quite strong coming second.

Don't think Bottas is capable to challenge Hamilton due to the fact, Hamilton is normally stronger 2nd half of the season, specially the circuits.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

If you accept Hamilton is the better driver then it's pretty logical a shorter season gives Bottas more of an opportunity. Especially if the Merc is a dominant car. One extra retirement takes 4 races to make up.

Like Invade says, Would you think Bottas would be more likely to beat Hamilton in a 5 race season or a 100 race season? Obviously he would be much more likely to win the 5 race season.

mikeyg123 wrote:If you accept Hamilton is the better driver then it's pretty logical a shorter season gives Bottas more of an opportunity. Especially if the Merc is a dominant car. One extra retirement takes 4 races to make up.

Like Invade says, Would you think Bottas would be more likely to beat Hamilton in a 5 race season or a 100 race season? Obviously he would be much more likely to win the 5 race season.

The smaller the sample size, the larger the chance for a sampling error. In the context of sports, that means an upset result.

I also personally think that if this season doesn't go ahead and Bottas is kept for the following season, that also makes it slightly more likely that he will get a chance to beat Hamilton. Still don't think it will happen, but some season soon, I think Hamilton just won't be quite as good as he used to be. As the same time, I think Bottas has potential for just a slight improvement. He's also due equal or better luck given Hamilton's had better luck and or reliability in all 3 seasons as team mates so far.

Still think Hamilton is very likely to tie with Schumacher's record of 7 titles, but I'm not sure if he'll get more than that.

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

That’s not how statistics/probabilities work, every body else has made that clear but an example.

If I raced Lewis Hamilton in Karts ONCE and 100 times, I might beat him overall if we had one race (he might have a mechanical failure, make a mistake, we might crash and I come off better) but if we race 100 times and see who wins the most, it’s impossible for me to get lucky “51” times. The lower the sample size, the more chance of a crazy result.

Roll a dice once and roll a 6, that’s 100% of the time getting 6’s. Now roll it 100 times and try to get 100 six’s...

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

The more the races helps to even out any bad luck, that's the only way Bottas beats Hamilton in my opinion, having the run of better luck and reliability.

Noni wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:

Invade wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

No.


It's just logical. If Hamilton gets off to a good start then it's highly unlikely Bottas will catch him over a long string of races. If Bottas gets off to a good start then Hamilton likely has a fair shot at bridging the gap, but in a shortened season might run out of time.

If we played out 100 20-race seasons and 100 5-race seasons, I can see Bottas winning quite a number of the 5-race seasons and very few of the 20-race seasons.

Very true. Valtteri had the lead after three of the first four weekends last year.

Add to this the fact that Lewis usually seems to get a bit of a slow start to the year, and a very short season is not in his favor as much as a longer season. It's hard to put together an eight race stretch though that would favor Valtter, or anyone else for that matter.

Hamilton has a mindset to adapt, he only lost to Nico in the WC, because he had mechanical failures. 1 point difference is still quite strong coming second.

Don't think Bottas is capable to challenge Hamilton due to the fact, Hamilton is normally stronger 2nd half of the season, specially the circuits.

This is what I'm saying though, if Hamilton has the level of mechanical problems he had in 2016 then a shortened season makes it far harder to make the ground back up.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Blake wrote:

pokerman wrote: Indeed the shorter the season than the more chance of Bottas beating Hamilton.

the

Not at all. One driver (it could be Lewis) gets off to a great start, then the other driver has less races to make up the difference. The assumption that a shorter season hurts Lewis more than Bottas is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

If you accept Hamilton is the better driver then it's pretty logical a shorter season gives Bottas more of an opportunity. Especially if the Merc is a dominant car. One extra retirement takes 4 races to make up.

Like Invade says, Would you think Bottas would be more likely to beat Hamilton in a 5 race season or a 100 race season? Obviously he would be much more likely to win the 5 race season.

Indeed even more so with a dominant car, in 2014 Hamilton retired with a mechanical problem at the opening race, he then had to win the next 4 races to take the lead in the WDC, even that was only a 3 point lead.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

All very interesting.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I learned today that some people think that none of Fangio's WDCs are legit.

