New Points System????
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
"The race winner will take 25 points, with 20 and 15 being awarded for
second and third places respectively. The next seven finishers will
score 10, 8, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively. It replaces the
current structure of the top eight drivers scoring 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3,
2 and 1 point respectively and takes into account the expansion of the
grid to 13 teams for 2010."
CatharticF1
news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
It's disappointing.
The points system is imo on a gradual decline towards complexity over
simplicity, prolonging the championship result over deserved merit,
diminishing the worth and meaning of a point, and needlessly removing the
ability to compare between generations.
It's about money.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
Frank Adam
wrote:
It's pretty much the same as it was, they're just allowing more teams
to score.
If you think about it, if you put that "money" notion aside, it is a
valid way to increase interest and keep teams and fans motivated.
Imagine if only the first three teams got points, what would be the
incentive for a Minardi to compete and a fan to take any interest ?
Recall when Webber brought the car home in the points, it was like a
victory to them and that is good for the sport.
--
Regards, Frank
build
How so?
beers,
build
Bob Dubery
> On 14 Dec 2009 12:17:48 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> >news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> What do you think?
>
> >> "The race winner will take 25 points, with 20 and 15 being awarded for
> >> second and third places respectively. The next seven finishers will
> >> score 10, 8, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively. It replaces the
> >> current structure of the top eight drivers scoring 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3,
> >> 2 and 1 point respectively and takes into account the expansion of the
> >> grid to 13 teams for 2010."
>
> >>http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/12/10279.html
>
> >It's disappointing.
>
> >The points system is imo on a gradual decline towards complexity over
> >simplicity, prolonging the championship result over deserved merit,
> >diminishing the worth and meaning of a point, and needlessly removing the
> >ability to compare between generations.
>
> >It's about money.
>
> It's pretty much the same as it was, they're just allowing more teams
> to score.
> If you think about it, if you put that "money" notion aside, it is a
> valid way to increase interest and keep teams and fans motivated.
> Imagine if only the first three teams got points, what would be the
> incentive for a Minardi to compete and a fan to take any interest ?
7th place. There has long been a way of ranking for teams that score
no points or score the same minimal number of points. In fact it's
used in all situations where teams and drivers are tied on points. Who
has the most wins? Can't separate them that way? Then who has the most
2nd places? Etc etc.
So teams that had no points could still be ranked for the
constructor's championship and the monies and other considerations
that would be given for positions in that championship.
I can recall a couple of races over the years where a Forti Corse or a
Minardi would come home 7th and Brundle or Walker or whoever would
observe that that 7th was worth a couple of million dollars.
However that mechanism is not visible to the fans and to the casual
viewer. The one advantage that I can see of the new system is that we
don't have to sit at the pub and try to work out who has got the most
7ths in order to figure if Campos Meta are ahead of USF1 in the
championship.
CatharticF1
@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Off the top of my head..
Smaller teams getting points offers more value to sponsors.
The (previous) move to increase the proportion of the worth of second and
subsequent places extends the championship fight in a season where one
driver is dominant.
High points totals are equated by the lowest common denominator with
excitement.
(consider the AFL.. And why watch a series that only awards 10 points when
in another the top two drivers have hundreds of points each! Wow!!)
Complexity and the associated confusion is considered sophisticated and
'closer'. When everyone has points the gap between the top and lesser teams
is contrived to appear smaller: COnsider 375 : 13 to 121 : 0
CatharticF1
news:m09bi5575biekn3s0...@4ax.com:
> On 14 Dec 2009 12:17:48 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> "The race winner will take 25 points, with 20 and 15 being awarded
>>> for second and third places respectively. The next seven finishers
>>> will score 10, 8, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively. It replaces
>>> the current structure of the top eight drivers scoring 10, 8, 6, 5,
>>> 4, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively and takes into account the
>>> expansion of the grid to 13 teams for 2010."
>>>
>>> http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/12/10279.html
>>
>>It's disappointing.
>>
>>The points system is imo on a gradual decline towards complexity over
>>simplicity, prolonging the championship result over deserved merit,
>>diminishing the worth and meaning of a point, and needlessly removing
>>the ability to compare between generations.
>>
>>It's about money.
>>
> It's pretty much the same as it was, they're just allowing more teams
> to score.
> If you think about it, if you put that "money" notion aside, it is a
> valid way to increase interest and keep teams and fans motivated.
It's time to bring the Olympics in to the modern era too.
For 4th place you get a tin medal.
For 5th place you get a cardboard one (laminated).
For 6th, 7th and 8th places you get a plaque with "Good work", "Sterling
Effort" and "Nice try - I see what you were trying to do there". Tenth
and beyond get a certificate signed by the B grade celebrity of their
choice and a motto like "Dude - you were at the Olympics!".
It's expected this will make them more marketable to sponsors and
increase the satisfaction of failed athletes by 37%. For too long medals
and reward has been the domain of 'achievers' but the extent to which
this can be milked has plateaued.
So this new new addition will make the losers appear closer to the
winners when viewd through this new filter. It will also increase the
overall exposure of the rarified Olympics Medalists/Plaque
Holders/Certificate recipients in the media. There will be magazine
covers for people who once 'considered swimming a lap' and how close
they were to this new expanded indicator of greatness.
After all. Legends' greatness is only enhanced by putting a revolving
door at the entry so that all you need to do is drunkenly stumble in as
you walk past.
> Imagine if only the first three teams got points, what would be the
> incentive for a Minardi to compete and a fan to take any interest ?
No - I loved to see them do well but I would resent the idea of getting
a pat on the head for 10th place. You can't provide a hollow reward
where it isn't justified. It's about merit, achieving something, the
reward is in reaching something you thought was beyond you or the
pinnacle. Not suddenly believing your status has been elevated because
by doing the same thing there's now a limp carrot for you.
> Recall when Webber brought the car home in the points, it was like a
> victory to them and that is good for the sport.
You're feeding the other side. That was 5th place, right? And it meant
something. It doesn't anymore because a point has been devalued.
Frank Adam
Sure, but it is still a milestone for a struggling team. Getting into
the points is the first major step towards bigger things, being a
podium and who knows a first. IMO, those are the three major steps as
a new team evolves.
>I can recall a couple of races over the years where a Forti Corse or a
>Minardi would come home 7th and Brundle or Walker or whoever would
>observe that that 7th was worth a couple of million dollars.
>
I seem to recall those remarks for 6th and the single point, but yeah,
certainly just going 9th from a consistent 13th would be a good day
for a team.
>However that mechanism is not visible to the fans and to the casual
>viewer. The one advantage that I can see of the new system is that we
>don't have to sit at the pub and try to work out who has got the most
>7ths in order to figure if Campos Meta are ahead of USF1 in the
>championship.
>
Mmm, after all, there are lots of Campos fans at pubs. :)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
news:ca7785d2-d5ab-48a9...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> However that mechanism is not visible to the fans and to the casual
> viewer. The one advantage that I can see of the new system is that we
> don't have to sit at the pub and try to work out who has got the most
> 7ths in order to figure if Campos Meta are ahead of USF1 in the
> championship.
But of course hardly anyone will care - and those who do will both have a
good idea and know how to find out.
Frank Adam
wrote:
>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in news:eac56717-70df-4c75-b935-eae8e8914a52
>@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 14, 12:17�pm, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's about money.
>>> --
>>> CatharticF1
>>
>> How so?
>
>Off the top of my head..
>
>Smaller teams getting points offers more value to sponsors.
>
How ? It is exposure that offers more value ot sponsors. In fact a
driver who can spin off the track every 5th lap and manage to rejoin
each time, offers excellent value for sponsors over the guy who comes
7th and is virtually never seen during the telecast. There were races
when i was wondering if i missed something that took driver X out of
the race, because i did not see a single shot of him right through the
telecast.
>The (previous) move to increase the proportion of the worth of second and
>subsequent places extends the championship fight in a season where one
>driver is dominant.
>
You mean like this season ? Button won 5 in the first 7 and it was all
over. Despite him doing his best to screw it up and not winning
another race, nobody really thought that Vettel(with 4 wins)will get
him. And didn't.
>High points totals are equated by the lowest common denominator with
>excitement.
> (consider the AFL.. And why watch a series that only awards 10 points when
> in another the top two drivers have hundreds of points each! Wow!!)
>Complexity and the associated confusion is considered sophisticated and
>'closer'. When everyone has points the gap between the top and lesser teams
>is contrived to appear smaller: COnsider 375 : 13 to 121 : 0
>
It does ? Perhaps that's just you. :)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
> On 14 Dec 2009 15:06:38 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:eac56717-70df-4c75-b935-eae8e8914a52
>>@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 12:17�pm, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's about money.
>>>> --
>>>> CatharticF1
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>Off the top of my head..
>>
>>Smaller teams getting points offers more value to sponsors.
>>
> How ?
It doesn't to me - you're the one thinking it a good idea..
I see it as BS.
> It is exposure that offers more value ot sponsors. In fact a
> driver who can spin off the track every 5th lap and manage to rejoin
> each time, offers excellent value for sponsors over the guy who comes
> 7th and is virtually never seen during the telecast. There were races
> when i was wondering if i missed something that took driver X out of
> the race, because i did not see a single shot of him right through the
> telecast.
>
>>The (previous) move to increase the proportion of the worth of second
>>and subsequent places extends the championship fight in a season where
>>one driver is dominant.
>>
> You mean like this season ? Button won 5 in the first 7 and it was all
> over. Despite him doing his best to screw it up and not winning
> another race, nobody really thought that Vettel(with 4 wins)will get
> him. And didn't.
Well that's just not correct: In any season with one driver dominating
keeping 2nd and down higher proportionally WILL keep the championship alive
longer. That's why it's there. You know our V8s points system, right?
>>High points totals are equated by the lowest common denominator with
>>excitement.
>> (consider the AFL.. And why watch a series that only awards 10 points
>> when in another the top two drivers have hundreds of points each!
>> Wow!!)
>>Complexity and the associated confusion is considered sophisticated
>>and
>
>>'closer'. When everyone has points the gap between the top and lesser
>>teams is contrived to appear smaller: COnsider 375 : 13 to 121 : 0
>>
> It does ? Perhaps that's just you. :)
Proportionally it becomes a very different equation.
larkim
> Frank Adam <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote innews:1mhbi5p797sp98sp8...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Dec 2009 15:06:38 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com>
I think you're right about the "feeling" about points. Apart from the
minor effect that having a few points as a lowly 4th, 5th etc points
finisher gets, consider the top three places:-
1st - 10 points / 25 points = 100%
2nd - 8 points / 20 points = 80%
3rd - 6 points / 15 points = 60%
The new points system changes nothing!! There's no bigger gap at the
top. The loser is the guy in 4th place, who previously scored 10%
fewer than the guy in 3rd, now scores 20% fewer points and has
therefore less of an ability to make an impact at the top. In a
"normal" season, we'll just see a couple of drivers clean away from
the pack and no-one with a hope in hell of catching them!
Matt
Bigbird
Bollocks, it makes little difference. A missed opportunity to come up
with something better, two years running.
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Bigbird
> Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:ca7785d2-d5ab-48a9...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > However that mechanism is not visible to the fans and to the casual
> > viewer. The one advantage that I can see of the new system is that
> > we don't have to sit at the pub and try to work out who has got the
> > most 7ths in order to figure if Campos Meta are ahead of USF1 in the
> > championship.
>
> But of course hardly anyone will care - and those who do will both
> have a good idea and know how to find out.
Fail.
Chad
What do you think would improve it?
I'd go with more difference between 1st/2nd and if they are going to make a
big change, points all the way down the grid.
I kind of liked that Fibonaci suggestion, where each position is worth the
sum of the points of the 2 behind them. Intuitively it feels right and would
see every car desperate to make up even 1 spot all the time. Although it
would result in 196,418 points for first in a 26 car field! :)
--
Chad
Frank Adam
wrote:
>>>It's about money.
>>>
>> It's pretty much the same as it was, they're just allowing more teams
>> to score.
>> If you think about it, if you put that "money" notion aside, it is a
>> valid way to increase interest and keep teams and fans motivated.
>
>It's time to bring the Olympics in to the modern era too.
>
Really ? So you agree that it should be treated as a series and not 17
individual races ? Becasue the only thing you can relate to F1 from
olympic games is the heptathlon where the winner of each race gets
points and an extra bottle of Gatorade.
In fact, to stop you insisting, we could just use the heptathlon
scoring formula. It is wonderfully designed and as far as i know never
been challenged by anyone as unfair. You won't like it though, it
doesn't fall on it's knees over a winner of a single race.
>So this new new addition will make the losers appear closer to the
>winners when viewd through this new filter. It will also increase the
>overall exposure of the rarified Olympics Medalists/Plaque
>Holders/Certificate recipients in the media. There will be magazine
>covers for people who once 'considered swimming a lap' and how close
>they were to this new expanded indicator of greatness.
>
>After all. Legends' greatness is only enhanced by putting a revolving
>door at the entry so that all you need to do is drunkenly stumble in as
>you walk past.
>
See all that and what was snipped may work on someone who merely
glanced at F1 once a year. However, the only people who matter as far
as sponsorship deals are concerned, are teams and sponsors. None of
which will fall for a "below 20.00" advertisement of an item selling
for 19.99. Neither will they see 10 points from a possible 400 as a
huge achievement. Your problem is that you are and were always fixated
on the winners and simply don't grasp the reasons for point systems.
>> Imagine if only the first three teams got points, what would be the
>> incentive for a Minardi to compete and a fan to take any interest ?
>
>No - I loved to see them do well but I would resent the idea of getting
>a pat on the head for 10th place. You can't provide a hollow reward
>where it isn't justified. It's about merit, achieving something, the
>reward is in reaching something you thought was beyond you or the
>pinnacle. Not suddenly believing your status has been elevated because
>by doing the same thing there's now a limp carrot for you.
>
It is you who believes that. A team who currently comes 4th all the
time, shouldn't be happy about a podium finish ?
A team needs morale boosts. A struggling team moving up the ladder
will always be looking at their last best result, when they reach a
point though, that point will be on the white board to urge them on.
You sound like you work for a government office. 9-5 then piss off
home. In proper teams incentive points are always set and doesn't
matter how they are reached, it is a moral boost.
>> Recall when Webber brought the car home in the points, it was like a
>> victory to them and that is good for the sport.
>
>You're feeding the other side. That was 5th place, right? And it meant
>something. It doesn't anymore because a point has been devalued.
>
What it meant was the same as what it meant to FI to get their first 1
point. Which is the same it will mean to any of the new teams that are
coming into F1 next year.
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
wrote:
Which part isn't correct ? Did Jenson win a single race after race 7 ?
Did you think MS would not take 04 after just 5 races ran ?
At what race, after race 7-8 did you really think that Kimi could
catch Alonso in '05 ?
Did '06 confuse you with having a close finish with both drivers
winning equal umber of races ? Perhaps '07 did with the first 4
drivers winning 5-4-4-3 and thus providing a close finish ?
IOW, WTF is your problem ?
>>>'closer'. When everyone has points the gap between the top and lesser
>>>teams is contrived to appear smaller: COnsider 375 : 13 to 121 : 0
>>>
>> It does ? Perhaps that's just you. :)
>
>Proportionally it becomes a very different equation.
>
Really ? So i guess a soccer match with 2:0 looks worse for the loser
than a 6:2. I think a team and their fans getting relegated due to a
goal difference may look at that differently than you.
So i say again, it's just you.
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
wrote:
>Bigbird wrote:
>> CatharticF1 wrote:
>>
>>> "Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>> news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> "The race winner will take 25 points, with 20 and 15 being awarded
>>>> for second and third places respectively. The next seven finishers
>>>> will score 10, 8, 6, 5, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively. It replaces
>>>> the current structure of the top eight drivers scoring 10, 8, 6, 5,
>>>> 4, 3, 2 and 1 point respectively and takes into account the
>>>> expansion of the grid to 13 teams for 2010."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/12/10279.html
>>>
>>> It's disappointing.
>>>
>>> The points system is imo on a gradual decline towards complexity over
>>> simplicity, prolonging the championship result over deserved merit,
>>> diminishing the worth and meaning of a point, and needlessly removing
>>> the ability to compare between generations.
>>>
>>
>> Bollocks, it makes little difference. A missed opportunity to come up
>> with something better, two years running.
>
>What do you think would improve it?
>
Nothing. It doesn't matter what system you put in, it will always be a
dumb system.
F1 is a series. In the series, a consistent winner will win the
series. A consistent second will come second and so on..
The result will always be based on the average of a drivers individual
race results. You can make it 1-2-3-4-5-6..26 and it will be the only
way to find the car/driver with best *average* performance over the
series. Or you can award more points for a win, but that is already
artificial.
>I'd go with more difference between 1st/2nd and if they are going to make a
>big change, points all the way down the grid.
>
>I kind of liked that Fibonaci suggestion, where each position is worth the
>sum of the points of the 2 behind them. Intuitively it feels right and would
>see every car desperate to make up even 1 spot all the time. Although it
>would result in 196,418 points for first in a 26 car field! :)
>
Turn it into a year long Rally meet with each race being a single
stage.. Job done. 'After 6 races it is Hamilton with 09:35:27.736
closely followed by Massa on 09:32:48.534' :-)
--
Regards, Frank
Bigbird
> way to find the car/driver with best average performance over the
> series. Or you can award more points for a win, but that is already
> artificial.
>
> > I'd go with more difference between 1st/2nd and if they are going
> > to make a big change, points all the way down the grid.
> >
> > I kind of liked that Fibonaci suggestion, where each position is
> > worth the sum of the points of the 2 behind them. Intuitively it
> > feels right and would see every car desperate to make up even 1
> > spot all the time. Although it would result in 196,418 points for
> > first in a 26 car field! :)
> >
> Turn it into a year long Rally meet with each race being a single
> stage.. Job done. 'After 6 races it is Hamilton with 09:35:27.736
> closely followed by Massa on 09:32:48.534' :-)
>
followed?
Bigbird
I don't think we need any radical changes. I do prefer widening the gap
to first, I also prefer to see point go further down the field to make
it simple to differentiate the midfield teams performances. Most teams
should have something to fight for. I don't understand arguments to the
contrary.
(cut and paste from my response to a similar thread recently)
25 points for a win is a good starting point from which they have
fallen into the trap of making things look "pretty". No doubt they
consider it less confusing than something more sensible, IMO, like
25,18,14,11,9,7,5,3,2,1
which is aesthetically displeasing an for some reason confusing to
people compared to
25,20,15,10,8,6,4,3,2,1
(3 obvious interlaced sequences that almost appear to be one)
which is only one digit different to what is reported, a digit that
people are already complaining about.
Bigbird
> Chad wrote:
>
> > Bigbird wrote:
> > > CatharticF1 wrote:
> > >
> > >>"Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > in
> > > > news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.googlegrou
> > > > ps .com
Actually contrary to what I wrote then I now realise they were trying
not to change anything except the number (not the proportion) of teams
which may earn points. As a proportion of finishers it is probably
little change at all over many years.
The FOTA proposal of 12,9,7... doesn't appear to have been reconsidered.
Frank Adam
<Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>> Turn it into a year long Rally meet with each race being a single
>> stage.. Job done. 'After 6 races it is Hamilton with 09:35:27.736
>> closely followed by Massa on 09:32:48.534' :-)
>>
>
>followed?
>
Hm.. Would anyone buy it if i said i was counting on him DSQ-ed for
driving a cheat ridden Ferrari ? ;)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
Full of McLaren IP sourced from Italy presumably.. :)
Chad
Yeah it's not a bad change, but your right that an opportunity was lost if
that FOTA proposal wasnt considered.
--
Chad
CatharticF1
news:xn0giw9az...@news.individual.net:
As someone who had that view let me explain: You're wrong. :)
I suppose there are 3 reasons for my feeling that way.
1. Historical comparison and change to what is familiar and feels right.
2. That points are devalued in meaning when they are give @ 10th rather
than 6th.
3. That the points systems typicaly proposed erode the winner's
advantage. The olympics has a lot of merit in my mind.
That having been said, I could very happily accept this in a fairer form
and if this was *truly* what it was about the points system would have
changed in 2003 to:
100
60
40
30
20
10
5
3
2
1
But the 'commercial realites' will continually insist on sharing out a
greater proportion to the lower ranks to 'keep it interesting' and this
is what I dislike mot of all.
CatharticF1
@news.individual.net:
Apologies for not considering your case specifically.
CatharticF1
> On 14 Dec 2009 15:59:24 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>It's about money.
>>>>
>>> It's pretty much the same as it was, they're just allowing more teams
>>> to score.
>>> If you think about it, if you put that "money" notion aside, it is a
>>> valid way to increase interest and keep teams and fans motivated.
>>
>>It's time to bring the Olympics in to the modern era too.
>>
> Really ? So you agree that it should be treated as a series and not 17
> individual races ? Becasue the only thing you can relate to F1 from
> olympic games is the heptathlon where the winner of each race gets
> points and an extra bottle of Gatorade.
> In fact, to stop you insisting, we could just use the heptathlon
> scoring formula. It is wonderfully designed and as far as i know never
> been challenged by anyone as unfair. You won't like it though, it
> doesn't fall on it's knees over a winner of a single race.
Don't know the formula no .. but of course it's not a good analog because
there are different disciplines.
>>So this new new addition will make the losers appear closer to the
>>winners when viewd through this new filter. It will also increase the
>>overall exposure of the rarified Olympics Medalists/Plaque
>>Holders/Certificate recipients in the media. There will be magazine
>>covers for people who once 'considered swimming a lap' and how close
>>they were to this new expanded indicator of greatness.
>>
>>After all. Legends' greatness is only enhanced by putting a revolving
>>door at the entry so that all you need to do is drunkenly stumble in as
>>you walk past.
>>
> See all that and what was snipped may work on someone who merely
> glanced at F1 once a year. However, the only people who matter as far
> as sponsorship deals are concerned, are teams and sponsors. None of
> which will fall for a "below 20.00" advertisement of an item selling
> for 19.99. Neither will they see 10 points from a possible 400 as a
> huge achievement. Your problem is that you are and were always fixated
> on the winners and simply don't grasp the reasons for point systems.
Yes I am - and I believe the primary purpose of the system should be to
most fairly determine the winner, second and lower places are of
diminishing importance. I can see that it's possible to do both. Can you
see the hidden agenda though - to delay the mathematical certainty of the
champion even if it is more likely to get the wrong result? (Our V8
points system here for example).
Remember what Max said in 2003 after Schu won but because of the points
system it could have been Kimi?
"But that's the price you pay for a system that makes it interesting."
>>> Imagine if only the first three teams got points, what would be the
>>> incentive for a Minardi to compete and a fan to take any interest ?
>>
>>No - I loved to see them do well but I would resent the idea of getting
>>a pat on the head for 10th place. You can't provide a hollow reward
>>where it isn't justified. It's about merit, achieving something, the
>>reward is in reaching something you thought was beyond you or the
>>pinnacle. Not suddenly believing your status has been elevated because
>>by doing the same thing there's now a limp carrot for you.
>>
> It is you who believes that. A team who currently comes 4th all the
> time, shouldn't be happy about a podium finish ?
Yes - but that doesn't mean we should just add a step to the podium, does
it?
> A team needs morale boosts. A struggling team moving up the ladder
> will always be looking at their last best result, when they reach a
> point though, that point will be on the white board to urge them on.
> You sound like you work for a government office. 9-5 then piss off
> home. In proper teams incentive points are always set and doesn't
> matter how they are reached, it is a moral boost.
I don't disagree, just the extent to which you do that and whether you
fervently believe there needs to be a reward to make 20th feel better
than 21st..
>>> Recall when Webber brought the car home in the points, it was like a
>>> victory to them and that is good for the sport.
>>
>>You're feeding the other side. That was 5th place, right? And it meant
>>something. It doesn't anymore because a point has been devalued.
>>
> What it meant was the same as what it meant to FI to get their first 1
> point. Which is the same it will mean to any of the new teams that are
> coming into F1 next year.
I don't think that's true - I think a point will be a *lot* less exciting
than it was at that time.
CatharticF1
Your denial of mathematical fact :)
The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it takes for
the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my point.
>>>>'closer'. When everyone has points the gap between the top and
>>>>lesser teams is contrived to appear smaller: COnsider 375 : 13 to
>>>>121 : 0
>>>>
>>> It does ? Perhaps that's just you. :)
>>
>>Proportionally it becomes a very different equation.
>>
> Really ? So i guess a soccer match with 2:0 looks worse for the loser
> than a 6:2. I think a team and their fans getting relegated due to a
> goal difference may look at that differently than you.
> So i say again, it's just you.
As someone who likes the big numbers in AFL I'd suggest you're biassed :)
Big numbers are more impressive than smaller ones. It's another reason
why this is happening.
Chad
If it doesn't change the end result, how is that a bad thing for anyone?
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
> Bigbird wrote:
> > Chad wrote:
>
> > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > CatharticF1 wrote:
>
The new points system was proposed by the F1 Commission and ratified
by FIA.
According to a press release on the FIA web site "chaired by
Commission President Bernie Ecclestone and with FIA President Jean
Todt in attendance, the F1 Commission is made up of key championship
stakeholders from F1 teams, promoters, suppliers and sponsors."
This is the same mechanism by which the name change of the Brawn
chassis to Mercedes was proposed and then ratified by FIA.
FIA did not simply impose their own idea unilaterally.
See
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/F1Commission.aspx
CatharticF1
> CatharticF1 wrote:
>> Your denial of mathematical fact :)
>> The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it takes
>> for the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my point.
>>
>
> If it doesn't change the end result, how is that a bad thing for
> anyone?
>
Oh it's bad because it *might* change the result. There are many
championships where you could win 90% of the races and not be champion.
Chad
> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in
> news:4b270400$1...@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> CatharticF1 wrote:
>
>>> Your denial of mathematical fact :)
>>> The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it takes
>>> for the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my point.
>>>
>>
>> If it doesn't change the end result, how is that a bad thing for
>> anyone?
>>
>
> Oh it's bad because it *might* change the result. There are many
> championships where you could win 90% of the races and not be
> champion.
Yeahbut.. *if* it doesn't change it, then it's all positive isn't it? And
that does sound like what they are attempting to do.
I might be over-simplfying here, but giving an extra 1 to 5 points for minor
positions 4th-10th, whilst moving the podium positions up by 9 to 15 points
sounds like it will give reliable mid field runners less chance of upsetting
a less consistent front runner to me too.
--
Chad
CatharticF1
> CatharticF1 wrote:
>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in
>> news:4b270400$1...@news.x-privat.org:
>>
>>> CatharticF1 wrote:
>>
>>>> Your denial of mathematical fact :)
>>>> The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it
>>>> takes for the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it doesn't change the end result, how is that a bad thing for
>>> anyone?
>>>
>>
>> Oh it's bad because it *might* change the result. There are many
>> championships where you could win 90% of the races and not be
>> champion.
>
> Yeahbut.. *if* it doesn't change it, then it's all positive isn't it?
> And that does sound like what they are attempting to do.
Look at the Aussie V8 series.
Let's take 10 races - you get 1350 points for the 9 races you win
(9 x 150).
Another driver gets 10 second places - 1380 points.
(109 x 138).
And wins!
This is what we need to be aware of, because organisers LOVE this sort of
BS where the points system is designed not for the purpose you expect..
> I might be over-simplfying here, but giving an extra 1 to 5 points for
> minor positions 4th-10th, whilst moving the podium positions up by 9
> to 15 points sounds like it will give reliable mid field runners less
> chance of upsetting a less consistent front runner to me too.
Yes it could do that - but it doesn't, does it? It should be:
100
60
40
30
20
10
5
3
2
1
--
Frank Adam
wrote:
>> It is you who believes that. A team who currently comes 4th all the
>> time, shouldn't be happy about a podium finish ?
>
>Yes - but that doesn't mean we should just add a step to the podium, does
>it?
>
I'll give you that, but the top order doesn't change in the proposed
system.
>> What it meant was the same as what it meant to FI to get their first 1
>> point. Which is the same it will mean to any of the new teams that are
>> coming into F1 next year.
>
>I don't think that's true - I think a point will be a *lot* less exciting
>than it was at that time.
>
In fact it will be a higher achievement. You have to think of both
ends of the field.
Think about it. Force India had to beat 12 cars from the 20 on the
grid to get that 1 point. How many will Campos have to beat for one
point ?
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
> On 15 Dec 2009 14:02:44 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>>> What it meant was the same as what it meant to FI to get their first
>>> 1 point. Which is the same it will mean to any of the new teams that
>>> are coming into F1 next year.
>>
>>I don't think that's true - I think a point will be a *lot* less
>>exciting than it was at that time.
>>
> In fact it will be a higher achievement. You have to think of both
> ends of the field.
> Think about it. Force India had to beat 12 cars from the 20 on the
> grid to get that 1 point. How many will Campos have to beat for one
> point ?
I take your point, 6th place will be harder to get than with less cars it's
true. But I don't think McLaren and Ferrari will be as happy with 10th as
they would have been with 6th. If happy is the right word. :)
Frank Adam
wrote:
>> Which part isn't correct ? Did Jenson win a single race after race 7 ?
>>
>> Did you think MS would not take 04 after just 5 races ran ?
>> At what race, after race 7-8 did you really think that Kimi could
>> catch Alonso in '05 ?
>> Did '06 confuse you with having a close finish with both drivers
>> winning equal umber of races ? Perhaps '07 did with the first 4
>> drivers winning 5-4-4-3 and thus providing a close finish ?
>> IOW, WTF is your problem ?
>
>Your denial of mathematical fact :)
>The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it takes for
>the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my point.
>
What ? If you give 50 points for a win and just 10 for a second, how
would the above mentioned results change ?
A true winner of a series is based on average results. If your average
results are better than Joe's than *on average* you are the better
man. It doesn't matter how many times Joe fluked a win.
Remember what i said abotu the ambulance drivers ? If one beats the
other 6 times but kills the car and patient the other four times, the
other guy who delivered the patient alive all 10 times is the winner.
F1(or any motor racing) is not only a speed event but an endurance
event as well. "To finish first, first you have to finish".
Why not penalise a driver who can't finish consistently ?
>>>>>'closer'. When everyone has points the gap between the top and
>>>>>lesser teams is contrived to appear smaller: COnsider 375 : 13 to
>>>>>121 : 0
>>>>>
>>>> It does ? Perhaps that's just you. :)
>>>
>>>Proportionally it becomes a very different equation.
>>>
>> Really ? So i guess a soccer match with 2:0 looks worse for the loser
>> than a 6:2. I think a team and their fans getting relegated due to a
>> goal difference may look at that differently than you.
>> So i say again, it's just you.
>
>As someone who likes the big numbers in AFL I'd suggest you're biassed :)
>Big numbers are more impressive than smaller ones. It's another reason
>why this is happening.
>
Hey, i was a soccer player and still an avid follower of the EPL.
There are no small numbers or big numbers. You either scrore enough to
win the series or you don't.
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
wrote:
Schumacher would. Which year was it when he cautiously strolled home
in 7th(i think) to get the title ? Reckon he'd have loved just as much
to come 10th and still get the silver ware. :)
--
Regards, Frank
Chad
Tony Cochrane thinks NASCAR knows the way I think. I'm losing interest in
V8s fast in the 3 years.
>> I might be over-simplfying here, but giving an extra 1 to 5 points
>> for minor positions 4th-10th, whilst moving the podium positions up
>> by 9 to 15 points sounds like it will give reliable mid field
>> runners less chance of upsetting a less consistent front runner to
>> me too.
>
> Yes it could do that - but it doesn't, does it? It should be:
>
> 100
> 60
> 40
> 30
> 20
> 10
> 5
> 3
> 2
> 1
I must be bored, thought I would see if your system changed anything at the
top.
Button(95) 723
Vettel(84) 633
Webber(69.5) 554 (would be third on countback with more 2nd placings)
Rubens(77) 554
--
Chad
Frank Adam
wrote:
>"Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in news:4b27...@news.x-privat.org:
>
>> CatharticF1 wrote:
>>> "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b270400$1...@news.x-privat.org:
>>>
>>>> CatharticF1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Your denial of mathematical fact :)
>>>>> The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it
>>>>> takes for the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my
>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't change the end result, how is that a bad thing for
>>>> anyone?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh it's bad because it *might* change the result. There are many
>>> championships where you could win 90% of the races and not be
>>> champion.
>>
>> Yeahbut.. *if* it doesn't change it, then it's all positive isn't it?
>> And that does sound like what they are attempting to do.
>
>
>Look at the Aussie V8 series.
>
>Let's take 10 races - you get 1350 points for the 9 races you win
>(9 x 150).
>Another driver gets 10 second places - 1380 points.
>(109 x 138).
>And wins!
>
And this happened how many times ?
You are trying to dispute an average based system by applying the
least possible average. How many of the last 5 years V8 series winners
didn't deserve to win it ?
>This is what we need to be aware of, because organisers LOVE this sort of
>BS where the points system is designed not for the purpose you expect..
>
>> I might be over-simplfying here, but giving an extra 1 to 5 points for
>> minor positions 4th-10th, whilst moving the podium positions up by 9
>> to 15 points sounds like it will give reliable mid field runners less
>> chance of upsetting a less consistent front runner to me too.
>
>Yes it could do that - but it doesn't, does it? It should be:
>
>100
>60
>40
>30
>20
>10
>5
>3
>2
>1
>
Yes. If you are fixated on the winner, of course. :)
Look, second place is always a great result, because if you can beat
the guy next time he would have to be in second place and if he is
not, he'd have lost ground on you. Is that ok with you to take the
third, 4th,etc.. places as a decider towards the final result ? Why ?
If winning is all that matters, what's the use of a point system, we
might as well just give 1 point to the winner and be done with it.
The title goes to X on 5 points with Y trailing on 4. Done.
The fact the X finished in 16th place all season long, apart from the
5 wins, is secondary. He must be the most worthy champion, since he
won 5 times and that stumbling git Y winning 4 times and finishing
better in each other race(but 5), is obviously just a second rate
driver..
Come off it, FFS. Every driver has the exact same point system to work
with. There is no handicap, no point deduction for style. if you got
the most points, you've had to have done better than the others.
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
> On 15 Dec 2009 14:09:12 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Which part isn't correct ? Did Jenson win a single race after race 7
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Did you think MS would not take 04 after just 5 races ran ?
>>> At what race, after race 7-8 did you really think that Kimi could
>>> catch Alonso in '05 ?
>>> Did '06 confuse you with having a close finish with both drivers
>>> winning equal umber of races ? Perhaps '07 did with the first 4
>>> drivers winning 5-4-4-3 and thus providing a close finish ?
>>> IOW, WTF is your problem ?
>>
>>Your denial of mathematical fact :)
>>The higher proportion you give to 2nd and lower, the longer it takes
>>for the driver perpetually winning to be confirmed. That's my point.
>>
> What ? If you give 50 points for a win and just 10 for a second, how
> would the above mentioned results change ?
As I just posted:
Look at the Aussie V8 series where one driver wins 9 out of 10 and then
DNFs.
10 races - 1350 points for the 9 wins
(9 x 150).
Another driver gets 10 second places - 1380 points.
(10 x 138).
And wins!
> A true winner of a series is based on average results. If your average
> results are better than Joe's than *on average* you are the better
> man. It doesn't matter how many times Joe fluked a win.
That's just not true, Frank - it certainly isn't in the above example.
It's only true if the points system reflects it.
> Remember what i said abotu the ambulance drivers ? If one beats the
> other 6 times but kills the car and patient the other four times, the
> other guy who delivered the patient alive all 10 times is the winner.
OK - philosophical difference I suppose because this is motor racing,
not a delivery service. You plainly don't believe someone finishing
every race in last position should win the championship over the winner
of every race - but one. But just how much weight are you giving 'just
finishing'? Heck - weren't you a JPM fan!? :)
> F1(or any motor racing) is not only a speed event but an endurance
> event as well. "To finish first, first you have to finish".
> Why not penalise a driver who can't finish consistently ?
You really should just get a live feed to Fed Ex vans :)
CatharticF1
So wait until the reality matches the possibility and then what? :)
> You are trying to dispute an average based system by applying the
> least possible average. How many of the last 5 years V8 series winners
> didn't deserve to win it ?
Check the year Rick Kelly beat Lowndes...
>>This is what we need to be aware of, because organisers LOVE this sort
>>of BS where the points system is designed not for the purpose you
>>expect..
>>
>
>>> I might be over-simplfying here, but giving an extra 1 to 5 points
>>> for minor positions 4th-10th, whilst moving the podium positions up
>>> by 9 to 15 points sounds like it will give reliable mid field
>>> runners less chance of upsetting a less consistent front runner to
>>> me too.
>>
>>Yes it could do that - but it doesn't, does it? It should be:
>>
>>100
>>60
>>40
>>30
>>20
>>10
>>5
>>3
>>2
>>1
>>
> Yes. If you are fixated on the winner, of course. :)
Of course! Who isn't? How many 2nd places can you remember from last
season, hmm? (I won't believe you without seeing you actually recall,
no..)
> Look, second place is always a great result, because if you can beat
> the guy next time he would have to be in second place and if he is
> not, he'd have lost ground on you. Is that ok with you to take the
> third, 4th,etc.. places as a decider towards the final result ? Why ?
> If winning is all that matters, what's the use of a point system, we
> might as well just give 1 point to the winner and be done with it.
Which is better than the current Aussie V8s.
You seem to think ANY points system is automatically OK.
> The title goes to X on 5 points with Y trailing on 4. Done.
> The fact the X finished in 16th place all season long, apart from the
> 5 wins, is secondary. He must be the most worthy champion, since he
> won 5 times and that stumbling git Y winning 4 times and finishing
> better in each other race(but 5), is obviously just a second rate
> driver..
There is wonderful elegant simplicity to this, but I'm not saying it's
ideal. And I'm giving ground here - I've awarded points down to 10th
place and kept some proportion.
> Come off it, FFS. Every driver has the exact same point system to work
> with.
You really do think ANY points system is OK!
This is BS Frank - the idea that no matter what the points system, they-
all-know-what-it-is-so-the-result-will-be-fair is utterly wrong.
> There is no handicap, no point deduction for style. if you got
> the most points, you've had to have done better than the others.
If you genuinely think a points system that delivers the championship to
a driver who loses out to his competitor 9 times out of 10 is 'fine'
we're at an impasse.
Bigbird
Your claim is generally flawed.
On what do you base your claim that hardly anyone will care about the
performance of most of the teams?
Most former Minardi fans would disagree with you strongly for starters.
I'm sure the lower performing teams will also have plenty of fans and
most of those would likely disagree with you too.
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 7:14�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bigbird wrote:
> > > Chad wrote:
> >
> > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >
> > > > >>"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca>
> > > > wrote in
> > > > > > news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.google
> > > > > > grou ps .com
Another strawman.
It is one thing to attempt to contradict something I have said but all
these replies that contradict things I have not claimed are becoming
tedious.
Bigbird
Fail.
The current system has only been in place a few years. The system has
been changed many times as has the competition. Statistics lose value
over time. The points system should not be hostage to history but be
the most suitable for the current configuration.
Historically what proportion of finishers have been recognised by the
points system?
> 2. That points are devalued in meaning when they are give @
> 10th rather than 6th.
Fail.
Ignoring the relative performance up to two thirds of the finishers
devalues the performances of most of the teams on the grid.
> 3. That the points systems typicaly proposed erode the winner's
> advantage. The olympics has a lot of merit in my mind.
Fail.
You assume a poor system. That is plainly a failed argument.
In the new system 10th place gets just 1/25th of a win. The impact on
the winner gap of 24 points, even over 20 races, is minimal.
>
> That having been said, I could very happily accept this in a fairer
> form and if this was truly what it was about the points system would
> have changed in 2003 to:
>
> 100
> 60
> 40
> 30
> 20
> 10
> 5
> 3
> 2
> 1
>
Thus undermining your own points above. Very good.
What it really comes down to is not how far down the order the points
go but that the higher performing teams/drivers are suitably rewarded
in relative terms.
Perhaps rather than inventing false arguments you should have taken
this line which incidentally, if it is not already obvious, I agree to
to an extent.
> But the 'commercial realites' will continually insist on sharing out
> a greater proportion to the lower ranks to 'keep it interesting' and
> this is what I dislike mot of all.
--
Patrick Texier
> The points system is imo on a gradual decline towards complexity over
> simplicity, prolonging the championship result over deserved merit,
> diminishing the worth and meaning of a point, and needlessly removing the
> ability to compare between generations.
Yes, we have now 25=10=9=8.
To compare results since 1950, I'll use only the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system
(1961-1990). It's usefull to keep real points but not possible to add
new system.
I have to store:
- real points 1950-2009
- real points 2010-
- total points 1950-
--
Patrick Texier
vim:syntax=mail:ai:ts=4:et:tw=72
Frank Adam
wrote:
>You really do think ANY points system is OK!
>This is BS Frank - the idea that no matter what the points system, they-
>all-know-what-it-is-so-the-result-will-be-fair is utterly wrong.
>
I guess that makes Germany the winner of WWII.. after all, they only
lost a few, but won heaps. :)
>> There is no handicap, no point deduction for style. if you got
>> the most points, you've had to have done better than the others.
>
>If you genuinely think a points system that delivers the championship to
>a driver who loses out to his competitor 9 times out of 10 is 'fine'
>we're at an impasse.
>
Again, if you want to only honor winning stages, then there is no
reason for a system.
For any system you care to provide i can give you a bad outcome if i
go as nutty with the possibilities as you did with your 10 wins and 9
2nds dream scenario. And i'm sitting here waiting on a reply as to how
often you have seen this occur.
In fact, let's see your preferred 10-6 system over an 18 race season.
Driver 'A' wins 12, driver 'B' comes 2nd 12 times and wins the
remaining 5. WTF ? How can a driver win 3/4 of all races and lose the
title ? Your system sucks goats !
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
wrote:
>> F1(or any motor racing) is not only a speed event but an endurance
>> event as well. "To finish first, first you have to finish".
>> Why not penalise a driver who can't finish consistently ?
>
>You really should just get a live feed to Fed Ex vans :)
>
Here is a simple example for you to understad why winning should not
be the ultimate goal.
You beat me by .2 seconds in one race, i absolutely bury you by a
minute in the next race. Which one of us has the bragging rights ?
--
Regards, Frank
Bob Dubery
>
> Another strawman.
>
> It is one thing to attempt to contradict something I have said but all
> these replies that contradict things I have not claimed are becoming
> tedious.
Let's state it in more general terms.
You have asserted that the team's proposed scoring system was not
given any consideration, or did not appear to have been considered.
Which may or may not be. Nobody seems to have anything to prove or
disprove that that proposal was considered.
I'm saying that the teams were represented on the F1 Commission which
proposed this system to FIA (which is documented) and that FIA
accepted and enacted the Commission's proposal (which is documented).
So the problem is?????
Bigbird
> As someone who likes the big numbers in AFL I'd suggest you're
> biassed :) Big numbers are more impressive than smaller ones. It's
> another reason why this is happening.
Rubbish, you can't have it both ways.
If the numbers don't get bigger then you increase the ration for lower
scoring positions. Unless you are endorsing half and quarter points and
backing yourself further into that corner.
Bigbird
> Frank Adam <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
> news:ggsci5561a6rfokh6...@4ax.com:
>
> > On 14 Dec 2009 16:04:34 GMT, "Bigbird"
> > <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Turn it into a year long Rally meet with each race being a single
> >>> stage.. Job done. 'After 6 races it is Hamilton with 09:35:27.736
> >>> closely followed by Massa on 09:32:48.534' :-)
> >>>
> > >
> > > followed?
> > >
> > Hm.. Would anyone buy it if i said i was counting on him DSQ-ed for
> > driving a cheat ridden Ferrari ? ;)
>
> Full of McLaren IP sourced from Italy presumably.. :)
...from a cheating Ferrari employee.
<sigh>
Bigbird
> On Dec 15, 11:40�am, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 7:14�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > Chad wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > > > > > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca>
> > > > > > wrote in
> > > > > > > > news:e7593666-62a2-4bf4...@p30g2000vbt.go
> > > > > > > > ogle grou ps .com
That grandma can suck eggs...
...there's no need to demonstrate sucking dick.
Bob Dubery
> http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/12/10279.html
Is that supposed to add something to the debate? All it tells us, vis
a vis point scoring, is that the WMSC ratified a proposal to have 25
points for a win etc etc.
> That grandma can suck eggs...
>
> ...there's no need to demonstrate sucking dick.
And I wouldn't want you to. Even if this were a binary group.
larkim
> CatharticF1 wrote:
> > "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:xn0giw9az...@news.individual.net:
>
> > > Chad wrote:
>
> > >> Bigbird wrote:
> > >> > CatharticF1 wrote:
>
The reality is that changing the points system should be done to
change materially the way races happen. But with hindsight we can see
that this year's results and last years results (for the top three in
the DWC) would be unaffected by the proposed changes. No-one cares
who came 4th+ at the end of the season (certainly not for much longer
than the table is displayed on the TV coverage of the final race in
the year).
If they really wanted to change things, they should have started with
making the proportionate gap between 1st, 2nd and 3rd different than
the current (and new) 20% / 20% / 20% gaps. Anything less will just
tinker with the minor placings.
Matt
CatharticF1
news:xn0gixchg...@news.individual.net:
> CatharticF1 wrote:
>> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in
<snip>
>> > I don't think we need any radical changes. I do prefer widening the
>> > gap to first, I also prefer to see point go further down the field
>> > to make it simple to differentiate the midfield teams performances.
>> > Most teams should have something to fight for. I don't understand
>> > arguments to the contrary.
>>
>> As someone who had that view let me explain: You're wrong. :)
>>
>> I suppose there are 3 reasons for my feeling that way.
>>
>> 1. Historical comparison and change to what is familiar and feels
>> right.
>
> Fail.
I see you've discovered a new word and likely the blog page where you can
see many of your aspirations and perhaps some of your achievements.
But the point you missed is that this is me explaining why I *feel* the
way I do. The idea that you can presume to say I'm wrong says not a
little about your comprehension and a lot about your need to play the put
-down card perpetually.
<snip>
>> That having been said, I could very happily accept this in a fairer
>> form and if this was truly what it was about the points system would
>> have changed in 2003 to:
>>
>> 100
>> 60
>> 40
>> 30
>> 20
>> 10
>> 5
>> 3
>> 2
>> 1
>>
>
> Thus undermining your own points above. Very good.
>
> What it really comes down to is not how far down the order the points
> go but that the higher performing teams/drivers are suitably rewarded
> in relative terms.
>
> Perhaps rather than inventing false arguments you should have taken
> this line which incidentally, if it is not already obvious, I agree to
> to an extent.
Well at least you had part of a discussion :)
CatharticF1
As none of the alternatives we've been discussing address that, it's
immaterial. Something worth considering yes, but the presence of the SC
alone makes that more tenuous.
Frank Adam
wrote:
Would that be a red SC in the shape of a herring ? :)
--
Regards, Frank
Chad
I thought the .2 v 1 minute was the red herring! Neither of them have
bragging rights, the score is 1 all.
--
Chad
CatharticF1
Umm - no. How exactly does your preference for a points system do a
better job of dealing with margins than mine?
Bigbird
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in
> news:xn0gixchg...@news.individual.net:
>
> > CatharticF1 wrote:
> >> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > I don't think we need any radical changes. I do prefer widening
> the >> > gap to first, I also prefer to see point go further down the
> field >> > to make it simple to differentiate the midfield teams
> performances. >> > Most teams should have something to fight for. I
> don't understand >> > arguments to the contrary.
> >>
> >> As someone who had that view let me explain: You're wrong. :)
> >>
> >> I suppose there are 3 reasons for my feeling that way.
> >>
> >> 1. Historical comparison and change to what is familiar and feels
> >> right.
> >
> > Fail.
>
> I see you've discovered a new word and likely the blog page where you
> can see many of your aspirations and perhaps some of your
> achievements.
>
> But the point you missed is that this is me explaining why I feel the
> way I do. The idea that you can presume to say I'm wrong says not a
> little about your comprehension and a lot about your need to play the
> put -down card perpetually.
>
You're logic fails the test, that is what I pointed out.
That you admit it was purely emotional response explains a lot.
Bigbird
That's what matters to you but not to those finishing half way down the
field. You may feel it's okay to ignore their achievement but not
everybody does.
> But with hindsight we can see
> that this year's results and last years results (for the top three in
> the DWC) would be unaffected by the proposed changes. No-one cares
> who came 4th+ at the end of the season (certainly not for much longer
> than the table is displayed on the TV coverage of the final race in
> the year).
>
> If they really wanted to change things, they should have started with
> making the proportionate gap between 1st, 2nd and 3rd different than
> the current (and new) 20% / 20% / 20% gaps. Anything less will just
> tinker with the minor placings.
>
Well many of us would like to have seen that. I expressed above my
disappointment that they failed two years running to implement what
appears to be a popular reversal.
Frank Adam
wrote:
>Frank Adam <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
>news:6nggi55v3jpc445nn...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 16 Dec 2009 12:59:39 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Adam <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
>>>news:kfpei5tmijf8dmf67...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 15 Dec 2009 18:02:57 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> F1(or any motor racing) is not only a speed event but an endurance
>>>>>> event as well. "To finish first, first you have to finish".
>>>>>> Why not penalise a driver who can't finish consistently ?
>>>>>
>>>>>You really should just get a live feed to Fed Ex vans :)
>>>>>
>>>> Here is a simple example for you to understad why winning should not
>>>> be the ultimate goal.
>>>> You beat me by .2 seconds in one race, i absolutely bury you by a
>>>> minute in the next race. Which one of us has the bragging rights ?
>>>
>>>As none of the alternatives we've been discussing address that, it's
>>>immaterial. Something worth considering yes, but the presence of the SC
>>>alone makes that more tenuous.
>>>
>> Would that be a red SC in the shape of a herring ? :)
>
>Umm - no. How exactly does your preference for a points system do a
>better job of dealing with margins than mine?
>
Perhaps you dont understand the conversation ?
If you haven't noticed, we are in fact talking about the merit of a
win. Take that merit out of your system and you no longer have a
problem.
If you can specify what makes the winner's achivement to a second
place finisher better than a 4th place finisher's achievement to a 5th
placed one, then i may look up.
No system will give a true result of a driver's performance over 18
races(apart from the 1,2,3,4..), so whether the system is contrived to
give the winner a leg up or to give the midfield a leg up makes no
difference. It is still a leg up.
--
Regards, Frank
larkim
> larkim wrote:
>
> > The reality is that changing the points system should be done to
> > change materially the way races happen.
>
> That's what matters to you but not to those finishing half way down the
> field. You may feel it's okay to ignore their achievement but not
> everybody does.
>
No, I don't think (feel?) its OK to ignore their achievement, but I do
think / feel that if the FIA wanted to make a change that would
particularly affect the lower performing drivers / teams then they
should have been explicit about saying so, and been up front about
saying "of course, this would have no effect on the overall
championship".
My logic is that in an individual race it is easy to give credit for a
good performance, without necessarily awarding points - "e.g. didn't
xxxxx do well to bring the xxxxxx car in 10th". The team know they
did well, the "pitlane" know they did well, (well informed) TV viewers
know they did well - it is recognised. I also think that over a year
enough points are given out to recognise the relative positions of the
drivers, and even without points its not outwith the wit of man to
order the table based on finishing positions rather than the alphabet,
thus recognising the relative positions of all drivers in all teams.
Clearly the only reason they are changing the points is to recognise
that with additional cars on the grid next year there would be more
drivers teams with "nul points" at the end of the season if you only
give out points to the top 8 finishers. Which is overall why I'm
surprised that this subject has prompted so much debate:-
- they haven't changed the likely outcome of the championship
- they have only affected at the margins the overall result of lower
placed positions
To be honest, I really just wish they'd leave well alone - it works as
it is!
Matt
Bigbird
> On Dec 16, 6:42�am, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > larkim wrote:
> >
> > > The reality is that changing the points system should be done to
> > > change materially the way races happen. �
> >
> > That's what matters to you but not to those finishing half way down
> > the field. You may feel it's okay to ignore their achievement but
> > not everybody does.
> >
>
> No, I don't think (feel?) its OK to ignore their achievement, but I do
> think / feel that if the FIA wanted to make a change that would
> particularly affect the lower performing drivers / teams then they
> should have been explicit about saying so, and been up front about
> saying "of course, this would have no effect on the overall
> championship".
>
Why?
They said "Due to the expanded grid of 13 teams..."
Is that not explicit enough?
> My logic is that in an individual race it is easy to give credit for a
> good performance, without necessarily awarding points - "e.g. didn't
> xxxxx do well to bring the xxxxxx car in 10th". The team know they
> did well, the "pitlane" know they did well, (well informed) TV viewers
> know they did well - it is recognised.
Not in the tables it's not. Not by FOM when it comes to sharing out the
goodies it's not.
A single 8th place will trash all the 9ths and 10ths another team
achieves.
> I also think that over a year
> enough points are given out to recognise the relative positions of the
> drivers, and even without points its not outwith the wit of man to
> order the table based on finishing positions rather than the alphabet,
> thus recognising the relative positions of all drivers in all teams.
>
So how would you do it other than by highest position achieved as it is
done now?
> Clearly the only reason they are changing the points is to recognise
> that with additional cars on the grid next year there would be more
> drivers teams with "nul points" at the end of the season if you only
> give out points to the top 8 finishers. Which is overall why I'm
> surprised that this subject has prompted so much debate:-
> - they haven't changed the likely outcome of the championship
> - they have only affected at the margins the overall result of lower
> placed positions
>
Quite. Some of the debate relates to the problem that Brenda has
acknowledging this.
> To be honest, I really just wish they'd leave well alone - it works as
> it is!
>
I guess it's not all about you. ;)
build
G'day Birdy,
Largely agree but
> Not in the tables it's not. Not by FOM when it comes to sharing out the
> goodies it's not.
I believe the goodies are not shared out on points.
beers,
build
Bigbird
On what basis do you believe they are shared out?
What influence does the points system have on that?
build
> build wrote:
> > G'day Birdy,
> > Largely agree but
> > > Not in the tables it's not. Not by FOM when it comes to sharing out
> > > the goodies it's not.
> > I believe the goodies are not shared out on points.
> On what basis do you believe they are shared out?
> What influence does the points system have on that?
> --
> Bigbird
G'day Birdy,
LOL, only god and his disciples know how it is shared out, it's in the
holy scriptures (concorde agreement).
I believe the points do have an influence but I do not know the
details. Perhaps after scoring one point the team becomes eligible for
a share as I know that is the aim of every team, just one point. It is
rumoured that in the past there has been bribery and corruption in
order to get that first point.
After a google I found this, it's not much help but ...
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/the-points-proposal/
<quote>
under the Concorde Agreement the points were not really the key issue
as the finishing positions outside the top 10 still counted towards
the prize money earned.
</quote>
your google skills are prob better than mine ...
beers,
build
Bob Dubery
> I believe the goodies are not shared out on points.
I think they are. Thinking back to Stepneygate the exact amount of
cash that McLaren would have to pay to FIA was based on their points
allocation. The fine was $100 000 000 LESS what they would have got
from FOM based on the points they scored.
In cases where there were more than 10 teams and only 9 teams had
scored they would have counted 7th places. If the teams were tied on
7ths then they would have gone to 8th places and so on.
Bigbird
So what were you disagreeing with earlier and why? Do you still
disagree?
CatharticF1
OK - point number one: You're raising the red herring. There will be gaps
all the way through the field of varying amounts and any of the points
systems we've discussed don't reflect that. So this is just a neat little
distraction, yeah? Or will the line be that we can't reflect the gaps so
we should just give up as the points system is imperfect anyway.
> No system will give a true result of a driver's performance over 18
> races(apart from the 1,2,3,4..), so whether the system is contrived to
> give the winner a leg up or to give the midfield a leg up makes no
> difference. It is still a leg up.
So you say that the gap between adjacent positions in points should be
the same: Someone who just missed out on 1st should be as close to 1st in
points as 10th is to 9th. That it?
So presumably: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Two 5th places are better than a win.
Why do I think that's flawed? It's relative merit Frank: over a season of
races with varying gaps I believe the proportion of 1st place to 10th or
3rd needs to represent the merit the teams, drivers and public associate
with it. And that proportion is bigger than you seem prepared to accept.
Some people could feel justified in believing a win is worth twice second
place. Can you argue otherwise? I can tell you pretty much every DWC back
to 1970 but I'd struggle with 2nd - how about 3rd? Same with races over
the last season. So the idea that you allocate a proportion of points
*barely reduced* from 1st to 2nd and down is completely disconnected with
that reality.
And consistent with that as the primary purpose of a points system is to
determine that winner, this has to be respected and consistent with this
general opinion. It's about the winner, Frank.
Claude
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE46692B7CCra...@203.26.24.228...
>
>
> And consistent with that as the primary purpose of a points system is to
> determine that winner, this has to be respected and consistent with this
> general opinion. It's about the winner, Frank.
>
Intuitively, the 'distance' from first to second seems larger than the
distance from seventh to eighth. But surely there's some statistical or
economic theory that rationalises the different point systems? Any numerate
people out there?
Frank Adam
wrote:
>>>Umm - no. How exactly does your preference for a points system do a
>>>better job of dealing with margins than mine?
>>>
>> Perhaps you dont understand the conversation ?
>> If you haven't noticed, we are in fact talking about the merit of a
>> win. Take that merit out of your system and you no longer have a
>> problem.
>> If you can specify what makes the winner's achivement to a second
>> place finisher better than a 4th place finisher's achievement to a 5th
>> placed one, then i may look up.
>
>OK - point number one: You're raising the red herring. There will be gaps
>all the way through the field of varying amounts and any of the points
>systems we've discussed don't reflect that. So this is just a neat little
>distraction, yeah? Or will the line be that we can't reflect the gaps so
>we should just give up as the points system is imperfect anyway.
>
Well, i'm trying to slap you out of that fit, because every time the
points system is at "threat" you go all teary and march on the FIA
steps.
>> No system will give a true result of a driver's performance over 18
>> races(apart from the 1,2,3,4..), so whether the system is contrived to
>> give the winner a leg up or to give the midfield a leg up makes no
>> difference. It is still a leg up.
>
>So you say that the gap between adjacent positions in points should be
>the same: Someone who just missed out on 1st should be as close to 1st in
>points as 10th is to 9th. That it?
>
>So presumably: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
>
>Two 5th places are better than a win.
>
1 x 10 + 1 x 0 = 10. 2 x 6 = 12. Dammit, you can count.
Sadly, you still have to work on your statistical skills. In the above
you have a perfect example of a driver winning, then DNF-ing, while
another finishing two races. Sinc ewe're only talking about the two.
let's look at it.
You are happy to give this bloke, who won one race, a 500% leg
up(based on your preferred 10-6..2) on the guy who although didn't
win, finished both races ? Is that your fair system ?
Suppose then you also believe that this winner should be able to crash
in 3 more races, watching this 5th placer almost catch him, then go
out win one more and crash in another 4 races and still be in the
lead ?
We can analyse that 10,9,8 thing further. After just 10 races the
consistent 5th place man will have 60 points. The guy who won 3 and
came 6th seven times, in fact lost 7 times to that 5th placer, but his
wins still give him just enough of a reward to elevate him above on 65
points.
In any case, it is 17-18 races, not 2 and the end result will always
be the absolute *average* performance of the driver/car according to
their *average* finishing orders, because that is what a series is
about. Unless of course you handicap the lesser placed finishers as
all gapped points systems do.
>
>Why do I think that's flawed? It's relative merit Frank: over a season of
>races with varying gaps I believe the proportion of 1st place to 10th or
>3rd needs to represent the merit the teams, drivers and public associate
>with it. And that proportion is bigger than you seem prepared to accept.
>
Ahh, the public, the teams. So you are now ok with the deception, as
long as it's a deception you approve of ?
>Some people could feel justified in believing a win is worth twice second
>place. Can you argue otherwise? I can tell you pretty much every DWC back
>to 1970 but I'd struggle with 2nd - how about 3rd? Same with races over
>the last season. So the idea that you allocate a proportion of points
>*barely reduced* from 1st to 2nd and down is completely disconnected with
>that reality.
>
Not a good example. You can pretty much go out there and ask who won
the last GP and you'll get blank faces. Most will say "John Button, or
was it James Button ?". Because the majority of people will only
remember the title winners.
Even here on Rasf, if i was to ask to roll off the winners from each
race last season, let alone the season before that, we'd have a very
bad hit miss ratio.
I applaud those who actually recall them all, but geez, get a life. :)
>And consistent with that as the primary purpose of a points system is to
>determine that winner, this has to be respected and consistent with this
>general opinion. It's about the winner, Frank.
>
That is your personal opinion, not mine.
You argue about the system as if it was your own baby, i argue about
it from a point of fairness with no regards to tradition or
commercialism. I look at the group of drivers as just that, a group of
drivers. That is the main distinction.
When i look at the current system, it is a workable one and gives a
relatively fair reward to every driver(within reason), based on their
average performances, while still giving the podium dwellers an extra
advantage over others. A 10-6 or larger gapping moves further away
from that.
You realise that JB won the title by 11 points, right ? Do you also
realise that he finished in the points in every race, but one, while
Vettel finished out of the points 5 times ?
Do you also, also realise had Jenson DNF-ed just once instead of
winning, with a 10-6 system Vettel would have won the title ?
With the 10-8 JB deservedly won it, because he was more *consistent*
and had better average finishing position over the *season*.
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
> On 17 Dec 2009 11:05:12 +1100, CatharticF1 <rasf1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Umm - no. How exactly does your preference for a points system do a
>>>>better job of dealing with margins than mine?
>>>>
>>> Perhaps you dont understand the conversation ?
>>> If you haven't noticed, we are in fact talking about the merit of a
>>> win. Take that merit out of your system and you no longer have a
>>> problem. If you can specify what makes the winner's achivement to a
>>> second place finisher better than a 4th place finisher's achievement
>>> to a 5th placed one, then i may look up.
>>
>>OK - point number one: You're raising the red herring. There will be
>>gaps all the way through the field of varying amounts and any of the
>>points systems we've discussed don't reflect that. So this is just a
>>neat little distraction, yeah? Or will the line be that we can't
>>reflect the gaps so we should just give up as the points system is
>>imperfect anyway.
>>
> Well, i'm trying to slap you out of that fit, because every time the
> points system is at "threat" you go all teary and march on the FIA
> steps.
Uh huh :)
A tiny bit of hyperbole perhaps..?
>>> No system will give a true result of a driver's performance over 18
>>> races(apart from the 1,2,3,4..), so whether the system is contrived
>>> to give the winner a leg up or to give the midfield a leg up makes
>>> no difference. It is still a leg up.
>>
>>So you say that the gap between adjacent positions in points should be
>>the same: Someone who just missed out on 1st should be as close to 1st
>>in points as 10th is to 9th. That it?
>>
>>So presumably: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
>>
>>Two 5th places are better than a win.
>>
> 1 x 10 + 1 x 0 = 10. 2 x 6 = 12. Dammit, you can count.
> Sadly, you still have to work on your statistical skills. In the above
> you have a perfect example of a driver winning, then DNF-ing, while
> another finishing two races. Sinc ewe're only talking about the two.
> let's look at it.
> You are happy to give this bloke, who won one race, a 500% leg
> up(based on your preferred 10-6..2) on the guy who although didn't
> win, finished both races ? Is that your fair system ?
> Suppose then you also believe that this winner should be able to crash
> in 3 more races, watching this 5th placer almost catch him, then go
> out win one more and crash in another 4 races and still be in the
> lead ?
Well I selected the 2 races example for simplicity. Over a longer period
though it still applies in principle: what fraction do you believe those
lower places should be of first place when you view them over a season?
> We can analyse that 10,9,8 thing further. After just 10 races the
> consistent 5th place man will have 60 points. The guy who won 3 and
> came 6th seven times, in fact lost 7 times to that 5th placer, but his
> wins still give him just enough of a reward to elevate him above on 65
> points.
> In any case, it is 17-18 races, not 2 and the end result will always
> be the absolute *average* performance of the driver/car according to
> their *average* finishing orders, because that is what a series is
> about. Unless of course you handicap the lesser placed finishers as
> all gapped points systems do.
Average is only meaningful if you set a position to a DNF though. How do
you do that?
So you do want 10, 9, 8 etc...?
You believe 6th place is worth half as many points as 1st?
Because all of the examples in the world won't help us get closer if
that's the case.
>>
>>Why do I think that's flawed? It's relative merit Frank: over a season
>>of races with varying gaps I believe the proportion of 1st place to
>>10th or 3rd needs to represent the merit the teams, drivers and public
>>associate with it. And that proportion is bigger than you seem
>>prepared to accept.
>>
> Ahh, the public, the teams. So you are now ok with the deception, as
> long as it's a deception you approve of ?
Deception != Perception
But seriously Frank I believe your perception is different to the more
commonly held one.
>>Some people could feel justified in believing a win is worth twice
>>second place. Can you argue otherwise? I can tell you pretty much
>>every DWC back to 1970 but I'd struggle with 2nd - how about 3rd? Same
>>with races over the last season. So the idea that you allocate a
>>proportion of points *barely reduced* from 1st to 2nd and down is
>>completely disconnected with that reality.
>>
> Not a good example. You can pretty much go out there and ask who won
> the last GP and you'll get blank faces. Most will say "John Button, or
> was it James Button ?". Because the majority of people will only
> remember the title winners.
> Even here on Rasf, if i was to ask to roll off the winners from each
> race last season, let alone the season before that, we'd have a very
> bad hit miss ratio.
> I applaud those who actually recall them all, but geez, get a life. :)
Can you see my point though? You're attributing more merit and worth to
the lower places than the vast majority of interested people.
>>And consistent with that as the primary purpose of a points system is
>>to determine that winner, this has to be respected and consistent with
>>this general opinion. It's about the winner, Frank.
>>
> That is your personal opinion, not mine.
This much I understand! :)
> You argue about the system as if it was your own baby, i argue about
> it from a point of fairness with no regards to tradition or
> commercialism.
You are indeed an oddity! It's true that I view most people (certainly
organisations) who *say* they hold this view as wanting to increase the
money intake by extending the championship and making it generally appear
closer than it is. This is what annoys me most about it. But otherwise
it's because - plainly in a different way to you - I see the longer tail
higher proportion systems as unfair.
So in simple terms you're happy with a system where the average points
per race of the champion equates to a lower placing I do.
Take the simple example of 4 races with 2 x 6th place for one and 2 x 1st
place for the other. With 2 DNFs each - this is just to keep it simple.
So for me:
100
60
40
30
20
10
5
3
2
1
200/4 = 50 = between 2nd and 3rd
20/4 = 5 = 7th
And for you (presumption here):
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
20/4 = 5 = 6th
10/4 = 2.5 = between 8th and 9th
I'd suggest yours is unfair - surprised? :)
Because it makes average results closer, they should be around 5 places
apart.
> I look at the group of drivers as just that, a group of
> drivers. That is the main distinction.
> When i look at the current system, it is a workable one and gives a
> relatively fair reward to every driver(within reason), based on their
> average performances, while still giving the podium dwellers an extra
> advantage over others. A 10-6 or larger gapping moves further away
> from that.
I think it maintains the spread expected by our cultural ranking of the
importance of the placings.
> You realise that JB won the title by 11 points, right ? Do you also
> realise that he finished in the points in every race, but one, while
> Vettel finished out of the points 5 times ?
> Do you also, also realise had Jenson DNF-ed just once instead of
> winning, with a 10-6 system Vettel would have won the title ?
> With the 10-8 JB deservedly won it, because he was more *consistent*
> and had better average finishing position over the *season*.
Even in the 10,8 system one DNF where Jenson won would have cost Jenson
the title (2 more points for Vettel, and none for Jenson). Brawn and
Jenson went to sleep mid season (11 points in 5 races), but if Vettel had
caught him I'd want it to be by winning, not by accumulating 4th places
when Jenson had DNFs.
Frank Adam
wrote:
>Well I selected the 2 races example for simplicity. Over a longer period
>though it still applies in principle: what fraction do you believe those
>lower places should be of first place when you view them over a season?
>
>> We can analyse that 10,9,8 thing further. After just 10 races the
>> consistent 5th place man will have 60 points. The guy who won 3 and
>> came 6th seven times, in fact lost 7 times to that 5th placer, but his
>> wins still give him just enough of a reward to elevate him above on 65
>> points.
>> In any case, it is 17-18 races, not 2 and the end result will always
>> be the absolute *average* performance of the driver/car according to
>> their *average* finishing orders, because that is what a series is
>> about. Unless of course you handicap the lesser placed finishers as
>> all gapped points systems do.
>
>Average is only meaningful if you set a position to a DNF though. How do
>you do that?
>
When you DNF, you drop to a position.
DNS is more complicated, but then again DNSs have a very little
probability to occur.
>> Ahh, the public, the teams. So you are now ok with the deception, as
>> long as it's a deception you approve of ?
>
>Deception != Perception
>But seriously Frank I believe your perception is different to the more
>commonly held one.
>
My perception is fine. I will celebrate the winner, but i won't give
him any more praise for beating the second placed guy as i would to
the 4th place guy for beating the 5th.
>> Not a good example. You can pretty much go out there and ask who won
>> the last GP and you'll get blank faces. Most will say "John Button, or
>> was it James Button ?". Because the majority of people will only
>> remember the title winners.
>> Even here on Rasf, if i was to ask to roll off the winners from each
>> race last season, let alone the season before that, we'd have a very
>> bad hit miss ratio.
>> I applaud those who actually recall them all, but geez, get a life. :)
>
>Can you see my point though? You're attributing more merit and worth to
>the lower places than the vast majority of interested people.
>
Of course i can see your point. If i didn't i wouldn't be arguing.
I'm enough of a sheep to go with the flow, but not enough to not see
the flaws in a gapped system.
>> You argue about the system as if it was your own baby, i argue about
>> it from a point of fairness with no regards to tradition or
>> commercialism.
>
>You are indeed an oddity! It's true that I view most people (certainly
>organisations) who *say* they hold this view as wanting to increase the
>money intake by extending the championship and making it generally appear
>closer than it is. This is what annoys me most about it. But otherwise
>it's because - plainly in a different way to you - I see the longer tail
>higher proportion systems as unfair.
>
>So in simple terms you're happy with a system where the average points
>per race of the champion equates to a lower placing I do.
>
I'm happy with the current system. Less happy with the 10-6 or
similarly gapped ones. Every driver out there are playing with each
other. It is a round robin on each race, so it makes perfect sense
that each race's actual outcome is the only true value. When you add
gaps in the scores, you are lessening someone's performance.
Not surprised at all, that is in fact what that drivers achieved in 4
races. They finished in 2 and stuffed 2. Got half the goodies, with
the difference between the win and 5th giving the 2 x winner the leg
up.. Not the gapping.
Did you realise that the third guy who won the other 2 races would be
on equal points ? In fact, if he had 2 10ths and 2 wins, he'd be
ahead, because he finished all 4 races ! Unlike the other two.
>> I look at the group of drivers as just that, a group of
>> drivers. That is the main distinction.
>> When i look at the current system, it is a workable one and gives a
>> relatively fair reward to every driver(within reason), based on their
>> average performances, while still giving the podium dwellers an extra
>> advantage over others. A 10-6 or larger gapping moves further away
>> from that.
>
>I think it maintains the spread expected by our cultural ranking of the
>importance of the placings.
>
Cultural bullshit. This isn't a religion chat. We're talking about a
fair system for *all* 20 drivers.
>> You realise that JB won the title by 11 points, right ? Do you also
>> realise that he finished in the points in every race, but one, while
>> Vettel finished out of the points 5 times ?
>> Do you also, also realise had Jenson DNF-ed just once instead of
>> winning, with a 10-6 system Vettel would have won the title ?
>> With the 10-8 JB deservedly won it, because he was more *consistent*
>> and had better average finishing position over the *season*.
>
>Even in the 10,8 system one DNF where Jenson won would have cost Jenson
>the title (2 more points for Vettel, and none for Jenson). Brawn and
>Jenson went to sleep mid season (11 points in 5 races), but if Vettel had
>caught him I'd want it to be by winning, not by accumulating 4th places
>when Jenson had DNFs.
>
No. Jense missing out in Aus, Mal and Monaco would have still given
Seb 0 points and the 10-8 would have not given Seb the title.. You
knew that, but nice picking.
Anyway, they would have been on equal wins with JB still having
achieved a better avarage position, which the 10-6 simply ignores due
to its unfair gapping.
--
Regards, Frank
Lord Eldritch
> My perception is fine. I will celebrate the winner, but i won't give
> him any more praise for beating the second placed guy as i would to
> the 4th place guy for beating the 5th.
>
You should. A 4th place has beaten a guy able to beat n guys, but a 1st
place has beaten been a guy able to beat n+3 guys.
--
Lord Eldritch