Lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years

[bhall]

Lone retirement???
[...]

Yes, I said lone retirement. Vettel was classified in 22nd position in Monza, because he'd completed 90% of the race distance. The rules of the sport can be tricky, but I think it's best we try to abide by them as much as possible, yanno?

As for your "shoulda, woulda, coulda" handwaving: ok. Thanks for demonstrating the inherent futility of these exercises.

"Lies, damned likes, and statistics," remember?

Onto the topic at hand, the kinds of statistical "analyses" proffered by the author of this thread inevitably end up this way, because of the clearly biased agenda they illustrate. The parameters chosen always appear to shine a favorable light upon his favorite driver. In my view, that's the most insidious form of fanboyism, because it attempts to disguise itself as something it's not: objective.

The only objective reality in sport is that it exists; everything else has holes in it. (I think either Nietzsche or Sartre said that, but probably not. )

[FoxHound]

How about a magical mathematical formula?

Drum roll please....

Time(T)xLaps(L)/Retirements(R).

So count the time and laps in the lead, multiply the 2, then divide by the failures.

And then, all you will get is the mean number, which will be distorted as less time spent leading can not be as effectively sampled as more time leading. Meaningless formula....
So even though you may get some form of data, it will be tortured data that is incongruous to any one but the most ardent of Vettel fanatics.(He does lead the most)

Since 2010, Vettel has led 1675 laps(fact).
Alonso has 525 laps
Hamilton has 497 laps
Webber has had 474 laps.
Button 377 laps

I have made the sample from 2010, because Vettel was not racing 10 years ago and neither was Hamilton.
The other drivers had also not been in machinery capable of being used to extrapolate data for "Lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years".

So what can we deduce?
[*]Vettel has led 3 times as much as anyone these last 3 and a half years.
[*]Vettel has led more than the next 3 contenders combined.

Spending that much time in the lead, you will experience higher rates of failure while leading than other's because....Only one person can bloody lead!

What would be interesting however, is to compare the lost leads and inherited wins of the other 3 chaps compared to Vettel, as their accumulated data would be better sample than what has been proposed previously.

[LionKing]

Lone retirement???
[...]

Yes, I said lone retirement. Vettel was classified in 22nd position in Monza, because he'd completed 90% of the race distance. The rules of the sport can be tricky, but I think it's best we try to abide by them as much as possible, yanno?

Where in the rules does it say that retirements and being classified are mutually exclusive???

Vettel did retire in the race on 47th lap with alternator failure and he was classified in 22th place.... Honestly, I think you are just trying to weasel out your error with words.

[mnmracer]

As for your "shoulda, woulda, coulda" handwaving: ok.

None of that in here. Simply a list.

Onto the topic at hand, the kinds of statistical "analyses" proffered by the author of this thread inevitably end up this way

Again, none of that. The fact you wish to derail the thread because you come to a conclusion you don't like or whatever, is entirely in your own head. A shame you have to bother everyone else with your disruptive behavior.

[bhall]

[...]
Honestly, I think you are just trying to weasel out your error with words.

Excellent! We're getting somewhere.

Do you see how the parameters I've chosen to make my point, which are perfectly valid on the surface, nonetheless fall on their face with even cursory scrutiny?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I think there's no such thing as a lost lead or inherited win, because races don't stop immediately upon the retirement of the driver in first place. Races end when the checkered flag flies (or checqured flag for those who speak the Queen's English ).

Generally speaking, I think if one likes Sebastian Vettel to the expense of genuine objectivity, mnmracer's "analyses" are solid gold. If, on the other hand, you can think beyond your disposition, they're frustratingly transparent attempts at "objective" hero-worship. (At least one member here, an admitted fan of Sebastian Vettel, was accused of fanboy bias against Vettel simply because he justly couldn't accept the stated logic behind this thread, even if it appears to support a driver he likes.)

[bhall]

From a member who's currently indisposed. The views presented do not necessarily represent my own.

Drum roll please....

Time(T)xLaps(L)/Retirements(R).

So count the time and laps in the lead, multiply the 2, then divide by the failures.

And then, all you will get is the mean number, which will be distorted as less time spent leading can not be as effectively sampled as more time leading. Meaningless formula....
So even though you may get some form of data, it will be tortured data that is incongruous to any one but the most ardent of Vettel fanatics.(He does lead the most)

Since 2010, Vettel has led 1675 laps(fact).
Alonso has 525 laps
Hamilton has 497 laps
Webber has had 474 laps.
Button 377 laps

I have made the sample from 2010, because Vettel was not racing 10 years ago and neither was Hamilton.
The other drivers had also not been in machinery capable of being used to extrapolate data for "Lost leads and inherited wins of the last 10 years".

So what can we deduce?
[*]Vettel has led 3 times as much as anyone these last 3 and a half years.
[*]Vettel has led more than the next 3 contenders combined.

Spending that much time in the lead, you will experience higher rates of failure while leading than other's because....Only one person can bloody lead!

What would be interesting however, is to compare the lost leads and inherited wins of the other 3 chaps compared to Vettel, as their accumulated data would be better sample than what has been proposed previously.

[SectorOne]

Just read a past couple of threads of the OP and it´s quite obvious there´s a red thread going through all of them.
I think Hamilton fans and Alonso fans could do the same, just need to pick out the right stats.
Which is the same as being a fanboy the only difference is you use numbers to cover it up with.

Edit: that upvote dissappeared quickly whoever that was, thanks, you just proved my point.

[Juzh]

I think Hamilton fans and Alonso fans could do the same, just need to pick out the right stats.
Which is the same as being a fanboy the only difference is you use numbers to cover it up with.

Then do it. I'd gladly upvote any well put together statistics or analysis, no matter the driver that comes on top. Find a category worth analysing and present your findings in a meaningfull way.

[mnmracer]

I think Hamilton fans and Alonso fans could do the same, just need to pick out the right stats.
Which is the same as being a fanboy the only difference is you use numbers to cover it up with.

Then do it. I'd gladly upvote any well put together statistics or analysis, no matter the driver that comes on top. Find a category worth analysing and present your findings in a meaningfull way.

It is no surprise to any sensible fan of the sport that any article you write about modern F1, will have Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton run through them as a red thread.

[LionKing]

[...]
Honestly, I think you are just trying to weasel out your error with words.

Excellent! We're getting somewhere.

Do you see how the parameters I've chosen to make my point, which are perfectly valid on the surface, nonetheless fall on their face with even cursory scrutiny?
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Mark Twain is not a scientist, engineer etc.
Quite a bit of the fundamental physics theories have been developed or proved using statistical methods. It is a tool as long as people use it correctly it is very useful one for that matter. People who tries to mislead other with statistical data will be called for by other smart, knowledgeable people.

That phrase is unfortunately commonly used by people when they don't like the conclusions or what we can infer from those.

You can always challenge the methods, validity and integrity of the collected data, you can challenge the conclusions of someone or you can give other statistical information if you feel like the original one did not present the whole picture.

Someone can say the driver A out qualifies driver B %80 of the time. Another one can point out that the average time difference between those two is only 0.1 seconds, etc. Both of them helps to bring out the whole picture.

[SectorOne]

Then do it. I'd gladly upvote any well put together statistics or analysis, no matter the driver that comes on top. Find a category worth analysing and present your findings in a meaningfull way.

I won´t do it because i´m not that much of a fanboy that i go through a list of various stats and cherry pick the ones who tip the thing in my favor.
What´s worth analyzing and if it´s done in a meaningful way is up to the individual to decide.
This one to me is the same as doing stats on who has the most titles. It doesn´t really say anything at all other then who had the pleasure of driving solid cars.

Then you have so much data here that nobody will double check it unless it´s something from memory.
(which someone did and pointed out a flaw, which makes you wonder what else might be wrong)

The one with the alternative championships is the worst because it´s not based on any facts, just a guess on how the results ended with no mishaps for the drivers which makes the whole thing totally useless.

[SectorOne]

Ok here´s some stats,

mnmracer´s most active topic is called "Are we seeing a Vettel era?"
In the topics about driver stats, Vettel comes out on top in 5 out of 6 topics. or 83% of them.

I´d make a guess that the next stats made by mnmracer will feature Vettel coming out on top.
I did not count the alternative seasons as that´s not stats in any way.

[mnmracer]

Ok here´s some stats,

mnmracer´s most active topic is called "Are we seeing a Vettel era?"
In the topics about driver stats, Vettel comes out on top in 5 out of 6 topics. or 83% of them.

I´d make a guess that the next stats made by mnmracer will feature Vettel coming out on top.
I did not count the alternative seasons as that´s not stats in any way.

And how often did Alonso and Hamilton come out in the top?
Surely you are not so delusional that you truly think it is strange that the top of any list contains Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton?

[SectorOne]

And how often did Alonso and Hamilton come out in the top?
Surely you are not so delusional that you truly think it is strange that the top of any list contains Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton?

Hamilton came out on top in the only one not having Vettel on top.
No i´m not delusional, but surely you must understand people think it´s strange that 80% of your cherry picked lists, Vettel comes out on top in every single one of them. (5 out of 6)

It´s not even a progression of various stats but instead just completely random ones.

[mnmracer]

And how often did Alonso and Hamilton come out in the top?
Surely you are not so delusional that you truly think it is strange that the top of any list contains Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton?

Hamilton came out on top in the only one not having Vettel on top.
No i´m not delusional, but surely you must understand people think it´s strange that 80% of your cherry picked lists, Vettel comes out on top in every single one of them. (5 out of 6)

It´s not even a progression of various stats but instead just completely random ones.

Concluding who comes out on top is no explanation of an issue. Is the FIA championship biased because Vettel came out on top for the last 3 years? Are the team-bosses biased for Vettel's rankings? Or is it basic sense that the top drivers come out on top of most stats?

It is the same 4 or 5 people on here whose only interest is disruptive behavior towards people that are interested in a range of current, relevant topics. If you think it is "completely random" to look at lost leads after a race where two leaders had a mechanical failure, I can only facepalm your reasoning skills. However, I am not sharing this for the disruptive trolls who ridicule the people who are interested, but all the people that find it interesting, and all the people saying "thanks, I was just thinking about that".

If you are too narrow-minded to understand that people have an interest in something that has just happened, I can only advice you to try and open up a little and try fewer self-centered thoughts.