Please explain.

Although I'm not a Hamilton fan, I would consider Schumacher's record beaten if Lewis wins a seventh title, even if the season is shorter than initially scheduled. As long as no teams/drivers are unable to race because of corona virus related factors, the season is the season.

I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I learned today that some people think that none of Fangio's WDCs are legit.

Please explain.

Although I'm not a Hamilton fan, I would consider Schumacher's record beaten if Lewis wins a seventh title, even if the season is shorter than initially scheduled. As long as no teams/drivers are unable to race because of corona virus related factors, the season is the season.

I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

Stupidity is the only thing I can think of. Each era, they all race under the same rules. No matter who won, no matter if they had 5 or 25 races, it was the same for every driver at that time. Whoever won, it was fair and square.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I learned today that some people think that none of Fangio's WDCs are legit.

Please explain.

Although I'm not a Hamilton fan, I would consider Schumacher's record beaten if Lewis wins a seventh title, even if the season is shorter than initially scheduled. As long as no teams/drivers are unable to race because of corona virus related factors, the season is the season.

I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

Stupidity is the only thing I can think of. Each era, they all race under the same rules. No matter who won, no matter if they had 5 or 25 races, it was the same for every driver at that time. Whoever won, it was fair and square.

I think if you wanted to argue they were less legitimate you would probably start with the fact that in Fangio's day only a small number of races counted towards the championship meaning that the championship was less representative of the formula 1 season than it is today.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Fiki wrote: Please explain.

Although I'm not a Hamilton fan, I would consider Schumacher's record beaten if Lewis wins a seventh title, even if the season is shorter than initially scheduled. As long as no teams/drivers are unable to race because of corona virus related factors, the season is the season.

I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

Stupidity is the only thing I can think of. Each era, they all race under the same rules. No matter who won, no matter if they had 5 or 25 races, it was the same for every driver at that time. Whoever won, it was fair and square.

I think if you wanted to argue they were less legitimate you would probably start with the fact that in Fangio's day only a small number of races counted towards the championship meaning that the championship was less representative of the formula 1 season than it is today.

That's true. I just feel that as they all raced with the same rules, the fact that these rules evolved to today's doesn't make the older rules invalid. I do not see how one can make a case that none of his WDC's counts.

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I learned today that some people think that none of Fangio's WDCs are legit.

Please explain.

Although I'm not a Hamilton fan, I would consider Schumacher's record beaten if Lewis wins a seventh title, even if the season is shorter than initially scheduled. As long as no teams/drivers are unable to race because of corona virus related factors, the season is the season.

I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

I'm in danger of 'explaining the joke' - but I don't actually think anyone thinks Fangio's records were not legitimate. My point was that his titles were from seasons of 8 races, yet are clearly legitimate titles - so suggesting Hamilton's titles were not legit for 14 is clearly nonsense.

The only way i could see people complaining is if Driver A was ahead of Driver B by 1 point, had an engine penalty going into the final race so was likely to be starting from the back, and then the final race got called off at the last moment. But even then, the rules are the rules and it's always a possibility and would be a legitimate title. Just unfortunate for Driver B.

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: I'd consider it equalled if Lewis won a seventh... I was trying to highlight the ridiculousness of someone trying to argue a 14 race season was not legit because all of Schumacher's were 16+

If anything, it's more likely that there would be an upset in a shorter season. If we take the 14 races where Valterri did best against Hamilton, then he only finishes 10 points (equivalent of 15 points in 21 races) behind rather than 87.

With Max's 14 best results he would have finished 2nd, 25 points ahead of Bottas.

The more races there are, statistically it is more likely the model will be reflected in the results.

Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

Stupidity is the only thing I can think of. Each era, they all race under the same rules. No matter who won, no matter if they had 5 or 25 races, it was the same for every driver at that time. Whoever won, it was fair and square.

I think if you wanted to argue they were less legitimate you would probably start with the fact that in Fangio's day only a small number of races counted towards the championship meaning that the championship was less representative of the formula 1 season than it is today.

