Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sev
Out of interest, what you do mean by simple addition? Ie, your normalize all the stats and take their average?
Anyway, I think that comparison is pretty flawed as well however. I think it very nicely shows how well each driver performed in a given year. But pointing out the inconsistency as a concept that such measures are flawed is hardly fair.
2001 was Montoya's first year, Ralf was already well established. Now, I'm not going to say anything about who I think was better etc, but it is well recognized that there is a learning curve in F1.
I also think if you use your more advanced stats and compare them to Schummy's over a large dataset, I think you'll find they say more or less the same thing.
My favourite F1 team-mate comparison web site uses a system similar to Schummy's (although final classification is worth double), and says this about the Montoya/Ralf situation:
Code:
season Highest Points wins poles class quali fl 'score' Normalized
2001 1vs1 31vs49 1vs3 3vs1 5vs7 6vs11 7vs10 -12 -0.706
2002 2vs1 50vs42 0vs1 7vs0 9vs7 9vs8 7vs8 +4 +0.235
One thing that stands out here to me is the fact that fl actually seem to fairly well represent the actual out-come. In 2001 Ralf undeniably beat Montoya. In 2001, it was too close to be sure. |
I had'nt thought about it enough to put any weighting or apply any other formulas but I think even the simple method amply demonstrates where the teammates sat at the time. In 2001, Ralf was miles ahead - yes, he was established and more experienced but he drove better and more consistently too. And there is an indication that he was kinder to the car.
However, in 02, Montoya improved every part of his game - less errors, more finishes, more consistency et5c etc. The "learning curve" as you put it is well demonstrated in these stats.
A similar picture would be shown with Raikkonnen and Coulthard, I think