Driver's (bad) luck

[myurr]

I'm sorry, but it is a simple numbers game. It is a fact that Vettel and Webber have had just as many mechanical failures. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that doesn't change the facts.

That's 8 months of perfect reliability perfect results and an unbeatable car.

I'm sorry, but that just proves how misinformed you are.
The fact that Vettel won in Germany (KERS), Italy (gearbox), Japan (KERS) and India (KERS) doesn't mean he had "8 months of perfect reliability".

I'm not blaming you for being misinformed, we all are at some point, but let's aim to become informed, shall we?
I don't think this is the place to go into a lengthy discussion, but you can read the match-up between Vettel and Webber here.

As for comparing to Lewis, before today, in the last 10 years Sebastian Vettel retired from, or lost, the lead 7 times due to mechanical issues. Lewis Hamilton retired from, or lost, the lead 4 times due to mechanical issues. Vettel inherited 1 win, Hamilton inherited 2.

Again you continue with the insults... An unlucky driver, which is your premise remember, would not have won races with major reliability issues. If it's manageable and doesn't cost you the win then you're not unlucky.

You can't just look at wins when looking at mechanical luckiness - what about other point scoring situations? There was a detailed breakdown on this very board comparing all the drivers reliability and team issues in 2012 that showed just how many points Hamilton had likely missed out on through poor luck. It was massively more than Vettel and showed that he should have at least been in contention for the title if not the winner were it not for that poor luck.

[zeph]

You can try and hide behind numbers and statistics, or try to rewrite history, but Vettel really isn't an unlucky driver when it comes to the car grinding to a complete halt in the race.

Yes, anybody can grab any set of numbers/stats to support their pet theory.

Vettel is a lucky driver. Good for him.

Lol, how else would you define luck but with numbers? Luck is a statistical assessment.

Really? Luck is a statistical assessment? Why don't you think about that for a bit. Take your time.

[SidSidney]

Hamilton is unlucky, he's lost so many points over the last few years to mechanical gremlins or his team messing up. Vettel not so much.

I'm sorry, but it is a simple numbers game. It is a fact that Vettel and Webber have had just as many mechanical failures. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that doesn't change the facts.

Some drivers do seem able to make their own "luck", no matter which car they drive. Some will always be "unlucky" and wondering why their team mate is scampering home to a victory while their car breaks down. Another pole not converted for Hamilton means his BS Metric™ drops to 68%. I was not that surprised Hamilton dropped out, he has retired roughly once for every two poles he has achieved. Whether his fault or the team, it lands on the driver's stats.

Incidentally, I am happy to say I managed to predict pole, fastest lap, positions gained, winner, third and several drivers in top ten within 1 place of prediction eg Bottas, Alonso, Button, Raikonnen on the Castrol predictor game. Only Ricciardo really surprised me, I thought Vettel would recover to second. Delighted to see Kevin Magnussen up there, I knew his dad many years ago in FFord, even helped Stewart get some sponsorship in the 1990s.

[thomin]

Yes, anybody can grab any set of numbers/stats to support their pet theory.

Vettel is a lucky driver. Good for him.

Lol, how else would you define luck but with numbers? Luck is a statistical assessment.

Really? Luck is a statistical assessment? Why don't you think about that for a bit. Take your time.

Done, why don't you do the same? Let me help: Luck is derived from comparing an actual result to an expected result which in return is purely statistical.
The chances of winning the lottery are extremely low, therefore you wouldn't expect to win should you play. If you still win, that would be considered luck as the actual result beat the statistical expectation.

[bhall]

Again you continue with the insults...

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that dude knows what Sebastian Vettel tastes like. So, I don't think you're gonna get anywhere with this.

[zeph]

Really? Luck is a statistical assessment? Why don't you think about that for a bit. Take your time.

Done, why don't you do the same? Let me help: Luck is derived from comparing an actual result to an expected result which in return is purely statistical.
The chances of winning the lottery are extremely low, therefore you wouldn't expect to win should you play. If you still win, that would be considered luck as the actual result beat the statistical expectation.

Interesting. But wrong. Luck is derived from comparing an actual result to an expected result?
That is not what luck is.

From my dictionary:

Luck - success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

And that is all there is to it.

[mnmracer]

That's 8 months of perfect reliability perfect results and an unbeatable car.

I'm sorry, but that just proves how misinformed you are.
The fact that Vettel won in Germany (KERS), Italy (gearbox), Japan (KERS) and India (KERS) doesn't mean he had "8 months of perfect reliability".

I'm not blaming you for being misinformed, we all are at some point, but let's aim to become informed, shall we?
I don't think this is the place to go into a lengthy discussion, but you can read the match-up between Vettel and Webber here.

As for comparing to Lewis, before today, in the last 10 years Sebastian Vettel retired from, or lost, the lead 7 times due to mechanical issues. Lewis Hamilton retired from, or lost, the lead 4 times due to mechanical issues. Vettel inherited 1 win, Hamilton inherited 2.

Again you continue with the insults... An unlucky driver, which is your premise remember, would not have won races with major reliability issues. If it's manageable and doesn't cost you the win then you're not unlucky.

You can't just look at wins when looking at mechanical luckiness - what about other point scoring situations? There was a detailed breakdown on this very board comparing all the drivers reliability and team issues in 2012 that showed just how many points Hamilton had likely missed out on through poor luck. It was massively more than Vettel and showed that he should have at least been in contention for the title if not the winner were it not for that poor luck.

How is simply observing that you are misinformed (as in, the information you show to have on the subject is incorrect) an insult?

Let's get back to basics ok, since you're mixing all sorts of things here.

First of, this whole discussion started because you incorrectly stated that Vettel was "always more lucky than unlucky" in relation to Webber. I have shown you that this is incorrect.

