Hamilton to Mercedes? BBC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeeter said:
Aren't they the same thing?
Click to expand...

How are they the same thing?
one is largely out of the drivers control, the other isn't.

There's a massive differnce between a breakdown/being taken out by another driver and just driving poorly and not getting the car where it deserves. That is teasing out data.

For teh chmpionship the only thing that matters is points table. For making team descions and negotations. You. Need far more data, teasing out this data is but one aspect of many for that purpose.
 
Glaucus said:
For making team descions and negotations. You. Need far more data, teasing out this data is but one aspect of many for that purpose.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.

Looking at Schumachers results against Nico's where the car failed is one aspect.

As is looking at say, just Nico's top results (perhaps maybe the top 7?).

Or how they compare in qualifying.

Or how much sponsorship they bring in.

Or how they have done over the last 3 years.

Or where they sit in the point table.

Or who has the best hair.

They are all as valid (or invalid) as each other as in isolation they are meaningless. What I'm saying is you can't just choose 1 that you like and go "bam, that proves driver A is better than driver B because of this".

Which is the point I was trying to make oh so long ago, when I said "you can't JUST compare them like that".
 
Last edited:
Can anyone point me to the thread where we're discussing Lewis Hamilton possibly going to Mercedes? I seem to have wandered into an argument about which is the better German that is already driving for Mercedes? :confused:
 
MissChief said:
Can anyone point me to the thread where we're discussing Lewis Hamilton possibly going to Mercedes? I seem to have wandered into an argument about which is the better German that is already driving for Mercedes? :confused:
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaand theres the problem.

My point has absolutely nothing to do with any drivers. But people just assume that if Skeeter is in a thread about Schumacher he must be ****ging him off and everyone should try and get the boot in.
 
Mr Men said:
You have not followed what had been said previously, what you quoted was me saying how Jenson broke his contract with Williams to stay with BAR/Honda, so I am not sure how I am saying something different now, seems like you are just trying to have a go at me without any reason at all?

You quoted me and agreed with me without knowing it, now you are saying I need to apologise for being in the wrong? seriously....
Click to expand...
I don't mean to bring back one old argument when we've got a fresh one to debate here, but I've just read back on my old posts and I have absolutely no idea why I got my knockers in such a twist.

Sorry for being such a *** to you Mr Men. I'll try not to do it again.
 
Skeeter said:
As is looking at say, just Nico's top results (perhaps maybe the top 7?).
".
Click to expand...

No,
What does that tell you?
Nothing, thats just cherry picking and not teasing out data.
You need a comparison between team mates. Just picking one drivers top 7 races isn't comparing against team mate per race.
Neither is comparing a race where one driver didn't finish (unless it's driver fault) as again there's no data to be teased out, you have no comparison to make and nothing to gain by looking at it.
 
Skeeter said:
I never said other people were cherry picking?

This isn't about who cherry picked what anyway, its about using a single stat in an argument that goes far beyond just that stat.
Click to expand...
Surely the best absolute metric to judging drivers is to see how they did in a race weekend against each other when there are no mechanical/crash failures? Same track, same car, same tyre performance (or lack of) compared to the rest of the field.

EDIT: You clarified. Half of my post is pointless. Removed!

I can't help but feel that because it's arknor who posted it, you're more determined to debunk it. I'm not suggesting you hate him, or Schumacher, because that's silly. But he does have a tendency to skew things towards the old man, and so you've probably been wary of what he's said now. In this case though, I think he's got a fair point.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
No,
What does that tell you?
Nothing, thats just cherry picking and not teasing out data.
You need a comparison between team mates. Just picking one drivers top 7 races isn't comparing against team mate per race.
Neither is comparing a race where one driver didn't finish (unless it's driver fault) as again there's no data to be teased out, you have no comparison to make and nothing to gain by looking at it.
Click to expand...

Depends what result you want, you can get stats to show anything really, which is what I think Skeeter is saying.
 
Skeeter said:
I didn't. I used it as an example of a completely BS stat to prove how missleading individual stats can be.
Click to expand...

But a stat comparing. Team mate against team mate is not a Bs comparison. That's the point some stats are bs many you have used, other stats are not bs in the slightest.
You don't seem to bee able to recognize when. A stat. Is usefull. And when. A stat is bs. And just include them all in a bs category. How can all stats be bs.
 
MissChief said:
Can anyone point me to the thread where we're discussing Lewis Hamilton possibly going to Mercedes? I seem to have wandered into an argument about which is the better German that is already driving for Mercedes? :confused:
Click to expand...

I think we need to leave the f1 forum regulars to it. They seem to only read each others posts and like to derail threads often :( its worse then motors in here haha
 
Duke said:
Depends what result you want, you can get stats to show anything really, which is what I think Skeeter is saying.
Click to expand...

Skeeter thinks all stats are bs, you can get stats to show anything(but you can apply basic logic to discredit most of those stats). But that's not the point. The point is some stats are good and usefull and some are Bs. It's being able to tell which are useful and which are bs. Something he doesn't seem able to do.Some stats are vali, some aren't it's telling which catogry it falls into.
 
Ok, just to clear this up as people seem to be missunderstanding.

NONE of the stats I have used or made up are my opinion or what I think should be used to compare 2 drivers. They are PURELY to demonstrate my initial comment about how you can cherry pick any isolated stats to say pretty much anything, thus demonstrating how you cannot simply compare 2 drivers using 1 single isolated statistic, weather that stat comes from results, cherry picked results, thin air or pulled straight from you ****.

Skeeter claims no factual information in any statistics he has posted since Glaucus quoted him. Stats were used for demonstration purposes only.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Again, that's not what I have said at all.
Click to expand...

By calling it cherry picked you have.theres. Two types of stats.

One is saying comparing two drivers against each other, excluding races where DNF was achieved by external factors.
There there's stats like just picking one drivers top 7 races.
The top one is not cherry picks at all, it's a usefull and telling stat. The second stat is cherry picking and tells us nothing and should be discarded.
It doesn't mean the first one, shows the whole picture. But it is by no means cherry picking or not usefull.
 
Glaucus said:
But a stat comparing. Team mate against team mate is not a Bs comparison. That's the point some stats are bs many you have used, other stats are not bs in the slightest.
You don't seem to bee able to recognize when. A stat. Is usefull. And when. A stat is bs. And just include them all in a bs category. How can all stats be bs.
Click to expand...

You're really spectacularly failing to grasp his point.

The point is not whether that particular stat is BS or not, but that taking ANY one particular metric and holding it up above any other metrics as some sort of definitive comparison is just daft, because it's still an isolated statistic. You're cherry picking a particular comparison that has a particular outcome (note, this is distinctly different from cherry picking the data within a comparison, which you seem to think he means, despite him saying nothing of the sort).

(as an aside, could you at. Least TRY and put. Some effort into proof reading. Your posts? it's incredibly. Hard. Work reading things with so. Many full stops.)
 
Kenai said:
You're really spectacularly failing to grasp his point.

The point is not whether that particular stat is BS or not, but that taking ANY one particular metric and holding it up above any other metrics as some sort of definitive comparison is just daft, because it's still an isolated statistic. You're cherry picking a particular comparison that has a particular outcome (note, this is distinctly different from cherry picking the data within a comparison, which you seem to think he means, despite him saying nothing of the sort).

(as an aside, could you at. Least TRY and put. Some effort into proof reading. Your posts? it's incredibly. Hard. Work reading things with so. Many full stops.)
Click to expand...

No I get that point fine. But he is calling that stat bs. That's the point. He can't distinguish between a bs stat and a usefull stat. No ingle stat tells the whole story. I've agreed with that. What I don't agree with, his is stance on wht a bs stat is,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom