Old scoring system

[rodrigomarban]

It's funny the fact that the new scoring system was established as a way to make the championship closer and stop Schumacher's domination.

With the old scoring system Montoya would be leading the championship 59-57, while with the new one Schumacher is leading 72-71.

I can't complain about the championship competitivenes, but it would be very interesting to see at the end of the season how the standings would have finished with the old system.

[daviopolo]

Sorry to spoil the party but it wouldn't work like that for 2 reasons of which should be obvious to the more intelligent around here. Firstly run the season over again and you will not get the same circumstances in fact circumstances can differ massively, for example Melbourne JPM not spinning off or the weather being different or Barrichello not spinning off. Schumacher not spinning off in Brazil or JPM not spinning off etc etc. There loads of variance in this sport you should never say 'what if ?'
Secondly, the points being difference would put the drivers in a totally different state of mind at each race certain drivers would be less interested in a seventh or even a forth or the fact that their rivals get 8 instead of 6 for second. JPM has got 50 in the last 6 races but only won 2, anyway you work it out I can't be bothered to explain what is pretty obvious.

[touringlegend]

If Schumacher had still of been as dominant this year - he'd be the champion - you get more points for winning don't you.

[climb]

Agree with doviopiolo: giving points to the best eight instead of six (old system) also conditions the race behaviour of drivers who move around those positions; therefore the results themselves would/could have been different.

[Adam43]

(Very) obviously things would be different if the points would have been different. Drivers driving differently and also the butterfly/hurricane theory! etc... In some ways it hardly needs pointing out.

However, when thinking about how different points system would have effect the outcome of a championship you only have certain information to go on - what happened. Maybe you can try to factor in a well so-and-so would try to overtake then, or whatever, but as soon as you do this it become even more fatuous.

You can also discuss if the system is fair when you consider who you feel deserves to win based on the results.

So, rodrigomarban, thanks for the party, it hasn't been spoilt.

[daviopolo]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
(Very) obviously things would be different if the points would have been different. Drivers driving differently and also the butterfly/hurricane theory! etc... In some ways it hardly needs pointing out.

However, when thinking about how different points system would have effect the outcome of a championship you only have certain information to go on - what happened. Maybe you can try to factor in a well so-and-so would try to overtake then, or whatever, but as soon as you do this it become even more fatuous.

You can also discuss if the system is fair when you consider who you feel deserves to win based on the results.

So, rodrigomarban, thanks for the party, it hasn't been spoilt.

You've got to put more thought into it can't you see that if you run this championship over again in the same conditions it would be a different outcome ? Nevermind different points forget that I'm talking about the same points system and the same drivers and cars it would still be a huge difference in results. Put things in perspective, circumstances massively out weight a new points system. If I had drunk Tea instead of Coffee when I woke up this morning my whole day could end up different why don't people see that you dont even need to change anything anyway running time over again would produce different results purely through the part random process.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by daviopolo
If I had drunk Tea instead of Coffee when I woke up this morning my whole day could end up different why ...

That was exactly what I said! I agree with you!

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
butterfly/hurricane theory!

Obviously you didn't get my reference to chaos theory. Which is, sort of, what you are talking about!

'You've got to put more' care into reading peoples posts.

My other point was that it doesn't mean that you can't have a discussion on how a set of results is effected by different points systems. Although, obviosuly, you accept that if you went back and repeated it with the different parameters it wouldn't have turned out like that!

[daviopolo]

Mostly people start these threads based on the thinking that only the points system change affects what happens in the races or only driver skill and I rekon that why this one was started too.

[Gore]

I think rodrigomarban's is a reasonable question to ask. While I agree that drivers' behaviour is influenced by the rules environment in which they operate, I think the point that complex systems will never operate in identical fashions twice is a bit strong for sporting discussions. If you want to get scientific it might be possible to argue that this year's WDC is a single realisation of an underlying stochastic process generating Grand Prix results, and that a sufficiently large sample of "possible 2003 seasons" under each points sytem would produce similar raw results to those we observe, but personally I prefer the simple question: what would have happened in a hypothetical world identical to this one but for the new F1 points system?

[Adam43]

[Knowlesy]

It's ironic though that TGF was complaining about the "unfairness" of the new points system. Doesn't seem so outspoken now, really........

[Aysedasi]

Originally posted by Gore
I prefer the simple question: what would have happened in a hypothetical world identical to this one but for the new F1 points system?

I think that's basically what rodrigomarnab was saying, wasn't it? It wasn't suggested that we would be running the time over again. Just applying the old points system to this year's facts. Nothing unintelligent in that, as far as I can see.....

[Gore]

Exactly Aysedasi, I think the simple (original) question is better than trying to take into account every complexity of the real world. A good mathematical model is one that distinguished between those aspects of reality that are vital to the problem in question, and those that can be disregarded. I think the same rule applies here.

[daviopolo]

Well I've seen a lot of other people start threads about what the points would be under the old system and its total rubbish. They first need to ask the question what would the points be if the championship took place over again under any points system, it would be different each and every time you started over. There is a few more races MS could have easily won and others could've not won, I think the circumstances have been the worst for Michael Schumacher actually and he's in the lead! Its only the last portion of the calender that he's not been able to compete on a level. Its a very odd circumstance this year regardless of any points system or even car/driver performance. If you were able to work out the fastest drivers and the fastest car and simulated the ideal championship result it would be absolute nothing like what it is with the change in points system rendering into total insignificance, its not worth talking about basically that's what I'm saying it would be far better to discuss the circumstantial effects

[james_williams]

Come on guys, its just a basic question been discussed. If someone had a comparision between the top 5 drivers under the new and old points then that would be something of interest to me, and I am sure others.

