the amount of times hamilton has started at the back is more irrelevant because of how weak the field is currently in comparison.
This race is an example of why (in one sense) Hamilton should be thankful - the more times he gets to start at the back (and make his way through the field "at his leisure" with fresh parts ) far less likely for him to lose points from an errant Ferrari as Rosberg did this race.
Any other year (excluding the last two I guess, as Merc was as strong then) and he would be MUCH further behind in the championship because of starting at the back of the grid so many times
What a completely daft thing to say, it's irrelevant, because by the time he gets near the front Rosberg has a 30 second lead over Hamilton in the same car and there is zero chance for him to get back at him? But it's irrelevant because he could get say 4th instead of 10th if the field was more competitive?
If he started from the front he has a massively better chance of winning and beating Rosberg means closing the points gap or extending his lead. Starting from the back is like a 98% chance of Rosberg extending his lead or closing the gap on Hamilton.
You also missed out something, if the field was more competitive so Hamilton had less chance of finishing say top 5... then Rosberg would also be far less likely to win when Hamilton starts at the back.
So now, Ham starts at the back, rosberg has pole, Rosberg wins, Hamilton gets 4th. Or the field is more competitive, Hamilton starts at the back and gets 9th, but Rosberg starts 3rd and ends up 5th.
In any give race if one driver starts at the front and the other starts at the back, that is a near certain decent points gain for the guy at the front. When Hamilton is starting at the back through exactly no fault of his own, calling it irrelevant is amongst the stupidest things you've said on these forums and there have been some absolute corkers from you.