Ross Brawn back to Ferrari?

Yeah. Kimi was 3rd because he finished every race while those around him didn't. He didn't get there by driving better than those below him.

It was still an impressive year for him, but you can hardly say he drove better than Hamilton simply because he had more points at the end of the year. As always with F1 the final points table doesn't tell the whole story.
 
Skeeter said:
For context, the drivers ordered by average points per race finish. No consideration made for why they didn't finish, just purely the average they scored when they made it to the end.

Supports my case that even without the retirements I think Hamilton would have struggled to beat Alonso and Vettel.
Click to expand...

Skeeter said:
Yeah. Kimi was 3rd because he finished every race while those around him didn't. He didn't get there by driving better than those below him.

It was still an impressive year for him, but you can hardly say he drove better than Hamilton simply because he had more points at the end of the year. As always with F1 the final points table doesn't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

That PPRF table is no better than the final points table because it relies on the final points table for its figures – it doesn't prove anything.

The link arknor posted is quite good at showing how much of a difference those DNFs made to Hamilton's season, even if it is biased.
 
Its just to show the average number of points a driver got when they finished. Of course its just an estimate but its less guesswork than some of the more detailed predictions.

It shows that when he finished Hamilton was still on average finishing lower than Vettel or Alonso were when they finished. That suggests that if Hamilton had only had 2 DNFs like Alonso and Vettel did, he would have still been behind them as his average points haul was less. To beat them he would have needed less DNFs over the season.

Obviously its subject to any number of variables, but I think its quite good as a comparison between drivers in that you can remove the DNFs. It was meant to show the comparison between Kimi and Hamilton. Yes Kimi scored more points, but when they finished Hamilton was averaging just below 3rd, while Kimi only averaged 5th. It was meant to show that Kimi out scored Hamilton by finishing more races, not by driving better. And it does that (obviously its not that simple as the DNFs could be directly linked to driving like a plonker (Grosjean), but in terms of an answer to sunama's persistent "OMG Hamilton is crap look he was totally beaten by a complete noob in a rubbish car who hasn't driven for 3 years" claims, it levels the field a bit). Hamilton scored 91% of Kimis points in only 70% as many finishes.
 
Last edited:
Just an observation, but does it take into account when Hamilton has operational errors in pit-stops etc.? He would have still finished the race, but been lower down the order due to them, costing him points.
 
No it doesn't. I've just devided the total number of points by the total number of finishes. Its true Hamilton would have lost a bunch of points through mistakes by the team and him, but theres eleventy billion other things going on across the grid that would need to be accounted for too.

Its just a simple Points Per Finish calculation to show that Kimi beat Hamilton by finishing more often.
 
I dont see how anyone can deny that were it not for Hamiltons bad luck and unreliable car he would have been fighting for the championship till the very end. I'm not saying he would have won it but he would have been very close.

Hamilton had one of his best seasons and was robbed of a lot of points.
 
Jono8 said:
I dont see how anyone can deny that were it not for Hamiltons bad luck and unreliable car he would have been fighting for the championship till the very end. I'm not saying he would have won it but he would have been very close.

Hamilton had one of his best seasons and was robbed of a lot of points.
Click to expand...

and he still made his own mistakes as well, so its quite possible he would still have done so even if he hadnt been forced to retire in particular races
 
Irish_Tom said:
Yes, but you also said it supports your case that even without the retirements Hamilton would have struggled to beat Alonso and Vettel.

That's what I disagree with. :p
Click to expand...

Based on what? Hamiltons average finish score was 14 points to Alonso's 15 and Vettels 16. Extrapolating those out if Hamilton had finished 18 races like the other 2 did he would have scored 252 points and finished 3rd.

Obviously its not that simple when you delve into it as Hamilton had a lot of retirements from high points finishes that would have dragged his average up. But on just pure numbers it wouldn't have been a simple walk over for Hamilton.

It was in response to the discussions a while back that had Hamilton not had so many retirements he would have easily won the title. It would have been close between him and Vettel and Alonso, but it wouldn't have been easy for him. If you credit Hamilton 3 extra wins (75 points) and take his finishing total up to 17, he still averaged 15.6 points a race, less than Vettel.

McLarens screw ups and reliability robbed us of a potential 3 way title fight :(. It didn't rob Hamilton of a guaranteed WDC.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Based on what? Hamiltons average finish score was 14 points to Alonso's 15 and Vettels 16. Extrapolating those out if Hamilton had finished 18 races like the other 2 did he would have scored 252 points and finished 3rd.

Obviously its not that simple when you delve into it as Hamilton had a lot of retirements from high points finishes that would have dragged his average up. But on just pure numbers it wouldn't have been a simple walk over for Hamilton.

It was in response to the discussions a while back that had Hamilton not had so many retirements he would have easily won the title. It would have been close between him and Vettel and Alonso, but it wouldn't have been easy for him. If you credit Hamilton 3 extra wins (75 points) and take his finishing total up to 17, he still averaged 15.6 points a race, less than Vettel.

McLarens screw ups and reliability robbed us of a potential 3 way title fight :(. It didn't rob Hamilton of a guaranteed WDC.
Click to expand...

don't forget that there were several times where Hamilton brought a car with ruined suspension home with a couple of points where he could easily have got a lot more points. Also, those races where Hamilton lost out meant that the others gained points for themselves as well by being bumped up a place.

there's an article that goes reasonably deeply into all the losses of Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso, Webber and Schumacher which shows that Hamilton could have won the championship by a fair margin. While i think the article is a bit biased in Hamiltons favour it does show that it would have been mighty close
 
Reaper 392 said:
don't forget that there were several times where Hamilton brought a car with ruined suspension home with a couple of points where he could easily have got a lot more points. Also, those races where Hamilton lost out meant that the others gained points for themselves as well by being bumped up a place.

there's an article that goes reasonably deeply into all the losses of Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso, Webber and Schumacher which shows that Hamilton could have won the championship by a fair margin. While i think the article is a bit biased in Hamiltons favour it does show that it would have been mighty close
Click to expand...

Of course it is not as simple as just the raw figures, I've been open about that. I just offered up those figures as another comparison, and one that removed subjective views on where people may or may not have finished, etc. It's just another way of looking at it, and one that offers up a different view on things like Kimi/Hamilton and Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton.

Theres other interesting bits in it too, like Perez against Hulk and Di Resta, or how far Massa managed to pull himself up the list with a great end to the year.

I'm not sayin I'm right and others are wrong, its just a comparison I thought was interesting that included a minimal amount of speculative guesswork.
 
Skeeter said:
Based on what?
Click to expand...

I don't think the PPRF table supports your case that even without retirements Hamilton would have struggled to beat Alonso and Vettel because the PPRF table is based on the actual points table, so it doesn't remove the subjective view at all (as you're claiming), it just presents the same data slightly differently.

I'm not saying it would have been a cakewalk for Hamilton had he not suffered so many DNFs, but no amount of reconstructing the numbers is going to prove it either way if you use the final points tally.

That's why aknor's link earlier is a better way of looking at it, as long as you take it with a pinch of salt due to it's Hamilton bias.

Skeeter said:
McLaren's screw ups and reliability robbed us of a potential three-way title fight :(. It didn't rob Hamilton of a guaranteed WDC.
Click to expand...

That is something we can both agree on. :)
 
Yeah its the claim he would have won easily that I'm disputing. The only calculations that come close to claiming that are from very obviously bias sources. What is obvious from whatever view you take is that without the retirement's and issues it would have been a 3 way fight which would have been brilliant.

Such a shame he's going to be in a Mercedes next year. Maybe Button can step up and take the fight to Alonso and Vettel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom