Rossi and Lorenzo not sharing anymore

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Feb 9 2010, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I thougt of doing this at the time, but decided it would have over complicated an already long post.

Comparing Rossi 2000-2001 to JL 2008-2009:

Rossi 32 starts, 13 wins, 23 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 40.63%, ratio podiums/starts: 71.88%
Lorenzo 34 starts, 5 wins, 18 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 14.71%, ratio podiums/starts: 52.94%

Comparing Rossi 2000-2003 to CS/DP 2006-2009:

Rossi 64 starts, 31 wins, 54 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 48.43%, ratio podiums/starts: 84.38%
Stoner 65 starts, 20 wins, 34 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 30.77%, ratio podiums/starts: 52.31%
Pedrosa 69 starts, 8 wins, 38 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 11.56%, ratio podiums/starts: 55.07%

It would appear that michaelm covered it nicely :


This is why he is the GOAT

V,

Across a career statistics can only be calculated on the events (be that races or tournaments) in which the person participated, not those that they did not (irrespective of reason), thus to include the likes of non-Starts in statistics is, by extension a statistical anomoly.

As an examply, should a tennis player's career statistics and win ratio include tournaments in which they did not compete due to injury and/or rest?

They currently do not do so as to first be considered competitive and therefore qualify as a 'statistic' one must first compete, so a DNS is just that, a DNS not a DNF which can and does affect statistics (applies to all riders).





Gaz

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VHMP01 @ Feb 9 2010, 05:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No, it is not fair, after all Stoner did not win any 250cc World Championship (or WSB) as did the other 3. This gave them more credibility into a Factory Team. I also will always believe, that if even at a Factory Team, Lorenzo complains for not getting same support as Rossi, much the less would a supposed 'Second' Factory Team would as in Nastro Azurro in that time. Elias was supposedly on a Factory Ride last year? Yeah right. Do you think Simocelli's (or Melandri's) bike is equal to Dovisiozo's or a bit higher Pedrosa's?


Interesting comment the highlighted one and yes I fully expect this to elicit a few 'usual' type responses from people, but why should the performances in the lower classes determine one's worth or credibility for a factory ride?

Certainly it had no effect on previous champions like Doohan, Rainey, Lawson, Hayden et al who were 'gifted' factory rides without lower class or WSBK championships, so why should a 'non championship' lessen one's worth or make one's elevation less credible and/or deserving?

To be fair, it may well be the thing for another topic but you comment has me interested as it would seem to say that only lower class champions should be given factory rides, which then means that without a championship no rider is given a factory ride. So, how could a rider than earn a factory ride and what equals being worthy or what makes one credible enough to get a factory ride?

Conversely, if you mean that their elevation to a factory ride is less questioned because of those other championships than that is a perfectly understandable position, but as has often been said/asked, a lower class champion does not make a higher class champion so risks do and will be taken.








Gaz

i think what we can take from this is that Rossi is not only the GOAT with regards to race wins but also with conistancy, one stat i would like to see would be the DNF's because they cost VR in 06 and i belive cost JL in 09 so they come into it i belive

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Feb 9 2010, 01:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I thougt of doing this at the time, but decided it would have over complicated an already long post.

Comparing Rossi 2000-2001 to JL 2008-2009:

Rossi 32 starts, 13 wins, 23 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 40.63%, ratio podiums/starts: 71.88%
Lorenzo 34 starts, 5 wins, 18 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 14.71%, ratio podiums/starts: 52.94%

Comparing Rossi 2000-2003 to CS/DP 2006-2009:

Rossi 64 starts, 31 wins, 54 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 48.43%, ratio podiums/starts: 84.38%
Stoner 65 starts, 20 wins, 34 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 30.77%, ratio podiums/starts: 52.31%
Pedrosa 69 starts, 8 wins, 38 podiums. ratio wins/starts: 11.56%, ratio podiums/starts: 55.07%

It would appear that michaelm covered it nicely :


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Feb 10 2010, 10:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>V,

Across a career statistics can only be calculated on the events (be that races or tournaments) in which the person participated, not those that they did not (irrespective of reason), thus to include the likes of non-Starts in statistics is, by extension a statistical anomoly.



They currently do not do so as to first be considered competitive and therefore qualify as a 'statistic' one must first compete, so a DNS is just that, a DNS not a DNF which can and does affect statistics (applies to all riders).

Bollocks!

Gaz

Interestingly these figures show that with fewer starts ROSSI managed to accumilate more points!
I wonder if this will figure if the engine restrictions become a problem, will he be able to sit a race out, to conserve an engine, knowing that he will be able to make up the points at another race!
Just speculation of course......

Just remember one thing, he will always be the GOAT

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rowles @ Feb 10 2010, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i think what we can take from this is that Rossi is not only the GOAT with regards to race wins but also with conistancy, one stat i would like to see would be the DNF's because they cost VR in 06 and i belive cost JL in 09 so they come into it i belive
Rossi
2000 3DNFs, RSA, MAL & VAL
2001 1DNF, ITA
2002 1DNF, CZE
2003 0DNFs
2004 2DNFs, BRA & QAT
2005 1DNF, JPN
2006 3DNFs, CHN, FRA & USA
2007 2DNFs, GER & RSM
2008 0DNFs
2009 1DNF, IND

Stoner
2006 6DNFs, ITA, CAT, USA, JPN, POR & VAL
2007 0DNFs
2008 2DNFs, CZE & RSM
2009 0DNF; 4DNS, CZE, IND, SMR & VAL

Pedrosa
2006 2DNFs, CAT & POR
2007 3DNFs, TUR, RSM & JPN
2008 2DNFs, GER & AUS; 1DNS, USA
2009 2DNFs, ITA & NED

Lorenzo
2008 4DNFs, ITA, GER, USA & MAL; 1DNS, CAT
2009 4DNFs, SPA, GBR, CZE & AUS

To sum up,

Rossi : 14 DNFs ( + 1 No Score - Le Mans 2009) over 167 races.
Stoner : 8DNFs + 5DNS ( + 1 No Score - Le Mans 2008) over 70 races.
Pedrosa : 9DNFs + 1DNS over 70 races.
Lorenzo : 8DNFs + 1DNS over 35 races.

percentage of races finished (mine and Gaz's method)
Rossi : 91.62%
Stoner : 87.69%
Pedrosa : 86.96 %
Lorenzo : 76.47 %

percentage of races where rider didn't fail to finish but may not have started in the first place
Rossi : 91.62%
Stoner : 88.57%
Pedrosa : 87.14 %
Lorenzo : 77.24 %

Whilst JL didn't have any less crashes in 2009, he was a lot more consistent, only finishing off the podium once (PI), compared to 7 times in 2008.

For comparison, before someone asks

DP finished off the podium 7 times in 2006 & 2007, 4 times in 2008 & 2009

CS finished off the podium in all bar 1 race in 2006, 4 times in 2007, 5 times in 2008 & 3 times in 2009

VR finished off the podium 3 times in 2000, twice in 2001, never in 2002 0r 2003, 3 times in 2004, never in 2005, 4 times in 2006, 7 times in 2007, twice in 2008 & 3 times in 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bonnielass @ Feb 10 2010, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly these figures show that with fewer starts ROSSI managed to accumilate more points!
I wonder if this will figure if the engine restrictions become a problem, will he be able to sit a race out, to conserve an engine, knowing that he will be able to make up the points at another race!
Just speculation of course......

Starting at the back of the grid is a big hit even for Rossi an even if it's doubtfull that he can win a dry race from that position he would take a lot of points. So unless Dorna introduce elimination of races he will allways start as long as it is possible.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Feb 10 2010, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>V,

Across a career statistics can <span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%only be calculated on the events (be that races or tournaments) in which the person participated, not those that they did not (irrespective of reason), thus to include the likes of non-Starts in statistics is, by extension a statistical anomoly.
I don't think that's strictly true. If I were analyzing athlete durability to produce an ideal profile for a particular sport, statistical data on non-starts would be included...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Feb 10 2010, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Certainly it had no effect on previous champions like Doohan, Rainey, Lawson, Hayden et al who were 'gifted' factory rides without lower class or WSBK championships, so why should a 'non championship' lessen one's worth or make one's elevation less credible and/or deserving?
Obviously the guys you mention earned their pedigree outside the MGP feeder system. It is unusual for a non-championship-winning rider who developed through the MGP system to be given a factory ride in their sophomore year without spectacular results.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Feb 10 2010, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think that's strictly true. If I were analyzing athlete durability to produce an ideal profile for a particular sport, statistical data on non-starts would be included...

Interesting point, and one that I have not readily considered as it is not one I come across often when discussing athletes.

Yes people mention that a rider 'may' have achieved different results had they have competed in a specific event, but without competing one cannot assess with certainty their results. But, yes one can say that athlete X competed in Y events of a total of A during their career which can illustrate durability but should not affect averages etc.

Not sure if you are a cricket fan (or even aware of teh sport MickD so bare with me here for a second), but in cricket an average is calculated only on matches in which the individual competed and is not affected by matches they could not compete in due to unavailability caused by injury (as aside poor form). I assume the likes of baseball etc ar similar and that is/was the basic tenet of my comments, which is to include possibles creates an anomoly that can skew (favourably or not so favourably) statistical results.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Feb 10 2010, 07:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Obviously the guys you mention earned their pedigree outside the MGP feeder system. It is unusual for a non-championship-winning rider who developed through the MGP system to be given a factory ride in their sophomore year without spectacular results.

Serious here for a second - not being american is sophomore first or second year?

If first, than Stoner did not have a factory ride so I assume sophomore must be second year and I woudl say that it is not that unusual although readily accept that it is not that common either, but all rides should be based on ability etc so if one is considered good enough they should get the opportunity IMO.






Gaz

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bonnielass @ Feb 10 2010, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly these figures show that with fewer starts ROSSI managed to accumilate more points!
I wonder if this will figure if the engine restrictions become a problem, will he be able to sit a race out, to conserve an engine, knowing that he will be able to make up the points at another race!
Just speculation of course......

Just remember one thing, he will always be the GOAT

I actually asked the same question late last year and posed the one of whether tactics will dictate whether a rider is prepared to use an extra engine in the off chance that it will provide 'better' performance and therefore better results at critical times near seasons end.

This engine rule and the surrounding tactics utilised by teams/riders could well be the major determining factor in 2010.

Personally I kindo fo look forward to it, but mainly don't as for mine riders and teams should be unhindered by these type of 'cost cutting' rules at thislevel




Gaz

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bonnielass @ Feb 10 2010, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly these figures show that with fewer starts ROSSI managed to accumilate more points!
I wonder if this will figure if the engine restrictions become a problem, will he be able to sit a race out, to conserve an engine, knowing that he will be able to make up the points at another race!
Just speculation of course......

Just remember one thing, he will always be the GOAT

good call it could well happen
especially if a team gets the penalty rule implemented at a track that there not good at

starting 30 secs or so behind the main field they might as well sit that round out
they ain't going to get many points having to try and close that type of gap

but i suspect there's a rule they must participate

the old penalty of starting from the back of the grid wasn't that bad
but starting 20secs behind the main field from the pit lane is just stupid

by the time the riders up to speed from pit lane the main pack will be 30 secs in front then you got to get to 15th just to get 1 point

more Dorna

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Feb 11 2010, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interesting point, and one that I have not readily considered as it is not one I come across often when discussing athletes.

Yes people mention that a rider 'may' have achieved different results had they have competed in a specific event, but without competing one cannot assess with certainty their results. But, yes one can say that athlete X competed in Y events of a total of A during their career which can illustrate durability but should not affect averages etc.

Not sure if you are a cricket fan (or even aware of teh sport MickD so bare with me here for a second), but in cricket an average is calculated only on matches in which the individual competed and is not affected by matches they could not compete in due to unavailability caused by injury (as aside poor form). I assume the likes of baseball etc ar similar and that is/was the basic tenet of my comments, which is to include possibles creates an anomoly that can skew (favourably or not so favourably) statistical results.

I find the comparison between a rider with standalone results and a player within a team as having little relevance. A rider can not drop out of races as it is directly damaging the year end result. A comparison would have to be to take the whole team off, but that doesn't make much snese for any statistics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Feb 11 2010, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interesting point, and one that I have not readily considered as it is not one I come across often when discussing athletes.

Yes people mention that a rider 'may' have achieved different results had they have competed in a specific event, but without competing one cannot assess with certainty their results. But, yes one can say that athlete X competed in Y events of a total of A during their career which can illustrate durability but should not affect averages etc.

Not sure if you are a cricket fan (or even aware of teh sport MickD so bare with me here for a second), but in cricket an average is calculated only on matches in which the individual competed and is not affected by matches they could not compete in due to unavailability caused by injury (as aside poor form). I assume the likes of baseball etc ar similar and that is/was the basic tenet of my comments, which is to include possibles creates an anomoly that can skew (favourably or not so favourably) statistical results.

I find the comparison between a rider with standalone results and a player within a team as having little relevance. A rider can not drop out of races as it is directly damaging the year end result. A comparison would have to be to take the whole team off, but that doesn't make much snese for any statistics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Feb 10 2010, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I don't think that's strictly true. If I were analyzing athlete durability to produce an ideal profile for a particular sport, statistical data on non-starts would be included...
I agree that data on non starts would be included, but to include them in the specific statistic of wins/starts or podiums/starts would be incorrect IMO.

See my post on DNFs - do you calculate the percentage of races completed as finished/started or as finished/(started + not started but could have if fit)? IMO, that's where the key is - to win, first you must start.

Additional stats delineate non starts and help to tell the whole picture.

Yamaha secrecy no big issue, insists Jerry Burgess

By Matthew Birt -

MotoGP

11 February 2010 16:55

Valentino Rossi’s legendary crew chief Jerry Burgess has brushed off Yamaha’s decision to ban data sharing between the Italian and team-mate Jorge Lorenzo in 2010.

Yamaha confirmed during last week’s two-day test session at the Sepang circuit in Malaysia that set-up information will no longer be exchanged between seven-times world champion Rossi and Spaniard Lorenzo.

The issue of information sharing between the two has always been a controversial subject, but Rossi insisted that the new policy would allow Lorenzo the opportunity to have more input into development of the factory YZR-M1 machine in the future.

And Aussie Burgess agrees with the 30-year-old and also believes that the ban on accessing each other’s data will have little impact in the garage this season.

Burgess told MCN: “I think Jorge has expressed a view that he'd like to develop the bike in his own direction.

"Don’t get me wrong, he's very fast on Valentino's bike,Edit LOL at J.B
but I think this is a positive thing.

"The information will still go back to the engineering group and come back through that direction rather than us being linked on the server to their information so we can compare every session, which we don't do anyway.

"I don't think it will change anything at all. It's a positive step for Jorge to perhaps stand more on his own but in all fairness I don't know how much they looked at our information.

"Probably not at all because their setting was never the same. I've been in MotoGP for 30 years and I've never seen anybody benefit by looking at somebody else's data.

"I think the rider to a degree wants to protect what they consider to be their own work, which is the setting up of their own bike. If it was a worry for Yamaha they wouldn't do it and I think it is a good way for Jorge to stand up on his own.”

And Burgess joked: “Maybe the old boy (Rossi) might have to look more than he thought he did.”

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bonnielass @ Feb 10 2010, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly these figures show that with fewer starts ROSSI managed to accumilate more points!
I wonder if this will figure if the engine restrictions become a problem, will he be able to sit a race out, to conserve an engine, knowing that he will be able to make up the points at another race!
Just speculation of course......

Just remember one thing, he will always be the GOAT

Its very simplistic to believe that Rossis feats will never be beaten. Although extraordinary, odds are , that in time, his records will be bettered.
Anyway , for me he is no longer the goat, but the ALPACA!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gaz @ Feb 11 2010, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I actually asked the same question late last year and posed the one of whether tactics will dictate whether a rider is prepared to use an extra engine in the off chance that it will provide 'better' performance and therefore better results at critical times near seasons end.

This engine rule and the surrounding tactics utilised by teams/riders could well be the major determining factor in 2010.

Personally I kindo fo look forward to it, but mainly don't as for mine riders and teams should be unhindered by these type of 'cost cutting' rules at thislevel




Gaz

the penalties for using an extra engine is the rider starts at the back of the grid and the team takes a 10 point hit correct? if that's the case, would it be far fetch for a rider to decide to use an extra engine if his rival has to do the same? like if stoner is 2nd in the championship and for some reason had to use an extra engine (7th), would it make sense for the 1st and 3rd place riders to do the same? they'll just start at the back...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tekniqs @ Feb 12 2010, 07:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the penalties for using an extra engine is the rider starts at the back of the grid and the team takes a 10 point hit correct? if that's the case, would it be far fetch for a rider to decide to use an extra engine if his rival has to do the same? like if stoner is 2nd in the championship and for some reason had to use an extra engine (7th), would it make sense for the 1st and 3rd place riders to do the same? they'll just start at the back...
Not too sure here yet.....but could make for very interesting tactics, this aspect (if true) could prove to be a positive for the engine rule.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tekniqs @ Feb 12 2010, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the penalties for using an extra engine is the rider starts at the back of the grid and the team takes a 10 point hit correct? if that's the case, would it be far fetch for a rider to decide to use an extra engine if his rival has to do the same? like if stoner is 2nd in the championship and for some reason had to use an extra engine (7th), would it make sense for the 1st and 3rd place riders to do the same? they'll just start at the back...

The penalty for infringing this rule has been changed, making it worse for the riders but better for the manufacturers. Instead of riders being put to the back of the grid and manufacturers being penalized 25 points in the manufacturers championship, two different penalties will be applied. If the extra engine is taken before the race starts, the rider taking the extra engine will start from pit lane 20 seconds after the rest of the field.
http://www.powerslide.net/forum/index.php?...st&p=225222

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tekniqs @ Feb 12 2010, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>the penalties for using an extra engine is the rider starts at the back of the grid and the team takes a 10 point hit correct? if that's the case, would it be far fetch for a rider to decide to use an extra engine if his rival has to do the same? like if stoner is 2nd in the championship and for some reason had to use an extra engine (7th), would it make sense for the 1st and 3rd place riders to do the same? they'll just start at the back...
From the FIM rules :

Regulation 1.21 20) Penalties for infringement of article 2.3.7 (Engine durability in
MotoGP).
– Infringement before the race: the rider will start the race from the pit lane 20’’ after the start of the race.
– Infringement during the race: ride through.

No-one is going to do that unless they have run out of engines. Be ready to see Ezpeleta squirm as this rule is never going to last the whole of the 2010 season intact IMO. Only 18 (including FB Corse) on the grid and several could be starting from pitlane after the summer break, if not before.

No idea what the 2nd part is about unless it's for wet/dry races where they only have one engine left and so would use an additional one by swapping bikes.

Dyno work to make the engines more reliable will have wiped out any possible cost saving due to this rule. It sucks, just like the fuel limit.