Then, and again here, you mention bad luck that loses victory. Again I have shown you to be incorrect: Vettel lost more victories and inherited fewer victories than Hamilton.

Those were the two premises you brought up, and those were the two premises I showed you were factually incorrect. I have said nothing about luck overall in relation to the other drivers, but I hope you understand now that your view of Vettel has been incorrect to say the least: he was not more lucky than Webber and he has not inherited more wins than Hamilton.

The overall points scoring situation, which is actually my assessment so I'm glad you like it, is a whole other story, and neither you nor I have the data at hand at this moment to make a claim on that. But while you focus solely on 2012, let me just remind you that in 2010 it was Vettel who lost 3.5 times more points than Hamilton. Both have had a lot of misfortune; it is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

[the EDGE]

Some drivers do seem able to make their own "luck", no matter which car they drive. Some will always be "unlucky" and wondering why their team mate is scampering home to a victory while their car breaks down. Another pole not converted for Hamilton means his BS Metric™ drops to 68%. I was not that surprised Hamilton dropped out, he has retired roughly once for every two poles he has achieved. Whether his fault or the team, it lands on the driver's stats.

Incidentally, I am happy to say I managed to predict pole, fastest lap, positions gained, winner, third and several drivers in top ten within 1 place of prediction eg Bottas, Alonso, Button, Raikonnen on the Castrol predictor game. Only Ricciardo really surprised me, I thought Vettel would recover to second. Delighted to see Kevin Magnussen up there, I knew his dad many years ago in FFord, even helped Stewart get some sponsorship in the 1990s.

I think Napoleon summed it up best...“I know he's a good general, but is he lucky?”

[mnmracer]

I was not that surprised Hamilton dropped out, he has retired roughly once for every two poles he has achieved.

Not true actually.
Hamilton has retired in 7 races (8 if you count the 2009 last lap crash), from the 32 where he has had pole position.
He converted 12 pole positions to a victory and another 6 to a podium finish.

[thomin]

Really? Luck is a statistical assessment? Why don't you think about that for a bit. Take your time.

Done, why don't you do the same? Let me help: Luck is derived from comparing an actual result to an expected result which in return is purely statistical.
The chances of winning the lottery are extremely low, therefore you wouldn't expect to win should you play. If you still win, that would be considered luck as the actual result beat the statistical expectation.

Interesting. But wrong. Luck is derived from comparing an actual result to an expected result?
That is not what luck is.

From my dictionary:

Luck - success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

And that is all there is to it.

And how do you determine success and failure? Right, by comparing an actual result with an expected result...that wasn't too hard, was it?

[NathanOlder]

I'm sorry, but it is a simple numbers game. It is a fact that Vettel and Webber have had just as many mechanical failures. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that doesn't change the facts.

That's 8 months of perfect reliability perfect results and an unbeatable car.

I'm sorry, but that just proves how misinformed you are.
The fact that Vettel won in Germany (KERS), Italy (gearbox), Japan (KERS) and India (KERS) doesn't mean he had "8 months of perfect reliability".

I'm not blaming you for being misinformed, we all are at some point, but let's aim to become informed, shall we?
I don't think this is the place to go into a lengthy discussion, but you can read the match-up between Vettel and Webber here.

As for comparing to Lewis, before today, in the last 10 years Sebastian Vettel retired from, or lost, the lead 7 times due to mechanical issues. Lewis Hamilton retired from, or lost, the lead 4 times due to mechanical issues. Vettel inherited 1 win, Hamilton inherited 2.

So what your saying is Lewis Hamilton has better luck than Sebastian Vettel ?

[SidSidney]

I was not that surprised Hamilton dropped out, he has retired roughly once for every two poles he has achieved.

Not true actually.
Hamilton has retired in 7 races (8 if you count the 2009 last lap crash), from the 32 where he has had pole position.
He converted 12 pole positions to a victory and another 6 to a podium finish.

Your stat is correct, but I meant generalized across his career. Overall it is something 17 retirement to 31 poles?

[mnmracer]

I'm not blaming you for being misinformed, we all are at some point, but let's aim to become informed, shall we?
I don't think this is the place to go into a lengthy discussion, but you can read the match-up between Vettel and Webber here.

As for comparing to Lewis, before today, in the last 10 years Sebastian Vettel retired from, or lost, the lead 7 times due to mechanical issues. Lewis Hamilton retired from, or lost, the lead 4 times due to mechanical issues. Vettel inherited 1 win, Hamilton inherited 2.

So what your saying is Lewis Hamilton has better luck than Sebastian Vettel ?

Why did you edit out the part of my response that answers your question?

The overall points scoring situation ... is a whole other story, and neither you nor I have the data at hand at this moment to make a claim on that.

[Ultra_Tech]

Are people still responding to MNMRacers posts?

Don't you lot know he spends half is life on Autosport forums coming up with New stats and excel formula to paint his hero Seb Vettel in a favourable light.

Even though a rookie completely dominated him in Qualifying and he was making mistakes galore now his magic diffuser has been taken away from him.

[NathanOlder]

I'm not blaming you for being misinformed, we all are at some point, but let's aim to become informed, shall we?
I don't think this is the place to go into a lengthy discussion, but you can read the match-up between Vettel and Webber here.

As for comparing to Lewis, before today, in the last 10 years Sebastian Vettel retired from, or lost, the lead 7 times due to mechanical issues. Lewis Hamilton retired from, or lost, the lead 4 times due to mechanical issues. Vettel inherited 1 win, Hamilton inherited 2.

So what your saying is Lewis Hamilton has better luck than Sebastian Vettel ?

Why did you edit out the part of my response that answers your question?

The overall points scoring situation ... is a whole other story, and neither you nor I have the data at hand at this moment to make a claim on that.

Sorry WTF ?