How much do Stats tell us about driver performance?

[sennafan24]

The way I see it, it's not about knowledge at all. It's all about feelings and nothing more. If your feelings tell you that one driver is better than another, you will automatically, probably both consciously and unconsciously, try to justify your feeling and look for information that support it, while you will be less likely to accept information that points in the oposite direction.

I agree to a extent.

If two drivers who are teammates are very close on points, I will examine other stats. As its is basic knowledge when dealing with statistics to not present them as fact if they are not significant, as a small variable can distort the data. Its not a case of looking to support your driver if they are on the losing end, its just a basic need if you want to see if its a significant reflection (which is rare when points stats are so close) In these cases theoretical analysis that is indeed subjective usually forms a opinion, like with Prost/Senna or Lewis/Jenson.

For example, if two drivers are pretty equal but one has more external faults like mechanical failures or team pit stop errors which leads to the other driver having a small advantage in the points total, then the gap will not be significant enough to support that one driver has outperformed the other. But on the other hand, you can never prove a driver who has not outscored a rival is definitively better, again as there is no way you can prove its significant.

In other cases like I mentioned like say Jules/Chilton and Webber/Vettel or if you want to go back Schumi vs any of his teammates pre Rosberg, the stats are so one sided that the degree of probability tell us they are significant and almost a definitive sign that one driver is outperforming another based on pure merit. In that case the stats do indeed mean something.

Sometimes it is not a case of trying to justify anything, its just statistical analysis. For example, if we are to take the Williams partnership this year, if it was presented to you that Pastor has scored and Bottas has not by 1-0, would you take that as significant?

[GitanesBlondes]

The only stats that kind of matter are teammate vs. teammate. But that would assume all equipment is equal, and how can we ever know for certain that all equipment was in fact equal.

Then even at that, it also depends as one has to look further into what went on to see how accurately, or inaccurately those stats measure up.

Stats can only be useful in my opinion if one actually looks at what went on within the time frame to see what the actual story was. Then even at that, they still may not be useful. They can help to paint a larger picture, but they shouldn't always be considered the final word on everything.

[sennafan24]

The only stats that kind of matter are teammate vs. teammate. But that would assume all equipment is equal, and how can we ever know for certain that all equipment was in fact equal.

Then even at that, it also depends as one has to look further into what went on to see how accurately, or inaccurately those stats measure up.

Stats can only be useful in my opinion if one actually looks at what went on within the time frame to see what the actual story was. Then even at that, they still may not be useful. They can help to paint a larger picture, but they shouldn't always be considered the final word on everything.

=D>

Could not agree more.

The bit I have bolded is something I forgot to consider, for instance the Schumi vs Herbert teammate head to head is argued to have fallen foul to that variable if you listen to Herbert. Could be and probably is sour grapes to a extent, but we will never know for sure if Flavio was favoring Schumi like Herbert claims.

I still feel when stats are significant, it does show a definitive reflection the vast majority of the time.

If we just blindly look at stats with no statistical analysis, our critical thinking may as well be non-existent.

[GitanesBlondes]

The only stats that kind of matter are teammate vs. teammate. But that would assume all equipment is equal, and how can we ever know for certain that all equipment was in fact equal.

Then even at that, it also depends as one has to look further into what went on to see how accurately, or inaccurately those stats measure up.

Stats can only be useful in my opinion if one actually looks at what went on within the time frame to see what the actual story was. Then even at that, they still may not be useful. They can help to paint a larger picture, but they shouldn't always be considered the final word on everything.

=D>

Could not agree more.

The bit I have bolded is something I forgot to consider, for instance the Schumi vs Herbert teammate head to head is argued to have fallen foul to that variable if you listen to Herbert. Could be and probably is sour grapes to a extent, but we will never know for sure if Flavio was favoring Schumi like Herbert claims.

I still feel when stats are significant, it does show a definitive reflection the vast majority of the time.

If we just blindly look at stats with no statistical analysis, our critical thinking may as well be non-existent.

