[quote name="Dr No" post="362207" timestamp="1380616797"]
How many winners last year? The year before? Fail? Nice effort, Jum, who are the 6 and 8? Type them and we can all have a giggle.
Yeah, let's reduce it to ....... ratios, because Beaubier, Gagne et al would be killing it on a Factory bike.[/quote]
Sloth_27
3622231380621154
Eight title contenders? What the .... are you on about?
I realize Sloth and Deal have resorted to little quips similar to rodents in the night seeking cheese then scurrying in the dark once the light is turned on, these weak attempts at ‘gotcha moments’ to get yourself a bit of credit given you can’t carry any real substantial debate is quite entertaining for me. DocN at first I thought maybe I misjudged your question, perhaps it was honest, but you dispelled my doubt with your reply). I relish it you should know because I consider it entertainment (including darts at these DSB riders, of which you have conceded you know little about ). I'll assume u were too, so I can write an essay u know DocN, but for the other two clowns, I’ll be their huckleberry). Here you go gentz:
Ask yourself, what is my contention about the parity of the sport as it is today? Can you guys even describe it accurately let along debate it? The fact is that we are in a situation where fools woo and awe without the slightest realization or at very least caveats that we have effectively a four bike championship, three of which are delivering. We got to this point not just by happenstance. Its why I made fun of BJC’s probability ratio depicting according to him, a well thought out formula of who might win, giving the odds limited to factory Hon/Yam riders a 1:4 chance. Sloth/Deal, do you know why I thought it was funny enough to mock? DocN, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, as I’m sure you knew why I made fun of the ratio. (Btw, I miss BJC around here, I would never admit it, but he did have a few good takes. I guess its true as they say, even a blind dog can find a bone…easy BM). You’ve read me repeat (much to Deal’s annoyance) the parity outlook because frankly every result reminds me of the state of it… and I’m compulsive.
DocN, you ask what was the “math” last year, I answered it. 4. I added my caption because I took your question as a statement, as if to say the parity has always been this concentrated. To which I quipped back my disagreement.
In 2012 We had 4 competitive, win worthy bikes to start the season. That is, we had a 1:4 chance that either would win the title because they could contend for wins.
Then I said,
“before that 5, 6, 8” etc.
I’m referring to the years we had the fielding of potentially 4+ factory bikes by Honda and Yamaha, and Stoner on the Ducati, the Bridgestone shod Suzukis of 07, when the tire made the bikes capable of wining races on any given Sunday. I realize Sloth/theDeal will find this difficult as they have difficulty in the concept of extrapolation; as I see it, Stoner, even though being on a Ducati scored wins, which means he had the potential (regardless of the disadvantaged we learned was the Ducati), Dovi being on a third factory Honda. In 2006, we had three competitive factories with capable riders, all scoring wins, Honda, Yamaha, Ducati, and add to this the satellite bikes were very competitive also scoring wins. When coming into the season, if a bike is capable of scoring wins, then it has a chance at title contention. This has been greatly diminished.
Going into the seasons, let see if my statements are reasonable, though I want you guys to keep in mind, its irrelevant how the points classification ended for that season, the question is, were there win worthy bikes at the beginning. Another thing that is irrelevant is who ‘you’ think is a title contender, as you can see, this year we thought VR was a “contender” but he has been flat for whatever reason.
2006: (8) 3 factory bikes, and 1 two-man satellite team capable of scoring wins: Hayden, Pedrosa, Rossi, Edwards, Capirossi, Gibernau, Melandri, Elias; that is 8 and for good measure I’ll even say Robert, as his bike almost scored a win, but a miscue in laps was disastrous at the PortugalGP. (Btw, Stoner almost won the Turkish GP too, but I won’t count him either). Also, I included Edwards in there even though he didn’t win one for the fact that he was on a win worthy bike, which is part of the math going into the season, I’m sure you can understand that (I hope).
2007: (8) Now it gets a bit more complicated (not for me, but for those with lower level extrapolation capacities). 3.5 factories fielding win worthy bikes, Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and the .5 is for Ducati, as it was the rider in this case that really was to account for the wins (though Capi also in fact win one too). Stoner, Capirossi, Pedrosa, Hayden, Rossi, Edwards, Hopkins, and Vermuelen; that is 8. Again, if the bike is capable of wins, then it can contend (that a factory is unwilling to support a rider for those wins, or the rider doesn’t perform on the bike is entirely another debate). The fact remains, all four manufactures fielded bikes that won races: Ducati, Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki. (I bet about now you guys are starting to realize crow doesn’t taste delicious…oh who am I kidding, this .... is skipping right over your heads).
