2013 Australian Grand Prix Official Thread

[AndyL]

Yeah exactly. Are we in agreement here then Andy or what?

I don't know
I thought you were using the "if" argument to make out your case that the points difference was not representative of Hamilton's superiority over Button.

[henners88]

I don't know
I thought you were using the "if" argument to make out your case that the points difference was not representative of Hamilton's superiority over Button.

I don't know about superiority but it doesn't show the true difference we saw in 2012 when Hamilton retired from the lead twice and lost out a lot through pit stops and poor strategy. You could say the same in Button's favour for 2011 but I don't believe the issue for Lewis that year was down to him not knowing how to race. I think he frustrated himself and lost far too many points that year through arrogance and silly on track battles. Thats where Button holds the strength over Hamilton, keeping cool in situations that demand a level head. Saying that Lewis seemed a different person in 2012 and seemed back to his old self.

If you think the points tally is a fair representation of their talent during their time together, how do you weigh up unreliability and bad luck for both? Do you think they both experienced the same level of bad luck and indeed it leveled itself out? Its a common discussion this and its always interesting to see how different people view the situation.

[AndyL]

If you think the points tally is a fair representation of their talent during their time together, how do you weigh up unreliability and bad luck for both? Do you think they both experienced the same level of bad luck and indeed it leveled itself out? Its a common discussion this and its always interesting to see how different people view the situation.

Well I wasn't really commenting on whether your thesis was correct or not (whether the points tally was a fair or unfair representation), just that you seemed to be using a specious argument to support it. The invalidity of the argument doesn't necessarily make the proposition false, just unproven.

But to answer your question, frankly I try to avoid weighing up bad luck! It's tremendously difficult to do objectively. If you work from memory or general impressions, it's inevitable that you'll remember more of the injustices suffered by a driver that you sympathise with. Even if you try to do some sort of historical analysis, you still have to make subjective judgments about what constitutes a misfortune. Was that slow pit stop the team's fault, or did the driver miss their marks? Whose fault was a particular collision? Did the driver contribute in some way to a mechanical failure? Did the team make a bad strategy call, or was it the driver's fault for burning out his tyres too fast? Did the driver get lucky with the safety car, or was it astute strategy? People will have differing opinions on most incidents. And what other small but crucial piece of bad luck might we never have even heard about?

I would say that 3 years is probably enough time for luck to even out, and I don't think either McLaren driver was systematically favoured by the team, so the points tally has to be a fair reflection of their respective abilities to score points. To say whether it's a fair reflection of their talent, I think would require a clearer definition of talent

You can pick all sorts of measures of success. On total points, it's as close to level as you're ever likely to see. Hamilton had more wins, Button more podiums. Hamilton finished ahead in the championship 2 seasons to 1; but on finishing positions Button did better with 5th-2nd-5th versus 4th-5th-4th. Hamilton had a clear edge in qualifying. Putting all those together, I can't really see any objective basis for assessing them anything other than either pretty much equal, or Hamilton ahead by the narrowest of margins (mainly depending on how important you consider qualifying as an end in itself).

Beyond that the debate becomes less about which driver is better, and more about which one you like more. Which is fine, as long as everyone understands that's what the discussion is about

[AndyL]

That post was much too long. I'll try to keep them more like post #407 in future

[CaptainRaiden]

Well I wasn't really commenting on whether your thesis was correct or not (whether the points tally was a fair or unfair representation), just that you seemed to be using a specious argument to support it. The invalidity of the argument doesn't necessarily make the proposition false, just unproven.

But to answer your question, frankly I try to avoid weighing up bad luck! It's tremendously difficult to do objectively. If you work from memory or general impressions, it's inevitable that you'll remember more of the injustices suffered by a driver that you sympathise with. Even if you try to do some sort of historical analysis, you still have to make subjective judgments about what constitutes a misfortune. Was that slow pit stop the team's fault, or did the driver miss their marks? Whose fault was a particular collision? Did the driver contribute in some way to a mechanical failure? Did the team make a bad strategy call, or was it the driver's fault for burning out his tyres too fast? Did the driver get lucky with the safety car, or was it astute strategy? People will have differing opinions on most incidents. And what other small but crucial piece of bad luck might we never have even heard about?

I would say that 3 years is probably enough time for luck to even out, and I don't think either McLaren driver was systematically favoured by the team, so the points tally has to be a fair reflection of their respective abilities to score points. To say whether it's a fair reflection of their talent, I think would require a clearer definition of talent

You can pick all sorts of measures of success. On total points, it's as close to level as you're ever likely to see. Hamilton had more wins, Button more podiums. Hamilton finished ahead in the championship 2 seasons to 1; but on finishing positions Button did better with 5th-2nd-5th versus 4th-5th-4th. Hamilton had a clear edge in qualifying. Putting all those together, I can't really see any objective basis for assessing them anything other than either pretty much equal, or Hamilton ahead by the narrowest of margins (mainly depending on how important you consider qualifying as an end in itself).

Beyond that the debate becomes less about which driver is better, and more about which one you like more. Which is fine, as long as everyone understands that's what the discussion is about

You really, really like Button, don't you?

[henners88]

Well I wasn't really commenting on whether your thesis was correct or not (whether the points tally was a fair or unfair representation), just that you seemed to be using a specious argument to support it. The invalidity of the argument doesn't necessarily make the proposition false, just unproven.

But to answer your question, frankly I try to avoid weighing up bad luck! It's tremendously difficult to do objectively. If you work from memory or general impressions, it's inevitable that you'll remember more of the injustices suffered by a driver that you sympathise with.

A good response Andy, took me a while to read on my phone though lol.
I agree if you are a fan of one over the other you are always going to sympathise with your favoured driver. Saying that my opinion on that period remains unchanged as I don't feel I need to be convinced otherwise. I'm happy Lewis walked away on top and has now started a fresh challenge at Mercedes. The comparison between the two British drivers is more difficult now as they are in different cars, but I never used to focus too much on comparing these two. It seems Button has a fresh challenge of his own in the form of a new team mate, a team that is losing its Mercedes engines sooner rather than later, and a car that has started the season not being quite as good as they expected. Both Brits have challenges ahead of them and it'll be interesting to watch regardless of which one you support