That's true. I just feel that as they all raced with the same rules, the fact that these rules evolved to today's doesn't make the older rules invalid. I do not see how one can make a case that none of his WDC's counts.

I agree they are completely valid. I think what I probably mean is that they are less relevant within the context of Grand Prix racing in the 1950s.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:Thank you for explaining that, but I was asking about the reasons people might believe none of Fangio's titles are legitimate. Seasons were shorter, and rules were different, but what might their reasoning be?

Stupidity is the only thing I can think of. Each era, they all race under the same rules. No matter who won, no matter if they had 5 or 25 races, it was the same for every driver at that time. Whoever won, it was fair and square.

I think if you wanted to argue they were less legitimate you would probably start with the fact that in Fangio's day only a small number of races counted towards the championship meaning that the championship was less representative of the formula 1 season than it is today.

That's true. I just feel that as they all raced with the same rules, the fact that these rules evolved to today's doesn't make the older rules invalid. I do not see how one can make a case that none of his WDC's counts.

I agree they are completely valid. I think what I probably mean is that they are less relevant within the context of Grand Prix racing in the 1950s.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Isn’t that quite simple? Because none of the German drivers available at the time were close to being as good as Hamilton.

JN23 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Isn’t that quite simple? Because none of the German drivers available at the time were close to being as good as Hamilton.

Also worth bearing in mind that Hamilton is probably the most marketable driver on the present grid.

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

Good points and I largely agree. Marc Priestley had some good comments about Kimi; he was probably the fastest driver he'd ever worked with, but compared to e.g. Lewis Hamilton he just lacked some passion and willingness to push himself further.
Interesting video all in all:
https://youtu.be/4vywjtd49mM?t=311

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Maybe because they didn't have a crystal ball therefore in 2012 they couldn't foresee the domination of 2014, so priority was to employ the best driver available and not just some bespoke German driver.

Also good luck in winning the titles in 2017 and 2018 with priority on having German drivers.

Covalent wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

Good points and I largely agree. Marc Priestley had some good comments about Kimi; he was probably the fastest driver he'd ever worked with, but compared to e.g. Lewis Hamilton he just lacked some passion and willingness to push himself further.
Interesting video all in all:
https://youtu.be/4vywjtd49mM?t=311

Interesting that the criticism starts with Alonso and then goes on to Kimi, Alonso a driver that wanted it too much to the detriment of others around him whilst Kimi just didn't want it enough, two opposites, one overly political whilst the other wasn't political at all, neither got the balance right.

JN23 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Isn’t that quite simple? Because none of the German drivers available at the time were close to being as good as Hamilton.

That's one side of the argument, and I know Lauda thought he was 0.3s quicker than Rosberg. Also, I wonder to what extent our perception of Hamilton as the top driver is hindsight. While his quality is clearer now, when he was recruited as a replacement for Schumacher, many (such as I) were still impressed by Button's performance alongside him at McLaren. (And while that turned sour as McLaren were really losing the plot even before Hamilton left, I recall Button saying that from that point on, the McLaren would be "his" car.)
I wonder how Patrick O'Brien would have thought to have been good enough to replace Schumacher, had Hamilton remained at McLaren, or gone to another team.

But my question is more inspired by the PR image they were projecting, when setting out as Mercedes GP with 2 German drivers. Were they just blowing smoke, giving us the impression that it was indeed a German team, rather than a thinly disguised British one, bearing the famous star?

As someone who is highly critical of Schumacher's views on sportsmanship, even I find it ironic that he is now in position to beat the German's records, with the team that was believed was going to push Schumacher's statistics even higher. How Schumacher's speed was judged in recruiting him for Mercedes is also a fascinating question to me, with Ferrari openly saying they regretted him not even discussing a comeback with them.

In short, I don't think it was as simple as hindsight now seems to suggest.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Maybe because they didn't have a crystal ball therefore in 2012 they couldn't foresee the domination of 2014, so priority was to employ the best driver available and not just some bespoke German driver.

Also good luck in winning the titles in 2017 and 2018 with priority on having German drivers.

Possibly, but that was projecting beyond the three years immediately ahead. Remember the initial McLaren run in the 1980s? '84 and '85 were won with the best car and arguably the two best drivers in the world, but even by 1986 their run should have been finished. Still being a top team with the best driver in the world kept McLaren in touch with Williams, who didn't have the best drivers in the world, albeit both world champions then or later.
And yet Williams should have won the drivers' title with their slightly inferior drivers.

Edit: And how would the battle in 1986 have looked, had McLaren been capable of accommodating both its world champions, with their different requirements? It took them far too long to see Rosberg for the fast driver he was.

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think the issue Rosberg had for a number of years was the lack of a team mate that could provide a solid benchmark against which he could be compared. He had Webber in his debut year (a driver who I believe also gets under-rated in hindsight because he struggled with the Pirelli rubber), but then had Alex Wurz who was never that great to start with and then spent a number of years away from the sport, Kazuki Nakajima who was never really F1 material, and a returning 40+ year old Michael Schumacher whose speed was unknown. It was only when Hamilton came along in 2013 that we actually had a known talent that we could compare Nico against, outside of his debut year which is not entirely a fair comparison as Webber had a few years under his belt at that time.

I do recall a former member of this forum flying into a rage after someone suggested around 2010/11 that Rosberg was better than Button. I doubt the majority would argue with that now, I personally wouldn't.

j man wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think the issue Rosberg had for a number of years was the lack of a team mate that could provide a solid benchmark against which he could be compared. He had Webber in his debut year (a driver who I believe also gets under-rated in hindsight because he struggled with the Pirelli rubber), but then had Alex Wurz who was never that great to start with and then spent a number of years away from the sport, Kazuki Nakajima who was never really F1 material, and a returning 40+ year old Michael Schumacher whose speed was unknown. It was only when Hamilton came along in 2013 that we actually had a known talent that we could compare Nico against, outside of his debut year which is not entirely a fair comparison as Webber had a few years under his belt at that time.

I do recall a former member of this forum flying into a rage after someone suggested around 2010/11 that Rosberg was better than Button. I doubt the majority would argue with that now, I personally wouldn't.

Yes, Rosberg is certainly very hard to benchmark. The only known quantity he had as a team mate was Hamilton and that was in a bit of a unique circumstance as Mercedes had absolutely no competition during those years. I find it impossible to judge how good either Merc driver were in those seasons.

mikeyg123 wrote:

j man wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think the issue Rosberg had for a number of years was the lack of a team mate that could provide a solid benchmark against which he could be compared. He had Webber in his debut year (a driver who I believe also gets under-rated in hindsight because he struggled with the Pirelli rubber), but then had Alex Wurz who was never that great to start with and then spent a number of years away from the sport, Kazuki Nakajima who was never really F1 material, and a returning 40+ year old Michael Schumacher whose speed was unknown. It was only when Hamilton came along in 2013 that we actually had a known talent that we could compare Nico against, outside of his debut year which is not entirely a fair comparison as Webber had a few years under his belt at that time.

I do recall a former member of this forum flying into a rage after someone suggested around 2010/11 that Rosberg was better than Button. I doubt the majority would argue with that now, I personally wouldn't.

Yes, Rosberg is certainly very hard to benchmark. The only known quantity he had as a team mate was Hamilton and that was in a bit of a unique circumstance as Mercedes had absolutely no competition during those years. I find it impossible to judge how good either Merc driver were in those seasons.

The problem with this argument is that people always forget that Rosberg stacked up very well against Hamilton in 2013 when Mercedes was competitive but clearly not the best car.

KingVoid wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Yes, Rosberg is certainly very hard to benchmark. The only known quantity he had as a team mate was Hamilton and that was in a bit of a unique circumstance as Mercedes had absolutely no competition during those years. I find it impossible to judge how good either Merc driver were in those seasons.

The problem with this argument is that people always forget that Rosberg stacked up very well against Hamilton in 2013 when Mercedes was competitive but clearly not the best car.

