Button's statistical edge and historical place
Discussion
I took the time to go back through the seasons to 1960, and in that time only three drivers who scored at least six wins in a season did not win the title: Prost in 1984, Mansell in 1987, and Senna in 1994.
In those 49 years, 36 champions finished with 6 or fewer wins in the title season. That number is more or less surprising depending on how you take into account the number of races in a season. Stewart's titles in 1969 and 1971 were won with 6 wins in 11 races, for example, which is not the same as 6 wins in 16 races.
I always thought Phil Hill won the title with the fewest wins, 2, but Rosberg won with only a single win in 1982,and Surtees and Hulme both won their titles with only 2 wins.
With seven wins to his name, and presumably more to come, Jenson is now tied with Rene Arnoux for career wins, and has more than some pretty legendary names: Rosberg, Reggazoni, Gilles Villeneuve, Dan Gurney, and will be coming up to tie and pass Denny Hulme, Gerhard Berger, Ronnie Peterson, Jody Scheckter, James Hunt within the next four or five races. Years from now, will we remember that he did it all in one season, or will we look at the total for what it is, much like we may overlook Rosberg's career total of only 5 wins in 114 starts? Jenson could end the year with, say 15 wins in 170 or so starts. That puts him right around Graham hill, with 14 wins in 176 starts.
The other thing I noticed in going through the records: my lord, the number of DNFs in a season was colossal! You could win the title by putting together a string of three or four wins and finishing more than half the races some years. As reliability started to improve, wins did not become less important, although Piquet's 1987 title, with only 3 wins but 7 seconds, si the low since 1984. But boy, finishing used to be half the battle, if not more than half!
In those 49 years, 36 champions finished with 6 or fewer wins in the title season. That number is more or less surprising depending on how you take into account the number of races in a season. Stewart's titles in 1969 and 1971 were won with 6 wins in 11 races, for example, which is not the same as 6 wins in 16 races.
I always thought Phil Hill won the title with the fewest wins, 2, but Rosberg won with only a single win in 1982,and Surtees and Hulme both won their titles with only 2 wins.
With seven wins to his name, and presumably more to come, Jenson is now tied with Rene Arnoux for career wins, and has more than some pretty legendary names: Rosberg, Reggazoni, Gilles Villeneuve, Dan Gurney, and will be coming up to tie and pass Denny Hulme, Gerhard Berger, Ronnie Peterson, Jody Scheckter, James Hunt within the next four or five races. Years from now, will we remember that he did it all in one season, or will we look at the total for what it is, much like we may overlook Rosberg's career total of only 5 wins in 114 starts? Jenson could end the year with, say 15 wins in 170 or so starts. That puts him right around Graham hill, with 14 wins in 176 starts.
The other thing I noticed in going through the records: my lord, the number of DNFs in a season was colossal! You could win the title by putting together a string of three or four wins and finishing more than half the races some years. As reliability started to improve, wins did not become less important, although Piquet's 1987 title, with only 3 wins but 7 seconds, si the low since 1984. But boy, finishing used to be half the battle, if not more than half!
It's all about reliability these days, the top teams don't expect a DNF due to reliability at all if they get one or two in a season it's a surprise. That's because of the new engine/gearbox rules. If they took those away we might get some extra failures thrown in again.
So winning 6 races this early no longer guarantees the title not when there are 10 races still to go unlike 10-15+ years ago.
So winning 6 races this early no longer guarantees the title not when there are 10 races still to go unlike 10-15+ years ago.
dafeller said:
With seven wins to his name, and presumably more to come, Jenson is now tied with Rene Arnoux for career wins, and has more than some pretty legendary names: Rosberg, Reggazoni, Gilles Villeneuve, Dan Gurney, and will be coming up to tie and pass Denny Hulme, Gerhard Berger, Ronnie Peterson, Jody Scheckter, James Hunt within the next four or five races. Years from now, will we remember that he did it all in one season, or will we look at the total for what it is, much like we may overlook Rosberg's career total of only 5 wins in 114 starts? Jenson could end the year with, say 15 wins in 170 or so starts. That puts him right around Graham hill, with 14 wins in 176 starts.
Actually, it may be short-sighted to figure a career based on only this year, eh? Let's say the Button/Brawn team stay on the crest of the wave for another season. Over a two year period he could put together 20+ wins, which would move him up into Lauda-Fangio-Clark territory. The two year record for wins is 20 by Schumi (2001-2002); the three year record is also his, with 29 (2002-2004); 46 wins over 2000-2004, five seasons. Can RB do that again?Get Karter said:
1) Points difference narrower since Schumacher's (2004?) dominant season.
2) More races than previously.
3) Almost 100% reliability this season for all teams.
These differences mean that this year will possibly require the highest ever number of wins to clinch the title.
I can see the merit of the argument. Of course, since reliability went up in recent rules, the title has been won with 6 or fewer wins in four out of the last 6 years, including three of the last four, or Post-Schumi. 2) More races than previously.
3) Almost 100% reliability this season for all teams.