2008: (6) Now the for theDeal (as we have been debating the affect of rules), this is where the tweaking of regulations can affect competition, as it really started to hurt the manufactures with Bridgestone shod bikes in favor of those who were running Michelin. You see what had happened previously was Dorna changing tire allowances, getting rid of the SNS and reducing the outright number of tires hurt their Darling riders, and actually helped Bridgestone shod bikes (hence why you saw 4 manufactures wining races), but this was altered by design, and so what was the result: the parity outlook went dramatically down (and continued to do so)! This is my point that you boys have chose to challenge. You guys know why I think the regulations changed, but some of you are tired of hearing it repeated. Anyway, lets take a look at this year: 2.5 manufactures fielding win worthy bikes, Yamaha, Honda, and the .5 for Ducati; Rossi, Lorenzo, Pedrosa, Hayden, Stoner, that is 6. (Though at this point the development of Bridgestones away from Ducati, Suzuki, and Kawaski really started to hurt; this was again a consequence of going ‘toward’ a defacto single tire supplier, pesky tweaking of regulations affecting parity.
2009: (5) The state of parity was now severely affected by regulations, because the spec-tire was now cause for Kawasaki to withdraw and Suzuki, once at very least capable of challenging for a win, if not a podium challenger was also in practical terms outside of the parity outlook. The engine rule regulations also detrimentally affected Ducati, because making changes was increasingly difficult given their unique chassis-less design. That left us with 2.5 manufactures: Yamaha, Honda, and .5 Ducati. Rossi, Lorenzo, Pedrosa, Dovizioso, and Stoner; that is 5.
2010: (5) The state of parity continued to diminish, at this point not only were both Kawaskai and Suzuki out of the picture after withdrawing, but Ducati was practically out of it too, though with Stoner it still scored wins. Again, 2.5 manufactures, Yamaha, Honda, and .5 for Ducati; Lorenzo, Rossi, Pedrosa, Dovizioso, and Stoner, that is 5.
2011: (5.46) I think this year should really helps people understand the parity outlook as it relates to contenders and potential race winners, not that they do comprehend the lesson but at least it was here for those able to recognize it. It really does matter what you ride and who decides who rides it. Now remember, the relevant question was how many potential win worthy bikes were there at the ‘beginning’ of the season. Well, Stoner had won on the Ducati in 2010 (backed up by several top 5 finishes by his teammate, so naturally people would expect the ‘greatest of all time’ (VR) or at least ‘the greatest of that time’ to win on the Ducati, since in fact it had won races the prior year. This is why I noted the win worthy contenders at 5+, the .46 denoting that even though it appeared three manufactures would field win worthy bikes, it turned out that only 2 did. So I decided to just put 5 win worthy riders, even though most believed that going into the season, surely Rossi would win more than that “soft” “whiner” Stoner. Conventional wisdom at the end of 2010 was that Rossi was clearly a better more talented rider than Stoner, so there was no reason to doubt he would at least one a few on the Ducati, right? So you can decide whether Rossi deserves to be included on the list of contenders for the beginning of 2011, either way it was about 5. Stoner, Pedrosa, Dovizioso, Lorenzo, Spies, and perhaps Rossi, that is 5.46.
2012: (4) Suzuki withdrew at the end of 2011 joining Kawasaki, because the rules were so restrictive that it became an arms race of bank accounts to acquiesce to such regulations, HRC being the Federal Reserve (and least affected by the financial crunch). You see theDeal, those pesky rules and who is in the best position to reap benefit really does affect the parity, and as a result the competition in ways that are not so subtle (well at least if you are informed and are able to make the necessary connections—the latter being the most important part). Despite Ducati throwing everything at their project, even doing the unthinkable and employing a twin-spar chassis, it really didn’t field a competitive machine. So the only two manufactures that did were: Honda and Yamaha. Lorenzo, Spies, Pedrosa, Stoner; that is 4. This being the low point in the championship, Dorna reacted by introducing the CRT to give us the ‘appearance’ of a full gridded championship given the dwindling participation of manufactures, infamously prompting Povol to boycott MotoGP.
2013: (4) At this point, one should become conscious of the pattern and a theme; Stoner made it clear that Dorna’s rolling rule book and blatant influence on competition was too much to stomach and said ‘asta la vista’ and ...... off into the sunset. (Btw, while on this point, I have an astute observer of human behavior who has hypothesized the right buttons were pushed with Stoner to encourage his early exit with the aim of making way for Marquez; despite how it happened it did have the same result). It became clear that the ........ CRT wasn’t going to win anything, and Ducati was a glorified CRT entry given that their chassis was not wholly a factory enterprise. Dorna knowing this mid-season in 2012 surely figured it needed to jump into action, as it had also become clear that Spies’ team were more akin to buffoonery, which if you think about it, would have left the season with 3 contenders (only one side of Yamaha was fielding a competitive bike). It was clear VR couldn’t stay at Ducati, as the parity was already depleted, and the CRT could only fool people so much, even though they allowed it to appear on the podium. The rookie rule was eliminated and VR was bailed out of Ducati. Even though the number of manufactures fielding competitive machines was only 2, the right names would easily keep the masses happy; Honda and Yamaha: Marquez, Pedrosa, Lorenzo, and Rossi, that is 4.
Edit to make the post more benign.