KingVoid wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

j man wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think the issue Rosberg had for a number of years was the lack of a team mate that could provide a solid benchmark against which he could be compared. He had Webber in his debut year (a driver who I believe also gets under-rated in hindsight because he struggled with the Pirelli rubber), but then had Alex Wurz who was never that great to start with and then spent a number of years away from the sport, Kazuki Nakajima who was never really F1 material, and a returning 40+ year old Michael Schumacher whose speed was unknown. It was only when Hamilton came along in 2013 that we actually had a known talent that we could compare Nico against, outside of his debut year which is not entirely a fair comparison as Webber had a few years under his belt at that time.

I do recall a former member of this forum flying into a rage after someone suggested around 2010/11 that Rosberg was better than Button. I doubt the majority would argue with that now, I personally wouldn't.

Yes, Rosberg is certainly very hard to benchmark. The only known quantity he had as a team mate was Hamilton and that was in a bit of a unique circumstance as Mercedes had absolutely no competition during those years. I find it impossible to judge how good either Merc driver were in those seasons.

The problem with this argument is that people always forget that Rosberg stacked up very well against Hamilton in 2013 when Mercedes was competitive but clearly not the best car.

I'm not really making an argument. Even 2013 he was still beaten and people tend to accept drivers aren't as good in their first year in a new team than they would be normally. That's pretty well evidenced.

Fiki wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Isn’t that quite simple? Because none of the German drivers available at the time were close to being as good as Hamilton.

That's one side of the argument, and I know Lauda thought he was 0.3s quicker than Rosberg. Also, I wonder to what extent our perception of Hamilton as the top driver is hindsight. While his quality is clearer now, when he was recruited as a replacement for Schumacher, many (such as I) were still impressed by Button's performance alongside him at McLaren. (And while that turned sour as McLaren were really losing the plot even before Hamilton left, I recall Button saying that from that point on, the McLaren would be "his" car.)
I wonder how Patrick O'Brien would have thought to have been good enough to replace Schumacher, had Hamilton remained at McLaren, or gone to another team.

But my question is more inspired by the PR image they were projecting, when setting out as Mercedes GP with 2 German drivers. Were they just blowing smoke, giving us the impression that it was indeed a German team, rather than a thinly disguised British one, bearing the famous star?

As someone who is highly critical of Schumacher's views on sportsmanship, even I find it ironic that he is now in position to beat the German's records, with the team that was believed was going to push Schumacher's statistics even higher. How Schumacher's speed was judged in recruiting him for Mercedes is also a fascinating question to me, with Ferrari openly saying they regretted him not even discussing a comeback with them.

In short, I don't think it was as simple as hindsight now seems to suggest.

I thought that Button was offered the seat at Mercedes in 2010, he was the reigning WDC after all driving basically for the same team, but he chose to go to McLaren.

In 2012 the points gap between Hamilton and Button was somewhat flattering, Hamilton was about 100 points better than Button, the reality is that it wasn't a great season for Button, apart from that I believe Button was still under contract at McLaren plus Button himself thought Hamilton was crazy leaving McLaren for Mercedes, so Button going to Mercedes in 2013 was never was going to happen.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think you're right. And I also think that if Mercedes had hired a second German driver, he might now well be a multiple title holder. It's no reflection on Hamilton, but I wondered why they didn't keep the team more German.

Maybe because they didn't have a crystal ball therefore in 2012 they couldn't foresee the domination of 2014, so priority was to employ the best driver available and not just some bespoke German driver.

Also good luck in winning the titles in 2017 and 2018 with priority on having German drivers.

Possibly, but that was projecting beyond the three years immediately ahead. Remember the initial McLaren run in the 1980s? '84 and '85 were won with the best car and arguably the two best drivers in the world, but even by 1986 their run should have been finished. Still being a top team with the best driver in the world kept McLaren in touch with Williams, who didn't have the best drivers in the world, albeit both world champions then or later.
And yet Williams should have won the drivers' title with their slightly inferior drivers.

Edit: And how would the battle in 1986 have looked, had McLaren been capable of accommodating both its world champions, with their different requirements? It took them far too long to see Rosberg for the fast driver he was.

I'm a bit confused you seem to be saying the same thing as me, McLaren needed Prost for when the car was no longer dominant, similar with Hamilton and Mercedes.

A team can't gamble on having a dominant car that will facilitate having weaker drivers.

mikeyg123 wrote:

j man wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:I went and did some probability calculations based on their results as team mates.

In a 14 race season, Bottas is 250% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

In a 2 race season, Bottas is 4000% more likely to beat Hamilton than in a 22 race season.

But unfortunately for Bottas, even in that 2 race season, it's only 8% likely, 0.5% likely he'd win the 14 race season and 0.2% likely he'd win the 22 race season. It's a basic rule of probability, the more cases there are in a sample, the more likely it will fit with the model. It's why individuals can win big at the casino, but the casino always makes a profit.

This is because Hamilton outscores Bottas 71% of the time, and Bottas outscores Hamilton 29% of the time (when both score)

However, when Hamilton outscores Bottas, it's by an average of 10.1 points, whereas Bottas outscores Hamilton by an average of 7.2 points.

This means that Bottas needs to outscore Hamilton in at least 58% of the races. In a two race season, this is both races - but despite needing a high percentage of the results, this is still statistically more likely than the 9 or more races out of 14 he would need, which is in turn more likely than the 13 or more from 22.

I was curious, and put in the stats for Hamilton and Rosberg for 2014-2016 into the same model. The probability of Rosberg beating Hamilton in a 21 race season is 23%.

Hamilton outscored Rosberg in 58% of races (where at at least one scored) - However whereas Hamilton typically outscored Rosberg by 10.5 points if he finished ahead, Rosberg outscored Hamilton by 11.5 points if he finished ahead. However, this still meant Rosberg needed to win 11/21 races to get the WDC, and when you do the maths, this works out as being 23% likely.

With these probabilities there was a:
45.5% chance Hamilton won 3/3 seasons
41% chance Hamilton won 2/3 seasons
12.5% chance Hamilton won 1/3 seasons
1% chance Hamilton won 0/3 seasons

There is more chance Rosberg would beat Hamilton in 3/3 seasons than Bottas would beat Hamilton in any given season.

It's pretty damning for Bottas though, and shows the relative strength of Rosberg comparatively, and even though Bottas's relative strength to Rosberg isn't significantly lower, the small change has a huge impact on a probabilities.

Incidentally, in my calculations, for Bottas I even gave him Russia 2018 as a race win (the only result I altered)

Rosberg is one of those drivers whose reputation will increase over time.

People often discredit his performances against Hamilton because “it’s easy to challenge for a WDC in a dominant car”, but forget that he was also very competitive in 2013.

Nico wasn’t rated that highly by fans when he was driving, but he will be remembered fondly with hindsight.

It’s the complete opposite to Vettel and Raikkonen, two drivers whose reputation was sky-high in their mid-20s and then deteriorated with time.

I think the issue Rosberg had for a number of years was the lack of a team mate that could provide a solid benchmark against which he could be compared. He had Webber in his debut year (a driver who I believe also gets under-rated in hindsight because he struggled with the Pirelli rubber), but then had Alex Wurz who was never that great to start with and then spent a number of years away from the sport, Kazuki Nakajima who was never really F1 material, and a returning 40+ year old Michael Schumacher whose speed was unknown. It was only when Hamilton came along in 2013 that we actually had a known talent that we could compare Nico against, outside of his debut year which is not entirely a fair comparison as Webber had a few years under his belt at that time.

I do recall a former member of this forum flying into a rage after someone suggested around 2010/11 that Rosberg was better than Button. I doubt the majority would argue with that now, I personally wouldn't.

Yes, Rosberg is certainly very hard to benchmark. The only known quantity he had as a team mate was Hamilton and that was in a bit of a unique circumstance as Mercedes had absolutely no competition during those years. I find it impossible to judge how good either Merc driver were in those seasons.

Although not seen as the best driver Rosberg after his second season in F1 was highly rated by the people that matter that being the teams themselves.

He was offered the McLaren drive in 2008 alongside Hamilton but having been teammates with Hamilton before turned it down, then in 2010 he was preferred over Barrichello by Mercedes to initially partner Button, granted that Rosberg's German nationality helped somewhat.