Daviopolo, if you find the thread rubbish just let us lesser mortals get on with it. You don't have to keep posting replys!

[ralf fan]

I had posted this in another thread.Under the old pts system these would bethe pts. situation now..

MS:57pts
JPM:55pts
KR:52pts
RS:41pts

[Aysedasi]

With every due respect, daviopolo (and yes, I fully understand what you're saying), but you've totally missed the point of the original post. It never was a question of "starting over". Anything could happen if you re-ran the races over and over again.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by ralf fan
MS:57pts
JPM:55pts
KR:52pts
RS:41pts

Not that different. With the bigger difference between 1st and second (4 points) in someways it is as easy to close the gap up.

[Canberra>karter]

daviopolo, to the more intellegent around here it is obvious he is only talking about taking this seasons results and replacing the old points system. If you want to talk about re-running the season and what would happen talk to Bernie he might help

[daviopolo]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Not that different. With the bigger difference between 1st and second (4 points) in someways it is as easy to close the gap up.

57-55=4 ? now I've heard it all. For cying out loud drop this 'what if?' thread.

[paul-collins]

Missed again.

10-6=4.

As far as the points system changing the way drivers behave, the only real difference now that I can see is that there was more impetus in the old system for the one sitting in 2nd to go for first (4 point gain) than there is now (2 point gain), and that the battle for the last point has been moved back two places, meaning that there are two more cars that potentially will scrap for 1 point difference.

Let's assume that the other drivers' behaviour wouldn't have affected the outcome in any meaningful way (if anything, fewer finishing in the points ought to result in more agressive driving at the beginning, and more wrecks).

How much would that have affected the outcome of the races, given the finishing positions (including gaps at the end) of JPM and TGF? That would be an interesting conjecture.

[daviopolo]

Originally posted by paul-collins
Missed again.

10-6=4.

As far as the points system changing the way drivers behave, the only real difference now that I can see is that there was more impetus in the old system for the one sitting in 2nd to go for first (4 point gain) than there is now (2 point gain), and that the battle for the last point has been moved back two places, meaning that there are two more cars that potentially will scrap for 1 point difference.

Let's assume that the other drivers' behaviour wouldn't have affected the outcome in any meaningful way (if anything, fewer finishing in the points ought to result in more agressive driving at the beginning, and more wrecks).

How much would that have affected the outcome of the races, given the finishing positions (including gaps at the end) of JPM and TGF? That would be an interesting conjecture.

What ARE you talking about? The only thing that affects the races is the races what are you getting at ? forget the old points system all it does give 7th and 8th points and nothing else everyone else just drives flat out and takes what they get, but if you run the races again it would blow your points difference chat like a rubber duck in a tidal wave.

[senna12]

The way I understood the post, the first time, was what would happen if the results from this season had last years points system applied, not what would happen if the season were replayed. The differences are much the same, just the overall totals are lower. Still anyones championship, among the top 3.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by daviopolo
57-55=4 ? now I've heard it all. For cying (sic)out loud drop this 'what if?' thread.

Well your intelligence has me licked!

Here is my post:

Not that different. With the bigger difference between 1st and second (4 points) in someways it is as easy to close the gap up.

daviopolo, in what way does this post suggest that 57-55=4???? All I say is that the difference between 1st and 2nd was 4 points. This is true. I feel there was no need for you to try and find something that was wrong with my post. Good effort though. I do post a lot of stuff that is rubbish, but that wasn't one of them!

Let's consider the two situations.

Under the old system (based on Ralf fan's post):
Difference between 1st and 2nd in the championship: 2 points
Difference between 1st and 2nd in a race: 4 points.
That is a factor of two between those two values.

Under the new system (based on FIA championship positions):
Difference between 1st and 2nd in the championship: 1 point
Difference between 1st and 2nd in a race: 2 points.
That is a factor of two between those two values.

Well that appears to be the same!

Of course you think this is a fatuous argument. I suggest that you read a different thread. If you actually read my posts you will see that I understand and agree with the points you make!!! However, I suggest that this thread is still either valid or a bit of fun. If you disagree may I suggest this thread http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=42743 or this one http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=42891 to keep you occupied.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by daviopolo
...but if you run the races again it would blow your points difference chat like a rubber duck in a tidal wave.

Infinite different Universe boy! We all see this point and agree!

However there are several things to discuss. Here are a couple:

At a given moment in time a driver has to make a decision. Do I or don't I in some situations. One of the factors that contributes to this is the points distribution. (i.e. is it worth the risk)

How does a certain points system effect the results? Do you like a 10-9-8-7-6... system or a 32-16-8-4-2-1 system or a 15-47-83-19-12-3-7.23 system What do you value?

The world of probability (while we all live in it) is all very well and good, but un-discussable (sorry for that word). However we can talk about moments that did make a difference. Whether that moment would happen again, or happen again is we re-run it is, frankly, immaterial.