Schumacher was receiving the attention at Benetton over Herbert. But, I'd say that it might not have made much of a difference had all things been equal. The Benetton-Renault was a difficult car to drive to say the least, and Herbert I think holds on to the belief he might have somehow been on par with Schumacher.

Senna vs Johnny Dumfries in the Lotus-Renault 98T remains one of the best examples, as all the favored equipment was going to Senna. Dumfries was to be there for no reason other than as a supporting role. If you look at the sheer numbers, he was absolutely annihilated by Senna. Yet, would the results have been quite as bad had they been receiving equal equipment? Senna surely would have won, but it might not have been quite as bad. Most people form their opinions of Johnny Dumfries based on the one-sided treatment that was given to Senna, without realizing there was one-sided treatment. Dumfries was not a bad driver at all, but it was easy to be made to look like a bad driver when you were receiving the leftovers. So the stats are an incomplete part of the picture.

[sennafan24]

Senna vs Johnny Dumfries in the Lotus-Renault 98T remains one of the best examples, as all the favored equipment was going to Senna. Dumfries was to be there for no reason other than as a supporting role. If you look at the sheer numbers, he was absolutely annihilated by Senna. Yet, would the results have been quite as bad had they been receiving equal equipment? Senna surely would have won, but it might not have been quite as bad. Most people form their opinions of Johnny Dumfries based on the one-sided treatment that was given to Senna, without realizing there was one-sided treatment. Dumfries was not a bad driver at all, but it was easy to be made to look like a bad driver when you were receiving the leftovers. So the stats are an incomplete part of the picture.

Senna's logic in demanding a contract with that amount of attention, was that he did not think Lotus had the resources to provide two cars of high standard. Dumfries was actually only brought in due to Senna blocking Derek Warwick, who Lotus had planned to give equal attention to. Dumfries was not as touted as Warwick, so the story goes. Maybe Dumfries was underrated by some.

Herbert claimed more than just attention, he claims that Flavio did not let him practice as much as Schumi. Again, so we are straight, Herbert blames Flavio and not Schumi for his treatment.

[GitanesBlondes]

Senna vs Johnny Dumfries in the Lotus-Renault 98T remains one of the best examples, as all the favored equipment was going to Senna. Dumfries was to be there for no reason other than as a supporting role. If you look at the sheer numbers, he was absolutely annihilated by Senna. Yet, would the results have been quite as bad had they been receiving equal equipment? Senna surely would have won, but it might not have been quite as bad. Most people form their opinions of Johnny Dumfries based on the one-sided treatment that was given to Senna, without realizing there was one-sided treatment. Dumfries was not a bad driver at all, but it was easy to be made to look like a bad driver when you were receiving the leftovers. So the stats are an incomplete part of the picture.

Senna's logic in demanding a contract with that amount of attention, was that he did not think Lotus had the resources to provide two cars of high standard. Dumfries was actually only brought in due to Senna blocking Derek Warwick, who Lotus had planned to give equal attention to. Dumfries was not as touted as Warwick, so the story goes. Maybe Dumfries was underrated by some.

Herbert claimed more than just attention, he claims that Flavio did not let him practice as much as Schumi. Again, so we are straight, Herbert blames Flavio and not Schumi for his treatment.

Even as is, fact remains it was not ever an even matchup between Senna and Dumfries for the entire 1986 season. Christ, I can't believe I'd ever see the day I would actually write somewhat of a defense for Johnny Dumfries. I think hell just froze over.

Dumfries did win Le Mans in 1988.

[sennafan24]

Even as is, fact remains it was not ever an even matchup between Senna and Dumfries for the entire 1986 season. Christ, I can't believe I'd ever see the day I would actually write somewhat of a defense for Johnny Dumfries. I think hell just froze over.

Dumfries did win Le Mans in 1988.

Fair enough

I am not disputing that Dumfries was given cast offs, and not allowed to compete on equal terms. Just adding some information behind it.

[marcush.]

speaking of stats -wasn´t johnny Dumfries the best ever Formula Three competitor in British F3 history? i think he won 14 races that year .

[SectorOne]

Stats are good for facts. Things you can quantify. Like, who´s the most succesful. easy. Schumacher is by far the most succesful.
Or who´s fastest of the two teammates, who´s done the best job this season etc.

I'd strongly disagree there. Stats are not good for demonstrating anything. You can "prove" almost anything you want by choosing the right stats. Its been shown numerous times on these boards even.

Stats are perfect because they don´t lie.
The stats themselves do not care about what your or my opinion is on a given subject.

What you are talking about is something like this,

"Vettel most titles in F1 today - Therefore he´s the best"

This is not a proper way to use stats.
This a good example,

Who´s the most successful driver in F1 today? With Vettel´s 3 titles, he´s the most succesful driver driving today.
Regardless of what you me or that bloke next door think.

F1 depends on stats. They need to know for example how the order was on the Saturday before the race, these stats are crucial for F1 to work properly.

[SectorOne]

It was a fairly good point until you removed your post Richard.

But Successful as a whole, Vettel wins. If you want to know who´s the most succesful in terms of race wins only then Alonso comes out on top.

[GitanesBlondes]

speaking of stats -wasn´t johnny Dumfries the best ever Formula Three competitor in British F3 history? i think he won 14 races that year .

He had quite an impressive resume in British F3...which made it all the more bizarre he was unable to secure a ride with any other F1 team when he was cut loose by Lotus for Nakajima (not that Lotus had a choice in the matter since they wanted Honda power).

[marcush.]

Speaking of stats..i guess many of you do not remember reliability of cars say 30 years ago...At races like monaco only 3 or 4 cars saw the flag and almost all fell victim of mechanical issues....
So back then most certainly a driver with a safe pair of hands -empathic towards the machinery had good chances to end up with better stats than a all out racer no matter how quick he might be...
Maybe driver performance is not only in lap time but also to negotiate the right deals at the right time as well .Jut lok how Hamilton engineered himself out of a bad 2013 joining Mercedes when everyone thought he was rediculous to leave Macs for MGP and it paid off already....
Stats tell a story but fail with the tragic guys in history, Amon one of them David Pryce and Tony Brise other examples or Hans stuck -who simply would not fit in any formula 1 car because of his long legs....He always had to cut off his shoe to be able to fit in the car....

[sennafan24]

Maybe driver performance is not only in lap time but also to negotiate the right deals at the right time as well .Jut lok how Hamilton engineered himself out of a bad 2013 joining Mercedes when everyone thought he was rediculous to leave Macs

That is a valid point, that is a human variable that no computer stat could account for. You could argue that is not down to driving ability, more having good business calculability.

Thing is though, as much as I like Lewis and he is my favorite current driver, I think Lauda was the one who should be credited as he was the one he put the whole thing together it would seem. Give Lewis some credit he probably had the final say, but a lot of people around him had his ear and would have swayed him.

I think Lauda was the voice of reason, and was acting for Lewis's career interests rather than financial interests, and think Lauda had a clearer idea of what was going to happen more than anyone else.

Senna going to McLaren was a great choice for 1988, and Schumi building up Ferrari did wonders for his legacy in the long run, both thought the teams they were in prior were on the decline, and both were spot on.

[SectorOne]

I think we should all agree on that while it was impressive Hamilton moved at the right time, there is simply no such thing as "Good drivers automatically find good cars"
It´s batsh*t luck that Vettel got a brilliantly designed car in 09, and the same for Hamilton, this year.


Edit: what we can say is good drivers find good teams, then if the car is good is another matter.

[beelsebob]

I think we should all agree on that while it was impressive Hamilton moved at the right time, there is simply no such thing as "Good drivers automatically find good cars"
It´s batsh*t luck that Vettel got a brilliantly designed car in 09, and the same for Hamilton, this year.

Absolutely, you only have to look at both Senna and Prost, who at one time or another found themselves either not in a car, or in a dog to see that this is not the case.