These differences mean that this year will possibly require the highest ever number of wins to clinch the title.
agree, an interesting and thought provoking post...
i just find it ironic how much the FIA pressed for the "he who wins the most races is champion" policy for this year. can you imgaine if they had? Button could have it sewn up by Silverstone and viewing figures would most likely drop for the second half of the season. they were very, very lusky i would say....
its hard on Button to look back in future years and say his success is all based on one season and he doesnt deserve to be alongside such drivers like Grahram Hill, he can only race against the people sho challenge him and in his own words "the guys at brawn have built a monster of a car". when mansell romped tohte title with the FW14B everyone was quite happy to forget the car was the class of the field.
statistics are often used by people to prove a point which htey know to be untrue or contentious, how many times do people use the argument that schumacher was the best because he won the most championships??!?!, but as you can not quantify the subjective, its all we have to go on. if it were me i would keep trying till i could devise a scientific formula which ultimately proved villeneuve sr was the greatest...
i just find it ironic how much the FIA pressed for the "he who wins the most races is champion" policy for this year. can you imgaine if they had? Button could have it sewn up by Silverstone and viewing figures would most likely drop for the second half of the season. they were very, very lusky i would say....
its hard on Button to look back in future years and say his success is all based on one season and he doesnt deserve to be alongside such drivers like Grahram Hill, he can only race against the people sho challenge him and in his own words "the guys at brawn have built a monster of a car". when mansell romped tohte title with the FW14B everyone was quite happy to forget the car was the class of the field.
statistics are often used by people to prove a point which htey know to be untrue or contentious, how many times do people use the argument that schumacher was the best because he won the most championships??!?!, but as you can not quantify the subjective, its all we have to go on. if it were me i would keep trying till i could devise a scientific formula which ultimately proved villeneuve sr was the greatest...
patmahe said:
As a matter of interest, where did you get your stats from. Is there a dedicated stats website for this stuff?
Interesting stuff by the way. Was just thinking on Sunday that Jenson can hardly lose the title from where he is unless something goes seriously wrong.
There is an excellent site with all the WDC and WCC results atInteresting stuff by the way. Was just thinking on Sunday that Jenson can hardly lose the title from where he is unless something goes seriously wrong.
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/grange/54/index...
pablo said:
agree, an interesting and thought provoking post...
statistics are often used by people to prove a point which they know to be untrue or contentious, how many times do people use the argument that schumacher was the best because he won the most championships??!?!, but as you can not quantify the subjective, its all we have to go on. if it were me i would keep trying till i could devise a scientific formula which ultimately proved villeneuve sr was the greatest...
I agree entirely, and of course I had no point to make one way or the other. It is fun to look for the correlations between events, or if they exist at all. I originally started to look at the figures because I have really never believed that it was a 'driver's series'. At best, it seems like you have to be a very good driver in the right place at the right time, right team, etc. That may not be a driving skill, but it's certainly a talent to be rewarded, or luck to be coveted!statistics are often used by people to prove a point which they know to be untrue or contentious, how many times do people use the argument that schumacher was the best because he won the most championships??!?!, but as you can not quantify the subjective, its all we have to go on. if it were me i would keep trying till i could devise a scientific formula which ultimately proved villeneuve sr was the greatest...
In the end, it seemed like Jenson's numbers are going to be far more historically interesting than we might see them this year.
dafeller said:
pablo said:
agree, an interesting and thought provoking post...
statistics are often used by people to prove a point which they know to be untrue or contentious
This would be a fun example: 'the best driver is the man who does the most with the worst car'. Discuss. It is a possible argument against Button success this year ('he's just in the fastest car). Using that example, consider that these are the only guys to win their championships in cars which did not with the Constructor's championship in the same year:statistics are often used by people to prove a point which they know to be untrue or contentious
2008 Hamilton (Ferrari)
1999 Hakkinen (Ferrari)
1994 Schumacher Williams
1986 Prost Williams
1983 Piquet Ferrari
1982 Rosberg Ferrari
1981 Piquet Williams
1976 Hunt Ferrari
1973 Stewart Lotus
I realize that as a champion wins more, logically the car is likely to rank higher in the WCC. At the same time, to have a car that two guys can make go faster than the rest is a good sign of things at the factory, no? Just a thought, no real convictions on the issue.
dafeller said:
pablo said:
agree, an interesting and thought provoking post...
statistics are often used by people to prove a point which they know to be untrue or contentious
This would be a fun example: 'the best driver is the man who does the most with the worst car'. Discuss. It is a possible argument against Button success this year ('he's just in the fastest car). Using that example, consider that these are the only guys to win their championships in cars which did not with the Constructor's championship in the same year:statistics are often used by people to prove a point which they know to be untrue or contentious
2008 Hamilton (Ferrari)
1999 Hakkinen (Ferrari)
1994 Schumacher Williams
1986 Prost Williams
1983 Piquet Ferrari
1982 Rosberg Ferrari
1981 Piquet Williams
1976 Hunt Ferrari
1973 Stewart Lotus
I realize that as a champion wins more, logically the car is likely to rank higher in the WCC. At the same time, to have a car that two guys can make go faster than the rest is a good sign of things at the factory, no? Just a thought, no real convictions on the issue.
Edited by Get Karter on Monday 8th June 14:33
dafeller said:
patmahe said:
As a matter of interest, where did you get your stats from. Is there a dedicated stats website for this stuff?
Interesting stuff by the way. Was just thinking on Sunday that Jenson can hardly lose the title from where he is unless something goes seriously wrong.
There is an excellent site with all the WDC and WCC results atInteresting stuff by the way. Was just thinking on Sunday that Jenson can hardly lose the title from where he is unless something goes seriously wrong.
http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/grange/54/index...
http://www.formula1.com/results/
Get Karter said:
dafeller said:
dafeller said:
pablo said:
You'd need to factor the reliability of their team mates car into that too. For example, if DC have lots of DNFs in 1999, the McLaren may still have been 'class of the field'.
Good point. Or, if he had lots of DNFs, maybe the car was unreliable. Did we say 'best' or 'fastest?'Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff