Can you scientifically prove how "lucky" a driver is by comparing stats?

[Magog]

For example Kimi Raikkonen has 21 F1 race wins to his name but 46 fastest laps. Surely that shows he was far more talented than lucky. I wonder if that's the highest ratio in the history of the sport.

 

[TumeK5]

Pastor Maldonado is scientifically proven to be the unluckiest luckiest driver. Took pole position and won one race, and out of the 96 races he retired 29.

Furthermore, for world championship scoring positions, his best was 5th, and the rest are either 7th or worse.

 

[Jimlaad43]

Luck is a subjective concept born from things out of your own control going your way or not. As "your way" can also be interpreted in many different ways, and influence cannot always be quantified or directly attributed.

So no, it cannot ever be scientifically calculated, it can only ever be vaguely measured so long as the criteria you use is rigorous and consistently applied.

 

[NICKname]

"Luck" does not exist, it's an entirely subjective description of (a pattern of) more or less random events. There's nothing scientific about it.

For example Kimi Raikkonen has 21 F1 race wins to his name but 46 fastest laps. Surely that shows he was far more talented than lucky.

It really shows absolutely nothing. Any driver could be considered both lucky and unlucky in many different ways. Especially Raikkonen.

 

[Samus]

For example Kimi Raikkonen has 21 F1 race wins to his name but 46 fastest laps. Surely that shows he was far more talented than lucky.

No. No it doesn't.

 

[PeterJB]

Of Kimi's 21 wins he got fastest lap in nine of them, and just four of them came from pole. His main issue was that he was a lousy qualifier.

 

[Magog]

"Luck" does not exist, it's an entirely subjective description of (a pattern of) more or less random events. There's nothing scientific about it.



It really shows absolutely nothing. Any driver could be considered both lucky and unlucky in many different ways. Especially Raikkonen.

I'm using luck in this context to describe events that happen outside your control but determine your outcome. These "bad events" are not distributed evenly to all drivers. I think my analysis proves my point that he had more talent than luck but I appreciate the debate.

 

[NICKname]

I'm using luck in this context to describe events that happen outside your control but determine your outcome.

That's still subjective. These events are either random occurrences that have nothing to do with drivers on a personal level (e.g. mechanical failures), or they are not random events at all but rather the (very) indirect consequences of a driver's own actions (e.g. Alonso's lack of success over the past decade). Unless you believe in a god (but even then it still wouldn't be luck), these events are either complete coincidences or not actually out of the driver's control.

These "bad events" are not distributed evenly to all drivers.

One driver can't be lucky without another being unlucky. Perez's first win came from Russell missing out on his first win. And Russell would've never been able to fight for that win if Hamilton hadn't gotten COVID. It all has to even out in the end.

I suppose if you tally up the negative and positive outcomes of random events for individual drivers you would end up with some drivers seeming luckier than others, but again: these random events are not inherently connected to the drivers they happen to (and if they are, they're not random). Russell didn't miss out on that first race win at Sakhir 2020 because he's George Russell.

I think my analysis proves my point that he had more talent than luck but I appreciate the debate.

That's absolutely fine, but that's not science. That's using statistics to substantiate your opinion. You couldn't possibly verify or falsify the claim that Raikkonen's achievements were based on talent rather than luck, because that's an opinion.

It's like saying that cake tastes delicious, it's not something you could ever actually (dis)prove. You could write a 100 page essay "proving" why cake is delicious, but anyone could easily refute that statement by simply disagreeing. Raikkonen can be considered unlucky for not winning the 2003 and 2005 championships, he can be considered lucky for winning the 2007 championship, or he can be considered neither or both. Or you could compare his amount of race wins and fastest laps, like you did. It really is entirely subjective.

 

[Dolph Drago]

If any driver will make you believe in bad luck, just take a look at Chris Amon. His "good" luck was that he wasn't one of the many drivers killed in that era.

 

[Magog]

That's still subjective. These events are either random occurrences that have nothing to do with drivers on a personal level (e.g. mechanical failures), or they are not random events at all but rather the (very) indirect consequences of a driver's own actions (e.g. Alonso's lack of success over the past decade). Unless you believe in a god (but even then it still wouldn't be luck), these events are either complete coincidences or not actually out of the driver's control.

One driver can't be lucky without another being unlucky. Perez's first win came from Russell missing out on his first win. And Russell would've never been able to fight for that win if Hamilton hadn't gotten COVID. It all has to even out in the end.

I suppose if you tally up the negative and positive outcomes of random events for individual drivers you would end up with some drivers seeming luckier than others, but again: these random events are not inherently connected to the drivers they happen to (and if they are, they're not random). Russell didn't miss out on that first race win at Sakhir 2020 because he's George Russell.

That's absolutely fine, but that's not science. That's using statistics to substantiate your opinion. You couldn't possibly verify or falsify the claim that Raikkonen's achievements were based on talent rather than luck, because that's an opinion.

It's like saying that cake tastes delicious, it's not something you could ever actually (dis)prove. You could write a 100 page essay "proving" why cake is delicious, but anyone could easily refute that statement by simply disagreeing. Raikkonen can be considered unlucky for not winning the 2003 and 2005 championships, he can be considered lucky for winning the 2007 championship, or he can be considered neither or both. Or you could compare his amount of race wins and fastest laps, like you did. It really is entirely subjective.

All really good points, thanks for the response.

Of Kimi's 21 wins he got fastest lap in nine of them, and just four of them came from pole. His main issue was that he was a lousy qualifier.

Yeah, it's a weird thing to understand. If he could capture so many fastest laps then why so few poles? I guess maybe he needed more time being in a rhythm to extract the maximum from a lap. When I first started watching F1 he was the only driver that really seemed to show the same level of masterful car control as the "God" who was Michael Schumacher so even with his faults he will always be one of my favorite drivers. That and the naps and ice cream. 😅

 

[Dotini]

If any driver will make you believe in bad luck, just take a look at Chris Amon. His "good" luck was that he wasn't one of the many drivers killed in that era.

Yes, absolutely, back in the day Chris Amon was almost universally considered the unluckiest F1 driver by his peers, by the motor racing press , and by me.

Curiously, there was also a highly gifted winning driver and entrant known to the world as Lucky Casner. He died testing a Maserati at LeMans.